Last week, the CFB Playoff committee set parameters of selecting the four participants of the College Football Playoff.
The format and ideals appear to be both solid and forthright on the surface. However, college football has far too many variables to make apples to apples comparisons of the country's elite programs.
The SEC plays only eight conference games with a newly incorporated non-conference game against a power conference opponent (ACC, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12).
Comparatively, Pac 12 teams play nine conference games, and eight of the conference's 12 teams already have a power conference opponent (including Notre Dame) on their non-conference schedule next season.
That means 75% of the conference will play 10 games against power five level opponents in the regular season. The SEC only has one team (Georgia) slated to play that many power conference opponents in the regular season.
The Big 12 also plays nine conference games, and all of their teams, except Baylor, have a non-conference match up against a major conference opponent.
Unlike the other power five conferences, the Big 12 does not have a conference championship game.
All of the disparity makes it nearly impossible for the committee to accurately decipher which conference has the toughest path to the playoff, and whether Team A is more deserving than Team B.
The selection committee has basically left themselves wide open to be more heavily scrutinized than the BCS.
Polls are the fabric of college football. They're not an exact science, but still the best option to come up with rankings using a wider scale.
The BCS system was a total sham, but the ranking formula was actually very useful in this regard and generally got the two most deserving teams in the NCG.
A similar formula should be applied to create a ranking system, which should include the selection committee's poll as part of the equation.
Using that ranking system, the selection committee should go down a list of automatic qualifiers to get the best four teams into the playoff format or create a pool of teams to vote on.
*Notre Dame is considered a power conference team
1. Any undefeated team from power five conferences
An undefeated season usually meant a shot at the title in the BCS era (sorry Auburn). These are no-brainer decisions for the selection committee.
2. Any power five conference champion in the top six
Winning your conference must carry weight towards securing a spot in the four team playoff.
Especially when compared to other highly ranked teams since all teams and conferences aren't created equally.
It would be a huge injustice to the purpose of a sports playoff -- finding out who the best team is on the actual field -- if this wasn't the case. Just like the NFL division winners getting home field advantage over a wild card opponent.
The top six teams in the 2013 final regular season poll: 1. Florida State, 2. Auburn, 3. Alabama, 4. Michigan State, 5. Stanford, 6. Baylor.
Starting with guideline #1, Florida State would secure the first spot in the playoff.
The selection committee would then use guideline #2 to form a field of Auburn, Michigan State, Stanford and Baylor to vote on for the final three spots. All conference champs in the top six.
Of course, we want
the best schools in the four team playoff, and a lot of folks will complain about a team of Alabama's caliber being
left out of the picture.
The Tide certainly appeared to be one of the top four teams in the country last season. However, can the 'eye test' actually guarantee that was the case for Alabama? It absolutely cannot.
The eye test failed miserably last year when heavy underdog Oklahoma laced the Crimson Tide in the Sugar Bowl.
This is why there must be a caveat in the selection equation that uses major conference championships as a trump card for teams with similar resumes.
3. Any undefeated team in the top six
This would allow for an undefeated team outside the power conferences an opportunity to compete.
TCU (2009 & 2010), Boise State (2009) and Utah (2004 & 2008) are some teams that would've qualified in the past.
All of these teams had marquee victories over one, two or three BCS opponents in the regular season, which was reflected in their lofty ranking in the final regular season poll.
All of those teams also went on to win their respective BCS bowl games too (with the exception of TCU who played Boise State in 2009).
The BCS buster is likely an obsolete phenomenon in the post-realignment era. However, any team with a similar resume to those listed above is absolutely worthy to be in the playoff conversation.
4. Any at-large selection in top four
Here is where a 2013 Alabama squad could sneak back into the picture given the right scenario.
Given the final regular season BCS standings of recent years, it's highly unlikely a 9-3, or a weak 10-2, conference champion would be ranked high enough for automatic qualifier #2.
This would allow for some extremely talented non-conference champions to still be in the playoff picture.
5. Any power conference champion in top eight or at-large in top six
If all else fails, then the committee can put in work and pick who gets the final spot(s) from a group of these parameters.
June 25, 2012
Not so obvious effects of ESPN's latest attempt to gain content for the LHN
The Longhorn Network has played the role of heel between
Texas and their Big 12 counterparts since the channels inception. As the struggles
continue to organically attract subscribers, the LHN seems intent to go the
route of hijacking games featuring Longhorn opponents in an effort to make
other fan bases “say uncle” and purchase their network.
Chris Level and Aaron Dickens of RedRaiderSports.com
reported last week that ESPN was angling to air Texas Tech’s September 8th
road game against Texas State on the LHN. Even though this is technically something
ESPN is within their rights to do, the story still caught my eye for a not so
obvious reason.
The fact that ESPN is scrambling to make their $300 million
investment viable by any means necessary is not surprising. In fact, it’s what
businesses do – obtain assets and make them profitable.
It’s also not surprising the Longhorns are, once again, the
catalyst of angst and discomfort with other members of the Big 12 conference. At
this point, it would not be a stretch to attribute the Longhorns as the main
reason Nebraska, Colorado, Texas A&M and Missouri left the Big 12
conference.
Last but not least, it sure as hell isn’t a shocker that,
for the second year in a row, Texas Tech and Kirby Hocutt will have to unwaveringly
knock Deebo the (expletive) out after repeated attempts to bully the Red
Raiders into playing football on the LHN. Something the university has made
perfectly clear they are not okay with.
Most of these actions would be taken in disbelief throughout
majority of the conferences in college football. Basically, in Big 12 country,
Texas pissing everyone of is the norm.
The part of this story that caught me off-guard wasn’t even
in the story itself, but more so the timing of its leak to the public. Why now?
Over the past couple of months, the Big 12 miraculously
transformed from a conference wasteland into one of the four power conferences
in college football.
A projected $2 billion TV deal, the new Champions Bowl tie-in
with the SEC, rumors of powerhouses Florida State and Clemson wanting to join, welcoming
TCU as a new member, welcoming West Virginia as a new member, and Bob Bowlsby’s
homerun hire as the new conference commissioner.
It as if the conference was at a five star resort, relaxing
poolside, sipping champagne as their pinky stretches high in the air and all
the while with total amnesia of the near conference bankruptcy they were faced
with just months prior. Things could not have been better at the moment for the
Big 12.
And then a tropical storm came spiraling in to ruin everyone’s
good time.
Two weeks prior, ESPN announced they were adding 68 college
football games to the network’s 2012 schedule. Out of the 68, only two games were
listed with channels as TBD – Sept 8th Texas Tech @ Texas State and
Sept 27th Nevada @ Texas State.
The TBD channel listing looked like it was construed by Tech
officials as a simple matter of ESPN determining which one of the platforms traditional
channels to place the game on. At the time, it seemed understood that putting
Big 12 members on the LHN was considered taboo (for obvious reasons).
Fast forward two weeks later, a day before the news broke
about ESPN’s intended distribution of the Texas Tech-Texas State matchup, 11
conference commissioners plus Notre Dame’s Jack Swarbrick were meeting in
Chicago to discuss a possible playoff format and the future of college
football’s post season. With rumors swirling about expansion, it was assumed
the outcome of these meetings would determine if the Big 12 would look to add
teams or stand pat to best position the conference in future playoff scenarios.
Before the meetings in Chicago, the Big 12 appeared settled
and echoed unity as the most important factor to strengthen the conference. All
parties were playing nice and everything was hunky-dory throughout the
conference. It was a changed atmosphere that seemed very inviting to where high
profile programs, like Florida State and Clemson, would desire allegiance to the
conference.
After the meetings in Chicago, the dysfunction is back. The
perception of Texas and the LHN resurfaced as the mongering thorn in the side
of the Big 12 conference. The conference now has a familiar, overbearing, sour
stench plaguing its public image.
Did something happen during these meetings to change Texas
and ESPN’s stance on playing nice with other members in the face of conference
realignment?
Texas and ESPN both knew that even suggesting something of
this magnitude would set off fireworks within the conference, which is exactly
what happened.
Rather than play a game on the LHN, Texas Tech threatened to
cancel the game altogether with Texas State and pay a huge financial penalty to
take a loss from a team they demolished last season by 40 points. That is a
very strong gesture for a program in Tech’s situation that is trying to become
bowl eligible after missing a bowl game last season for the first time in 18
years.
The timing of this issue appears very calculated from a big
picture point of view. This left me wondering how the new playoff format
relates to Big 12 expansion and if there are underlying self-serving agendas a-foot
in Bristol.
Does this mean the
new playoff format it will curb conference realignment? Creating havoc in your
own conference does not indicate the behavior of a group trying to attract
other universities to join the conference. Especially high profile programs
like FSU and Clemson.
To even attempt such a desperate ploy like the one reported
last Thursday suggests ESPN and Texas are in panic mode over the LHN. With
merely two months now and the beginning of the college football season, every
day is precious to secure programming for the flailing network. Therefore,
causing ESPN’s intentions with the Sept. 8th Tech @ Texas State game to be
leaked as soon as possible.
If the new playoff format eliminates the crazy conference
carousel, then there is little reason for the Big 12 to be courting teams to
join the conference (at least in the Longhorn’s position). With no one to
impress, the Longhorns are free to become a nuisance towards whoever they
please.
Does this indicate
ESPN is working to help keep the ACC intact? It seems like a calculated
maneuver to help discourage two valuable teams from leaving a conference they
just signed a new TV deal with. ESPN probably won’t be able to get out of the
deal if FSU and Clemson leave and certainly won’t get the return on investment from
that contract without them in the ACC.
If you think the rumors of potential realignment between
these two teams are merely message board speculation, think again. The only
thing consistent in conference realignment over the past few years has been the
seriousness behind the scenes once rumors emerge. Look at Texas A&M,
Missouri, Nebraska, Pac 16, etc. They either happened or were moments away from
becoming very real.
Inciting a riot within the Big 12 may be enough to cause FSU
and Clemson to tap the brakes and buy the ACC some time to smooth things over
with their disgruntled members.
Whether or not the trickle-down effect of the Longhorn
Network’s latest faux pas this enough to make schools like Florida State or
Clemson rethink any future decision to apply for Big 12 membership remains to
be seen. However, it certainly makes the conference look like a less appealing
option for universities who could be looking for a new place to call home.
Welcome to the Cold War of college football where all things
controversial are much ado about nothing.
June 4, 2012
Big 12 Realignment, Summer 2012: "I Really Didn't Say Everything I Said."
“It’s
Deja vu all over again.” -- Yogi Berra
It wasn’t his intention. Actually, most things Yogi Berra said were usually intended to have a different meaning. However, when Yogi Berra gave us this wonderful little nugget, he didn't intend to describe where the collective college football world was heading in the summer of 2012.
Realignment rumors are full throttle, television figures are common knowledge amongst college football fans, and speculation is running rampant in message board fashion. It feels like we’ve been here before.
In fact, less than a year ago we were here. We were listening to athletic directors and conference commissioners say a lot of things, some of which were true, but most of which were statements filled with half-truths.
As we enter the summer of 2012, conference meetings are in full effect and so are carefully worded statements regarding conference realignment.
Or, perhaps, a more appropriate way for these athletic directors and conference commissioners to describe their statements is in Berra's book titled, The Yogi Book: “I Really Didn’t Say Everything I Said.”
Let’s take a look at some of the key quotes from Big 12's athletic directors and commissioners being regurgitated in sports articles around the country regarding recent realignment rumors involving Florida State and Clemson joining their conference.
“Within that deal is a clause that will give any new expansion candidates the same money as the current members (estimated to be at least $20 million per year).” ? Reported by Dennis Dodd of CBSsports.com
Translation: New members will be given the same equity share of the pie as the current members.
Saying new conference members would receive “the same amount of money” is merely a clever politician-esque way to throw people off of the realignment scent without lying. It makes it seem as if adding a couple of top 15 caliber programs would have a negligible impact on an unsigned TV deal and therefore would not be something of interest to the conference at this point in time.
It’s hard to imagine a conference with traditional powers like Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida State as the headliners wouldn’t be worthy of a TV deal worth considerably more per year than a conference headlined by USC and really only USC. If you want, include Oregon since they are relevant.
Conveying that additions like Colorado and Utah are worth $21 mil/year and a new Big 12 with Florida State and Clemson will plateau in TV dollars and stay at an estimated $20 mil/year is something I’m not buying.
Florida State’s and Clemson’s national brand unquestionably eclipses that of Colorado and Utah. Combine that with a potential TV market three and a half times the size of Colorado and Utah, then ask yourself if a bump in TV money seems reasonable compared to the deal ESPN and Fox gave the Pac 12 a year ago?
A ghost channel that features “Fozzy’s Safari Spectacular” is worth $300 million because the Longhorn brand is attached to it. Notre Dame’s historical brand allows them to remain one the most coveted commodities in college football, resulting in huge television deals as an independent entity. Florida State is not Texas or Notre Dame, but their brand is definitely worth a raise for the Big 12 conference.
So, to those sources trying to convince everyone that in the new television money driven world of college football any additions to the Big 12 will be simply viewed as “team 11” and “team 12”…..
Child Please.
“We feel really well positioned at this time with 10 teams.” ? Iowa State AD Jamie Pollard
Translation: While we are extremely pleased with our current TV deal and that we are still in tact despite almost being torn apart a year ago, we now have a position of strength and we plan to do what’s best for our conference.
By now, we’ve all read “Conference Expansion for Dummies” and have become familiar with the process.
1. Deny ? We aren’t interested.
2. Deny ? We haven’t heard from those schools.
3. Deny ? No formal membership application has been submitted.
4. Accept ? It was too good of an opportunity to pass up.
When certain phrases like “at this time” are strategically inserted into statements, they leave the situation open ended for things to change in the future.
If the Big 12 were to add Florida State and Clemson, it will be echoed that “these are two great universities who inquired to join the Big 12 and we felt this was an opportunity to strengthen our conference we couldn't pass up, even though we were happy at ten teams,” or something similar along those lines.
If the Big 12 is content with their current set up, then why are they pining so hard for Notre Dame? I understand the value of adding Notre Dame, but the Big 12 reminds me of the nerdy gangly kid, Squints, from the movie “The Sandlot” drooling all over the sun kissed lifeguard, Wendy Peffercorn, as she sits up on a pedestal in her lifeguard stand.
But, there hasn’t been any talk to expansion in the Big 12. Well, at least not about conference affiliated teams because the Big 12 would get sued all the way back to the Southwest Conference for tampering.
“Are we happy and satisfied at 10? Yes,” Chuck Neinas stated at the Big 12’s annual spring meetings. “We have not reached out to Florida State nor have we been contacted by Florida State.”
As of right now, the Big 12 company line will remain at step number two for at least another month minimum.
“We must focus on building unity with our two new conference members.” ? Big 12 interim commissioner Chuck Neinas
Translation: The ink isn’t dry on TCU and West Virginia as official Big 12 members until July 1st, 2012. We can't legally add more members before we officially welcome our new members to the conference.
It’s hard to believe the Big 12 would wait to make a power play that could stabilize the conference for decades to come, especially considering this a conference that lost four teams and was almost extinct less than a year ago.
Florida State combined with Clemson or Miami or Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech is a move that would likely shift the Big 12 as one of the top two conferences in college football. This is a conference filled with teams who were considered to be Big East bound not too long ago and I can’t imagine they are content with sitting idle when they can ensure their seat at the table for years to come.
Building unity is a great thing for a conference’s marriage in the long run, but this is the new age of college football where conferences expand and contrast in the blink of an eye. There are only so many historical powerhouse commodities like Florida State available for the taking.
My recommendation would be to try speed dating and move on.
“I don’t think anybody gets left behind.” ? Oklahoma State President Burns Hargis
Translation: Even if there are four power conferences, there can be more than one Boise State in college football.
If the new champions bowl coalition between the Big 12 and the SEC is not a symbol of a power shift to four major conferences, then this is a very odd statement to make.
Chuck Neinas later went on to make a statement, specifically referring to the ACC.
“We need them,” Neinas said. “Absolutely. We’ve talked about with John Swofford ? the other four conferences ? to help them find a good bowl for his champion’s team. We’re not trying to exclude them. We’re trying to include them.”
The more I think about the purpose of these statements, the more they seem like a preemptive public relations maneuver before harm is inflicted upon the ACC. If everything is going to remain the same, then why is the ACC being portrayed as a damaged and weak conference?
Why is helping a rival conference suddenly such a concern for the newly strengthened Big 12? Is the ACC about to be decimated, left out, and given a consolation prize from the newly rich conference making bank at their expense?
The Big 12 is about to cash in with their launch of Facebook, while the ACC on track to get “Winklevossed”.
It’s possible these statements are straight forward, honest responses to tough questions. It’s also possible they are laced with words that will protect future planned actions while the involved school's and conference's lawyers continue their due diligence on the legal side of things.
Regardless, realignment is going to be prevalent in news cycles until the college football season kicks off in late August and, by then, we may be looking at a whole new landscape in college football.
Or as Yogi would describe it, “the future ain’t what it used to be” in college football.
It wasn’t his intention. Actually, most things Yogi Berra said were usually intended to have a different meaning. However, when Yogi Berra gave us this wonderful little nugget, he didn't intend to describe where the collective college football world was heading in the summer of 2012.
Realignment rumors are full throttle, television figures are common knowledge amongst college football fans, and speculation is running rampant in message board fashion. It feels like we’ve been here before.
In fact, less than a year ago we were here. We were listening to athletic directors and conference commissioners say a lot of things, some of which were true, but most of which were statements filled with half-truths.
As we enter the summer of 2012, conference meetings are in full effect and so are carefully worded statements regarding conference realignment.
Or, perhaps, a more appropriate way for these athletic directors and conference commissioners to describe their statements is in Berra's book titled, The Yogi Book: “I Really Didn’t Say Everything I Said.”
Let’s take a look at some of the key quotes from Big 12's athletic directors and commissioners being regurgitated in sports articles around the country regarding recent realignment rumors involving Florida State and Clemson joining their conference.
“Within that deal is a clause that will give any new expansion candidates the same money as the current members (estimated to be at least $20 million per year).” ? Reported by Dennis Dodd of CBSsports.com
Translation: New members will be given the same equity share of the pie as the current members.
Saying new conference members would receive “the same amount of money” is merely a clever politician-esque way to throw people off of the realignment scent without lying. It makes it seem as if adding a couple of top 15 caliber programs would have a negligible impact on an unsigned TV deal and therefore would not be something of interest to the conference at this point in time.
It’s hard to imagine a conference with traditional powers like Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida State as the headliners wouldn’t be worthy of a TV deal worth considerably more per year than a conference headlined by USC and really only USC. If you want, include Oregon since they are relevant.
Conveying that additions like Colorado and Utah are worth $21 mil/year and a new Big 12 with Florida State and Clemson will plateau in TV dollars and stay at an estimated $20 mil/year is something I’m not buying.
Florida State’s and Clemson’s national brand unquestionably eclipses that of Colorado and Utah. Combine that with a potential TV market three and a half times the size of Colorado and Utah, then ask yourself if a bump in TV money seems reasonable compared to the deal ESPN and Fox gave the Pac 12 a year ago?
A ghost channel that features “Fozzy’s Safari Spectacular” is worth $300 million because the Longhorn brand is attached to it. Notre Dame’s historical brand allows them to remain one the most coveted commodities in college football, resulting in huge television deals as an independent entity. Florida State is not Texas or Notre Dame, but their brand is definitely worth a raise for the Big 12 conference.
So, to those sources trying to convince everyone that in the new television money driven world of college football any additions to the Big 12 will be simply viewed as “team 11” and “team 12”…..
Child Please.
“We feel really well positioned at this time with 10 teams.” ? Iowa State AD Jamie Pollard
Translation: While we are extremely pleased with our current TV deal and that we are still in tact despite almost being torn apart a year ago, we now have a position of strength and we plan to do what’s best for our conference.
By now, we’ve all read “Conference Expansion for Dummies” and have become familiar with the process.
1. Deny ? We aren’t interested.
2. Deny ? We haven’t heard from those schools.
3. Deny ? No formal membership application has been submitted.
4. Accept ? It was too good of an opportunity to pass up.
When certain phrases like “at this time” are strategically inserted into statements, they leave the situation open ended for things to change in the future.
If the Big 12 were to add Florida State and Clemson, it will be echoed that “these are two great universities who inquired to join the Big 12 and we felt this was an opportunity to strengthen our conference we couldn't pass up, even though we were happy at ten teams,” or something similar along those lines.
If the Big 12 is content with their current set up, then why are they pining so hard for Notre Dame? I understand the value of adding Notre Dame, but the Big 12 reminds me of the nerdy gangly kid, Squints, from the movie “The Sandlot” drooling all over the sun kissed lifeguard, Wendy Peffercorn, as she sits up on a pedestal in her lifeguard stand.
But, there hasn’t been any talk to expansion in the Big 12. Well, at least not about conference affiliated teams because the Big 12 would get sued all the way back to the Southwest Conference for tampering.
“Are we happy and satisfied at 10? Yes,” Chuck Neinas stated at the Big 12’s annual spring meetings. “We have not reached out to Florida State nor have we been contacted by Florida State.”
As of right now, the Big 12 company line will remain at step number two for at least another month minimum.
“We must focus on building unity with our two new conference members.” ? Big 12 interim commissioner Chuck Neinas
Translation: The ink isn’t dry on TCU and West Virginia as official Big 12 members until July 1st, 2012. We can't legally add more members before we officially welcome our new members to the conference.
It’s hard to believe the Big 12 would wait to make a power play that could stabilize the conference for decades to come, especially considering this a conference that lost four teams and was almost extinct less than a year ago.
Florida State combined with Clemson or Miami or Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech is a move that would likely shift the Big 12 as one of the top two conferences in college football. This is a conference filled with teams who were considered to be Big East bound not too long ago and I can’t imagine they are content with sitting idle when they can ensure their seat at the table for years to come.
Building unity is a great thing for a conference’s marriage in the long run, but this is the new age of college football where conferences expand and contrast in the blink of an eye. There are only so many historical powerhouse commodities like Florida State available for the taking.
My recommendation would be to try speed dating and move on.
“I don’t think anybody gets left behind.” ? Oklahoma State President Burns Hargis
Translation: Even if there are four power conferences, there can be more than one Boise State in college football.
If the new champions bowl coalition between the Big 12 and the SEC is not a symbol of a power shift to four major conferences, then this is a very odd statement to make.
Chuck Neinas later went on to make a statement, specifically referring to the ACC.
“We need them,” Neinas said. “Absolutely. We’ve talked about with John Swofford ? the other four conferences ? to help them find a good bowl for his champion’s team. We’re not trying to exclude them. We’re trying to include them.”
The more I think about the purpose of these statements, the more they seem like a preemptive public relations maneuver before harm is inflicted upon the ACC. If everything is going to remain the same, then why is the ACC being portrayed as a damaged and weak conference?
Why is helping a rival conference suddenly such a concern for the newly strengthened Big 12? Is the ACC about to be decimated, left out, and given a consolation prize from the newly rich conference making bank at their expense?
The Big 12 is about to cash in with their launch of Facebook, while the ACC on track to get “Winklevossed”.
It’s possible these statements are straight forward, honest responses to tough questions. It’s also possible they are laced with words that will protect future planned actions while the involved school's and conference's lawyers continue their due diligence on the legal side of things.
Regardless, realignment is going to be prevalent in news cycles until the college football season kicks off in late August and, by then, we may be looking at a whole new landscape in college football.
Or as Yogi would describe it, “the future ain’t what it used to be” in college football.
Follow me on Twitter: @DSportsGuide
May 16, 2012
CFB Coaching Trees
Featured on CoachesByTheNumbers.com -- Follow them on Twitter!
To land a college football head coaching gig, coaches must work their way up as assistants, while gaining experience and building their resume. Throughout their journey, they will work for people with many different head coaching ideals and philosophies. Similar to a child’s transition into adolescence, these various things will shape and mold their own coaching style until they are able to become a head coach.
Regardless of age, there is a substantial amount for head coaches or higher ranking assistants to influence an up and coming assistant prior to landing their first head coaching job.
When Lane Kiffin was hired by Tennessee at age 31, he was the youngest head coach ever hired at a college football program and already had 12 years of experience under his belt. Twelve years is a long time. Think about how much different you were when you were six compared to 18. Even from 18 to 30.
And Lane Kiffin was the youngest hire of all time.
Most coaches probably have around 20 years of coaching experience as an assistant before they are finally hired to run a football program. Heck, Norm Chow is 65 and entering his first year as Hawaii’s new head coach, which equates to 38 years of grooming and experience as an assistant.
So, where do all these assistants who are landing first time head coaching jobs come from?
Majority of them are (offensive or defensive) coordinators from established programs coming off a successful season– a trend that is continuing upwards in recent years.
The season prior to landing their first head coaching job, the teams they were being taken from averaged 9.7 wins from 2010-2011. From 2005-2009, the average win total was only 8.2 wins.
If a coach wins consistently over a period of time, then they tend to get their fair share of assistants hired by other universities to be their head coach. The idea is that the former assistant can replicate and build upon the things they learned under their former head coach.
The truly successful coaches almost seem as if they become coaching factories, churning out assistant coaches who are deemed ready-made to take another university’s program to the same level – just add batteries.
This is how a coaching tree begins to form.
And although the method of hiring assistants from the head coach with a well decorated trophy case is extremely popular among athletic directors, it isn’t always as seamless as it sounds. One of the most familiar examples of assistants failing to imitate a successful head coach is the Bill Belichick coaching tree.
And similar to the same way your parents didn’t want you hanging out with the wrong crowd, athletic directors (should) look to avoid hiring assistants from a coaching tree that might only produce poisoned fruit.
Using some of our data from CoachesByTheNumbers.com, we compared some of the most prominent recent coaching trees to see which coaches produced the most successful assistants into head coaches.
The Coaching Trees:
Bob Stoops: Mark Mangino, Chuck Long, Mike Stoops, Kevin Sumlin, Kevin Wilson
Urban Meyer: Charlie Strong, Dan Mullen, Steve Addazio, Kyle Whittingham
Nick Saban: Jimbo Fisher, Derek Dooley, Will Muschamp, Bobby Williams
Les Miles: Bo Pelini, Mike Gundy, Larry Porter
Pete Carroll: Lane Kiffin, Steve Sarkisian, Nick Holt, Ed Orgeron
Mike Leach: Art Briles, Dana Holgorsen, Ruffin McNeil, Sonny Dykes, Greg McMackin
Mike Bellotti: Jeff Tedford, Chip Kelly, Dirk Koetter, Chris Petersen
Bobby Bowden: Mark Richt, Chuck Amato, Tommy Bowden
What we used to measure the success of the coaching tree:
CBTN Rating Score: We took the average score of each assistant’s “CBTN Rating Score” as a head coach.
Overall Win %: Because winning is the only metric that trumps everything in sports, we took the average overall win % of each assistant as a head coach.
Win % against Top 25: Beating mediocre teams doesn’t measure success like beating the good ones can so we took the average win % vs. Top 25 teams of each assistant as a head coach.
Conference Win %: Racking up wins against Northeast Western State types in non-conference is a good excuse for people to drink in a parking lot. Winning in conference is what counts so we took the average conference win % for each assistant as a head coach.
CBTN % Difference Score: This looks at the difference in a coach’s winning percentage at a school compared to the winning percentage at that school in the 5 previous years. Some coaches have to clean up a giant mess at certain jobs, while others walk into a Taj Mahal with perfectly waxed floors. This is the key to determining if a coach was able to turn a program around. Six win seasons don’t always scream success like they should at some schools and vice versa so we took the average differential of each assistant as a head coach.
Then to round everything out, we tallied bowls, Top 25 finishes, Conference Championships, and BCS Bowls.
So based on the above data, here is how their coaching trees rank from best to worst:
With the recent success of guys like Chip Kelly and Chris Petersen, it’s not a complete surprise Mike Bellotti’s coaching tree rated the best by a landslide. Even Jeff Tedford, who has the third highest CBTN % difference score in the whole coaching database, can be considered underrated.
The key to the success of Bellotti’s coaching tree is that none of his protégés bombed at any of their coaching jobs. Petersen, Kelly, and Tedford all have significantly improved their programs and Dirk Koetter set things in motion at Boise State. While Koetter was unable to return Arizona State to the glory days of Jake the Snake, he did not completely tank or leave the program in shambles.
Where a lot of Athletic Directors get in trouble is when they look around for a quick fix emulation of a powerhouse program so they snag a replica coach and gamble millions that he can jump start their program into the national scene. The truth is that it takes decades to build programs into national powers and sometimes consistency is the key to building a program.
The interesting part of this study is the three guys at the top (Bellotti, Bowden, and Meyer) found success by building up programs without an abundance of wealth, resources, or history to national relevance at some point in their career.
The guys at the bottom of the coaching tree rankings (Stoops and Carroll), both excellent coaches, have never had to succeed at nontraditional powerhouses. They weren’t necessarily the guys at the factory building the shiny new sports cars like the others. They were just the mechanics who were able to restore it to mint condition after it had been sitting in a garage with boxes piled on top of it for 20 years.
And what damn fine mechanics they were too.
Perhaps learning under a coach that has been able to succeed (on a national scale) with limited resources is the main difference between a successful assistant hire and an unsuccessful one.
Last season, 120 college football coaches were paid $176,223,757 which averages out to $218,640 per win. That doesn’t include the salaries of assistants, trainers, and other administrative people within the athletic department.
It’s expensive to win in college football. Therefore, it should be important for athletic directors to trace the lineage of potential head coaching hires to their roots of the tree they came from.
Follow me on Twitter: @DSportsGuide
To land a college football head coaching gig, coaches must work their way up as assistants, while gaining experience and building their resume. Throughout their journey, they will work for people with many different head coaching ideals and philosophies. Similar to a child’s transition into adolescence, these various things will shape and mold their own coaching style until they are able to become a head coach.
Regardless of age, there is a substantial amount for head coaches or higher ranking assistants to influence an up and coming assistant prior to landing their first head coaching job.
When Lane Kiffin was hired by Tennessee at age 31, he was the youngest head coach ever hired at a college football program and already had 12 years of experience under his belt. Twelve years is a long time. Think about how much different you were when you were six compared to 18. Even from 18 to 30.
And Lane Kiffin was the youngest hire of all time.
Most coaches probably have around 20 years of coaching experience as an assistant before they are finally hired to run a football program. Heck, Norm Chow is 65 and entering his first year as Hawaii’s new head coach, which equates to 38 years of grooming and experience as an assistant.
So, where do all these assistants who are landing first time head coaching jobs come from?
Majority of them are (offensive or defensive) coordinators from established programs coming off a successful season– a trend that is continuing upwards in recent years.
The season prior to landing their first head coaching job, the teams they were being taken from averaged 9.7 wins from 2010-2011. From 2005-2009, the average win total was only 8.2 wins.
If a coach wins consistently over a period of time, then they tend to get their fair share of assistants hired by other universities to be their head coach. The idea is that the former assistant can replicate and build upon the things they learned under their former head coach.
The truly successful coaches almost seem as if they become coaching factories, churning out assistant coaches who are deemed ready-made to take another university’s program to the same level – just add batteries.
This is how a coaching tree begins to form.
And although the method of hiring assistants from the head coach with a well decorated trophy case is extremely popular among athletic directors, it isn’t always as seamless as it sounds. One of the most familiar examples of assistants failing to imitate a successful head coach is the Bill Belichick coaching tree.
And similar to the same way your parents didn’t want you hanging out with the wrong crowd, athletic directors (should) look to avoid hiring assistants from a coaching tree that might only produce poisoned fruit.
Using some of our data from CoachesByTheNumbers.com, we compared some of the most prominent recent coaching trees to see which coaches produced the most successful assistants into head coaches.
The Coaching Trees:
Bob Stoops: Mark Mangino, Chuck Long, Mike Stoops, Kevin Sumlin, Kevin Wilson
Urban Meyer: Charlie Strong, Dan Mullen, Steve Addazio, Kyle Whittingham
Nick Saban: Jimbo Fisher, Derek Dooley, Will Muschamp, Bobby Williams
Les Miles: Bo Pelini, Mike Gundy, Larry Porter
Pete Carroll: Lane Kiffin, Steve Sarkisian, Nick Holt, Ed Orgeron
Mike Leach: Art Briles, Dana Holgorsen, Ruffin McNeil, Sonny Dykes, Greg McMackin
Mike Bellotti: Jeff Tedford, Chip Kelly, Dirk Koetter, Chris Petersen
Bobby Bowden: Mark Richt, Chuck Amato, Tommy Bowden
What we used to measure the success of the coaching tree:
CBTN Rating Score: We took the average score of each assistant’s “CBTN Rating Score” as a head coach.
Overall Win %: Because winning is the only metric that trumps everything in sports, we took the average overall win % of each assistant as a head coach.
Win % against Top 25: Beating mediocre teams doesn’t measure success like beating the good ones can so we took the average win % vs. Top 25 teams of each assistant as a head coach.
Conference Win %: Racking up wins against Northeast Western State types in non-conference is a good excuse for people to drink in a parking lot. Winning in conference is what counts so we took the average conference win % for each assistant as a head coach.
CBTN % Difference Score: This looks at the difference in a coach’s winning percentage at a school compared to the winning percentage at that school in the 5 previous years. Some coaches have to clean up a giant mess at certain jobs, while others walk into a Taj Mahal with perfectly waxed floors. This is the key to determining if a coach was able to turn a program around. Six win seasons don’t always scream success like they should at some schools and vice versa so we took the average differential of each assistant as a head coach.
Then to round everything out, we tallied bowls, Top 25 finishes, Conference Championships, and BCS Bowls.
| Coaching Tree |
Yrs. | Rating (Avg) | Win % Overall | Win % Top 25 | Conf. Win % | % Diff |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mike Bellotti | 25 | 68.8 | 71% | 41% | 66% | 11.7% |
| Bobby Bowden | 25 | 61.7 | 65% | 47% | 58% | 8.0% |
| Urban Meyer | 13 | 51.4 | 66% | 31% | 59% | 13.8% |
| Mike Leach | 18 | 40.7 | 53% | 29% | 56% | 3.0% |
| Les Miles | 13 | 37.9 | 60% | 40% | 52% | 9.9% |
| Bob Stoops | 24 | 31.3 | 47% | 27% | 42% | 5.9% |
| Nick Saban | 10 | 44.0 | 52% | 11% | 43% | -8.5% |
| Pete Carroll | 11 | 31.9 | 44% | 19% | 40% | -6.7% |
| Coaching Tree | Yrs. | Conference Champ. | Top 25 Finishes | Bowls |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mike Bellotti | 25 | 8 | 11 | 23 |
| Bobby Bowden | 25 | 2 | 13 | 25 |
| Urban Meyer | 13 | 2 | 3 | 12 |
| Mike Leach | 18 | 4 | 2 | 11 |
| Les Miles | 13 | 1 | 6 | 10 |
| Bob Stoops | 24 | 0 | 2 | 10 |
| Nick Saban | 10 | 0 | 2 | 6 |
| Pete Carroll | 11 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Coaching Tree |
Total | Avg. Rating |
Win % Overall |
Win % Top 25 |
Win % Conf |
% Diff | *Conf Champ |
*Top 25 Finish |
*Bowls | *BCS Bowls |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mile Bellotti | 13 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bobby Bowden | 21 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Urban Meyer | 25 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Les Miles | 38 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 4 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Mike Leach | 42 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 5 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Nick Saban | 57 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 6 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bob Stoops | 60 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 7 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pete Carroll | 68 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| *Tie Breakers- Conf Champs/Years; Top 25/Years; Bowls/Years; BCS Bowls/Years | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
With the recent success of guys like Chip Kelly and Chris Petersen, it’s not a complete surprise Mike Bellotti’s coaching tree rated the best by a landslide. Even Jeff Tedford, who has the third highest CBTN % difference score in the whole coaching database, can be considered underrated.
The key to the success of Bellotti’s coaching tree is that none of his protégés bombed at any of their coaching jobs. Petersen, Kelly, and Tedford all have significantly improved their programs and Dirk Koetter set things in motion at Boise State. While Koetter was unable to return Arizona State to the glory days of Jake the Snake, he did not completely tank or leave the program in shambles.
Where a lot of Athletic Directors get in trouble is when they look around for a quick fix emulation of a powerhouse program so they snag a replica coach and gamble millions that he can jump start their program into the national scene. The truth is that it takes decades to build programs into national powers and sometimes consistency is the key to building a program.
The interesting part of this study is the three guys at the top (Bellotti, Bowden, and Meyer) found success by building up programs without an abundance of wealth, resources, or history to national relevance at some point in their career.
The guys at the bottom of the coaching tree rankings (Stoops and Carroll), both excellent coaches, have never had to succeed at nontraditional powerhouses. They weren’t necessarily the guys at the factory building the shiny new sports cars like the others. They were just the mechanics who were able to restore it to mint condition after it had been sitting in a garage with boxes piled on top of it for 20 years.
And what damn fine mechanics they were too.
Perhaps learning under a coach that has been able to succeed (on a national scale) with limited resources is the main difference between a successful assistant hire and an unsuccessful one.
Last season, 120 college football coaches were paid $176,223,757 which averages out to $218,640 per win. That doesn’t include the salaries of assistants, trainers, and other administrative people within the athletic department.
It’s expensive to win in college football. Therefore, it should be important for athletic directors to trace the lineage of potential head coaching hires to their roots of the tree they came from.
Follow me on Twitter: @DSportsGuide
April 26, 2012
2012 NFL Mock Draft
1. Colts - Andrew Luck, QB, Stanford: This is a no brainer. Luck is in a far better position to succeed in the NFL compared to Robert Griffin III.
2. Redskins - Robert Griffin III, QB, Baylor: Washington has bet the farm on the Heisman trophy winner. He has all the tools and intangibles. Nitpicking, I worry about his pocket presence and taking snaps under center, which no one seems to be talking about.
3. Vikings - Morris Claiborne, CB, LSU: I'm sure the Vikings are asking for a king's ransom to trade out of this spot and I don't think they get it. I'll give Claiborne the slight edge because he fills a need and I believe the rumblings about the Vikings not being sold on Kalil.
4. Browns - Trent Richardson, RB, Alabama: If I were the Browns I would strongly consider giving up one of their 4th round picks to trade up one spot and secure this pick. They probably won’t need to, but Trent Richardson is that good an fills a huge need for Cleveland.
5. Bills (TRADE w Bucs) - Matt Kalil, OT, USC: The Bills have a huge need at LT and WR. I think this draft class is pretty deep at WR, so I have the Bills making a move to go get what is clearly the best LT in this draft.
6. Rams - Luke Kuechly, LB, Boston College: With Trent Richardson and Matt Kalil off the board I think the Rams are going to be desperately trying to trade down. Justin Blackmon is a great receiver, but he doesn't translate to be worthy of the 6th pick in the draft like a Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, or Andre Johnson type would. The Rams have the 33rd and 39th overall pick and I could see them making a move to get a receiver at those spots, whether it is trading up into the late first round or standing pat. Taking Kuechly here will make them a better overall football team.
7. Jaguars - Fletcher Cox, DT, Mississippi State: I think the Jaguars pass on a wide receiver here. In the past year Jacksonville has invested $52 million into the wide receiver position by signing Mike Thomas and Laurent Robinson to long term deals. They also acquired Lee Evans who projects as their third WR option. If they stay in this spot, I think Fletcher Cox is the best fit.
8. Dolphins - Ryan Tannehill, QB, Texas A&M: I get why scouts love Tannehill, but he needs some time to develop. Last season he had one of the best running games in the country to help keep defenses honest and still struggled making reads down-field. Luckily, the Dolphins have a serviceable starter in Matt Moore which will allow Tannehill to continue learning under his old coach Mike Sherman.
9. Panthers - Stephon Gilmore, CB, South Carolina: I think this pick comes down to Gilmore and Chandler Jones. Both have been flying up draft boards this past week and both are needs for the Panthers. I went with Gilmore because I think there are a better crop of pass rushers in this draft than non-troubled CBs.
10. Buccaneers (TRADE w Bills) - Mark Barron, S, Alabama: The Buccaneers need secondary help anyway they can get it. With Claiborne and Gilmore off the board, I think Tampa Bay will feel plenty comfortable taking the best safety in the class. Huge upgrade right here.
11. Jets (TRADE w Chiefs) - Justin Blackmon, WR, Oklahoma State: I think the Chiefs will be targeting offensive line or Dontari Poe in this spot and with the board playing out in this manner are comfortable moving down. The Jets need more weapons around Mark Sanchez and Justin Blackmon is worth the cost of an extra pick to move up five spots.
12. Seahawks - Chandler Jones, DE, Syracuse: Jones has been flying up draft boards and his considered a high motor guy. He fills a huge need for Seattle.
13. Cardinals - Riley Reiff, OT, Iowa: Arizona needs to improve their offensive line in a big way. By drafting Reiff, who projects as a day one starter, they can shift Levi Brown over to right tackle and secure Kevin Kolb's blindside. They look for a playmaker across from Larry Fitzgerald in round two.
14. Cowboys - David DeCastro, G, Stanford: I think in this situation Dallas would like to trade down, but will be unable to find a partner where they feel comfortable picking. With Cox and Barron off the board, I think the Cowboys will look to take the best player available that fills a need. In their own ways, Brockers, Ingram, and Poe present too much risk for Dallas to pass up on a sure thing like DeCastro.
15. Titans (TRADE w Eagles) - Dre Kirkpatrick, CB, Alabama: The Titans need a premium CB and the Eagles are pretty open when considering need vs.value in this spot.
16. Chiefs (TRADE w Jets) - Dontari Poe, DT, Memphis: Like Tannehill, I understand the potential scouts see in this kid. While, he fills a huge need for the Chiefs, I wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole.
17. Bengals - Quenton Coples, DE, North Carolina: Coples is one of those guys lazy freakishly talented guys that should go in the top ten but will fall because of character concerns. The Bengals love these guys and don't shy away from them.
18. Texans (TRADE w Chargers) - Michael Floyd, WR, Notre Dame: With Floyd somehow slipping down the draft board the Texans should be salivating to go get him. With some many teams between them and the Chargers who need WRs they couldn't risk letting trying to let him slide.
19. Bears - Michael Brockers, DT, LSU: Huge grade on the interior line for the Bears. Great value pick with upside.
20. Eagles (TRADE w Titans) -Dont'a Hightower, LB, Alabama: Either he or DeMeco Ryans will slide to OLB, which is a huge position of need for the Eagles.
21. Bengals - Cordy Glenn, G, Georgia: Versatile lineman who fills a huge need on the interior line for the Bengals.
22. Browns - Coby Fleener, TE, Stanford: Ben Watson will be a free agent in 2013 and does not pose much of a threat as a receiver. Whether they keep Colt McCoy or look for a replacement in this draft, a tight end is always a quarterback’s most reliable friend.
23. Lions - Janoris Jenkins, CB, North Alabama: The Lions secondary is so bad I can see them overlooking Jenkin's off the field issues in lieu of his talents.
24. Steelers - Doug Martin, RB, Boise State: Rashard Mendenhall is coming off a torn ACL and might not be 100 percent by the time the season opens. Mendenhall will be a free agent in 2013 and Redman will be a RFA. The Steelers should look to draft an insurance policy for the short and long term.
25. Broncos - Kendall Wright, WR, Baylor: With the departure of Eddie Royal the Broncos need to add an explosive big play guy for Peyton Manning.
26. Chargers (TRADE w Texans) - Courtney Upshaw, DE, Alabama: There is a good chance that the Chargers would've taken Upshaw at 18 if they couldn't trade out. He fills a huge need and is probably the best defensive player in the draft at this point.
27. Patriots - Shea McClellin, OLB, Boise State: Fits a need for the Patriots on defense, which is just about every position imaginable for them.
28. Vikings (TRADE w Packers) - Jonathan Martin, OT, Stanford: They passed on Kalil to take Claiborne and now see a top flight left tackle sliding here. The Packers could find a RB early in round two.
29.Ravens - Rueben Randle, WR, LSU: Luxury pick that adds a lot of talent to the WR position and also gives them a safety net if they choose not to resign Boldin after the 2013 season when he will be 33.
30. 49ers - Nick Perry, DE, USC: Projects as a 3-4 OLB with the 49ers.
31. Patriots - Harrison Smith, S, Notre Dame: The Patriots need secondary help in any way they can get it.
32. Giants - Whitney Mercilus, DE, Illinois: With Osi Umenyiora likely out the door sooner rather than later, the Giants can reload their pass rushing core with this pick.
February 21, 2012
A look at Big 12 Recruiting: Offense
As college football entered the
new millennium, the Big 12 began to gain a reputation as a prolific
offensive conference. This perception proved to be true throughout the
2011 season as the conference had six of the top 15 offenses in the
nation, while no other conference had more than two. The Big 12 also had
more offenses ranked in the top 15 than all five of the other BCS
conferences combined.
Offenses in the Big 12 do not necessarily require elite talent to become unstoppable scoring machines. Teams like Baylor and Oklahoma State has recruiting rankings on offense were middle of the pack and they still managed to torture defenses in the Big 12 and Pac 12 this season.
The majority of spread based systems run in the Big 12 are designed to do more with less. This is unlike the SEC, which boasted six of the top ten offensive recruiting classes over the past four years, yet the league's offenses seem to be based around their field goal kickers.
Boom roasted (kind of).
From five-star kings to two-star bodies, some truly spectacular talent is mined from the fertile Big 12 recruiting soils that make these offenses run on all cylinders. Most of them begin and end with their signal callers.
If you follow college football, then you know the key to any capable functioning offense is the quarterback. If coaches insert any type of skillful player around an accurate signal caller most of the time things will run like clockwork.
For a school that primarily recruited two star quarterbacks from 2002-07, Baylor sure hit a homerun with their first four-star prospect.
Robert Griffin is the prime example of why the quarterback position is so important in the Big 12. The Heisman Trophy winner and future top five draft pick did not have the cream of the crop to work with at the skill positions (as you will see below). Regardless, Baylor was able to put together one the best offenses in the country and their best season in school history because they had a quarterback who could run a system that made the less talented more effective.
Oklahoma State did the same thing with an obscure transfer in Brandon Weeden. Given Weeden's Heisman-esque play this season, it would be a safe assumption for a casual fan to look at Oklahoma State's recruiting ranking and assume he was highly coveted.
That's not the case. Weeden came to campus as a transfer in 2007, which means Oklahoma State will have a good chance of replacing with a guy from the 22nd overall quarterback class and not lose a beat.
Texas, of course, is the prime example of how an ineffective quarterback can virtually ruin an offense. The Longhorns have the eighth overall ranking in quarterback acquisitions, but have been unable to translate said talent to the playing field for the past two years.
Five star prospect Garrett Gilbert struggled throughout the 2010 season trying to replace Colt McCoy and was later benched early in the 2011 season; the second-ranked quarterback in the 2009 recruiting class (behind Matt Barkley) transferred eventually transferred to SMU.
Connor Wood, a four-star prospect and third-ranked quarterback in the 2010 class, also decided to transfer prior to the beginning of the 2011 season, which left Texas with only two inexperienced three star recruits to pick up the pieces. I'm unsure of what's going on down at the capital, but it's very hard to miss on four different prospects of that caliber -- especially when you're Texas.
Unlike the Longhorns, the transfer of two Texas Tech quarterbacks won't leave the Red Raiders high and dry.
Tech is in a great spot with Seth Doege, who played his way into the upper tier of conference quarterbacks in 2011 and projects to remain there in 2012. Michael Brewer, a 2011 commit and three star prospect, is already drawing rave reviews from coaches and enters 2012 entrenched as the backup and quarterback of the future.
The transfers leave Tech a little thin for the moment at the quarterback position, but not without talent. They'll need to stockpile some recruits behind Clayton Nicholas in the 2013 class.
Similar to the NFL, running backs in college football can come a dime a dozen and from unexpected places.
As a two star running back out of high school, Baylor's Terrance Ganaway was hardly a blip on the recruiting radar. Still, he ended his senior season as the leading rusher in the Big 12, seventh overall nationally, and with an outside chance of being drafted in 2012.
Producing better numbers than the conference powerhouses filled with four and five star recruits is impressive. However, beating out those same four and five star prospects for playing time as a walk-on who couldn't get playing time at a NAIA program is nothing short of miraculous.
Walk-on Dominique Whaley emerged as the Oklahoma's lead running back before succumbing to a season-ending ankle injury. Despite missing the final six games, Whaley still finished as the Sooners leading rusher on the season after beating out highly rated recruits such as Jonathon Miller (four star), Brennan Clay (four star), Roy Finch (four star), and Brandon Williams (five star).
The underdogs were not the story for all the Big 12 programs. Some sought after recruits looked every bit as advertised.
Malcolm Brown (five star) of Texas was tearing it up as a true freshman despite battling an injury throughout the second half of the season. In College Station, Cyrus Gray (four star) and Christine Michael (five star) combined for nearly 2,000 yards rushing -- the best of any RB duo in the conference. Not far behind them were the a couple of four-star Oklahoma State running backs, Joseph Randle and Jeremy Smith, who combined for just over 1,800 yards rushing and 33 touchdowns.
Tech was also finding massive success with a four star prospect of their own -- Eric Stephens -- until the injury bug bit and kept on biting. When DeAndre Washington went down with a season ending injury in Columbia, the Red Raiders loaded running back position suddenly became a little hairy.
With guys like Harrison Jeffers (four star) unable to recover from an eventual career ending injury, Ronnie Daniels (three star) suspended, and Delans Griffin (four star) unable to qualify, the recruiting classes for Tech were now providing very little at the position.
True freshman Kenny Williams (four star) and fifth-year senior Aaron Crawford (three star) did a commendable job picking up the pieces. Tech finished last in the Big 12 in rushing, but without most of the recruits in the 32nd rated running back class, it's not a total shock.
The way Baylor's receivers torched defenses all season long, it's hard not be shocked at how lowly regarded their overall talent was coming out of high school.
The Bears -- equipped with two and three star receivers -- had the third most passing yards in the nation in 2011 and were able to do so with 159 less pass attempts than the fourth ranked Sooners (or 27% less). On top of that, the spread offense was able to produce 3 of the 6 top wide receivers in the Big 12 - including leading receiver Kendall Wright.
Wright -- a three-star recruit -- has probably played his way into the first round of the NFL draft after leading Baylor in receiving yards all four years on campus. His counterparts, Terrance Williams and Tevin Reese, were both two-star players who have immeasurably out-played their Rivals.com recruiting grades. After continuously burning Big 12 defensive backs in 2011, these two players proved to be great examples of spread offenses getting more out of less.
Another great example would be the second overall passing offense in the nation: Oklahoma State. Like Baylor, the Pokes have been able to get it done without four star recruits and have turned a three-star prospect -- Justin Blackmon -- into a first-round lock in the NFL draft.
Some three star guys may have stolen the show in 2011, but Oklahoma's Ryan Broyles may have had something to say about that had he not been injured. Despite missing the last four games of the season, the former four-star recruit still managed to finish the season as the Sooner's leading receiver. The scariest thing about the Sooners' sixth overall wide receiver haul is Ryan Broyles did not factor into it. He was recruited as a defensive back in 2007. Unfortunately for Big 12 opponents, this just demonstrates how loaded the Sooners are at the position.
Eric Ward is the lone four star commit to make any significant impact on the field for the Red Raiders in 2011. Marcus Kennard, Jace Amaro, and Derek Edwards -- all from the 2011 recruiting class -- have yet to make notable contributions for Texas Tech.
Instead, Neal Brown was able to utilize some not so highly sought after transfers in Darrin Moore and Alex Torres for a reliable consistency in the passing game.
With the infusion of two more four-star prospects from the 2012 class and only three seniors graduating in 2011, the Red Raider's two-deep should be able to provide explosiveness in the passing game, something they lacked in 2011.
They say there is strength in numbers and if there was one thing Mike Sherman did right as the Aggies head coach it was recruit offensive lineman to College Station. From 2008-11 the Aggies recruited 20 offensive lineman, including six four-stars.
In 2011, Texas A&M had the 23rd-ranked rushing attack and, more impressively, only allowed nine total sacks the whole season (third lowest in the nation). Four of the five starters on the offensive line were four-star prospects, with three of them coming from the 2010 recruiting class that had four linemen with four-star grades.
Highly rated recruits are not the only guys who can succeed on the offensive line. Over the past four years, only seven of the 45 linemen who received Big 12 first or second team accolades were four-star recruits or better out of high school. Over the past four years only six of the linemen taken in the NFL draft have been four-star recruits or better, which includes only one of the five selected in the first round from the Big 12.
LaAdrian Waddle earned a post-season award for Tech by taking home All-Big 12 second team honors in 2011. Waddle, Deveric Gallington and Terry McDaniel, all former three-star prospects, started all 12 games for Texas Tech at various positions on the offensive line. Lonnie Edwards, a former four-star prospect, was the other Tech lineman to start all 12 games for the Red Raiders.
Neither of the two four-star prospects recruited from 2008-11 have been able to capture any serious playing time for Tech thus far. Kyle Clark only appeared in two games in 2011 (his redshirt sophomore season) and Tony Morales took a medical redshirt his first year on campus in 2011.
Texas Tech's offense line had a positive season in 2011 by only allowing 19 total sacks (43rd overall) and ranking 27th in the nation in tackles allowed for a loss.
Follow Me on Twitter: @DSportsGuide
Questions or Comments: DSportsGuide@Gmail.com
February 8, 2012
An Overall Look at Big 12 Recruiting
*Posted on The Victory Bells blog on RedRaiderSports.com part of the Y! Rivals network
An attractive night sky is usually complimented by an enormous collection of stars. The same can be said for college football recruiting classes.
An attractive night sky is usually complimented by an enormous collection of stars. The same can be said for college football recruiting classes.
The
recruiting scoreboard has become wildly popular for college football
fans everywhere as media coverage now makes it easier for people to
follow their favorite school's recruiting endeavors. Highly rated
recruiting classes are celebrated by the thought that winning is now
seemingly imminent.
It shouldn't be understated that acquiring top rated prospects on a consistent basis will generally allow a program to have steady success. During any given season, a team's core can consist of players ranging from fifth year seniors to JUCO transfers to highly touted incoming freshman. There isn't a set formula to figure out which players will be the most effective contributors on the football field.
In Big 12 country, Texas and Oklahoma tend to get their pick of the best recruits, a trend that continued with the 2012 recruiting classes. In fact, since Rivals began tracking and ranking recruiting classes in 2002, Texas and Oklahoma have ranked been the top two teams every season.
Over those 11 years, the two schools have combined for nine Big 12 championships which included seven in a row from 2004-10 and ten straight years of winning the South division -- a pretty good showing of dominance.
However, the 2011 season was one filled with unexpected results as Oklahoma State, Kansas State, and Baylor finished top three in the conference. It was the first time since 1997 that neither Texas nor Oklahoma would finish top three in the conference.
Since this type of season was such a rarity in the Big 12, it made me wonder what type of talent these other schools had been acquiring over the past four years and if they were catching up to the likes of Texas and Oklahoma, resulting in a spike in the rankings.
Below is a chart that uses the "points" category on Rivals.com to quantify the quality of recruits each schools is getting. Rivals will assign certain point totals to the best player at each position, which descends as you go down the list of player rankings. Basically, the better the player, the higher the point total and vice versa.
This study looked at the recruiting classes for each Big 12 school over the past four years (2008-11) and tallied up the total of points they received for top quality recruits.
"Total" is the overall amount of points awarded for recruits by Rivals and "Overall" is where the school ranks nationally out of 120 FBS teams.
The perceived talent gap between Texas, Oklahoma, and the rest of the Big 12 the last four years has been huge. While Oklahoma had a bit of a down year, Texas is the one between the two that massively underachieved in 2011.
Texas put up monster recruiting numbers from 2008-11 ranking fourth overall nationally behind Alabama, USC, and Florida. Yet in 2011, the Longhorns were still unable to fully bounce back from their 2010 enigma of a season; UT posted a 4-5 record in conference play, despite having an extreme talent advantage on paper over their conference foes.
Excluding the Sooners, Texas has recruited more four and five star prospects (63) than Oklahoma State, Missouri, Baylor, and Kansas State combined (46) -- the teams that handed the Longhorns four of their five losses this past season.
Regardless of a combined 13-12 record over the past two seasons, the Longhorn finished 2012 with the No. 2 recruiting class and only two less four and five star recruits than the rest of the 2011 version of the Big 12 combined (excluding Oklahoma). The rich get richer.
Speaking of the rich, how about Oklahoma State finally giving billionaire donor T. Boone Pickens some return on his investment? Pickens has pumped over $165 million into Oklahoma State's football program for improvements to facilities and the stadium.ing for the national championship last season, it would be fair to assume the brand new facilities had the top rated recruits flocking to Stillwater similar to other national powerhouses.
That hasn't exactly been the case.
From 2008-11, the Pokes ranked fifth in the Big 12 and 31st nationally in recruiting and have greatly overachieved compared to their recruiting rankings.
Maybe one day Oklahoma State will recruit to the level of Texas and Oklahoma as desired by Pickens. For now, I think it's safe to say Mike Gundy has arrived as one of the nation's elite coaches rather than just some dude who's 40-years-old.
The list of coaches who have overachieved with lesser resources in the Big 12 does not stop with Gundy.
Art Briles and Bill Snyder both had their programs finish in the AP top 15 last season, which is extraordinary for two schools that ranked 49th and 56th nationally in recruiting the past four years. Baylor and Kansas State's combined fifteen four star recruits over the span of four years is the same amount that Texas had in its 2011 class alone (not to mention the Longhorns had a five star on top of that).
The amusing thing about these two coaches and their ten win seasons is that they both did it in completely opposite ways. Briles with high school recruits handpicked to succeed in his wide open passing system. Snyder with a heavy emphasis on transfer students to play in a possession control, protect the ball, run heavy offense.
It will be interesting to see if these two teams can build on their success going into the 2012 season. After all, one is replacing a Heisman trophy winning quarterback and the other will be hoping they can keep their He-Man quarterback in one piece throughout the entire season.
Despite the fourth-best batch of recruits in the Big 12 -- 28th nationally -- the Red Raiders are coming off the programs worst season in nearly 20 years. The insanely large amount of injuries on both sides of the ball surely contributed to the lack of results as did the program's extreme staff turnover on defense over the last three years.
Regardless
of the reasons, Tech's 2-7 record in conference play has to be
considered a major underachievement in relation to the talent (on paper)
of the recruits brought into Lubbock. The Red Raiders will never be a
recruiting behemoth like their rivals down in Austin, but they still
managed to bring in as many four star recruits over the past four years
(19) as Baylor, Kansas State and Iowa State combined - three teams they
lost to in 2011 at home or on a neutral site.
Follow Me on Twitter: @DSportsGuide
Questions or Comments: DSportsGuide@gmail.com
Follow Me on Twitter: @DSportsGuide
Questions or Comments: DSportsGuide@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)