How much does a program effect a prospects chance of being drafted?

[SouthJerseyCy]

We always complain about ISU guys getting shafted in the draft. Here is some interesting statistical analysis by a Reddit user. Only going by the numbers and not attributing any sort of reason, ISU ranks 3rd lowest of any D1 team that has sent at least 30 players to the NFL since 2000.

Thoughts?

 

[ArgentCy]

Excellent post and it will show bias of these NFL people. Everyone has them. This pretty well shows the Big Ten is overrated. I dont know how to break ISU bias against. KO should have been top 10. Lazard absolutely should have been drafted.

 

[Urbandale2013]

Interesting to see the statistical analysis around what most of us could see.

 

[CloniesForLife]

There is probably some bias based on the school you go to but that bias is probably warranted. Some programs recruit and get a lot of talent so they are going to have a lot of picks. ISU has been a bad football team and poor at recruiting for many years so we aren't going to get draft picks.

 

[Urbandale2013]

There is probably some bias based on the school you go to but that bias is probably warranted. Some programs recruit and get a lot of talent so they are going to have a lot of picks. ISU has been a bad football team and poor at recruiting for many years so we aren't going to get draft picks.

This is adjusted for recruiting rankings.

 

[ArgentCy]

This also shows the Big XII needs to recruit more of these Top 100 recruits.

 

[Clonefan32]

Excellent post and it will show bias of these NFL people. Everyone has them. This pretty well shows the Big Ten is overrated. I dont know how to break ISU bias against. KO should have been top 10. Lazard absolutely should have been drafted.

The NFL draft really just confounds me. You watch some of the guys that get picked and look at guys like Lima or Knipfel who don't even get a sniff. Rather draft a kid out of a D3 school than a All Big-12 performer. I just don't get it.

 

[CloniesForLife]

This is adjusted for recruiting rankings.

I guess I wasn't very clear. I am saying by constantly putting people in the league and having that reputation of course there is going to be bias.

If I am a GM and I grade out two prospects similarly and one went to Clemson and one went to ISU I would chose the Clemson guy. Coming from a good program matters.

 

[JM4CY]

I've heard multiple coaches interviewed (Tony Dungy, etc.) and they will tell you that the draft is an absolute crap shoot. They do their due diligence usually but even the guys of that level don't know exactly what they are getting. Which makes the bias fit that narrative nicely. "Well we don't know who to pick between these 3 guys, I guess well take a kid from Alabama vs a similar player from UConn."

 

[Al_4_State]

Lima is a 3rd rounded at worst if he plays for Iowa and has the same performance.

There’s a bias against ISU and I don’t know how to break it. Thought the success of Montgomery and Lazard would help more.

 

[MartyFine]

The NFL is the ultimate good 'ole boys network when it comes to their front offices and coaches.

The league is set up for every team to make the playoffs and have at least one decent season every 4-5 years with the draft and salary cap, and yet we have teams that haven't won a playoff game in decades, and teams that haven't even been to the playoffs in decades.

 

[Urbandale2013]

I guess I wasn't very clear. I am saying by constantly putting people in the league and having that reputation of course there is going to be bias.

If I am a GM and I grade out two prospects similarly and one went to Clemson and one went to ISU I would chose the Clemson guy. Coming from a good program matters.

That is a BS reason. I mean I know it happens and that is the bias. That doesn’t mean it is a legitimate criteria for drafting someone.

 

[JHUNSY]

There definitely is a bias associated to program name for some of those on that list.

But surely part of the trend observable here though can correlate to coaching staffs as well, right? More so in particular those with more longevity in one place.

I mean, if it's a blueblood, big name going through coaching transitions, they are likely still going to grab top talent that attracts league attention.

However, if it's a lesser name program, but the staff has proven they can develop a position group time and time again, then teams probably view that there's less risk associated with picks from those programs.

 

[JHUNSY]

There definitely is a bias associated to program name for some of those on that list.

But surely part of the trend observable here though can correlate to coaching staffs as well, right? More so in particular those with more longevity in one place.

I mean, if i's a blueblood, big name going through coaching transitions, they are likely still going to grab top talent that attracts league attention.

However, if it's a lesser name program, but the staff has proven they can develop a position group time and time again, then teams probably view that there's less risk associated with picks from those programs.

For example, Kirk Ferentz has had a lot of success in developing guys that succeed at the next level. If Iowa fired him when all of their fans wanted them to several years back, guarantee their level of picks would have dropped off. At least until the next coaching staff proves they can develop too (if they can). I'd still say that a program like Iowa is not a sexy brand. Teams just draft their players because of the coach.

Obviously everyone here agrees that we can grab top talent and that our guys that put up all-conference numbers should get that attention still but it's not exactly as if the NFL is quick to change or innovation of minds. And Iowa State has probably had more coaching transitions at the P5, even D1 level than what, 75% on that list?

 

[ArgentCy]

There definitely is a bias associated to program name for some of those on that list.

But surely part of the trend observable here though can correlate to coaching staffs as well, right? More so in particular those with more longevity in one place.

I mean, if i's a blueblood, big name going through coaching transitions, they are likely still going to grab top talent that attracts league attention.

However, if it's a lesser name program, but the staff has proven they can develop a position group time and time again, then teams probably view that there's less risk associated with picks from those programs.

Ohio State had a brand new coach what this year or last year and still sent 10 players this year. It's the name. I think it mostly has to do with later rounds and having these scouts try to save their bacon. They have to "go out on a line" for some guy from Southern Miss but if they recommend the Ohio St guy then well there are plenty of good OSU guys in the league so this is "acceptable".

 

[JHUNSY]

Ohio State had a brand new coach what this year or last year and still sent 10 players this year. It's the name. I think it mostly has to do with later rounds and having these scouts try to save their bacon. They have to "go out on a line" for some guy from Southern Miss but if they recommend the Ohio St guy then well there are plenty of good OSU guys in the league so this is "acceptable".

Like I said, if it's a blueblood, big name going through coaching transitions, they are still going to grab top talent that attracts league attention. You should also consider recruiting classes take a few years to cycle over to a new coach's tenure in your Ohio State example.

But the bottom line is that 5-stars in high school will still sign up for Alabama even if Saban leaves.

But if a coach leaves a school that isn't a blueblood, are those top recruits that may have "passed" on the bluebloods or bigger name programs still going to commit? It's going to be a lot more up in the air (just look at how our fans on this board always talk about what recruits we can poach from equivalent or lower programs when those coaching changes happen).

 

[JHUNSY]

Ohio State had a brand new coach what this year or last year and still sent 10 players this year. It's the name. I think it mostly has to do with later rounds and having these scouts try to save their bacon. They have to "go out on a line" for some guy from Southern Miss but if they recommend the Ohio St guy then well there are plenty of good OSU guys in the league so this is "acceptable".

But you're probably partially right in your latter point. There likely is late round fatigue because the NFL draft is wayyy too long (in my opinion).

People on here have always felt UDFAs can often land in better situations than many of those late picks anyways.

I'm just not convinced that they draft on name alone for very many, if any, non-blueblood players. I think coaching tenure/development plays a large part in that disparity for those schools that aren't bluebloods/big names.

 

[madguy30]

I've heard multiple coaches interviewed (Tony Dungy, etc.) and they will tell you that the draft is an absolute crap shoot. They do their due diligence usually but even the guys of that level don't know exactly what they are getting. Which makes the bias fit that narrative nicely. "Well we don't know who to pick between these 3 guys, I guess well take a kid from Alabama vs a similar player from UConn."

And to be fair, Alabama fits that 'big stage/high pressure' situation and I'd think a player that has been there is more appealing.

ISU getting more draft picks is like getting to a bowl consistently: better players yields better results.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Ohio State had a brand new coach what this year or last year and still sent 10 players this year. It's the name. I think it mostly has to do with later rounds and having these scouts try to save their bacon. They have to "go out on a line" for some guy from Southern Miss but if they recommend the Ohio St guy then well there are plenty of good OSU guys in the league so this is "acceptable".

Look at the recruiting ranking for the last 20 years, OSU is generally in the top 10. Every school loves the story of the unranked or low ranked player that becomes a star, ISU has a couple of them with players like Rose and Montgomery. But those kids are the exceptions and not the rule. The odds that a 4 or 5 star recruit is drafted is just much higher than a 3 start.

It all comes down to bringing in the best recruits that a school can get. I saw a study earlier this year and they were talking about how many 4 and 5 star recruits were on the top ten roster. Alabama had 11 5 star and 58 4 star recruits. ISU has 4 total 4 stars on their roster.

Its a system that is set up between the haves and the have nots, and we are a have not.

https://247sports.com/season/2019-football/collegeteamtalentcomposite/

 

[SouthJerseyCy]

There are probably a lot of reasons for the bias though and some may be valid

Like I said, if it's a blueblood, big name going through coaching transitions, they are still going to grab top talent that attracts league attention. You should also consider recruiting classes take a few years to cycle over to a new coach's tenure in your Ohio State example.

But the bottom line is that 5-stars in high school will still sign up for Alabama even if Saban leaves.

But if a coach leaves a school that isn't a blueblood, are those top recruits that may have "passed" on the bluebloods or bigger name programs still going to commit? It's going to be a lot more up in the air (just look at how our fans on this board always talk about what recruits we can poach from equivalent or lower programs when those coaching changes happen).

I'm not sure you understand how this data was modeled. It is adjusting for recruiting ranking. So if a team is getting all 5-star players, their additional benefit is not that great because there is not as much room to grow. That's why Alabama is below Iowa in these rankings.