Texas
High Impact Freshman in 2015
There are several “perfect storm” factors that come into play resulting in a “high impact” freshman in big time college football. First, of course, you have to be good … real good. But, being good is not enough¸ you also have to have opportunity. There are plenty of real good freshman football players who, not only will not make an impact in year one, but will never even see the field in year one because there are better, more experienced football players ahead of them. Even though we, as fans, love to see that high impact freshman come into our program, it is often the sign that our favorite team has a “depth” problem at that position. It isn’t always a good sign that those highly touted, incoming freshmen are in the starting lineup in year one.
These young men also must make an adjustment, not just to the differences between high school and college football, but also an adjustment in their living environments, social lives, scholastic lives, etc. This life changing experience can make it difficult for some young men to assume the role of football superstar in their first year away from home. The ability to and time it takes to adjust to these all around changes have an impact on the first year football field performances of some of these young men. That is why many “high impact freshmen” are really red-shirt freshmen with 12 or more months under their belt adjusting to their new world order. Now, the newly popular, early enrollment path many college football players are taking helps prepare some of these young men to assume a starting role in their true freshman year, but that “opportunity” ingredient still needs to be there.
So, any list of “Potential Top Impact Freshmen” should not be confused with a list of “Best Incoming Freshmen”. Some of the best incoming freshmen will just have to wait their turn before making an impact. Having said all that, here is the short list of young men SOD is expecting to make a high level impact in the FBS.
The 3 young men whose names rise to the top of almost everyone’s list are:
• Byron Cowart, DE, Auburn
• Malik Jefferson, LB, Texas
• Josh Rosen, QB, UCLA
I suspect Byron and Malik to be monsters on the defensive side of the ball, but, given the position he plays, I am most curious about how Josh Rosen makes out in his freshman year at UCLA. The opportunity, it appears, is there for all three of these ballers, but, how they adjust to college life and how quickly they learn the system and earn a spot in the starting lineup is yet to be seen.
Three more young men that also appear likely to have an immediate impact in 2015 are:
• Trent Thompson, DL, Georgia
• Calvin Ridley, WR, Alabama
• Martiz Ivey, OL, Florida
Like noted earlier, the fact that these three are all on SEC teams either indicates that the SEC has a recruiting advantage (which, they probably do) or that SEC teams have more holes to fill (which, they probably do).
SOD believes those 6 names above have the most likely chance of being first year stars in 2015, but significant playing time and significant impact could also come from any or all of these young men, as well:
• Iman Marshall, DB, USC
• Kahlil McKenzie, DT, Tennessee
• Canton Kaumatule, DL, Oregon
• Derwin James, S, Florida State
• Solomon Thomas, DL, Stanford
• Daylon Mack, DT, Texas A&M
• Kevin Tolliver, CB, LSU
Now, the chances are that the real impact freshmen come from out of the blue and off of this list. Those less highly recruited young men that outperform their expectations or that are afforded opportunities to excel due to injuries, suspensions or other reasons that put them into the starting lineup. Those stories will develop as the season plays out. And, those are the stories we will be looking for.
Whereas, we do expect big things from the names on our list, just by being names on the list puts high expectations on these young men, some of whom might not be ready for that pressure. But, we will see and we can’t wait to watch.
And, don’t be upset of your rooting interest does not have a name on this (or anyone else’s) list – it may simply mean you’ve already got the talent on your team to win today without a new freshman superstar contributing a high impact to the results.
Trivia Tuesday – Wins and Losses
Here it is, already Tuesday again. Let’s try some more college trivia … are you ready?
QUESTION #1. Let’s start it off a little bit easy: Name the top 5 FBS winningest schools, all time in terms of number of wins.
QUESTION #2. Now, list the top 5 schools in terms of winning percentage. It changes a little bit and includes one relative newcomer to the FBS ranks.
QUESTION #3. Name the school that has the most all-time wins, without winning a National Championship.
QUESTION #4. List the 5 FBS schools with the most all-time losses.
QUESTION #5. List the 5 FBS schools with the poorest winning percent.
QUESTION# 6. Name the school with the most wins for a team that has a sub-500 winning percent.
QUESTION #7. Name the school with the most losses for a team that has a > .500 winning percent.
BUFFER ZONE
Some Other Dude in the off-season.
ANSWER #1. The top 5 Winningest programs are: Michigan (915 wins); Notre Dame (882); Texas (881); Nebraska (874); Ohio State (863).
ANSWER #2. The top 5 Winning Percentages are: Notre Dame (.732); Michigan (.729); Boise State (.724); Old Dominion (.722); Ohio State (.720).
ANSWER #3. The team with the most wins, but without a National Championship is West Virginia (719 wins).
ANSWER #4. The 5 FBS teams with the most all-time losses are: Indiana (651); Northwestern (649); Wake Forest (633); Kansas State (623); Iowa State (621).
ANSWER #5. The 5 poorest Winning Percentages are: Georgia State (.193); Florida International (.305); Kent State (.392); UNLV (.405); Wake Forest (.408).
ANSWER #6. The team with the most wins with a < .500 winning percentage is Kentucky with 587 wins and a .495 winning percentage.
ANSWER #7. The team with the most losses with a > .500 winning percentage is Rutgers with 620 losses and a .507 winning percentage.
Trivia Tuesday – Power 5 Conferences
In recent years, there has been a lot of shuffling of College Football Conferences. And, if you believe Some Other Dude, there is more yet to come as we advance upon the age of the Mega-Conferences. But, SOD wonders, how well do you know the history of the current Power 5 Conferences?
THE TRIVIA CHALLENGE
Name the original teams in each of the current Power 5 Conferences.
THE BUFFER ZONE
THE ANSWERS
The Atlantic Coast Conference. Even though we appear to be headed to 16 team Mega-Conferences, back in history there was an even mega-er conference; the Southern Conference. The Southern Conference, at one time, consisted of 23 teams and eventually splintered into other, smaller conferences. One of those splinter conferences was the ACC which officially formed as a conference in 1953. The 7 charter members of the ACC were: Clemson, Duke, Maryland, North Carolina, North Carolina State, South Carolina and Wake Forest. Only South Carolina no longer calls the ACC home as they eventually joined the other splinter conference with former Southern Conference brethren. Link to information source.
The Big 12. The history of the Big 12 is a little more convoluted than that of the other conferences. The Big 12 itself wasn’t formed until 1994 when teams from the Big 8 merged with teams from the Southwest Conference. The Big 8 Conference was originally chartered in 1907 as the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association and eventually became known as the Big 6 and then grew up to become the Big 8. The original members of this conference were: Iowa (two-timing with the Big Ten), Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and Washington University in St. Louis. Only Kansas remains as a current member of The Big 12. Link to information source. The Southwest Conference was first formed in 1912, consisting of: Arkansas, Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Rice, Texas and Texas A&M. Baylor, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas remain as current members of the Big 12. Link to information source.
The Big Ten. The name “The Big Ten” was actually not officially incorporated until 1987, but the conference referred to as the Big Ten has been around since 1905. The original conference was made up of 7 teams in what was known as the “Intercollegiate Conference Athletic Association”. In 1917, when the conference had expanded to 10 teams, it was labeled the “Big Ten” by members of the media. The original members of this so-called Big Ten Conference were: Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, University of Chicago and Wisconsin. Only the University of Chicago is not a member of that conference today. Link to information source.
The Pac 12. The Pac 12 Conference started off as a little seedling conference that eventually grew up into the Pac 12. Forming in 1916 as the Pacific Coast Conference, its original members stood at only 4 schools: California, Oregon, Oregon Agricultural College (later known as Oregon State) and Washington. All four schools still remain in the conference today. Interestingly, Idaho and Montana were one time members of this conference and the conference was disbanded and re-assembled in 1959 due to a pay-for-play scandal. The re-formed conference was called the Athletic Association of Western Universities, commonly known as the Big 5. After growing once again, the conference started being referred to as the Pacific 8 in 1964 and officially became the Pacific 8 in 1968, the Pac 10 in 1978 and the Pac 12 in 2011. Link to information source.
The SEC. The SEC preceded the ACC in splintering away from the huge Southern Conference when 13 schools left in 1932 to form their own conference. The 13 schools that made up the first version of the Southeastern Conference were: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Sewanee (University of the South), Tennessee, Tulane and Vanderbilt. Georgia Tech now resides in the ACC; Tulane, although still an FBS school is no longer a member of a Power 5 Conference; and, Sewanee, after having decided to de-emphasize sports in 1940, currently competes in Division III athletics. Link to information source.
Greatest College Football Games Never Played
As we sit in the off season and wait for August to roll around again, SOD likes to look ahead at the upcoming schedules. In so doing, I was wondering, “What are some great football match-ups that haven’t yet occurred?” What are the greatest games never played?
To answer this question, SOD looked at the schools with the all-time winningest records and identified which of these schools have never played each other.
Like all of SOD’s, unscientific research, the results are only as good as my internet search skills allow – so, my findings may contain some erroneous data, but, the following table lists those match-ups of current FBS schools listed in the top 30 of all-time winningest programs that have not matched up against each other, as best as I could discover.
Many of these unplayed games make geographic sense, but a few of them are surprising and, almost all of them, would make great match-ups in future schedules.
A few observations:
Probably the most surprising games not yet played are: Tennessee v West Virginia and Penn State v Virginia Tech. It is also surprising to see that Oklahoma has never played Georgia and Arkansas has never gone up against Clemson. All of these non-games should be played!
The one team that shows up most often on this list is Washington. The Huskies have not yet matched up against 8 of the 23 other teams on top of the list of winningest programs. I know that the Dawgs are tucked away in the Pacific Northwest corner of the US and many of these teams are Eastern and Southern schools, but, come on Dawgs, you need to get out more!
SOD looked over this list and tried to determine which game would most likely be a National Championship Game? I’d probably have to go with Oklahoma v Georgia.
As we venture deeper into the new world order of the FBS playoff and schedule strength starts to play a bigger and bigger role in who gets selected to participate in the playoffs, SOD believes that we will see fewer and fewer cupcakes on FBS teams’ schedules. As a result, the list of unplayed games shown above would be a great place to start in finding non-conference games to play. Really – which one of those games would you not want to see played and have your team go up against some patsy instead?
Oh well, a guy can dream can’t he?
Colleges Represented on NFL Rosters
Today’s blog is almost an extension of yesterday’s article on “The Rich Getting Richer”.
Yesterday, we made the observation that the FBS schools on top of the Recruiting Class list are the same teams on the top of the Team Rankings at the end of the year, and, these teams seem to be pretty much the same year in and year out with little variation. Seems rather obvious, wouldn’t you say?
So, with it being a Friday and all, and, with Some Other Dude’s brain already in weekend mode, let’s make another obvious connection: One would expect that these same schools would lead the list of colleges with the most ex-players (I almost typed “graduates” – what was I thinking!?) on NFL rosters. And, you would be right. Let’s take a look.
The following table tallies the top schools in terms of players on NFL rosters; shows their current ranking in 2015 recruiting classes (according to ESPN); their ranking in most appearances in the Final AP Poll; and their final ranking in the 2014 AP poll.
Just the vicious cycle one might expect to see: do well in recruiting, and you will do well in the polls, and you will put lots of players in the NFL. And, the reverse is also true – put lots of players in the NFL and do well in the polls and it will help you with recruiting.
A few anomalies do stick out, however. Like … what is California doing so high up on the list of players on NFL rosters!? The Golden Bears do not have highly rated recruiting classes; they don’t finish in the AP Final Poll too often, and yet, they have the 11th most number of former players in the NFL. That was a little surprising.
Clemson and Texas A&M have highly rated recruiting classes for 2015 (3 & 8 respectively) but only rank 23 and 25 in number of players in the NFL. You would expect them to start moving up that chart with the recent recruiting success they have achieved.
This chart also supports the observation made in yesterday’s blog that Oregon is a relative newcomer to the elite football programs club with a low ranking in the number of appearances in the final AP poll but high rankings in all the other categories.
This chart also seems to suggest that Miami-FL and Florida are programs that are slipping a bit of late. Also missing from the table are Michigan, Nebraska and Penn State – all programs that rank in the top 10 for number of appearances in the final AP Poll but not in the top 15 for current NFL players. This may suggest that their fall from the top has gone on a little bit longer.
With the Super Bowl just two days away, this chart has been making its rounds through social media.
A neat little chart, but with only a two team sample it can skew the real results. A school like Rutgers can wave this banner at potential recruits as evidence that they put good players in the NFL. Even schools like Utah State and Kent State can be proud of this chart. But, when you look at the whole picture, Rutgers ranks tied for 34th with 18 players on NFL rosters; Utah State falls in at tied for 60 with 11; and, Kent State ranks tied for 70th with 9.
All of this is just fun facts to throw around while we await the Super Bowl on Sunday and Signing Day on Wednesday. The fun just never stops.
The Rich Getting Richer
National Signing Day, the first day High School seniors can officially commit to the college they will attend, is just around the corner, Wednesday, February 4. If you have found yourself to this blog that is probably something you already know and are looking forward to.
No real surprises are expected, as regards to the top classes; there may be a few individual commit surprises, but not enough to drastically change the class rankings. In some people’s minds it’s just more of, “the rich getting richer”. Some Other Dude thinks of it more as, “the rich staying rich”. One of the downfalls of signing such elite classes year after year is the resulting high number, relatively speaking, of early declarers into the NFL Draft each year – so, SOD thinks of it more as replacing your riches as opposed to adding to them.
If you look at the Class Rankings from any number of Recruiting Web Sites, you see the same, usual suspects at the top of the list. The ESPN Top 10, for example, lists, in order from 1 – 10: Alabama, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia, Tennessee, USC, Ohio State, Texas A&M, Texas, and Notre Dame. All elite programs, maintaining their elite status. To no one’s surprise, 6 out of those 10 teams finished 2014 in the AP Top 25 rankings. Just the rich staying rich.
So, it seems to SOD that this pattern of Top Classes stays pretty consistent from year to year. This would support the feeling that the elite schools in college football stay pretty constant from year to year. I wonder, thinks SOD, am I influenced by recent events, or does history bear this out? If we grouped college football programs into classifications, such as: Elite Programs; Near Elite Programs; Middle of the Road Programs; Below Average Programs; and Bottom Dwellers, how hard is it for one program to move from one grouping to another, and, how often does that occur?
Just relying on SOD’s instinct, it seems there are not that many programs that have moved into Elite or Near Elite status in recent history. Just go down this years’ Final AP Poll and put a label on each program and how long they’ve been in that classification. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
SOD, using only his instinct and, rather challenged, memory, labeled the Top 10 this way:
- Ohio State – Elite for a long time
- Oregon – Relatively new Elite
- TCU –Near Elite, moving upwards
- Alabama – Elite for a long time
- Michigan State – Moves between Elite and Near Elite
- Florida State – Moves between Elite and Near Elite – Mostly Elite
- Baylor – Newly Near Elite, moving upwards
- Georgia Tech – Fluctuates through all categories
- UCLA – Moves between Elite and Near Elite
Interested to see if facts support perception, SOD found this web page that lists the total number of appearances each school has in the final AP Poll throughout the years.
At the top of the list is Michigan, with 57 appearances. The Wolverines have fallen on hard times of late but have had a long enough history of being an elite program that it is going to take more than a few years of mediocrity to knock them from this group. And, Jim Harbaugh might have some magic to help get them back into the club.
Tied for 2nd with 54 appearances are Oklahoma and Ohio State. Elite and elite, although Oklahoma is at risk of slipping a bit if they don’t get back into Top 10 levels soon.
And, as you continue down the list there are no real surprises – one elite program after another. Those with a deep history of being top programs are the same ones that are tops today – for the most part. Certainly you have programs that have periods of mediocrity sprinkled in, but, you wouldn’t be surprised to see them bounce back to the top soon. For instance, programs like Tennessee, which hasn’t had a Top 10 team for some time, weighs in at #9 all time. The Volunteers haven’t finished in the final AP Poll since 2007, when they were ranked #12, and haven’t been in the Top 10 since 2001 (#4). Tennessee is slipping down the list, but, it wouldn’t be a huge surprise to see them back in the polls in the near future, especially given their Top 10 ranking in this year’s recruiting class.
This list does suggest that some of today’s better programs are new members to the Elite and Near Elite category, as SOD suspected. TCU, a team that probably deserved a spot in this years’ playoff, ranks 29 on the all-time list. Oregon, an elite program today, ranks only 39 on the list. The Ducks have only 15 appearances in the Final AP Poll, 14 of them since 1994 and 11 appearances since 2000. So, the Ducks are proof that a program can move up through the classifications – but, they are that rare breed.
And, there are programs, like Georgia Tech, that seem to enjoy a roller-coaster ride through the classifications. The Yellow Jackets have 25 appearances in the final rankings scattered throughout the decades, never staying too long and never being absent for too long.
So, let’s do one final comparison; let’s compare the Top 25 in the Final AP Poll for the decade years against 2014.
- The 2010 Final AP Poll included 11 of the same teams as in the Final 2014 Poll.
- The 2000 Final AP Poll included 10 of the same teams as in the Final 2014 Poll.
- The 1990 Final AP Poll included 6 of the same teams as in the Final 2014 Poll.
- The 1980 Final AP Poll included 7 of the same teams as in the Final 2014 Poll.
- The 1970 Final AP Poll included 6 of the same teams as in the Final 2014 Poll
- The 1960 Final AP Poll included 7 of the same teams as in the Final 2014 Poll.
- The 1950 Final AP Poll included 4 of the same teams as in the Final 2014 Poll.
- The 1940 Final AP Poll included 3 of the same teams as in the Final 2014 Poll.
NOTE: The 1940 – 1980 Polls only ranked the Top 20 teams.
So, if you go back far enough, the list of elite teams changes a bit more drastically, but, over the past 50 years or so, it appears that it is rather difficult for teams to move up on the elite program scale. But, programs like Oregon and Baylor show that it can be done. And, there are other programs, like Rutgers for instance, that have slowly moved up from Bottom Dwellers to Middle of the Road that could be on the precipice of Near Elite or higher, especially given the recent change in conference affiliation.
It is a slowly changing landscape, but, if you root for one of those teams on the journey, it can be a fun ride.
Future Schedules and Their Impacts on Making the Playoffs
Yes, Some Other Dude (SOD) was listening when Jeff Long, Chair of the FBS Playoff Selection Committee kept insisting that the Committee was not in the business of “sending messages” when making their selections, but, I think some messages, intended or not, sublimely or otherwise, were received loud and clear. And, one of the loudest messages SOD heard was, unless you are going to go undefeated, you better have a good out-of-conference schedule to play.
I know that we only have a population of 1 selection process cycle to evaluate and this thing is still morphing, but, it seems to me, that strength of schedule does matter and, especially, the strength or weakness of those out-of-conference games you play.
SOD believes that by going undefeated, ala Florida State this past year, you can overcome a relatively weak schedule, but, once you lose a game, even if the game you lose is to a very good football team, your out-of-conference schedule is going to be scrutinized and have an impact on your ranking. Arguably, both Baylor and TCU are evidence of such in 2014.
Ohio State was, at that time, a controversial pick as the 4th seed in the playoffs, largely based on their “poor loss” to a mediocre Virginia Tech squad. This loss was widely accepted as the worse loss of any team in consideration of a playoff spot. But, how can you fault a team for scheduling, not just a Power 5 opponent, but a Power 5 opponent with a history of being good? Could it be that a loss to a down-year Virginia Tech is less damaging than an out-of-conference schedule made up of SMU, Northwestern State and Buffalo, as in Baylor’s case, or Samford and SMU (I’ll give them Minnesota as being okay) in TCU’s case? Not that OSU’s out of conference schedule of the aforementioned Virginia Tech, Navy, Kent State and Cincinnati was significantly better, but, it at least included all FBS schools.
So, SOD decided to take a look in the future to see if this could possibly be a factor in upcoming seasons. Using FB Schedules.com as my information source, I do see evidence of some tougher schedules ahead, but, I also see some suspect scheduling in the near future that could damage some teams’ chances at one of the four playoff spots in closely contended races.
In particular, Baylor could find themselves in the same predicament with their current future (oximoronic, I know) schedules. Baylor’s 2015 out-of-conference schedule consists of SMU, Lamar and Rice. Really?! The 2016 schedule currently stands as Northwestern State, SMU and Rice. No better. At least in 2017 and 2018 they get Duke on the schedule, but these years also include Liberty and UTSA. And, embarrassingly, Baylor’s 2019 out-of-conference schedule has them playing Incarnate Word, UTSA and Rice! Now, SOD does not know how much flexibility there is to change all of this, but, if Baylor hopes to vie for a spot in any upcoming playoffs, they might want to make some changes.
By comparison, take a look at Big 12 conference rival Texas’s upcoming schedules. Texas is scheduled to play Notre Dame, Rice and California in 2015; Notre Dame, UTEP and California in 2016; Maryland, UCF and USC in 2017; and, Maryland, Tulsa and USC in 2018. Two Power 5 teams and a cupcake each year – MUCH BETTER than 3 cupcakes. Beyond 2018, the incomplete Texas schedules currently include the likes of LSU, Arkansas, Ohio State, and Michigan. Now this is scheduling! And, this is what SOD hopes the Playoff System entices other schools to do, as well.
All in all, there are still many holes to fill in for lots of Power 5 teams; still plenty of time to “toughen” up their schedules; but there are still too many patsies on too many schedules for SOD’s liking. The SEC, as a whole, I think, has a rather soft out-of-conference slate collectively. I think they deserve to do much better if they wish to continue to wave that banner of best conference in the land. Along with Texas, USC’s future schedules look more like that of a team with hopes of great accomplishments. This is the type of scheduling other schools should emulate.
Now. SOD does believe that there is still room for some scheduling creativity or exceptions to the rule. For example, SOD thinks, regardless of what league they are in or how good of a year they are having, scheduling any of the Military Academies should be encouraged and not count against you – just limit it to one a year. SOD also appreciates the value in scheduling regional schools, every now and then. For example, Virginia or Virginia Tech scheduling Old Dominion, William & Mary or Richmond every now and then can be forgiven – just don’t schedule two or more in the same year as Virginia Tech has done for 2018.
And, SOD does understand that schedules are set years in advance and that there is a science to the art of scheduling. It is more than just wanting to toughen up your schedule; it is a matter of availability, timing and coordination. But, SOD does want to see a trending away from so many “easy win” games for teams that have playoff aspirations.
In general, SOD hopes there are more inter-Power 5 games in out-of-conference schedules. If you can’t fill up your schedule with teams from other Power 5 conferences, you should, at least, go for other FBS schools. Although FCS schools do realize branding and financial benefits from games against FBS opponents, SOD wouldn’t mind seeing these games become a thing of the past.
And, there are some changes afoot. The B1G Ten is moving to a 9 game conference schedule in 2016 (same as the Pac-12 has today), resulting in 1 less out-of-conference game for each team. Other conferences may soon follow. Fewer out-of-conference games should result in fewer cupcake games.
Like so many other things in life, we will just have to wait and see. SOD predicts that the future schedules, as they are today, are bound to change, especially those that are 2 or more years out. I certainly hope so. Tougher games in the out-of-conference weeks to start a season should lead to more excitement and provide more common fodder by which to evaluate and rank teams at the end of the season when determining the playoff contenders. No team should be left out of a playoff spot because their schedule was too easy.
What do you think, Baylor and TCU? Regardless, I think the Big 12 having a Championship would also help your cause.
someotherdudescollegefootballblog.wordpress.com 