Revenue sharing does not cap NIL. NIL is still a free for all.
Interesting analysis I saw from a poster on 247. Seems to confirm that PSU outperforms our recruiting rankings very consistently.
- Thread starter LudicrousSpeedGO!
- Start date
GregInPitt
Well-known member
Yes, the OL to me is the biggest disappointment thru 2 games. The DL lost 3 experienced players at both DE and DT. 6 experienced players. And yet some young players at both positions seem to be making an impact. Whereas on the OL the whole unit is basically back with some being 3 year players with starting experience and PSU averages under 4 ypc vs Nevada with 2 future NFL RB's. OL chemistry is usually an issue which causes olines with new starters to sometimes get dramatically better after a few games but will that happen for PSU when a good many of our OL players have already been playing together as starters for over a year? Shelton, loane, Dawkins, Rucci. And Donkoh is familiar with the OL assignments and reacting to DL stunts in B10 games as well.
This might sound harsh but if the OL doesn't very soon start opening running lanes it may be time to replace a couple of these senior starters with some young talent.
Donkoh and Rucci need to learn how to play together, both were right tackles, and they have also been rotating Cousins and Shanahan in and out. Maybe they need to start the best five and stick with them.
It just depends. Outside of Bama, OSU, and UGA, high ranked recruiting classes hasn't produced the same high ranked teams for anybody else.
Clemson won 2 titles with recruiting similar to ours. They haven't been in contention but maybe once more with improved recruiting.
The Spin Meister
Well-known member
I think it is his excellent play calling and clock management!Winning percentage since 2014 (Franklin era)
View attachment 21
Then he admits to cherry picking 2016 as start date to exclude 2014 & 2015 Sanctions campaigns:
Top 15 Teams in winning % seasons post PSU renaissance era 2016-2024:
And in a separate post he analyzes starting in 2016 while ignoring the Covid season (we unfortunately followed every rule while clearly others didn't and that season really didn't matter anyway).
View attachment 22
At any rate, we average recruiting classes in the mid-teens
2014 #24
2015 #14
2016 #20
2017 #15
2018 #6
2019 #12
2020 #15
2021 #21
2022 #6
2023 #14
2024 #15
But any measure that was posted above
Winning % since 2014 #9
Winning % since 2016 (non-sanction years) #8
Winning % since 2016 (non-sanction years excluding the covid throw-away year) #6 (and we may pass Michigan after their penalty comes down)
we performed as a top 5 to 10 team with about #15 ranked recruits.
Or we can measure by the number of NFL draft picks since 2014:
Schools with the Most NFL Draft Picks Since 2014
Top Schools
Top 25 College Football Teams by NFL Draft Picks Since 2014
1 Alabama 65 2 LSU 65 3 USC 62 4 Ohio State 56 5 Florida 55 6 Georgia 54 7 Michigan 50 8 Oklahoma 49 9 Texas 48 10 Penn State 47 11 Miami (FL) 46 12 Notre Dame 45 13 Washington 44 14 Oregon 43 15 Auburn 42 16 Tennessee 41 17 Iowa 40 18 Wisconsin 39 19 South Carolina 38 20 Nebraska 37 21 Texas A&M 36 22 Utah 35 23 Michigan State 34 24 North Carolina 33 25 Arizona State 32
[th]
Rank
[/th][th]
College Football Team
[/th][th]
Total NFL Draft Picks
[/th]
Clearly Penn State under James Franklin is outperforming our recruiting rankings. My question is this due to:
1) Finding under-rated recruits
2) Developing players well above their recruiting rankings
3) Strength and conditioning program
4) Some combination of 1 through 3
???
Dailybuck777
Well-known member
Just using the number of draft picks rather than the level of draft picks is a crude measure. A really accurate measure would weight the draft picks. For instance, the number one draft pick would count a lot more than a number 6 draft pick. Just using the number of draft picks is a beginning useful tool. However, a more substantive and accurate analysis would weight the draft picks.
LudicrousSpeedGO!
Well-known member
It is an exact measure. It is a direct measurement that can be agreed upon by all. You know exactly how many draft picks everyone has. Anyone can look it up and get the same exact result.
Your method injects an arbitrary human bias. How much do you weight a 1st verses a 2nd verses a 3rd round pick? Is the 1st overall pick weighted the same as the last in the 1st round because you assigned some number to a 1st round pick? Is the 1st pick of the 2nd round a different number? Isn't the 1st pick of the 2nd round much closer in reality to the last pick of the 1st round rather than the gap between the 1st overall pick and the last in the 1st round? Do pick values vary year to year? Well, that is all up to you and you can easily come up with that arbitrary weighting that favors whatever argument that you want to make. That is inexact. Worse, the weighting is made up from thin air. It is easy to manipulate the results if you are simply making up numbers for the weighting.
Lastly, should you consider some arbitrary and made-up weighting of the draft picks, shouldn't you also measure your made-up weighting of draft picks against a weighting of the recruits brought into a program? For example, not only has Ohio St over the last 10 years had more 5 star recruits than the rest of the conference combined, but their 4 stars have had an average higher rating measured against the average rating of 4 stars from the rest of the conference. So one would expect not only more drafted but drafted higher. But again, those measurements are arbitrary, inexact, and based on significant human error in whomever makes the ratings and determines some made up weightings for draft picks by when they are chosen.
The goal of the HS recruits in many cases is to get to the league. That is what was shown in a very exact and precise measure. You might not like the results of that measure but there is no arguing that it has error. It is does not. It is the exact number of draft picks by school. It doesn't rely on some made-up weighting that you may or may not agree is fair. It is an exact measure.
Dailybuck777
Well-known member
Far from it. It leaves out undrafted free agents and does not distinguish position groups. For instance one college can be great at developing wide receivers and another can be great at developing linebackers. If you are a linebacker you should go to the team that develops linebackers even if its overall record is not highly rated. I am currently trying to get chat gbt to compile a list of the top 10 teams terms of turning out draft picks from 1 to 3. It has been a hassle, but I will give it a go over the next couple of days. You can accept it or reject it
LudicrousSpeedGO!
Well-known member
You are 1) taking my words out of the full context of my post and 2) not understanding what exact and precise measure means. It means that the measurement will yield an exact number (the number of players drafted) and precise (there is no uncertainty in that measurement).
It seems to me that you just don't like to see that Ohio St is getting fewer players drafted than many would conclude that they should based on their recruiting. So now you want to also count undrafted free agents, look at only specific position groups, and use some made up weighting by draft position or round that is subject to human bias. As a fan I get that but as a scientist, it appears that you want to conflate the measurement to obfuscate the results. The measurement is the measurement. Team X has Y number of draft picks over Z years. There is no +/- a certain uncertainty in this measurement. It simply is what it is. If you don't like that measurement, just ignore it. But if you are a parent of a recruit, you may want to consider it among many other considerations.