The League will never be the same.  Two Sundays in and the Tigers have announced their presence with authority in the NFL. The five offensive Tigers combined for 11 receptions for 117 yards and a TD, along with two carries for 22 yards. The five defensive Tigers, not to be outdone, tallied 5 tackles, including a sack, and one forced fumble.  Even Colin Brown rehabbed well.  Domination! 

This performance has inspired me to follow up on an article from yesteryear.  On these pages one year ago I tabled the Big 12’s representatives in the NFL.  The table looked like this*:

TEAM	NO. PLAYERS IN NFL - October 2008
Texas	36
Nebraska	27
Texas A&M	21
Kansas State	19
Colorada	18
Oklahoma State	9
Iowa State	8
Texas Tech	7
Missouri	6
Kansas	6
Baylor	6

 Ouch!  Times are changing, though.  After tallying the number of Big 12 players in the NFL this year, the table looks like this:

TEAM	NO. PLAYERS IN NFL - October 2008	NO. PLAYERS IN NFL - September 2009
Texas	36	39
Nebraska	27	28
Oklahoma	19	26
Texas A&M	21	18
Kansas State	19	17
Colorado	18	15
Missouri	6	11
Texas Tech	7	11
Oklahoma State	9	11
Iowa State	8	6
Kansas	6	5
Baylor	6	5

That’s better.  You can see that Mizzou, OU, Okie State, UT and Tech all increased their NFL-ness, which makes sense considering that these schools have competed at a higher level the past few years.  For what it’s worth, the Big 12 went from 182 NFL players in ‘08 to 192 this year.  The list looks funny with K-State, CU, and A&M, current doormats, still in the top half.

Sorted by Change:

TEAM	NO. PLAYERS IN NFL - October 2008	NO. PLAYERS IN NFL - September 2009	CHANGE
Oklahoma	19	26	7
Missouri	6	11	5
Texas Tech	7	11	4
Texas	36	39	3
Oklahoma State	9	11	2
Nebraska	27	28	1
Baylor	6	5	-1
Kansas	6	5	-1
Iowa State	8	6	-2
Kansas State	19	17	-2
Colorado	18	15	-3
Texas A&M	21	18	-3

This correllates more to current perceptions.  The bottom four have been fairly bad the last several years, while the top four finished atop their divisions just last year.   Does the change in NFL players from one year to the next correllate to wins by Big 12 team?  You’d think.  Just looking at that table, it looks like the change in one year correlates with wins in that year.  One year isn’t much to go on, but it works for this limited purpose.  How about more?  Well, with a sample size caveat still in effect, here’s a stab at that.

TEAM	NO. PLAYERS IN NFL - September 2009	CHANGE	WINS 2006-2008
Oklahoma	26	7	34
Texas	39	3	32
Missouri	11	5	30
Texas Tech	11	4	28
Kansas	5	-1	26
Nebraska	28	1	23
Oklahoma State	11	2	23
Texas A&M	18	-3	20
Kansas State	17	-2	17
Colorado	15	-3	15
Baylor	5	-1	11
Iowa State	6	-2	9

Kansas kind of ruins the correllation.  It’s not like I’m running an Apollo mission here – it’s pretty obvious stuff - but in years where NFL-caliber players are suiting up for your team, you’re more likely to win games.  I chose three years because that’s about the average length of an NFLer’s career.  If sorted by six years, which is twice as long and therefore extremely relevant and not at all arbitrary, the list looks like this:

TEAM	NO. PLAYERS IN NFL - September 2009	CHANGE	WINS 2003-2008
Oklahoma	26	7	66
Texas	39	3	66
Texas Tech	11	4	53
Missouri	11	5	50
Nebraska	28	1	46
Kansas	5	-1	43
Oklahoma State	11	2	43
Kansas State	17	-2	37
Texas A&M	18	-3	36
Colorado	15	-3	35
Iowa State	6	-2	23
Baylor	5	-1	22

 

Missouri and Tech swap places, as does NU/KU, Okie State/K-State, and ISU/Baylor.   No big shifts.  The correllation does not change much when comparing the single year increase of NFL players and wins over 3 or 6 years. 

What does it all mean?  Well, for our sake, Pinkel has taken a TERRIBLE football program with very little talent and turned it into a top third-tier team in what is largely considered the second best conference.   That, my friends, is amazing work.  And while there is no question that Pinkel has recruited well, the rating services pretty much keep Mizzou in the middle of the pack.  That tells me that Pinkel is a great talent evaluator and developer – he can see potential and help players realize it.  Now, that doesn’t mean the Tigers won’t occassionally trail a MAC team 20-6 late in the third quarter, but it does mean that we Tiger fans should really savor Pinkel’s days at Mizzou.  Let’s not take it for granted.

What does it mean for the rest of the Big 12?  Mangino can coach.  Callahan can’t.  Snyder better start getting that NFL talent back to Manhattan, and quick.  OU and UT aren’t going anywhere.  Okie State and Tech are bettering their talent level, but aren’t making up any ground on the South’s heaviest hitters.  A&M better turn it around fast.  Briles had better figure out how to get some talent to Waco.  Iowa State is screwed.

Just because Mizzou has players in the NFL doesn’t mean they’ll be there next year.  It’s Not For Long, after all.  Hopefully they’ll be able to build on their wildly successful first two weeks.  Hopefully.

What do the numbers mean to you?

*Please note that I used ESPN.com’s numbers last year and I’m using them again this year.  I’m using it this year for consistency’s sake.  ESPN includes players that are on the IR, which means, e.g., the Tigers have 11 representatives instead of the ten you’ve probably read about.  I am comfortable with including the IR players because they’re currently not only under contract, but are untouchable by other teams.  A practice squad player is pulling down a paycheck – about half what a rookie on the IR makes – but can be signed by any other team and placed on its 53 man roster.  That guy is barely on a team at all.

CallKevin at Barking Carnival threw up a bunch of related numbers two weeks ago.  If you haven’t seen it, take a look.