Small Schools, Large Barden
by abender20 on Feb 18, 2009 8:39 AM PST
in Seahawks News & Rumors
Email
PrintEach year, a few players from small schools catapult themselves up the draft board with impressive combine showings (Chris Johnson and Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie last year, for instance). SI has assembled a short list of small school players to watch out for as we approach the combine.
If you've managed to go the entire college football season without hearing the name Ramses Barden, get ready to hear it a lot in the upcoming weeks.
Ramses Barden/WR/Cal-Poly: Barden is an imposing 6-foot-6, 227-pound pass catcher with reliable hands. He presents himself as a terrific red zone threat who out-muscles defenders for the reception. The faster Barden runs at the combine, the earlier he'll be drafted.
While several of these players may be quite tempting, let's review Tim Ruskell's draft history (from 2005 on) by school, starting with the most recent draft.
|
USC |
|
Notre Dame |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Georgia Tech |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Virginia Tech |
|
|
|
USC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USC |
|
|
|
Clemson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USC |
|
|
|
Clemson |
|
|
|
|
I apologize for the length of the list, but I've left it without player name, position, or pick number for a reason. Buzz through it and you'll be astonished to find only one small school on the list: San Diego State (Tyler Shmitt, long snapper). It's pretty safe to say that none of these small school players will be drafted by Ruskell. The next Chris Johnson or DRC will end up somewhere else.
45 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Here is my problem with Ruskell.
He’s too safe. Sure going with a bigger school is safer because you can see how players perform against top talent, but choosing not to look at players from smaller schools (and I know this is an assumption) isn’t a good thing in my mind. It’s never a good idea to limit your scope. It’s almost as if he’s saying that if you weren’t a great player at 18, you can’t be one at 22. Lofa Tatupu could have very well gone to college at a no name school. From what I understand it was only by being very persistent, and having some family connections that he got into USC (correct me if I’m wrong).
Except at those big schools
He did draft Tatupu early on – he is willing to reach on players, but only if they are at those schools.
by Jerikantilles on Feb 18, 2009 9:07 AM PST up reply actions
Barden had a fairly poor showing at the Senior Bowl.
For such a large WR, he had trouble getting jammed in practices, which neutralized what should be one of his bread-and-butter assets. He is still very raw, from what I understand.
RE: Barden from a former scout who was present at the Senior Bowl activities:
From my observations and taking all 4 practice days into account….
Ramses Barden (Cal Poly) got shut down this week. He is going to have to show better physicality if he is going to succeed. He is a huge target with great arms and hands, but when a 5’9" CB can shut you down and turn you around at the line, something is wrong. His work ethic should get him to the next level, but he is clearly a project.
This is just one example, but this is one reason I don’t see him as a viable target, unless of course, Ruskell continues his trends of drafting questionable WR talent late in the draft…
Help me understand
… the point of this article, because I’m obviously not getting it
Point one: Check out Barden, a very promising receiver from a small school
Point two: But don’t get excited, Ruskell will never draft him due to his draft record
Plz help D:
Too late, still excited...
I can’t help it, as a Cal Poly Alum, I like seeing a prospect from my unknown school being semi-seriously mentioned, especially in relation to Seattle. Maybe Mora, Knapp and Co can make something of him on the off chance he is drafted.
Cal Poly Pride
As a Cal Poly fan, I’ve been following him and had hoped one of the Seahawk blogs would talk about him, so thanks John Morgan for being the first. I would love for the Hawks to get him on the 2nd day if he doesn’t go to high. He broke Jerry Rice’s NCAA record for consecutive games with a TD for God’s sake. His size alone is enough reason to consider him. Also, I think he his a good character guy. Cal Poly hasn’t had much success with Offensive players in the NFL. A couple of Defensive ones are floating around like Chris Gocong on the Eagles, so this will be a major step for this program if he goes in the first 4 rounds.
I'm not John Morgan.
If I was, this post would have contained actual brilliant analysis.
I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!
draft trends
Its also to help speculate how Ruskell will pick. If its 2 players, one from App State and the other from Florida, his history trends toward the second.
But he could break it. Who knows. Just doesn’t look likely.
by Jerikantilles on Feb 18, 2009 11:25 AM PST up reply actions
An acquaintance of mine is convinced he's the next Jerry Rice.
To which I respond with “His name is Ramses.”
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
Has anyone ever done a comprehensive comparison of small/big schools?
It could be pretty general, splitting all schools into “big” and “small”, accounting for draft position?
Big job, I know, but surely some guy out there has done it.
i did something like this a few months ago
using conferences and pro bowlers from this year. it was pretty general, obviously the Pro Bowl is not a great judge of talent. i hope i can find my notes, i remember thinking it was pretty interesting.
I have a spreadsheet of every player drafted
the amount of games played, seasons started, pro bowls, schools, position, conference, and what pick they were.
I know how to look at success for each school or conference, but how do I look at success while accounting for draft position as well?
dunno, I'm not a statistics guy
I wasn’t really thinking one of us would do this, I just assumed there was some kind of “official” research done on the subject floating around. Too lazy to really google…
Well, if you ignore draft position.
Here is a list of conferences and their success rates since 1970. Success = 1 pro bowl or 3 starting seasons, or 64 games played. Wild Success – 2 pro bowls, 7 starting seasons, or 125 games played.
Keep in mind that the data is skewed because of
A) Undrafted players. There are undrafted players in here, but if you’re undrafted and you’re not a success, you’re probably not going to show up.
B) Starts stat is defined by pro-football reference, and oddly so, especially for special teams.
C) Recent players are not ranked correctly since they haven’t accumulated enough stats. I could use an opinion ‘stat’ as to whether or not they are successful.
D) Special teams players that go to the probowl can skew offense if they’re listed as RB or WR ( does not apply for this particular situation, but is something to consider nonetheless. Was Bannister really a success?)
Success Rank Conference Rate
1 American East 38%
2 Pac 10 36%
3 ACC 35%
4 Big East 34%
5 SEC 33%
6 Independent 33%
7 Big Ten 32%
8 Big 12 32%
9 WAC 30%
10 Southland 28%
11 Sun Belt 28%
12 Ivy League 27%
13 Conference USA 27%
14 Mountain West 26%
15 Mid-American 25%
16 Big Sky 24%
17 Small School 23%
18 CAA 23%
19 Big West 23%
20 OVC 22%
21 SWAC 20%
22 MVC 18%
23 MEAC 10%
Wild Success Rank Conference Rate
1 American East 31%
2 ACC 17%
3 Big East 17%
4 Pac 10 17%
5 Independent 16%
6 Sun Belt 14%
7 SEC 14%
8 Big Ten 14%
9 Big 12 12%
10 Southland 12%
11 WAC 12%
12 Mountain West 11%
13 Conference USA 11%
14 SWAC 11%
15 Ivy League 11%
16 MVC 10%
17 MEAC 10%
18 Big West 10%
19 Small School 10%
20 Mid-American 10%
21 OVC 10%
22 Big Sky 9%
23 CAA 7%
Note: The only American East school I have is Boston University. I probably categorized the rest as ‘small school’
cool info
can you also relate it the inverse way? of all successful NFL players, X% were from the Pac-10 etc.
also, what if it was subdivided into BCS and non BCS conferences so we could get a more general big school vs small school discussion?
Done.
Conference S %
Pacific 10 13.2%
SEC 13.0%
Big 12 12.8%
Big Ten 12.7%
ACC 12.0%
Small School 11.4%
Big East 4.4%
Mountain West 3.6%
Conference USA 3.5%
WAC 3.0%
Independent 2.1%
Mid-American 1.8%
Big Sky 1.0%
OVC 0.9%
Southland 0.9%
CAA 0.8%
Sun Belt 0.8%
SWAC 0.6%
Ivy League 0.5%
Big West 0.4%
Missouri Valley Conference 0.4%
American East 0.2%
MEAC 0.0%
Conference WS %
ACC 13.0%
Pacific 10 14.0%
SEC 13.1%
Big Ten 12.6%
Big 12 11.2%
Small School 11.1%
Big East 5.0%
Mountain West 3.6%
Conference USA 3.2%
WAC 2.6%
Independent 2.4%
Mid-American 1.5%
Sun Belt 1.0%
OVC 0.9%
Southland 0.9%
Big Sky 0.8%
SWAC 0.7%
CAA 0.6%
Missouri Valley Conference 0.5%
Big West 0.4%
Ivy League 0.4%
American East 0.3%
MEAC 0.1%
Success WS
BCS 33.5% 14.8%
non-BCS 25.1% 10.7%
So Ruskell has a point, but I don’t think he should ignore small schools completely.
to make sure i'm reading this right...
Success WS
BCS 33.5% 14.8%
non-BCS 25.1% 10.7%
- Does this mean that 33.5% of players drafted out of BCS conferences have been “successful” and 25% of those from non-BCS schools have been “successful?”
- Do the “Success” numbers INCLUDE the “Wild Success” numbers? or are they distinct?
Yes your 33.5 and 25% assessment is correct.
Success includes wild success. Wild success is just a stricter guideline (more pro bowls, seasons started, or games played). You can’t be a wild success without being a success.
Also note that if a extraordinarily large amount of Florida players have been drafted in the past 3 years and not many have been drafted before that (probably more applicable to a Boise State), that the % of success would be lower than it should be, and falsely so, since it is impossible almost for a 3rd year player to be a success or a wild success.
Good work, there, man!
But what I’m curious to know is how players from “big” and “small” schools stand up, respectful to where they were drafted…
i.e. does a “big” school’s players picked in round one turn out to be better than a “small” school’s players picked in round one?
If not, than Ruskell has absolutely no basis for discriminating against small schools… obviously. If so, wouldn’t that be factored in by every GM around the league… or maybe it already is and “small school” guys get knocked down a few pegs already.
Ok, well I have them seperated by draft pick # ( so 1-300) right now,
but I suppose I can split it up into rounds (1-30 being round one will probably be an assumption instead of going back and looking up the data again. Also, I’m not sure what to do with supplemental draft picks. Just ignore them completely I guess.
Here you go.
Round BCS? S% WS%
1 BCS 71.4% 42.1%
1 non-BCS 70.0% 40.1%
2 BCS 55.7% 26.7%
2 non-BCS 53.4% 28.0%
3 BCS 44.1% 17.9%
3 non-BCS 39.2% 17.8%
4 BCS 36.2% 11.9%
4 non-BCS 37.3% 13.4%
5 BCS 27.8% 8.8%
5 non-BCS 26.9% 8.6%
6 BCS 22.9% 7.9%
6 non-BCS 22.7% 10.0%
7 BCS 15.5% 5.8%
7 non-BCS 14.1% 5.1%
And it doesn’t look like the BCS is significiantly better than non-BCS. So I looked at the total to check.
Overall S% WS%
BCS 33.5% 14.8%
non-BCS 25.1% 10.7%
So I guess, BCS is slightly better than non-BCS? BUT, small schools are more commonly drafted in the later rounds, skewing the overall numbers.
So you’re theory about ‘small school guys’ getting knocked down accordingly is probably correct djafrot.
sort of a tangent
but regardless of school size – look at how dramatic the drop off is round by round.
rd 1 71% success
rd 2 55%
rd 3 44%
rd 4 36%
rd 5 27%
rd 6 22%
rd 7 15%
this takes away from the idea of the “we can always find somebody in the later rounds” idea that comes up from time to time.
Oh, and note for the WS
that the Pac 10 is ahead of the ACC. Data sort didn’t work for some reason.
ALSO, I forgot that Miami and BC and others moved conferences, I just lumped them into the conferences that they are currently in, not the conferences they were in at the time.
Oh, and Built2Spill
In case you were still wondering about Cal. Here is a list of Sucess and Wild Success by school with at least 100 players drafted. Cal is 3rd (by WS%) after UNC and USC and just ahead of Miami and Penn State.
School Success W Success Total
North Carolina 45.5% 23.1% 121
USC 45.0% 22.7% 220
California 37.4% 21.7% 115
Miami (FL) 41.5% 19.5% 205
Penn State 38.3% 19.4% 222
Arizona State 35.0% 19.0% 163
Pittsburgh 37.5% 18.8% 144
Boston College 34.6% 18.3% 104
Colorado 37.6% 18.2% 170
Notre Dame 34.1% 17.5% 217
Florida State 37.4% 17.3% 179
Alabama 37.4% 17.0% 147
Georgia 31.3% 16.7% 150
Tennessee 32.0% 16.3% 203
San Diego State 32.7% 15.8% 101
Washington State 27.7% 15.8% 101
Stanford 36.1% 15.8% 133
Ohio State 33.2% 15.7% 229
Clemson 33.6% 15.2% 125
Washington 33.3% 15.2% 165
Michigan State 32.7% 15.0% 147
Maryland 30.7% 14.9% 101
Arkansas 24.3% 14.8% 115
Illinois 37.3% 14.7% 102
Florida 37.6% 14.5% 186
Michigan 37.0% 14.5% 200
Auburn 34.0% 14.2% 141
UCLA 42.1% 14.0% 178
Texas 32.7% 13.9% 165
Texas A&M 40.9% 13.4% 164
Iowa 30.1% 13.3% 113
Purdue 32.2% 13.0% 115
Arizona 29.9% 12.0% 117
Brigham Young 27.7% 10.9% 101
Oklahoma 29.3% 9.6% 198
Wisconsin 26.2% 9.5% 126
Nebraska 29.1% 9.3% 237
Grand Total 32.6% 14.4% 8892
6 Ft 6 in - wideout?
I say draft him with the 6th rounder you get from trading Wallace. And then teach him 4 red zone plays.
Cogito Ergo Sum
...
…
"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."
by Fearless Frog on Feb 18, 2009 3:04 PM PST up reply actions
What you might want to do is run a regression
In particular, you could do a logistic regression (used for binary outcomes). The outcome would be a 0/1 indicator of success (1 = success, 0 = not success), and you could include as predictors a 0/1 indicator of BCS/non-BCS, as well as a variable for draft position (you could use the raw draft number, no need to split into rounds). This would allow you to statistically test whether BCS teams have a greater probability of success than non-BCS teams, adjusting for draft position.
If you don’t know how to do it in Excel, perhaps you wouldn’t mind sharing the file and I can run the analysis quickly.
Sorry JM and Abender
for taking over your post. Someone asked about something about small schools because of the subject of this post, and I was looking at the data at that time anyways, and I kind of got out of hand. If we find more stuff, I guess we’ll make a fanpost, that’d be cool. I tend to not make fanposts unless they’re really important or cool (like 24).
It's alright
There’s acceptable off-topic and there’s hijacking a thread. I think this developed naturally.
well...
Most of the best players do play in the BCS, I don’t think there is any question about that. So the question here is, do NFL GM’s underrate or overrate the importance of big schools. The big schools tend to have better coaching and training staff. They also play against other big schools so you have a lot more meaningful data to assess a player’s worth. Obviously there is a premium to be payed for these factors, but is that premium out of line with the true value?
The adjustments for the round drafted are crucial. GM’s and coaches give higher picks the benefit of the doubt in development because they will look bad if a big organizational investment falters. Any difference in success rate without adjusting for draft position can probably be explained entirely by draft position.
Another issue complicating this analysis is that different GM’s have different takes on big vs. small schools. A Tim Ruskell picks almost entirely from big schools and has an overall pretty strong draft record. The thing you are trying to measure becomes a very subtle point, and statistics don’t really work in this framework. There are tremendous logistical issues here. If you have a set budget to spend on scouting, where are you gonna go visit and watch practice, what schools are you going to have your people watch? A Georgia-LSU game with 20 guys in the game that will be drafted or some tiny school with one total prospect on both sides?
I don’t think statistics can tell you anything useful about this sort of question. Too noisy. Even if they could, it would be telling you about the past, not the future. GM’s are already adjusting to the history for the next draft and who knows which direction they are skewing. Predicting the draft is like predicting the stock market, except harder. It is easy to be a historian in hindsight.
I think you have to come back to common sense on this sort of matter. I tend to see small school players in a similar light to high-school players in Moneyball. Maybe they will be great, maybe they won’t, you have no data to determine whether they can play at a level TWO NOTCHES higher then they ever have before. At least big school players have played at a level only one notch below the pros.
You have to go case by case.
Respectfully, I disagree
If you were to find that, say, after adjusting for pick #, BCS players consistently outperformed small school players, then that would provide strong evidence that GM’s were overvaluing small school talent. Though this information might not allow you to predict how a particular GM is going to draft in the future, it still tells you something useful.
True.
Cyberwulf, when you do your analysis, can you look at trends maybe in the 70s 80s 90s and 2000s?
yo this is cool
i dig this stuff. let me know if you need a hand making charts or something.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Giants to be honored with commemorative NY license plate; some would rather see a 9/11 plate
- The hidden play of Super Bowl XLVI: Justin Tuck’s third-quarter sack
- Report: Chad Ochocinco will become Chad Johnson once again
- Video: Bill Belichick implores his defense to make the Giants throw to Mario Manningham
- Training Day: Learning the 40 with an Olympian
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
