According to Pro Football Reference, here are the top 10 schools that have produced the most NFL players, and the most "games played".

Things that stand out for me are that the top four are the same in both lists, and the strength of Miami, which is regarded as a "nouveaux riche" program. They are one of eight schools that are on both lists, a testament to their talent. Also Nebraska appears on both lists, a testament to a program that some have written off out of the elite. Not according to NFL talent. Of course, this will change once training camps end and games begin to be played this season:

Number of players

1) Notre Dame ...... 582
2) USC ................. 523
3) Ohio State ........ 479
4) Penn State ........ 396
5) Michigan ........... 395
6) Oklahoma ......... 372
6) Nebraska .......... 372
8) Alabama ........... 370
9) LSU ................. 368
9) Miami ............. 368

Games Played

1) Notre Dame ........ 28086
2) USC ................... 27924
3) Ohio State .......... 24227
4) Penn State .......... 21437
5) Miami ................. 20473
6) Michigan ............. 19802
7) LSU .................... 19421
8) Tennessee ........... 19137
9) Nebraska ............ 18565
10) UCLA ................ 18537

It's interesting, but keep in mind that it's a lagging indicator.

The number of *past* players on a particular college team is useful as a predictor of present talent levels, but it's not a perfect predictor, and it will fail to capture either a recent surge in a college team's talent level or a recent dropoff.

(08-15-2019 04:18 PM)Wedge Wrote:  It's interesting, but keep in mind that it's a lagging indicator.

The number of *past* players on a particular college team is useful as a predictor of present talent levels, but it's not a perfect predictor, and it will fail to capture either a recent surge in a college team's talent level or a recent dropoff.

Well first of all, it isn't a measure of present talent, but of all-time talent, past and present.

But concerning present trends, no question. E.g., USC has been catching up on Notre Dame, especially in the "games played" area, for years, thanks to the big number of players that Carroll put in the NFL 10+ years ago. Many of those guys are still playing and as a result, USC has about 15 more players in the NFL right now, so are racking up more games played than the Irish.

Also, ten years ago, Alabama was outside the top 10 in "number of players", but has now moved in, and is poised to move even higher, thanks to the big number of players that Saban has put in the NFL.

And same for LSU: They historically have produced a lot of NFL talent, but the last 15 years since the Saban era even moreso. Right now, they have 55 players on NFL rosters, just one shy of Alabama's leading 56.

(08-15-2019 04:06 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  According to Pro Football Reference, here are the top 10 schools that have produced the most NFL players, and the most "games played".

Things that stand out for me are that the top four are the same in both lists, and the strength of Miami, which is regarded as a "nouveaux riche" program. They are one of eight schools that are on both lists, a testament to their talent. Also Nebraska appears on both lists, a testament to a program that some have written off out of the elite. Not according to NFL talent. Of course, this will change once training camps end and games begin to be played this season:

Number of players

1) Notre Dame ...... 582
2) USC ................. 523
3) Ohio State ........ 479
4) Penn State ........ 396
5) Michigan ........... 395
6) Oklahoma ......... 372
6) Nebraska .......... 372
8) Alabama ........... 370
9) LSU ................. 368
9) Miami ............. 368

Games Played

1) Notre Dame ........ 28086
2) USC ................... 27924
3) Ohio State .......... 24227
4) Penn State .......... 21437
5) Miami ................. 20473
6) Michigan ............. 19802
7) LSU .................... 19421
8) Tennessee ........... 19137
9) Nebraska ............ 18565
10) UCLA ................ 18537

Also a testament to how good Miami's been at putting players in the league and keeping them there, even though they were a mediocre program pre-Schnellenberger.

The teams that have played the most games have produced the most NFL players
Wowzers

(08-15-2019 06:50 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  The teams that have played the most games have produced the most NFL players
Wowzers

Not necessarily. E.g., Northwestern State here in Louisiana has played over 1100 games back to the early 1900s.

And if you look at last year's NFL rosters, the top three schools were Alabama, LSU, and Miami, all of whom are on the historical list.

Some programs have just been more talent-productive than others, obviously.

(08-15-2019 06:50 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  The teams that have played the most games have produced the most NFL players
Wowzers

That's not the number of games played by the college. It's the number of NFL games played by players who went to that college.

That's a measure of the longevity of the careers of those schools' NFL players.

(08-16-2019 09:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-15-2019 06:50 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  The teams that have played the most games have produced the most NFL players
Wowzers

That's not the number of games played by the college. It's the number of NFL games played by players who went to that college.

That's a measure of the longevity of the careers of those schools' NFL players.

That's why i posted both numbers, because by themselves either can be somewhat misleading.

For example, let's say Tennessee puts a player in the NFL and he plays 200 games, and LSU puts a player in and he plays 2 games. In the "number of players" list, it's Tennessee 1, LSU 1. But, clearly, the Tennessee player was far more impactful in the NFL, and that is masked by the "number of players" criteria.

On the other hand, let's say that in terms of games played, Tennessee players have played 200 games and LSU plays have played 120 games. But, if we look at the breakdown, Tennessee's 200 games are all from 1 guy, whereas LSU's 120 games are from 3 guys who played 40 games each in the NFL. In this case, the "games played" number gives the misleading impression that Tennessee has been producing more players for the NFL than LSU, when that's not true.

So together, the numbers tell the clearer story.

(08-15-2019 06:13 PM)Mav Wrote:  Also a testament to how good Miami's been at putting players in the league and keeping them there, even though they were a mediocre program pre-Schnellenberger.

Good point. Every other team on that list was already sending many players to the NFL 20+ years before Miami hired Schnellenberger.

(08-16-2019 11:09 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-15-2019 06:13 PM)Mav Wrote:  Also a testament to how good Miami's been at putting players in the league and keeping them there, even though they were a mediocre program pre-Schnellenberger.

Good point. Every other team on that list was already sending many players to the NFL 20+ years before Miami hired Schnellenberger.

Miami produced two NFL Hall of Famers, Jim Otto and Ted Hendricks, in the pre-Schnellenberger era. Also Rams guard Dennis Harrah, who probably should be in the Hall, and Vikings All-Pro RB Chuck Foreman.

Miami had talent before they had a good program.

Miami's numbers include vintage players as quo vadis notes, but they also benefit from the expansion of teams, roster sizes, and games played happening shortly before and during their rise to prominence. For example, in Lombardi's first season as head coach in Green Bay, there were only 12 teams with 36 man rosters playing just 12 games.

(08-17-2019 03:16 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  Miami's numbers include vintage players as quo vadis notes, but they also benefit from the expansion of teams, roster sizes, and games played happening shortly before and during their rise to prominence. For example, in Lombardi's first season as head coach in Green Bay, there were only 12 teams with 36 man rosters playing just 12 games.

Good point. That works against the programs that have been prominent for 100 years, the Notre Dames and Michigans and USCs and Ohio States and Alabamas, that were putting players in the NFL in the 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s, as those guys didn't rack up the same number of games played, nor were there as many of them, as programs that came of age from the late 60s to the present.