Coaching, Talent, Development, Scheme, etc. What wins more games?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

We constantly debate about what is more important to winning...recruiting and superior talent evaluation skills, player development, coaching, the system that your team runs, the strength of the schedule that you play or a combination of all six categories?

The end result of all of these things being executed at a high level and/or being in your favor should be winning more games, right? This seemed to not always ring true, at least from 2009-2014.

The first example is Miami, who from 2009 through 2014, had more players in the NFL than any other team in the country with an average of 54.7 per year. Yet over that same period of time, despite appearing to be a football factory for the NFL, only averaged a 7-5 win record.

Skip over to the Pac 12 North and you have California who surprisingly averaged 40.8 players in the NFL over that same period of time and yet only averaged a 5-8 record during that time. One would think that with their tendency to turn out NFL quality players that Sonny Dykes might have inherited a birds nest on the ground, yet they had to squeak by lowly Colorado (in 2 OT's) and Washington State to secure 2 of their 5 wins last season.

Tennessee is another team that has produced a lot of NFL level talent (an average of 38.8 in the NFL per year) and yet during this time only averaged a 6-7 record.

On the other hand you have teams like Alabama who averaged having 38 players per year in the NFL and have had an average W-L record of 12-2 over those 6 years.

As far as winning goes, the P-5 conferences are top heavy in NFL players produced but that sometimes equates to winning and sometimes it doesn't.

Look at the SEC where there are 5 teams that possess 49.96% of all of the NFL players generated by the conference. That includes LSU, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee and Alabama, in order. The other 9 teams in the conference combined, share 50.04% of all NFL players generated.

There are 5 in the Big Ten as well who hold the majority of NFL talent. Ohio State, Iowa, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska account for 48.9% of all Big Ten players in the NFL while the bottom 9 share 51.1%.

The same applies to the ACC where Miami, Florida State, North Carolina, Clemson and Virginia produce 50.1% of all NFL talent and the other 9 teams combined only produce 49.9% of all NFL talent.

In the Pac 12 there are 4 teams that have most of the NFL talent. USC, California, Oregon and UCLA share what accounts for 49.8% of all NFL talent in that conference and the other 8 have the balance 50.2% spread among them.

The Big 12 (10) is even worse with only 3 teams of the 10 having the majority of the NFL level talent on their teams. Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State possess 49.4% of all of the talent produced that goes to the NFL and the other 7 teams share the remaining 50.6% of produced NFL talent. Texas by far produced the most NFL talent in this conference with an average of 47.8 in the NFL each year and Oklahoma second with 37.7 per year and yet they are getting their butts kicked by Baylor (17.5 per year) and TCU (18.7 per year). Someone needs to be backing up to collect their paycheck.

And so in all of this I am sure you wonder where Arkansas places in this group? Well, we are trending upward in NFL talent produced. Here are the number of players we had in the NFL from 2009-2014.
2009-15
2010-14
2011-26
2012-30
2013-29
2014-30

That basically puts us at #10 in the SEC, but I think we will see that number going up along with our number of wins each year.

So why is it that teams like Miami, California, Tennessee, Iowa, Michigan and Virginia, with all of the NFL level talent that they have had pass through their doors, haven't been able to translate that to more wins?

Note: All stats regarding NFL numbers were taken from this link.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/number-of-nfl-players-by-college/2011/

[The NewEra]

My opinion is that it all starts with great coaches.  Without that then no other one thing, or combination of things will overcome the lack of a great coach. 

[MuskogeeHogFan]

My opinion is that it all starts with great coaches.  Without that then no other one thing, or combination of things will overcome the lack of a great coach. 

Don't disagree but look at Rich Rodriguez. He had a lot more talent at his disposal at Michigan (36.3 per year in the NFL) than he has had at Arizona (16.2 players in the NFL per year) and yet, he has had more success at Arizona.

[The NewEra]

Don't disagree but look at Rich Rodriguez. He had a lot more talent at his disposal at Michigan (36.3 per year in the NFL) than he has had at Arizona (16.2 players in the NFL per year) and yet, he has had more success at Arizona.

Good point.  I think the proper fit at a given school means a lot.  Also, really good coaches continue to grow and mature as their careers advance.  There is also the strength of schedule issue, and the balance of power in a particular division seems to be a moving target.  At the end of the day though, I don't think a team can be great without a really good coach. 

[hoghiker]

We constantly debate about what is more important to winning…recruiting and superior talent evaluation skills, player development, coaching, the system that your team runs, the strength of the schedule that you play or a combination of all six categories?

The end result of all of these things being executed at a high level and/or being in your favor should be winning more games, right? This seemed to not always ring true, at least from 2009-2014.

The first example is Miami, who from 2009 through 2014, had more players in the NFL than any other team in the country with an average of 54.7 per year. Yet over that same period of time, despite appearing to be a football factory for the NFL, only averaged a 7-5 win record.

Skip over to the Pac 12 North and you have California who surprisingly averaged 40.8 players in the NFL over that same period of time and yet only averaged a 5-8 record during that time. One would think that with their tendency to turn out NFL quality players that Sonny Dykes might have inherited a birds nest on the ground, yet they had to squeak by lowly Colorado (in 2 OT’s) and Washington State to secure 2 of their 5 wins last season.

Tennessee is another team that has produced a lot of NFL level talent (an average of 38.8 in the NFL per year) and yet during this time only averaged a 6-7 record.

On the other hand you have teams like Alabama who averaged having 38 players per year in the NFL and have had an average W-L record of 12-2 over those 6 years.

As far as winning goes, the P-5 conferences are top heavy in NFL players produced but that sometimes equates to winning and sometimes it doesn’t.

Look at the SEC where there are 5 teams that possess 49.96% of all of the NFL players generated by the conference. That includes LSU, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee and Alabama, in order. The other 9 teams in the conference combined, share 50.04% of all NFL players generated.

There are 5 in the Big Ten as well who hold the majority of NFL talent. Ohio State, Iowa, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska account for 48.9% of all Big Ten players in the NFL while the bottom 9 share 51.1%.

The same applies to the ACC where Miami, Florida State, North Carolina, Clemson and Virginia produce 50.1% of all NFL talent and the other 9 teams combined only produce 49.9% of all NFL talent.

In the Pac 12 there are 4 teams that have most of the NFL talent. USC, California, Oregon and UCLA share what accounts for 49.8% of all NFL talent in that conference and the other 8 have the balance 50.2% spread among them.

The Big 12 (10) is even worse with only 3 teams of the 10 having the majority of the NFL level talent on their teams. Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State possess 49.4% of all of the talent produced that goes to the NFL and the other 7 teams share the remaining 50.6% of produced NFL talent. Texas by far produced the most NFL talent in this conference with an average of 47.8 in the NFL each year and Oklahoma second with 37.7 per year and yet they are getting their butts kicked by Baylor (17.5 per year) and TCU (18.7 per year). Someone needs to be backing up to collect their paycheck.

And so in all of this I am sure you wonder where Arkansas places in this group? Well, we are trending upward in NFL talent produced. Here are the number of players we had in the NFL from 2009-2014.
2009-15
2010-14
2011-26
2012-30
2013-29
2014-30

That basically puts us at #10 in the SEC, but I think we will see that number going up along with our number of wins each year.

So why is it that teams like Miami, California, Tennessee, Iowa, Michigan and Virginia, with all of the NFL level talent that they have had pass through their doors, haven’t been able to translate that to more wins?

Note: All stats regarding NFL numbers were taken from this link.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/number-of-nfl-players-by-college/2011/

I know he's a pro coach but the point is the same: the coach. Belicheck. Whatever the variables are in the end it's a combination of talent and coaching. Coaching to  maximize the potentially talent, the team management, game day decisions and an eye for the right guy in the right place. Belicheck get its done. I know he's got Brady but you could flip that one around. Chicken and egg thing, sorta.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Good point.  I think the proper fit at a given school means a lot.  Also, really good coaches continue to grow and mature as their careers advance.  There is also the strength of schedule issue, and the balance of power in a particular division seems to be a moving target.  At the end of the day though, I don't think a team can be great without a really good coach. 

I think SOS is certainly a factor as well which is why I pointed out how top heavy all of the P-5 conferences are in terms of NFL level talent. But then the thing that seems to dispel that are the teams that I mentioned that produce a whole lot more NFL talent than we do and yet don't win consistently, despite having weaker SOS's.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I know he's a pro coach but the point is the same: the coach. Belicheck. Whatever the variables are in the end it's a combination of talent and coaching. Coaching to  maximize the potentially talent, the team management, game day decisions and an eye for the right guy in the right place. Belicheck get its done. I know he's got Brady but you could flip that one around. Chicken and egg thing, sorta.

That's true but you might be able to say the same thing about Art Briles, Gary Patterson, David Shaw at Stanford or even Gary Pinkel at Missouri.

Edit: Not to forget our own HC, Bret Bielema who certainly belongs in that group as well if for no other reason than what he accomplished at Wisconsin.

[farmhawg]

Execution and competition. As you have stated there are a lot of variables that go into winning or losing but it generally goes to the team that executes better. Why do you think Satan is so adamant about every detail on every play with his defense? Why do some small schools beat the big boys?

[hoghiker]

That's true but you might be able to say the same thing about Art Briles, Gary Patterson, David Shaw at Stanford or even Gary Pinkel at Missouri.

I would say the same thing. They are good examples. No Belichicks, in my opinion, but their teams are better because they are at the helm.

[LRRandy]

Don't disagree but look at Rich Rodriguez. He had a lot more talent at his disposal at Michigan (36.3 per year in the NFL) than he has had at Arizona (16.2 players in the NFL per year) and yet, he has had more success at Arizona.

Rodriguez is a great example of coaching a system and having the right type of players to execute your system. He didn't have the tools when he started at Xichigan to successfully implement his system and really wasn't given the time to because of the losses. Much like CBB at Arkansas and what he had at his disposal when he took the Arkansas job. Petrino recruited players for a much different system than CBB uses and the growing pains were obvious. Time to get more of his type player and coach up his team to run his system started to show at the end of last season. Another year of getting  his players and time in the system should result in yet another step forward at Arkansas. Not to be discounted is the quality of the coach and the discipline that coach instills in his team. While Petrino should get credit as an offensive mastermind it's obvious CBB is a better football coach by the way his whole team plays. You can't win without good players. A good coach though can mold a good team without having to have a stockpile of 4-5 star recruits. While I am not personally fond of CBB it is clear that he is a good football coach and is successfully getting his system and players to mesh. Arkansas football is on an upward trend that should only continue to result in more wins.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Execution and competition. As you have stated there are a lot of variables that go into winning or losing but it generally goes to the team that executes better. Why do you think Satan is so adamant about every detail on every play with his defense? Why do some small schools beat the big boys?

Execution is definitely important, no doubt about that. But talent, scheme and game planning can overcome execution most especially when it involves playing a less talented squad. Samford, as an example. They played tough, as tough as they could, but they were out-talented in the end.

[PaintballHog]

Recruiting > Coaching > Development > Scheme

#1 is recruiting. Nobody in the BCS era won a title without 2 top 10 classes. You can't run a race without the horses. The closest teams were Oregon and Wisconsin I think.

Coaching second. There's a reason why the same coaches keep winning and winning. They know how to win.

Development next. Having strong seniors add on to their talent along with becoming leaders does alot for a program. Look at Mariota and how crucial he became for Oregon's success.

Last is scheme. I just think at the end of the day when you're playing talented team when it matters the most it comes down to beating your guy. I think schemes can help you beat bad teams, but it doesn't really help against good teams.

[jgphillips3]

I think part of the problem with any analogy is what you define as success.  Richt at Georgia is a prime example of great record/great talent/nothing to show for it.  I'm not sure you can assign some of these things as more important than another in a general sense. 

We have all seen talent rich teams vastly underachieve.  We have all seen talent depleted teams win.  There is a nexus where great coaching and superior talent combine to make someone truly elite.  One without the other is useless.

Scheme and development are equalizers.  Great coaches will utilize them to better their teams.  If you do not consistently have top ten talent, those are the tools you can use to take good talent and compete (ala Nebraska in the 90's) or Wisconsin of late although they truly didn't even always have good talent.

CBB is going to build us into a consistent winner and talent will start to grow.  As we develop that talent, we can neutralize some gaps with other teams.  For our program, we have been fortunate to have two consecutive coaches who don't have to have top ten talent to compete.  Thankfully, our current coach seems to have a very steady hand on the rudder and we should see great things over the next 3-5 years.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

I think part of the problem with any analogy is what you define as success.  Richt at Georgia is a prime example of great record/great talent/nothing to show for it.  I'm not sure you can assign some of these things as more important than another in a general sense. 

We have all seen talent rich teams vastly underachieve.  We have all seen talent depleted teams win.  There is a nexus where great coaching and superior talent combine to make someone truly elite.  One without the other is useless.

Scheme and development are equalizers.  Great coaches will utilize them to better their teams.  If you do not consistently have top ten talent, those are the tools you can use to take good talent and compete (ala Nebraska in the 90's) or Wisconsin of late although they truly didn't even always have good talent.

CBB is going to build us into a consistent winner and talent will start to grow.  As we develop that talent, we can neutralize some gaps with other teams.  For our program, we have been fortunate to have two consecutive coaches who don't have to have top ten talent to compete.  Thankfully, our current coach seems to have a very steady hand on the rudder and we should see great things over the next 3-5 years.

All great points. Good read.

As for Richt and Georgia, they were #2 in the SEC behind LSU in having the most number of players in the NFL from 2009-2014 yet over the same period of time (6 years) they could only average a 9-4 record. Good thing they weren't playing in the SEC West. How much talent does Richt really need to separate himself from the pack in the East? I'm sure Richt is a fine man, but with all of the talent he has had at Georgia, he has underachieved.

[Lake City Hog]

Muskee, you left out 1 really huge factor---LUCK

How many of you remember 06 or 07 we beat LSU at LSU in 3 or 4 OT's to give them their 2nd loss and everyone thought there goes LSU's shot at the NC. Lo and behold they win the SEC Championship and the other top teams lose---bingo LSU winds up in the NC Game.

How many times has a favored team been really close to being upset and a kid drops an EASY catch, a kicker misses a chip-shot FG, a defender drops an INT right in his hands(anyone remember Alabama this year??) or any other number of fluke things that happen.

And then there is the other kind of "luck", Florida in 09, LSU when the RB rolled over twice after a tackle to "get" out of bounds to stop the clock for a game tying FG and oh so many other "lucky" breaks that favored teams seem to get.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Muskee, you left out 1 really huge factor---LUCK

How many of you remember 06 or 07 we beat LSU at LSU in 3 or 4 OT's to give them their 2nd loss and everyone thought there goes LSU's shot at the NC. Lo and behold they win the SEC Championship and the other top teams lose---bingo LSU winds up in the NC Game.

How many times has a favored team been really close to being upset and a kid drops an EASY catch, a kicker misses a chip-shot FG, a defender drops an INT right in his hands(anyone remember Alabama this year??) or any other number of fluke things that happen.

And then there is the other kind of "luck", Florida in 09, LSU when the RB rolled over twice after a tackle to "get" out of bounds to stop the clock for a game tying FG and oh so many other "lucky" breaks that favored teams seem to get.

"Luck" is always a factor but the most difficult factor to measure. I'm a believer that through positive consistency in all of the other factors that are involved, that more often than not, you tend to create what is perceived to be, your own "luck".

[Mike_e]

Don't forget about continuity.  Stability in a program can't be over stated.

[LZH]

The best players (as long as they're not hoodlums) win the most games.  Period.  End of story.

Does that happen 100% of the time?  Of course not.  But, I'd take my chances any day.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

The best players (as long as they're not hoodlums) win the most games.  Period.  End of story.

Does that happen 100% of the time?  Of course not.  But, I'd take my chances any day.

I agree for the most part, but as I pointed out at the beginning, that doesn't always ring true. If that were true then California would have been challenging for Pac 12 title each year. At least better than an average of 5-8 the last 6 years. Same with Michigan, Miami, Florida, Tennessee, N. Carolina and the list goes on.

[Phil D]

I think there are excellent points and points of view all throughout this thread. But it is extremely hard to pinpoint any one thing that contributes the most to success, rather some combination of all the points made in the thread. But I think coaching talent and continuity can go a long way in determining success.

[LZH]

I agree for the most part, but as I pointed out at the beginning, that doesn't always ring true. If that were true then California would have been challenging for Pac 12 title each year. At least better than an average of 5-8 the last 6 years. Same with Michigan, Miami, Florida, Tennessee, N. Carolina and the list goes on.

I'm an hour and a half north of Fort Myers, which is where Florida Gulf Coast University is located.  Remember their run in the NCAA Tourney?  Was it their coach or was it their players?  I tend to think you have to have at least one stud to compete with the big boys.  Coaching is probably more important in the long run, but you gotta have kids that can play.

In other words, we'd never had won the '94 NCAA without Corliss.....or never have wound up in Atlanta without Matt Jones - then D-Mac later.

In other words, I guess I've planted myself firmly on the fence.

[Theolesnort]

Coaching and nothing else matters because a great coach develops, recruits and schemes wisely among other things falling under the coaching umbrella. As far as Rich Rod he would have done better at Michigan if he had been a quote unquote Michigan man. He was resisted and thwarted by people that were supposed to support him. Reminds me of Fred Akers at Texas who after a great start was undermined by his own good ole boy network. It happens more frequently than you might think.

[urkillnmesmalls]

What position is the NFL talent coming from?  That can represent a BIG difference in CFB.  Texas is a great example.  Yes, they put a lot in the NFL, but they have been losing to lesser teams like TCU and Baylor because they have outstanding talent at the skill positions that are touching the ball on offense.  That can equalize a lot.  I can't even name a Texas RB, WR, or QB. 

As Arkansas fans we saw that on display with both Matt Jones and DMAC, and those two players single-handedly won ball games for us.  Put that NFL talent at Right Guard and Center, and you send the same number to the NFL, but I don't think it would have nearly the impact on success for your W/L record on the college level.  No offense to the RG and C...which are important too.   

I'm of the belief that you can have lines that are full of 4 and 5 star talent, and have average skill players and still be successful.  But, when you play another team that can match you in the trenches, you're probably going to lose if they have superior skill players. 

Conversely, field a team with 5 star skill positions and a great secondary with poor lines, and they will probably be OK against some competition, but not against those who can exploit that weakness. 

There are a lot of variables in my mind when you say, "Team X sent y number of players to the NFL."  If every member of the offensive line went to the NFL, but you had a poorly performing QB, RB, and receivers who fumble a lot, throw interceptions, and can't move the ball...you can still lose a lot.  The reverse would be a well developed upper classmen O-line playing above their "star level" with a stud Heisman level QB, decent RB's, and decent WR's, and you might see ONE player who is NFL caliber, but the team could still win at a pretty good clip.     

The best teams have the talent dispersed across the field, and I think that's where Bama has been strong.  They get the best RB's in the country, always have great trench play, and they typically have a defense that is one of if not the best out there.  Where they've dropped off in recent years, IMO, is that they haven't had the "stand out" players on defense.  Also, despite the higher yardage last season, I think Kiffin has them moving away from their strength, which is a mistake.  They won by beating people into submission, and he's taking that away.  It's like Saban lost that one fluke game to Gus, and he decided he needed to retool everything.   

[MuskogeeHogFan]

What position is the NFL talent coming from?  That can represent a BIG difference in CFB.  Texas is a great example.  Yes, they put a lot in the NFL, but they have been losing to lesser teams like TCU and Baylor because they have outstanding talent at the skill positions that are touching the ball on offense.  That can equalize a lot.  I can't even name a Texas RB, WR, or QB. 

As Arkansas fans we saw that on display with both Matt Jones and DMAC, and those two players single-handedly won ball games for us.  Put that NFL talent at Right Guard and Center, and you send the same number to the NFL, but I don't think it would have nearly the impact on success for your W/L record on the college level.  No offense to the RG and C...which are important too.   

I'm of the belief that you can have lines that are full of 4 and 5 star talent, and have average skill players and still be successful.  But, when you play another team that can match you in the trenches, you're probably going to lose if they have superior skill players. 

Conversely, field a team with 5 star skill positions and a great secondary with poor lines, and they will probably be OK against some competition, but not against those who can exploit that weakness. 

There are a lot of variables in my mind when you say, "Team X sent y number of players to the NFL."  If every member of the offensive line went to the NFL, but you had a poorly performing QB, RB, and receivers who fumble a lot, throw interceptions, and can't move the ball...you can still lose a lot.  The reverse would be a well developed upper classmen O-line playing above their "star level" with a stud Heisman level QB, decent RB's, and decent WR's, and you might see ONE player who is NFL caliber, but the team could still win at a pretty good clip.     

The best teams have the talent dispersed across the field, and I think that's where Bama has been strong.  They get the best RB's in the country, always have great trench play, and they typically have a defense that is one of if not the best out there.  Where they've dropped off in recent years, IMO, is that they haven't had the "stand out" players on defense.  Also, despite the higher yardage last season, I think Kiffin has them moving away from their strength, which is a mistake.  They won by beating people into submission, and he's taking that away.  It's like Saban lost that one fluke game to Gus, and he decided he needed to retool everything.   

Yes, you have to have quality talent across the board and what is more, to sustain success, you have to build it 2-3 deep so that you never find yourself in a position where you have to re-build, but rather, re-load. Easier said than done, but that is the ultimate goal.

[LZH]

Just let me coach the team and pick my assistants from Hogville and we'll ride into the Sugar Bowl on a silver cloud.

Sincerely, ***************

[Phil D]

Just let me coach the team and pick my assistants from Hogville and we'll ride into the Sugar Bowl on a silver cloud.

Sincerely, ***************

well said LZH!! Well said :razorback:

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Just let me coach the team and pick my assistants from Hogville and we'll ride into the Sugar Bowl on a silver cloud.

Sincerely, ***************

Not sure why you felt the need to contribute a S.A. comment? We all have our opinions and that is the reason that I started this thread. I'm not sure that anyone has the exact, correct answer or else we would all be HC's at a major P-5 school making millions. This is all about exchanging varying opinions.

Now go back and stick your feet in the sand, have a beer, watch the babe's and zip it.

[Sir Oinksalot]

All of them can be #1 along with a few others that have been mentioned depending on how strong they are relative to the other teams...

One thing I've always thought very important (with all other areas being fairly equal) is that, in college, if you have that one guy who is a leader
that the guys can rally around, that one presence on the field for your team can make all the other players "better".  That one guy
that special player can help a team overcome inadequacies in other areas...we had some leaders emerge late last year.

[LZH]

Not sure why you felt the need to contribute a S.A. comment? We all have our opinions and that is the reason that I started this thread. I'm not sure that anyone has the exact, correct answer or else we would all be HC's at a major P-5 school making millions. This is all about exchanging varying opinions.

Now go back and stick your feet in the sand, have a beer, watch the babe's and zip it.

Not sure what SA means, but it's kinda cloudy down here, hence my presence on this fine site this afternoon,

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Not sure what SA means, but it's kinda cloudy down here, hence my presence on this fine site this afternoon,

Great time to get a tan.

[LZH]

Great time to get a tan.

Would you believe there's a tanning salon on every corner down here?  What's up with that?

[HogInFlorida]

Coaching is by far the most important. Ole Miss has one of the most talented rosters out there, but Freeze is a mediocre coach so they'll never win anything. And Kansas State is a severely under talented team but they win a lot because Bill Snyder is a great coach.

[Cinco de Hogo]

Without reading all the replays I can tell you the answer.  The combination of all the factors at any given school is gonna win the most games but if it happens at one of the elite schools you win championships.  See that was easy.

If you ask me to develop a great program though it would start with a great coach.

[HiggiePiggy]

Really starts with your ad.  If he hires a good coach and doesn't get in the way then it comes down to the coaching then recruiting to fit his system.  There are some schools that have ADs that get in the way. 

[Cinco de Hogo]

Really starts with your ad.  If he hires a good coach and doesn't get in the way then it comes down to the coaching then recruiting to fit his system.  There are some schools that have ADs that get in the way.

Don't think you should go above people that directly effect the game or you could go all the way to the Governor and who the heck wants to give any credit to a politician.

[HappyHogFan]

We constantly debate about what is more important to winning...recruiting and superior talent evaluation skills, player development, coaching, the system that your team runs, the strength of the schedule that you play or a combination of all six categories?

The end result of all of these things being executed at a high level and/or being in your favor should be winning more games, right? This seemed to not always ring true, at least from 2009-2014.

The first example is Miami, who from 2009 through 2014, had more players in the NFL than any other team in the country with an average of 54.7 per year. Yet over that same period of time, despite appearing to be a football factory for the NFL, only averaged a 7-5 win record.

Skip over to the Pac 12 North and you have California who surprisingly averaged 40.8 players in the NFL over that same period of time and yet only averaged a 5-8 record during that time. One would think that with their tendency to turn out NFL quality players that Sonny Dykes might have inherited a birds nest on the ground, yet they had to squeak by lowly Colorado (in 2 OT's) and Washington State to secure 2 of their 5 wins last season.

Tennessee is another team that has produced a lot of NFL level talent (an average of 38.8 in the NFL per year) and yet during this time only averaged a 6-7 record.

On the other hand you have teams like Alabama who averaged having 38 players per year in the NFL and have had an average W-L record of 12-2 over those 6 years.

As far as winning goes, the P-5 conferences are top heavy in NFL players produced but that sometimes equates to winning and sometimes it doesn't.

Look at the SEC where there are 5 teams that possess 49.96% of all of the NFL players generated by the conference. That includes LSU, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee and Alabama, in order. The other 9 teams in the conference combined, share 50.04% of all NFL players generated.

There are 5 in the Big Ten as well who hold the majority of NFL talent. Ohio State, Iowa, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska account for 48.9% of all Big Ten players in the NFL while the bottom 9 share 51.1%.

The same applies to the ACC where Miami, Florida State, North Carolina, Clemson and Virginia produce 50.1% of all NFL talent and the other 9 teams combined only produce 49.9% of all NFL talent.

In the Pac 12 there are 4 teams that have most of the NFL talent. USC, California, Oregon and UCLA share what accounts for 49.8% of all NFL talent in that conference and the other 8 have the balance 50.2% spread among them.

The Big 12 (10) is even worse with only 3 teams of the 10 having the majority of the NFL level talent on their teams. Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State possess 49.4% of all of the talent produced that goes to the NFL and the other 7 teams share the remaining 50.6% of produced NFL talent. Texas by far produced the most NFL talent in this conference with an average of 47.8 in the NFL each year and Oklahoma second with 37.7 per year and yet they are getting their butts kicked by Baylor (17.5 per year) and TCU (18.7 per year). Someone needs to be backing up to collect their paycheck.

And so in all of this I am sure you wonder where Arkansas places in this group? Well, we are trending upward in NFL talent produced. Here are the number of players we had in the NFL from 2009-2014.
2009-15
2010-14
2011-26
2012-30
2013-29
2014-30

That basically puts us at #10 in the SEC, but I think we will see that number going up along with our number of wins each year.

So why is it that teams like Miami, California, Tennessee, Iowa, Michigan and Virginia, with all of the NFL level talent that they have had pass through their doors, haven't been able to translate that to more wins?

Note: All stats regarding NFL numbers were taken from this link.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/number-of-nfl-players-by-college/2011/

Talent is the single most important thing.

Without it, you aren't going to win, with it you can overcome not having so many other aspects.


I'm not sure why many people believe that so many teams with so much talent don't win big is proof that talent isn't that important. It certainly isn't. All that proves is that talent alone won't beat the best programs that have talent as well as the other aspects you mention.

[HiggiePiggy]

Don't think you should go above people that directly effect the game or you could go all the way to the Governor and who the heck wants to give any credit to a politician.

Look at the last decade of frank Broyles.  The football program was set back because of his terrible hiring of Houston nutt and holding onto him for a decade.  As much as I hated on long after the Bp firing he overall has done a very good job as far as hiring head coaches here.   

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Talent is the single most important thing.

Without it, you aren't going to win, with it you can overcome not having so many other aspects.


I'm not sure why many people believe that so many teams with so much talent don't win big is proof that talent isn't that important. It certainly isn't. All that proves is that talent alone won't beat the best programs that have talent as well as the other aspects you mention.

I'm not sure that any of us know what the magic formula might be when it comes to producing a consistent winner at a high level of competition. The easiest thing may be to say that it is an equal mix of all factors. But when you stop and think about it, all of those factors and the emphasis that is placed on those factors, originates with the leadership of the program, the Head Coach.

[Cinco de Hogo]

Look at the last decade of frank Broyles.  The football program was set back because of his terrible hiring of Houston nutt and holding onto him for a decade.  As much as I hated on long after the Bp firing he overall has done a very good job as far as hiring head coaches here.

The AD doesn't even have full control over who he hired as head coach, he can only suggest.  After the head coach is hired he has full control over all the things mentioned in the OP.  That's why I thought the question posed was intended to be those thing that actually effect the game.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

The AD doesn't even have full control over who he hired as head coach, he can only suggest.  After the head coach is hired he has full control over all the things mentioned in the OP.  That's why I thought the question posed was intended to be those thing that actually effect the game.

The AD has a whole lot of influence over those who have to approve the hiring of a HC and if the AD is well liked, works hard and has made progress in his position on behalf of the University, more than likely the PTB will go along with him/her. What was it that Bielema said the other day? He usually gets what he wants?

[urkillnmesmalls]

The AD has a whole lot of influence over those who have to approve the hiring of a HC and if the AD is well liked, works hard and has made progress in his position on behalf of the University, more than likely the PTB will go along with him/her. What was it that Bielema said the other day? He usually gets what he wants?

You can argue any aspect, but I think this is correct.  In today's CFB landscape, you won't ever have enough talent to compete if you don't excel at recruiting, and that's linked directly to the coach regardless of how many people he has delegated some of that to.  To me...it's simple.  You won't win without great players, but you won't have them without at least a very good coach.   

I think AD support is our best chance of keeping BB here long term.  I think he's been on the other side of the fence and clearly knows the difference between a supportive AD, and one who thwarts you every step of the way.  Eventually, you get so used to hearing no that you more or less resign yourself to the current situation, and that has a profound negative effect on most people in the workplace.  There's a LOT of value in knowing your boss believes in you and will go to bat for you.  I'm not sure you can put a value on that work environment. 

I love what he's doing, and I agree that you need a great coach to ever even get great talent in today's CFB landscape.  One thing you also need is some luck.  You have to get some amazing in state talent along the way that was well developed along the way, or a few kids from out of state have to be impressed enough to buck the 250 mile radius trend and come be a Hog.  That's in ADDITION to the trench warfare you have to be engaged in to get every player you can with hard work and dedication to recruiting.   

I think it's kinda an ironic way to look at it, but he's building the team to mimic his personality.  He believes success follows hard work.  You get better with constant discipline and putting in the effort.  If you're putting in the effort in the trenches, you're going to need less luck.  I think our team and style is like that too.  We're improving in the trenches, and now what it is going to take is some luck sprinkled in with all of the hard work, and to get some elite skill players that can marry up with the solid base he's building. 

My only concern is whether or not he gets those players on a timeline that works for him, the UA, and the fans.  I guess we'll see.... 

[Cinco de Hogo]

The AD has a whole lot of influence over those who have to approve the hiring of a HC and if the AD is well liked, works hard and has made progress in his position on behalf of the University, more than likely the PTB will go along with him/her. What was it that Bielema said the other day? He usually gets what he wants?

I'm not arguing the fact you need a supportive AD, I just didn't think that fit as one of the criteria you yourself put in the OP.

[Southern Hogspitality]

I feel like the numbers you are using are unusual for this discusion.  Look at Arkansas' numbers the jump from 14 NFL players in 2010 to 26 in 2011.  To me it shows we had a roster full of NFL talent in 2008, 2009 & 2010.  That would translate into a good 2009 season and a great 2010 season and then a huge loss of NFL talent.  I would assume after such a huge run up and then loss of talent the following seasons would be rough unless you were able to maintain a consistent inflow of future NFL talent. 

I suspect a lot of these teams that have a lot of NFL talent had a couple really inflated years where talent went into the NFL and lacked the consistency to maintain such high levels.  This would result in a couple good seasons and then mostly mediocre and not good seasons. 

Example Frank Gore hasn't been at Miami since 2004 - 2005 season but is still in the NFL.  A better talent metric would be the numbers of players they have sent to the NFL since 2009, not to include legacy and great players of old that had no influence over that time periods record. 

Talent is critical but it has to fit within the system and style the coach uses.  However the most important aspect of talent seems to be consistency.  Consistent good talent in a good marriage (buying in) with the coaching staffs systems and schemes is the key.

[go hogues]

Recruiting > Coaching > Development > Scheme

#1 is recruiting. Nobody in the BCS era won a title without 2 top 10 classes. You can't run a race without the horses. The closest teams were Oregon and Wisconsin I think.

Coaching second. There's a reason why the same coaches keep winning and winning. They know how to win.

Development next. Having strong seniors add on to their talent along with becoming leaders does alot for a program. Look at Mariota and how crucial he became for Oregon's success.

Last is scheme. I just think at the end of the day when you're playing talented team when it matters the most it comes down to beating your guy. I think schemes can help you beat bad teams, but it doesn't really help against good teams.

Not sure recruiting comes first. Look no further than Ole Piss. They are consistently landing amazing classes and generally finish lower of the pack in the SECW, in terms of wins. They have not had good coaching in years, which is a waste of all the talent they have.
I think Coaching > Recruiting > Development > Scheme

[LZH]

Not sure recruiting comes first. Look no further than Ole Piss. They are consistently landing amazing classes....They have not had good coaching in years, which is a waste of all the talent they have.

I'd add Georgia to that list, too.

[hogsanity]

We constantly debate about what is more important to winning...recruiting and superior talent evaluation skills, player development, coaching, the system that your team runs, the strength of the schedule that you play or a combination of all six categories?

The end result of all of these things being executed at a high level and/or being in your favor should be winning more games, right? This seemed to not always ring true, at least from 2009-2014.

The first example is Miami, who from 2009 through 2014, had more players in the NFL than any other team in the country with an average of 54.7 per year. Yet over that same period of time, despite appearing to be a football factory for the NFL, only averaged a 7-5 win record.

Skip over to the Pac 12 North and you have California who surprisingly averaged 40.8 players in the NFL over that same period of time and yet only averaged a 5-8 record during that time. One would think that with their tendency to turn out NFL quality players that Sonny Dykes might have inherited a birds nest on the ground, yet they had to squeak by lowly Colorado (in 2 OT's) and Washington State to secure 2 of their 5 wins last season.

Tennessee is another team that has produced a lot of NFL level talent (an average of 38.8 in the NFL per year) and yet during this time only averaged a 6-7 record.

On the other hand you have teams like Alabama who averaged having 38 players per year in the NFL and have had an average W-L record of 12-2 over those 6 years.

As far as winning goes, the P-5 conferences are top heavy in NFL players produced but that sometimes equates to winning and sometimes it doesn't.

Look at the SEC where there are 5 teams that possess 49.96% of all of the NFL players generated by the conference. That includes LSU, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee and Alabama, in order. The other 9 teams in the conference combined, share 50.04% of all NFL players generated.

There are 5 in the Big Ten as well who hold the majority of NFL talent. Ohio State, Iowa, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska account for 48.9% of all Big Ten players in the NFL while the bottom 9 share 51.1%.

The same applies to the ACC where Miami, Florida State, North Carolina, Clemson and Virginia produce 50.1% of all NFL talent and the other 9 teams combined only produce 49.9% of all NFL talent.

In the Pac 12 there are 4 teams that have most of the NFL talent. USC, California, Oregon and UCLA share what accounts for 49.8% of all NFL talent in that conference and the other 8 have the balance 50.2% spread among them.

The Big 12 (10) is even worse with only 3 teams of the 10 having the majority of the NFL level talent on their teams. Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State possess 49.4% of all of the talent produced that goes to the NFL and the other 7 teams share the remaining 50.6% of produced NFL talent. Texas by far produced the most NFL talent in this conference with an average of 47.8 in the NFL each year and Oklahoma second with 37.7 per year and yet they are getting their butts kicked by Baylor (17.5 per year) and TCU (18.7 per year). Someone needs to be backing up to collect their paycheck.

And so in all of this I am sure you wonder where Arkansas places in this group? Well, we are trending upward in NFL talent produced. Here are the number of players we had in the NFL from 2009-2014.
2009-15
2010-14
2011-26
2012-30
2013-29
2014-30

That basically puts us at #10 in the SEC, but I think we will see that number going up along with our number of wins each year.

So why is it that teams like Miami, California, Tennessee, Iowa, Michigan and Virginia, with all of the NFL level talent that they have had pass through their doors, haven't been able to translate that to more wins?

Note: All stats regarding NFL numbers were taken from this link.
http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/number-of-nfl-players-by-college/2011/

I would think a lot has to do with what positions these players are playing. If a team has a lot of ol and dl players of nfl caliber, but few skill players, it still may not translate into wins. Or, more likely, they have lots of skill players, but poor play on the lines.

[GuvHog]

Not sure recruiting comes first. Look no further than Ole Piss. They are consistently landing amazing classes and generally finish lower of the pack in the SECW, in terms of wins. They have not had good coaching in years, which is a waste of all the talent they have.
I think Coaching > Recruiting > Development > Scheme

I agree. There are some college coaches who are great at recruiting 5* players but aren't that good a coaching them. There are others that are Great at recruiting 3* and 4* players then turning them into 5* players. IMHO the latter of the 2 will be more successful at winning titles and that seems to me to be the type of coach Bret Bielema is.

Don't get me wrong, CBB will recruit 5* players hard if they fit his system but if it came down to either recruiting a 5* player that doesn't fit his system or recruiting a 3* or 4* player that does fit his system, I'm of the opinion that he would choose the latter and turn him into a 5* player.

Just my opinion.

[LZH]

I agree. There are some college coaches who are great at recruiting 5* players but aren't that good a coaching them. There are others that are Great at recruiting 3* and 4* players then turning them into 5* players. IMHO the latter of the 2 will be more successful at winning titles and that seems to me to be the type of coach Bret Bielema is.

Don't get me wrong, CBB will recruit 5* players hard if they fit his system but if it came down to either recruiting a 5* player that doesn't fit his system or recruiting a 3* or 4* players that does fit his system, I'm of the opinion that he would choose the latter and turn him into a 5* player.

Just my opinion.

That just about says it.....nice job Guv.

[bennyl08]

The end result of all of these things being executed at a high level and/or being in your favor should be winning more games, right? This seemed to not always ring true, at least from 2009-2014.

Where did you show that the end result of ALL these things being executed at a high level doesn't always lead to winning more games? You showed that a teams cumulative presence in the NFL does not always indicate that college team's success. Also, UCLA would probably be another good example. You have to look hard to find anything less than a 4* on their roster, but their success hasn't been as good as Oregon's who doesn't recruit nearly as highly ranked classes.

To look at the question though, how did CBB do his first year here vs his last year at wisconsin? That is a good example of keeping the coach constant but changing the talent level relative to competition. Or one could also look at Nutt moving from Arkansas to ole miss. So, clearly talent matters. Look at the gators when they had Meyer vs post-meyer. They still have a lot of talent, but they've been struggling to reach bowl games rather than being a contender each year. Florida State has a similar story but in reverse.

I would argue that talent trumps coaching overall, but they are both clearly important.

[BenDial]

I don't know that there is a simple answer. Les Miles wins 10 games 70% of the time at LSU and has a National Championship. I don't think that's great coaching on his behalf (granted, the Chavis argument on defense can be made). I'm not sure the development at LSU exceeds expectations either.

Bobby Petrino isn't going to knock the recruiting rankings out of the park, but he has a great scheme and coaches offensive skill players very well.

Honestly, what I like about CBB, and the reason I believe he could win a national championship at Arkansas is that he does all of the above. This is the best four year recruiting effort I can remember at Arkansas. The consistency of talent being brought in at all levels on both sides is better than we've had since recruiting was truly followed.

His development really speaks for itself. So, not only is Arkansas getting a higher quality of player, but their development is better than we've we've had as well. I think we've seen the difference scheme and coaching can make on the defensive side of the ball with the Robb Smith.

I think a solid program and a championship caliber team here or there can be done with any of the above. I think to have a program that consistently provides contenders and breaks through on multiple occasions, it takes all of the above.