forums

What did Willis do wrong

DMoney said:
Several people asked whether there is a statistical analysis to show which school’s players overperform their draft slots.

ESPN did it already, over fifteen years of data and thousands of picks. And it confirmed exactly what I’ve said: Miami players outperform their spots more than any team in the country, by a mile.

We compared each school’s weighted draft value and their overall performance in the NFL since 2002 to figure out which school’s produced the biggest NFL overperformers and underperformers. No school overperforms like Miami.

www.espn.com

College football's best (and worst) NFL factories

Ever wonder which college programs produce the best NFL running backs? How about the most long-term starters or the most Pro Bowlers? We dug through data from the past 15 drafts to find out which schools make the grade at the next level.
www.espn.com

@Ethnicsands @BoxingRobes @Andrew
Click to expand...

The question being asked is why are they drafted so low?

1) Bias analysis by scouts
2) Poor coaching at UM allowed their upside to be higher after college

In either case, there is plenty of analysis that shows that NFL scouts did a really good job at drafting players. The question is not are their outliers but why are there so many from UM?
 
Advertisement
Andrew said:
The question being asked is why are they drafted so low?

1) Bias analysis by scouts
2) Poor coaching at UM allowed their upside to be higher after college

In either case, there is plenty of analysis that shows that NFL scouts did a really good job at drafting players. The question is not are their outliers but why are there so many from UM?
Click to expand...

There's no bias. Scouts just missed, as the data makes clear. The bigger issue is point two, which is that the school underdeveloped and underperformed.

Here is a chart of the Top Overperformers so you can see the gap between #1 and #2:



SchoolPicksDraft%Perf%Diff
Miami832.71%4.40%+1.69%
Pittsburgh380.93%1.89%+0.96%
Boston College290.85%1.73%+0.88%
California521.36%2.23%+0.86%
Mississippi280.86%1.54%+0.68%
Wisconsin571.63%2.30%+0.67%
Texas571.91%2.51%+0.61%
USC892.91%3.46%+0.56%
UCF220.52%1.01%+0.49%
Oklahoma St.230.72%1.14%+0.41%
Min. 20 picks

And here are the underperformers:




SchoolPicksDraft%Perf%Diff
Clemson591.73%0.75%-0.98%
Ohio State962.99%2.20%-0.80%
Arkansas481.20%0.52%-0.68%
West Virginia350.92%0.38%-0.54%
UCLA491.32%0.81%-0.50%
Baylor310.70%0.26%-0.44%
Florida St.802.56%2.12%-0.44%
Missouri351.01%0.57%-0.44%
Notre Dame661.85%1.42%-0.43%
Connecticut240.63%0.24%-0.39%
 
DMoney said:
Several people asked whether there is a statistical analysis to show which school’s players overperform their draft slots.

ESPN did it already, over fifteen years of data and thousands of picks. And it confirmed exactly what I’ve said: Miami players outperform their spots more than any team in the country, by a mile.

We compared each school’s weighted draft value and their overall performance in the NFL since 2002 to figure out which school’s produced the biggest NFL overperformers and underperformers. No school overperforms like Miami.

www.espn.com

College football's best (and worst) NFL factories

Ever wonder which college programs produce the best NFL running backs? How about the most long-term starters or the most Pro Bowlers? We dug through data from the past 15 drafts to find out which schools make the grade at the next level.
www.espn.com

@Ethnicsands @BoxingRobes @Andrew
Click to expand...
I am aware of that study. It doesn’t specifically address the second contract topic you referenced somewhere else, and it doesn’t sort out outliers or their impact on the mean. It also didn’t break down position variance. None of that is a criticism of the study or doubt for its general conclusion, but these issues aren’t all the same and just reverting to UM players do well on average isn’t helpful in all instances. Also, I personally worry that the guys whose careers defined that study are retired or retiring, and our more recent guys may not play to the same outcomes.
 
Ethnicsands said:
I am aware of that study. It doesn’t specifically address the second contract topic you referenced somewhere else, and it doesn’t sort out outliers or their impact on the mean. It also didn’t break down position variance. None of that is a criticism of the study or doubt for its general conclusion, but these issues aren’t all the same and just reverting to UM players do well on average isn’t helpful in all instances. Also, I personally worry that the guys whose careers defined that study are retired or retiring, and our more recent guys may not play to the same outcomes.
Click to expand...

The sample size was enormous and the gap between one and two was immense. I'd say it is pretty conclusive with respect to Miami. Here is the methodology they used:

Methodology
We pulled data from Pro-Football-Reference.com on the 3,831 players drafted since 2002 and broke them into eight position groups. Special teams are excluded since many of those players are acquired as undrafted free agents.

Draft value
Picks are weighted by overall pick number, so early first-round picks carry more weight than late first-rounders.

NFL performance
The formula for this factors in career Approximate Value, along with percentage of seasons as an All Pro/Pro Bowler/starter. The goal was to account for players like J.J. Watt who have been dominant over shorter stretches.
 
Advertisement
DMoney said:
There's no bias. Scouts just missed, as the data makes clear. The bigger issue is point two, which is that the school underdeveloped and underperformed.

Here is a chart of the Top Overperformers so you can see the gap between #1 and #2:



SchoolPicksDraft%Perf%Diff
Miami832.71%4.40%+1.69%
Pittsburgh380.93%1.89%+0.96%
Boston College290.85%1.73%+0.88%
California521.36%2.23%+0.86%
Mississippi280.86%1.54%+0.68%
Wisconsin571.63%2.30%+0.67%
Texas571.91%2.51%+0.61%
USC892.91%3.46%+0.56%
UCF220.52%1.01%+0.49%
Oklahoma St.230.72%1.14%+0.41%
Min. 20 picks

And here are the underperformers:




SchoolPicksDraft%Perf%Diff
Clemson591.73%0.75%-0.98%
Ohio State962.99%2.20%-0.80%
Arkansas481.20%0.52%-0.68%
West Virginia350.92%0.38%-0.54%
UCLA491.32%0.81%-0.50%
Baylor310.70%0.26%-0.44%
Florida St.802.56%2.12%-0.44%
Missouri351.01%0.57%-0.44%
Notre Dame661.85%1.42%-0.43%
Connecticut240.63%0.24%-0.39%
Click to expand...

If you look at the scatter plot in the link you provided you would see that the plots stay close to the linear line. You can't just claim that the scouts just always miss because the data shows that they rarely miss. There is still an issue because Miami has the highest standard error, so the question is why?

My theory is that our players were underdeveloped at UM and the NFL doesn't do as good of a job at projecting talent as they do evaluating talent. In fact, if you look at teams that have won (Clemson, FSU, Alabama, Ohio State) you see that those players underperform in the NFL. Those programs still perform better than almost every other school, they just underperform. This leads me to conclude that those schools do a really good job at developing.
 
Advertisement
Andrew said:
My theory is that our players were underdeveloped at UM and the NFL doesn't do as good of a job at projecting talent as they do evaluating talent. In fact, if you look at teams that have won (Clemson, FSU, Alabama, Ohio State) you see that those players underperform in the NFL. Those programs still perform better than almost every other school, they just underperform. This leads me to conclude that those schools do a really good job at developing.
Click to expand...

You could conclude the exact opposite.

Maybe Miami players were underdrafted because the team underperformed because of poor game coaching, but performed well in the league because they were better prepared to succeed.

Also, the data is suspect because I think it’s weighted more towards our players from the 2002-2005 era.

What would it look like if we removed those years?
 
Advertisement
DMoney said:
Several people asked whether there is a statistical analysis to show which school’s players overperform their draft slots.

ESPN did it already, over fifteen years of data and thousands of picks. And it confirmed exactly what I’ve said: Miami players outperform their spots more than any team in the country, by a mile.

We compared each school’s weighted draft value and their overall performance in the NFL since 2002 to figure out which school’s produced the biggest NFL overperformers and underperformers. No school overperforms like Miami.

www.espn.com

College football's best (and worst) NFL factories

Ever wonder which college programs produce the best NFL running backs? How about the most long-term starters or the most Pro Bowlers? We dug through data from the past 15 drafts to find out which schools make the grade at the next level.
www.espn.com

@Ethnicsands @BoxingRobes @Andrew
Click to expand...

Ethnicsands said:
I am aware of that study. It doesn’t specifically address the second contract topic you referenced somewhere else, and it doesn’t sort out outliers or their impact on the mean. It also didn’t break down position variance. None of that is a criticism of the study or doubt for its general conclusion, but these issues aren’t all the same and just reverting to UM players do well on average isn’t helpful in all instances. Also, I personally worry that the guys whose careers defined that study are retired or retiring, and our more recent guys may not play to the same outcomes.
Click to expand...

This is my concern with that study. You are including players from an era of 'Canes football that assembled the best collection of talent in the history of college football. But we're five different head coaches removed from many of those players. I'd like to get a look at those numbers on the last chart about stagnation. Surely, not as bad as the drop off by Tennessee (Fulmer era) or North Carolina (Butch era)...but I would wager Miami is tailing off on that list.

I would still hyperbolize that Miami finishes quite well in a similar analysis with a window of closer proximity, but not as well when you include that very early 00s run.
 
Andrew said:
The question being asked is why are they drafted so low?

1) Bias analysis by scouts
2) Poor coaching at UM allowed their upside to be higher after college

In either case, there is plenty of analysis that shows that NFL scouts did a really good job at drafting players. The question is not are their outliers but why are there so many from UM?
Click to expand...
I think its the second.

I’m reminded of an anonymous NFL scout who was quoted in 2009 or 2010 saying that the Miami Hurricanes were the worst coached team in college football.

Then you look at the defensive scheme from 2011-2015, and how that devalued everyone on that side of the ball.
 
brock said:
Still don’t believe richt did that, he vouched and praised Willis every chance he got last year. Maybe one of the other coaches under him though
Click to expand...
the tweet says “coaches formerly on the golden and richt staphs”
 
Advertisement
Canesfan1899 said:
I can't go back through this BS, what was the report you are referring to?
Click to expand...


Redstate12 said:




I doubt very highly that Richt "bad mouthed" him. *But I do believe the report that former coaches on both staffs spoke negatively about Willis. I can see Richt being honest when asked about how things were before he turned this around the last 2 years. Also heard Kool was throwing most of the shade surprisingly. Richt will never coach again no point from him to go out of his way to hurt a kids chances of getting drafted. Sounds like terrible representation at the end of the day. Also poor self discipline.
Click to expand...
 
Redstate12 said:




I doubt very highly that Richt "bad mouthed" him. *But I do believe the report that former coaches on both staffs spoke negatively about Willis. I can see Richt being honest when asked about how things were before he turned this around the last 2 years. Also heard Kool was throwing most of the shade surprisingly. Richt will never coach again no point from him to go out of his way to hurt a kids chances of getting drafted. Sounds like terrible representation at the end of the day. Also poor self discipline.
Click to expand...


At the end of the day, your actions have consequences. Willis the player is only one piece. If you have flags in your past and you proceed to show up late for the MOST IMPORTANT interviews of your life, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Show up 30 minutes early but don't ever be late. The family thing could be acceptable but only if it was an absolute emergency. The comment seems to lean towards the side of NFL brass not agreeing with it being an emergency but who knows.

Greedy was a talent and fell because he refused pre-draft interviews. These kids have to wake up and mature.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top