Interesting article...

Discussion in 'The Tiger's Den' started by COramprat, Aug 23, 2004.

  1. COramprat

    COramprat Simma Da Na

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,834
    Likes Received:
    316
    SI.com Clicky

    Myth: The best teams have a
    veteran, star quarterback.


    You hear it every season. Watch out for Team A because they've got (insert big-name QB here). Team B is going to struggle because they don't have anyone back at quarterback. In reality, some of the game's most recognizable quarterbacks of the past decade -- Peyton Manning, Michael Vick, Chris Simms -- left college without a ring, while such lesser-regarded names as Tee Martin, Craig Krenzel and Matt Mauck did win a ring. In fact, 10 of the 12 starting quarterbacks analyzed here led their teams to titles in just their first or second years as the starter. And only four reached the much-celebrated 3,000-yards-passing mark.

    While national title quarterbacks aren't necessarily glamorous, however, they do have certain traits. Almost unanimously, the QBs in question were accurate (all completed at least 55 percent of their passes), productive (seven threw at least 20 touchdowns) and avoided mistakes (all had positive touchdown-to-interception ratios, at least 2-to-1 for eight of the QBs).

    "Sometimes the charisma of a quarterback is as important to a football team's success as his ability," said Tennessee coach Phillip Fulmer, whose team won a national title in '98 with first-year starter Martin. "A lot of people would not call [Mauck] at LSU last year a 'star quarterback,' but he was the key to what was happening offensively. His decisions put them in position to win."
     
  2. HatcherTiger

    HatcherTiger Freedom Isn't Free

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2002
    Messages:
    9,878
    Likes Received:
    736
    FFF has a point: "His decisions put them in a position to win." Mauk did an impressive job in this category last year. Obviously, the million dollar question this year is whether or not one of the three is going to be able to step up and make good decisions. Five more jelly doughnuts for FFF !
     
  3. Tiger Trey

    Tiger Trey Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2002
    Messages:
    872
    Likes Received:
    39
    I found this myth to be interesting

    Pay attention Longhorn fans. This is one reason your celebrity highly talented HS hot shots get their tale handed to them at the Texas State Fair every year recently.

    Myth: You need to have
    top-10 recruiting classes.



    Each February, diehard fans pound the recruiting Web sites to find out how their team fared in the annual signing derby, as measured by several noted recruiting analysts. During the timespan studied here, however, highly ranked recruiting classes did not have a huge impact on whether or not a team won the national championship. For each national champion, SI.com averaged the SuperPrep rankings of the team's five preceding recruiting classes. Seven of the 12 teams had an average lower than 10th, including the vaunted 1995 Nebraska (17.6) and 2001 Miami (14.0) teams.

    "The difference between No. 1 and No. 20," SuperPrep's Allen Wallace said, "is probably about two or three big names."

    Case in point: In 1999 Texas landed the top-rated quarterback in the country, Chris Simms, while Miami's QB signee, Ken Dorsey, was only the No. 62 prospect on the West Coast. Texas had the No. 1-rated class, Miami the 11th. If the two quarterbacks were switched, Wallace said, Texas would have fallen from No. 1 and Miami might have moved into the top five. Yet without Dorsey, the 'Canes probably wouldn't have won their championship in 2001.


    SuperPrep recruiting rankings of national title teams, 1994-2003, in championship season and four previous seasons
    Yr. Team Rec. Rankings Avg.
    (Title yr. first)


    '97 Michigan 4, 7, 7, 4, 3 5.0
    '99 Florida St. 7, 7, 3, 13, 3 6.6
    '96 Florida 13, 3, 14, 8, 1 7.8
    '02 Ohio State 3, 15, 8, 2, 13 8.2
    '98 Tennessee 8, 8, 8, 18, 1 8.6
    '03 USC 1, 7, 19, 11, 14 10.4
    '03 LSU 3, 19, 2, 26, 9 11.8
    '97 Nebraska 19, 4, 8, 20, 18 13.8
    '01 Miami 9, 7, 11, 20, 13 14.0
    '95 Nebraska 8, 20, 18, 14, 28 17.6
    '94 Nebraska 20, 18, 14, 28, 10 18.0
    '00 Oklahoma 19, 36, 20, 24, 32 26.2
     

Share This Page