[washingtonismoney]

Longtime college football OCD/encyclopedist Phil Steele unveiled his compendium of data/predictions for the upcoming football seasons. Of interest to us (and available on the internet), is his preseason All Pac-12 teams--which go four deep. Because I too am of the OCD/encyclopedist persuasion, I decided to count how many players each team had. The first number indicates the number of players; the second, in parentheses, indicates what team the number of players is on. So 4 (1) is shorthand for four players on the First All Pac-12 team.

Count:
Stanford: 4 (1), 5 (2), 2 (3), 0 (4)
Oregon: 4 (1), 2 (2), 1 (3), 4 (4)
Washington: 4 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 2 (4)
Arizona: 2 (1), 1 (2), 3 (3), 3 (3)
USC: 5 (1), 4 (2), 3 (3), 1 (4)
Arizona State: 2 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 3 (4)
Colorado: 1 (1), 2 (2), 3 (3), 1 (4)
UCLA: 1 (1), 2 (2), 3 (3), 2 (2)
California: 3 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 3 (4)
Utah: 0 (1), 4 (2), 3 (3), 2 (4)
Washington State: 0 (1), 2 (2), 1 (3), 2 (4)
Oregon State: 0 (1), 2 (2), 3 (3), 3 (4)


The most talented teams in aggregate are the ones you\'d expect--Stanford, Oregon, and USC. The least talented teams? Well, it seems pretty clear to me that Cal and Wazzou have the least amount of ammunition in their pop guns.

Updated: miscounted, as 97fan points out. Still don\'t think Cal will be any good.

[washingtonismoney]

Longtime college football OCD/encyclopedist Phil Steele unveiled his compendium of data/predictions for the upcoming football seasons. Of interest to us (and available on the internet), is his preseason All Pac-12 teams--which go four deep. Because I too am of the OCD/encyclopedist persuasion, I decided to count how many players each team had. The first number indicates the number of players; the second, in parentheses, indicates what team the number of players is on. So 4 (1) is shorthand for four players on the First All Pac-12 team.

Count:
Stanford: 4 (1), 5 (2), 2 (3), 0 (4)
Oregon: 4 (1), 2 (2), 1 (3), 4 (4)
Washington: 4 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 2 (4)
Arizona: 2 (1), 1 (2), 3 (3), 3 (3)
USC: 5 (1), 4 (2), 3 (3), 1 (4)
Arizona State: 2 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 3 (4)
Colorado: 1 (1), 2 (2), 3 (3), 1 (4)
UCLA: 1 (1), 2 (2), 3 (3), 2 (2)
California: 3 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 3 (4)
Utah: 0 (1), 4 (2), 3 (3), 2 (4)
Washington State: 0 (1), 2 (2), 1 (3), 2 (4)
Oregon State: 0 (1), 2 (2), 3 (3), 3 (4)


The most talented teams in aggregate are the ones you\'d expect--Stanford, Oregon, and USC. The least talented teams? Well, it seems pretty clear to me that Cal and Wazzou have the least amount of ammunition in their pop guns.

Updated: miscounted, as 97fan points out. Still don\'t think Cal will be any good.

[washingtonismoney]

Longtime college football OCD/encyclopedist Phil Steele unveiled his compendium of data/predictions for the upcoming football seasons. Of interest to us (and available on the internet), is his preseason All Pac-12 teams--which go four deep. Because I too am of the OCD/encyclopedist persuasion, I decided to count how many players each team had. The first number indicates the number of players; the second, in parentheses, indicates what team the number of players is on. So 4 (1) is shorthand for four players on the First All Pac-12 team.

Count:
Stanford: 4 (1), 5 (2), 2 (3), 0 (4)
Oregon: 4 (1), 2 (2), 1 (3), 4 (4)
Washington: 4 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 2 (4)
Arizona: 2 (1), 1 (2), 3 (3), 3 (3)
USC: 5 (1), 4 (2), 3 (3), 1 (4)
Arizona State: 2 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 3 (4)
Colorado: 1 (1), 2 (2), 3 (3), 1 (4)
UCLA: 1 (1), 2 (2), 3 (3), 2 (2)
California: 3 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 3 (4)
Utah: 0 (1), 4 (2), 3 (3), 2 (4)
Washington State: 0 (1), 2 (2), 1 (3), 2 (4)
Oregon State: 0 (1), 2 (2), 3 (3), 3 (4)


The most talented teams in aggregate are the ones you\'d expect--Stanford, Oregon, and USC. The least talented teams? Well, it seems pretty clear to me that Cal and Wazzou have the least amount of ammunition in their pop guns.

Updated: miscounted, as 97fan points out. Still don\'t think Cal will be any good.

[washingtonismoney]

Longtime college football OCD/encyclopedist Phil Steele unveiled his compendium of data/predictions for the upcoming football seasons. Of interest to us (and available on the internet), is his preseason All Pac-12 teams--which go four deep. Because I too am of the OCD/encyclopedist persuasion, I decided to count how many players each team had. The first number indicates the number of players; the second, in parentheses, indicates what team the number of players is on. So 4 (1) is shorthand for four players on the First All Pac-12 team.

Count:
Stanford: 4 (1), 5 (2), 2 (3), 0 (4)
Oregon: 4 (1), 2 (2), 1 (3), 4 (4)
Washington: 4 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 2 (4)
Arizona: 2 (1), 1 (2), 3 (3), 3 (3)
USC: 5 (1), 4 (2), 3 (3), 1 (4)
Arizona State: 2 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 3 (4)
Colorado: 1 (1), 2 (2), 3 (3), 1 (4)
UCLA: 1 (1), 2 (2), 3 (3), 2 (2)
California: 3 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 3 (4)
Utah: 0 (1), 4 (2), 3 (3), 2 (4)
Washington State: 0 (1), 2 (2), 1 (3), 2 (4)
Oregon State: 0 (1), 2 (2), 3 (3), 3 (4)


The most talented teams in aggregate are the ones you\'d expect--Stanford, Oregon, and USC. The least talented teams? Well, it seems pretty clear to me that Cal and Wazzou have the least amount of ammunition in their pop guns.

Updated: miscounted, as 97fan points out. Still don\'t think Cal will be any good.

[Redrum]

are populated by players filtered through peoples\' opinions of their talent level.   In a gross sense, as you point out,  it seems about right. Oregon St. always seems to play way above their rated talent level.
Right now we have a pretty strong talent pool with a couple of  weaknesses the numbers don\'t reveal.  And right now UCLA seems capable of playing several notches below their overall talent level.

[Redrum]

are populated by players filtered through peoples\' opinions of their talent level.   In a gross sense, as you point out,  it seems about right. Oregon St. always seems to play way above their rated talent level.
Right now we have a pretty strong talent pool with a couple of  weaknesses the numbers don\'t reveal.  And right now UCLA seems capable of playing several notches below their overall talent level.

[Redrum]

are populated by players filtered through peoples\' opinions of their talent level.   In a gross sense, as you point out,  it seems about right. Oregon St. always seems to play way above their rated talent level.
Right now we have a pretty strong talent pool with a couple of  weaknesses the numbers don\'t reveal.  And right now UCLA seems capable of playing several notches below their overall talent level.

[Redrum]

are populated by players filtered through peoples\' opinions of their talent level.   In a gross sense, as you point out,  it seems about right. Oregon St. always seems to play way above their rated talent level.
Right now we have a pretty strong talent pool with a couple of  weaknesses the numbers don\'t reveal.  And right now UCLA seems capable of playing several notches below their overall talent level.

[washingtonismoney]

As a postscript--I think this sort of exercise is most helpful in revealing a kind of weird disjunction in punditry thinking. When asked to take a bird\'s eye view of the team they make it sound as if the team is Andrew Luck and twenty-one pygmies; however, when they go position-by-position more frequently than not they discover Stanford has as much talent as anyone in the conference.

(One note about the specific picks: it\'s very hard to believe a Stanford TE isn\'t among the four best tight ends in the conference.)

On kal: I mean, I do think they might well be that bad. The general impression of the team is that they\'ve been competent throughout T.edford\'s tenure, and so there\'s a certain appeal to the idea that they\'ll remain competent at the least. But last year they were mediocre, and they\'re losing their best players, and their quarterback couldn\'t excel against the mediocre competition offered by the MAC, and there\'s no one on the team that particularly impresses me. Last year\'s team had Shane Vereen, Mohamed and Cameron Jordan at least. All three of those players are gone. The only player that you can honestly project to be on that level--that is, has both potential and has a reasonable amount of production to justify some assumptions about--is Keenan Allen. And, honestly, he hasn\'t done it yet either. So there are no excellent players and a number of obvious holes. I remember these teams: Walt Harris coached some of them, clad in cardinal and white.

[washingtonismoney]

As a postscript--I think this sort of exercise is most helpful in revealing a kind of weird disjunction in punditry thinking. When asked to take a bird\'s eye view of the team they make it sound as if the team is Andrew Luck and twenty-one pygmies; however, when they go position-by-position more frequently than not they discover Stanford has as much talent as anyone in the conference.

(One note about the specific picks: it\'s very hard to believe a Stanford TE isn\'t among the four best tight ends in the conference.)

On kal: I mean, I do think they might well be that bad. The general impression of the team is that they\'ve been competent throughout T.edford\'s tenure, and so there\'s a certain appeal to the idea that they\'ll remain competent at the least. But last year they were mediocre, and they\'re losing their best players, and their quarterback couldn\'t excel against the mediocre competition offered by the MAC, and there\'s no one on the team that particularly impresses me. Last year\'s team had Shane Vereen, Mohamed and Cameron Jordan at least. All three of those players are gone. The only player that you can honestly project to be on that level--that is, has both potential and has a reasonable amount of production to justify some assumptions about--is Keenan Allen. And, honestly, he hasn\'t done it yet either. So there are no excellent players and a number of obvious holes. I remember these teams: Walt Harris coached some of them, clad in cardinal and white.

[washingtonismoney]

As a postscript--I think this sort of exercise is most helpful in revealing a kind of weird disjunction in punditry thinking. When asked to take a bird\'s eye view of the team they make it sound as if the team is Andrew Luck and twenty-one pygmies; however, when they go position-by-position more frequently than not they discover Stanford has as much talent as anyone in the conference.

(One note about the specific picks: it\'s very hard to believe a Stanford TE isn\'t among the four best tight ends in the conference.)

On kal: I mean, I do think they might well be that bad. The general impression of the team is that they\'ve been competent throughout T.edford\'s tenure, and so there\'s a certain appeal to the idea that they\'ll remain competent at the least. But last year they were mediocre, and they\'re losing their best players, and their quarterback couldn\'t excel against the mediocre competition offered by the MAC, and there\'s no one on the team that particularly impresses me. Last year\'s team had Shane Vereen, Mohamed and Cameron Jordan at least. All three of those players are gone. The only player that you can honestly project to be on that level--that is, has both potential and has a reasonable amount of production to justify some assumptions about--is Keenan Allen. And, honestly, he hasn\'t done it yet either. So there are no excellent players and a number of obvious holes. I remember these teams: Walt Harris coached some of them, clad in cardinal and white.

[washingtonismoney]

As a postscript--I think this sort of exercise is most helpful in revealing a kind of weird disjunction in punditry thinking. When asked to take a bird\'s eye view of the team they make it sound as if the team is Andrew Luck and twenty-one pygmies; however, when they go position-by-position more frequently than not they discover Stanford has as much talent as anyone in the conference.

(One note about the specific picks: it\'s very hard to believe a Stanford TE isn\'t among the four best tight ends in the conference.)

On kal: I mean, I do think they might well be that bad. The general impression of the team is that they\'ve been competent throughout T.edford\'s tenure, and so there\'s a certain appeal to the idea that they\'ll remain competent at the least. But last year they were mediocre, and they\'re losing their best players, and their quarterback couldn\'t excel against the mediocre competition offered by the MAC, and there\'s no one on the team that particularly impresses me. Last year\'s team had Shane Vereen, Mohamed and Cameron Jordan at least. All three of those players are gone. The only player that you can honestly project to be on that level--that is, has both potential and has a reasonable amount of production to justify some assumptions about--is Keenan Allen. And, honestly, he hasn\'t done it yet either. So there are no excellent players and a number of obvious holes. I remember these teams: Walt Harris coached some of them, clad in cardinal and white.

[97fan]

I think that C.a.l will struggle this year, mainly because their offense isn\'t likely to be very good. But I think some of the numbers in your chart are off. I clicked over to philsteele.com, and here\'s my count.

California: 3 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 3 (4).

That\'s nine guys altogether.  It includes their punter, who\'s projected to be first team (and will likely get a lot of playing time), and their place-kicker, who\'s projected to be fourth team all Pac-12.

See here: http://www.philsteele.com/Pdf/2011Presea...AllP12.pdf

[97fan]

I think that C.a.l will struggle this year, mainly because their offense isn\'t likely to be very good. But I think some of the numbers in your chart are off. I clicked over to philsteele.com, and here\'s my count.

California: 3 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 3 (4).

That\'s nine guys altogether.  It includes their punter, who\'s projected to be first team (and will likely get a lot of playing time), and their place-kicker, who\'s projected to be fourth team all Pac-12.

See here: http://www.philsteele.com/Pdf/2011Presea...AllP12.pdf

[97fan]

I think that C.a.l will struggle this year, mainly because their offense isn\'t likely to be very good. But I think some of the numbers in your chart are off. I clicked over to philsteele.com, and here\'s my count.

California: 3 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 3 (4).

That\'s nine guys altogether.  It includes their punter, who\'s projected to be first team (and will likely get a lot of playing time), and their place-kicker, who\'s projected to be fourth team all Pac-12.

See here: http://www.philsteele.com/Pdf/2011Presea...AllP12.pdf

[97fan]

I think that C.a.l will struggle this year, mainly because their offense isn\'t likely to be very good. But I think some of the numbers in your chart are off. I clicked over to philsteele.com, and here\'s my count.

California: 3 (1), 1 (2), 2 (3), 3 (4).

That\'s nine guys altogether.  It includes their punter, who\'s projected to be first team (and will likely get a lot of playing time), and their place-kicker, who\'s projected to be fourth team all Pac-12.

See here: http://www.philsteele.com/Pdf/2011Presea...AllP12.pdf