They've come a long way. They should keep moving up as well here soon, possibly in a big way.
Would be nice to have the recruiting prowess and $$ of those programs around us.
Not listing it in descending order is wild.
It's in descending order by yearNot listing it in descending order is wild.
Barely noticeable but I see it now.It's in descending order by year
We’re ranked in the 60s/70s each year in the 247 talent composite rankings, yet we’re tied at #22 for the most guys in the NFL.
We’re ranked in the 60s/70s each year in the 247 talent composite rankings, yet we’re tied at #22 for the most guys in the NFL.
Either the recruiting rankings are off or we’re one of the better development programs in the country.
We’re ranked in the 60s/70s each year in the 247 talent composite rankings, yet we’re tied at #22 for the most guys in the NFL.
Either the recruiting rankings are off or we’re one of the better development programs in the country.
Had Claude take the teams on this list and compare it to the 247 talent composite rankings over the past 5 years to find who’s overachieved in NFL development relative to recruiting talent and who’s underachieved.
Sounds like osteoarthritis like millions of Americans. Quite early but with the wear and tear of a professional athlete I guess it makes sense.degenerative knee cartilage sounds bad. not an orthopedic guy, and I'm sure there are myriad varieties (with myriad severities), but no bueno. really glad this came after he signed his contract
This is amazing...great work! It would be interesting to see how records correspond with a) recruiting rankings and b) players put in the leagueHad Claude take the teams on this list and compare it to the 247 talent composite rankings over the past 5 years to find who’s overachieved in NFL development relative to recruiting talent and who’s underachieved.
Claude then plotted each team out on a chart to highlight a curve of how many NFL players each team developed vs their expected number of players based on their talent rankings.
Here’s the chart:
View attachment 51417
Here’s the overperformers with how many additional NFL players they developed vs their expected:
View attachment 51418
And here’s the underperformers
View attachment 51419
A couple of notes:
1. You can see why programs like Michigan, Ohio St, and Oregon have done so well over the past few years. Not only do they recruit great players, but they develop them at a higher rate relative to their peers too.
2. The SEC is greatly overhyped. 40% of the top the top 10 underperformers come from the SEC. And the big problem with this: the recruiting rankings that overhype SEC recruits are used in the advanced metrics to determine effeciency, SOS, etc.
3. Illinois is #2 in the country at developing NFL players relative to their recruiting rankings!
4. This was done by AI. There very well might be mistakes. Apologies in advance.
Thanks, I grabbed that data too. Can post the actual charts tomorrow. On the 5 year chart, Illinois ended up plotted right about where they should be in terms of wins compared to NFL players. The hard part about wins and losses is not all schedules are created equal, even amongst the the P4 (the average ACC team’s schedule for example is much easier than a B1G or SEC schedule), which makes it difficult to compare teams across conferences.This is amazing...great work! It would be interesting to see how records correspond with a) recruiting rankings and b) players put in the league