So this is more of an all-time measure of overall talent (well, at least since the 1920s). The overall number of players a school has put in the NFL:

1) Notre Dame ....... 536
2) USC ................... 472
3) Ohio State .......... 409
4) Michigan.............. 346
5) Penn State .......... 343
6) Nebraska ............ 336
7) Oklahoma ........... 324
8) LSU .................... 313
9) Tennessee........... 311
10) Miami ............... 304
11) UCLA ................ 299
12) Alabama ........... 298
13) Pitt ................... 295
14) Wisconsin ......... 294
15) Texas ................288
16) Georgia .............281
17) Florida ...............279
18) Michigan State ...279
19) Texas AM ...........271
20) Illinois ................269
21) Purdue ...............267
22) FSU ...................261
23) Washington ........255
24) Arizona St ..........249
25) Iowa/Auburn ......241

What stands out: It should be clear why the B1G has always been at or near the top of the heap in terms of prestige. We think of the B1G as being weak today, but historically, 7 of the top 25 NFL produces are B1G schools (more than the SEC's 6), and that's NOT counting Penn State, who was independent much of their history.

It also explains the perceived weakness of the ACC, just one school, and none in the top 20.

It also shows us the "nouveaux riche" factor. FSU has fewer players than Purdue and Illinois? That's a reminder that the Florida schools weren't much until the 1980s. Boise State is #101, with 63 players. That's less than the likes of Marquette, Wyoming, and four FCS schools (Grambling, Florida AM, Southern, Jackson State).

It also shows that historically, being a blue-blood is tied to talent and performance. These schools are almost all blue-bloods, the 20 or so schools that are at the very top of the heap in terms of brand power.

The first G5 school is #42 San Diego State, with 186 players. Next is #54 Tulsa with 158 players. BYU is #63 (135).

It also shows why Notre Dame is "special". Not all that surprised to see ND at #1, but they've put 200 more players in the NFL than Penn State, Nebraska or Oklahoma? That's something.

It also shows how coaching matters. Surprised to see two SEC schools with more than Alabama, and Alabama actually trails UCLA? I mean in football, not basketball? In terms of national titles, Alabama has way out-kicked its coverage, so to speak.

The game and society has changed so much since the 20's, anything before 1970 is worthless.

Pitt at 13 is ACC. Which also shows how little this matters to the current state of the game.

(12-19-2014 08:24 AM)RobUCF Wrote:  Pitt at 13 is ACC. Which also shows how little this matters to the current state of the game.

It matters tremendously! Fans of schools like Boise and UCF, with a lot of recent success, often complain about why they aren't in the Big Boy club while schools like Purdue are. This history tells why. There is a near-perfect correlation between historical talent and brand value TODAY. Like it or not, the reputation you built 20, 30, even 50 years ago has a BIG impact on where you stand today, in terms of being in a Power conference or not.

Now, it also shows that you CAN build an elite brand in today's game. E.g., schools like Miami and FSU are now clearly elite brands, and all their success has been in the past 30 years. BUT, it also shows that you can't just have "mild" success. Miami and FSU didn't just win a couple of BCS bowl games (like say Boise), they have won EIGHT national titles between them in the past 30 years. That's MASSIVE success, and it's the kind you need to become an elite. Merely "winning" isn't good enough, as many fans of newer schools think.

PS - I didn't count Pitt as ACC because they weren't in the ACC for the great bulk of their history (likewise, I didn't count Penn State or Nebraska as B1G or Texas AM as SEC).