A consistent topic in college football circles is player development. Who is good, who is bad and it’s impact on the game. In my world of the CFBMatrix, talent is king and therefore, if a team is great at recruiting or developing NFL level talent, they are going to be getting an edge in winning football games.
I feel that a guy getting a draft grade is an amazing athlete. To actually get drafted as well? Wow! That happens for only the best of the best of the best. Remember, approximately 10% of five stars get to the NFL and less than 1% of three stars. Before you start spouting off about how bad recruiting rankings project keep in mind it, like recruiting classes, is a numbers game.
Another MatrixCast with Dave: Player Development Article
When I look at this chart and see that nine of the top 10 recruits hold nine of the top 10 spots for most draft picks, I would say that recruiting ranking and profiling is doing a pretty good job. There is a bunch of draft information in this chart for you to process and find what makes you happy. I have used the draft period of 2005-2013 and, because of the three year delay to early entry into the NFL draft, the corresponding recruiting cycles of 2002-2010.
If you want pure numbers of draftees that is columns four and five. (ex. Wisconsin has had 37 picks which ranks them #12). The second column ranks teams by their ratio of draft rank to recruiting rank. This one works well for the teams that recruit outside the top 10. Those inside the top 10 get wacky ratios (ex. it makes Texas #77 in player development).
My favorite is simply the difference in draftee rank and recruiting rank. It still gives some weird rankings (ex. UConn at #3 and single draftee Duke at #66). For most programs, there is not much that separates the teams, but in my opinion there are a few clear good and bad exceptions. In either case it is not perfect, but a starting point in a conversation about player development through the eyes of the CFBMatrix.