247 typically does a talent ranking but they haven't updated it for 2022 yet. All of the rosters are online so I took our roster vs our SEC opponents and Miami using the 247 composite rankings.

This is super high level. For each position I scored based on a weighted average of starter vs backups. For instance QB is 90% for top rated, 8% for second and 2% for third. For offensive line it's 80% of the average for your top 5 and 20% for the next five. I multiplied freshman composite scores by 90% and sophomores by 95%. Below is the comparison (hoping this formats ok from excel).


A&M Mia Ark Ms St Ala S Ca Ole Ms Fla Aub LSU
QB 0.943 0.987 0.915 0.927 0.998 0.989 0.963 0.917 0.883 0.962
RB 0.951 0.886 0.858 0.864 0.984 0.931 0.854 0.838 0.828 0.915
WR 0.938 0.880 0.893 0.863 0.976 0.817 0.903 0.902 0.898 0.866
TE 0.936 0.924 0.915 0.000 0.924 0.909 0.895 0.907 0.862 0.354
OL 0.940 0.916 0.896 0.865 0.958 0.883 0.871 0.902 0.897 0.884
DL 0.985 0.964 0.881 0.860 0.956 0.693 0.861 0.850 0.816 0.902
LB 0.893 0.895 0.786 0.869 0.985 0.903 0.734 0.951 0.942 0.893
DB 0.951 0.949 0.886 0.909 0.957 0.841 0.901 0.939 0.844 0.931

A few things that stand out here:

• No one is surprised Miss St doesn't have a tight end, but LSU only has one tight end on roster who was nationally ranked.
• Bama is 1 or 2 almost everywhere except DL. They have three seniors starting there but it looks like this may be a low year talent wise.
• Even with the age adjustments A&M is #1 on the DL.
• A&M is middle of the road at QB and LB but elite everywhere else.
• Miss St, Ole Miss, Auburn, and South Carolina all have composite averages below .89. I am amazed what Leach can do with one of the lower rated rosters in the league.
• Miami may be our second toughest game talent wise.

Hard to see, can we get this in a linkable excel format please?

I don't know how to post that but if you can post instructions or send your email I can try.

AggieDub04 said:

---

247 typically does a talent ranking but they haven't updated it for 2022 yet. All of the rosters are online so I took our roster vs our SEC opponents and Miami using the 247 composite rankings.

This is super high level. For each position I scored based on a weighted average of starter vs backups. For instance QB is 90% for top rated, 8% for second and 2% for third. For offensive line it's 80% of the average for your top 5 and 20% for the next five. I multiplied freshman composite scores by 90% and sophomores by 95%. Below is the comparison (hoping this formats ok from excel).


A&M Mia Ark Ms St Ala S Ca Ole Ms Fla Aub LSU
QB 0.943 0.987 0.915 0.927 0.998 0.989 0.963 0.917 0.883 0.962
RB 0.951 0.886 0.858 0.864 0.984 0.931 0.854 0.838 0.828 0.915
WR 0.938 0.880 0.893 0.863 0.976 0.817 0.903 0.902 0.898 0.866
TE 0.936 0.924 0.915 0.000 0.924 0.909 0.895 0.907 0.862 0.354
OL 0.940 0.916 0.896 0.865 0.958 0.883 0.871 0.902 0.897 0.884
DL 0.985 0.964 0.881 0.860 0.956 0.693 0.861 0.850 0.816 0.902
LB 0.893 0.895 0.786 0.869 0.985 0.903 0.734 0.951 0.942 0.893
DB 0.951 0.949 0.886 0.909 0.957 0.841 0.901 0.939 0.844 0.931

A few things that stand out here:

• No one is surprised Miss St doesn't have a tight end, but LSU only has one tight end on roster who was nationally ranked.
• Bama is 1 or 2 almost everywhere except DL. They have three seniors starting there but it looks like this may be a low year talent wise.
• Even with the age adjustments A&M is #1 on the DL.
• A&M is middle of the road at QB and LB but elite everywhere else.
• Miss St, Ole Miss, Auburn, and South Carolina all have composite averages below .89. I am amazed what Leach can do with one of the lower rated rosters in the league.
• Miami may be our second toughest game talent wise.

---

He continues to sucker defensive coordinators into stupid schemes to try and stop his offense. He pulled it off against us last year.

Were the percentages (90% for freshmen, 80% for o-line top 5) chosen based on actual stats (number of snaps a starter plays compared to a back-up), or chosen at random? And when you say "top five" and "next five", are you saying top five rated, or the top five in the depth chart?

The percentages were a SWAG. I also didn't look at actual starters vs rated starters with the thought process being if a .89 guy beat out a .93 guy then he must be, on average, as good as most .93 guys wind up being. I just took the top 5 OL and next 5. In reality I'm sure OL # 6 and 7 are way more important than #10 but that won't swing the calc too much.

Wow, thanks for putting that together.

So you started with a bunch of subjective rankings, then came up with an arbitrary "grading" metric for those subjective rankings, and from that made some conclusions?

_mpaul said:

---

So you started with a bunch of subjective rankings, then came up with an arbitrary "grading" metric for those subjective rankings, and from that made some conclusions?

---

Do you have a non-subjective roster comparison?

No. And because there isn't one, I just don't see the point of the exercise.

Just give it a few days. They have all of the rosters updated and posted, just haven't released the calculated values and comparisons.