SEC 11
ACC 5
American 4
Big Ten 4
Pac-12 3
Big 12 2
MAC 2
Ind 1

Mountain West - 0
Conference USA - 0
Sun Belt - 0

I wonder what the statistic is by conference for top 5 picks during the last two drafts. Obviously the MAC has 20% of them.

(05-09-2014 07:55 AM)BobL Wrote:  SEC 11
ACC 5
Big East 3
American 4
Big Ten 4
Pac-12 3
Big 12 2
MAC 2
Ind 1
AAC 1

FIFY.

The three Louisville players were recruited under the old Big East (AQ) banner, they are Big East players not Ameri...AAC players.

Yes, I understand that the "Big East" players could/should be higher if Pitt, etc are counted as Big East players, but I've made my point.

EDIT: On top of it all, Louisville is leaving for the ACC. So those players are in no way, nor should they be considered, AAC players.

Well, you've made the point the one can distort data to suit a preconceived idea.

I'm not sure why. The facts speak for themselves.

(05-09-2014 08:37 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 07:55 AM)BobL Wrote:  SEC 11
ACC 5
Big East 3
American 4
Big Ten 4
Pac-12 3
Big 12 2
MAC 2
Ind 1
AAC 1

FIFY.

The three Louisville players were recruited under the old Big East (AQ) banner, they are Big East players not Ameri...AAC players.

Yes, I understand that the "Big East" players could/should be higher if Pitt, etc are counted as Big East players, but I've made my point.

EDIT: On top of it all, Louisville is leaving for the ACC. So those players are in no way, nor should they be considered, AAC players.

If you're using that logic, Bortles should be considered a product of CUSA, as that was the conference UCF was in at the time of his recruitment.

I personally don't think that its good logic to attribute current results to past conference affiliations, but if you're going to do it for one school, you'd need to do it for all of them...

(05-09-2014 09:34 AM)axeme Wrote:  Well, you've made the point the one can distort data to suit a preconceived idea.

I'm not sure why. The facts speak for themselves.

Beat me to it. Do we count transfers under their previous school or their new one?

(05-09-2014 11:05 AM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 08:37 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  The three Louisville players were recruited under the old Big East (AQ) banner, they are Big East players not Ameri...AAC players. ...

If you're using that logic, Bortles should be considered a product of CUSA, as that was the conference UCF was in at the time of his recruitment.

And even if you are using that logic, the three Louisville players would still be counted under the American, which is just a new name attached to what was originally called the Big East.

(05-09-2014 08:37 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 07:55 AM)BobL Wrote:  SEC 11
ACC 5
Big East 3
American 4
Big Ten 4
Pac-12 3
Big 12 2
MAC 2
Ind 1
AAC 1

FIFY.

The three Louisville players were recruited under the old Big East (AQ) banner, they are Big East players not Ameri...AAC players.

Yes, I understand that the "Big East" players could/should be higher if Pitt, etc are counted as Big East players, but I've made my point.

EDIT: On top of it all, Louisville is leaving for the ACC. So those players are in no way, nor should they be considered, AAC players.

Except those players competed in the American and improved their draft stock playing AAC competition.

(05-09-2014 11:42 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 08:37 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 07:55 AM)BobL Wrote:  SEC 11
ACC 5
Big East 3
American 4
Big Ten 4
Pac-12 3
Big 12 2
MAC 2
Ind 1
AAC 1

FIFY.

The three Louisville players were recruited under the old Big East (AQ) banner, they are Big East players not Ameri...AAC players.

Yes, I understand that the "Big East" players could/should be higher if Pitt, etc are counted as Big East players, but I've made my point.

EDIT: On top of it all, Louisville is leaving for the ACC. So those players are in no way, nor should they be considered, AAC players.

Except those players competed in the American and improved their draft stock playing AAC competition.

(05-09-2014 11:42 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  Durrr

(05-09-2014 11:42 AM)NBPirate Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 08:37 AM)TARDledo Wrote:  

(05-09-2014 07:55 AM)BobL Wrote:  SEC 11
ACC 5
Big East 3
American 4
Big Ten 4
Pac-12 3
Big 12 2
MAC 2
Ind 1
AAC 1

FIFY.

The three Louisville players were recruited under the old Big East (AQ) banner, they are Big East players not Ameri...AAC players.

Yes, I understand that the "Big East" players could/should be higher if Pitt, etc are counted as Big East players, but I've made my point.

EDIT: On top of it all, Louisville is leaving for the ACC. So those players are in no way, nor should they be considered, AAC players.

Except those players competed in the American and improved their draft stock playing AAC competition.

What about Bridgewater?

(05-09-2014 09:34 AM)axeme Wrote:  Well, you've made the point the one can distort data to suit a preconceived idea.

I'm not sure why. The facts speak for themselves.

True. Randy Moss, Byron Leftwich, etc. were, and will forever be, MAC draftees.

And, of course, the same will be said in the future about the UMass TE who was selected Saturday.