NFL Combine Performance

What College Programs Produce the Best NFL Talent

By Joe Landers

Recruits come into college with rankings that range from zero to five stars. Three to five years later, roughly 15% of eligible prospects will get a shot at an NFL camp. What happens in between often determines how successful any given prospect will be in the NFL. Some schools get great athletic talent and simply let them play. Some mix great talent with a great scheme. Others mix that great athletic talent with tremendous positional coaches and help get their players to a level they otherwise would not have achieved. Another group of schools have great positional coaches, but just can’t corral the top-notch athletic talent.

In 2011, I researched which schools developed the best Offensive Lines. Over the years, I’d seen smaller and lower-profile schools pop up on NFL rosters, specifically on the offensive line. I’d also witnessed an inordinate number of camp invites go to high-profile programs. My hypothesis going into the Offensive Line piece was that positional coaches had a much larger impact on prospect translation into the NFL than facilities, TV exposure, conference, or even their reputation with NFL scouts. If a prospect wanted great facilities, pageantry, status, 90,000+ in the stands, and to be revered on campus, he could have a great time at some of the bigger name schools. If he wanted to be developed into an NFL-caliber OL, the choice might take him off the beaten path.

The disparity between perception and reality was never more evident than when I compared the number of camp invites by school to actual NFL productivity¹ over a number of years. What the disparity suggested was: 1) NFL scouting departments brought prospects into camp based on what they perceived through the scouting process and 2) the NFL regular season sifted through all perception and continually proved who belonged on a roster and who didn’t. It is the ultimate merit-based profession. Maybe it’s conference bias, coach bias, school bias, or the mere fact that some prospects look outstanding in the scouting process but just don’t translate to the NFL. Regardless of the reason, there are schools that the NFL continues to attempt to source despite the fact that players from specific positions at those schools continue to not make 53-man rosters or produce in the NFL at a level commensurate with the rate at which they get camp invites.

This segment is dedicated to Defensive Tackles. Who develops the best Defensive Tackles for the NFL? If a school sends 12 DTs to NFL camps over 10 years, but only three ever contribute on the field, what does that suggest? It would seem to suggest that they produce prospects who look the part and pass the scouting test, but just don’t cut it. By the same token, schools that send 12 prospects to NFL camps over 10 years and 10 of them contribute on the field, that’s one heck of a hit rate. You’ll be surprised at some of the school names up and down the list.

Best 2016 DT Prospects

According to OurLads, the 30 best DT prospects heading into the 2016 Draft are:

That’s two from Alabama, Nebraska, and two from USC. The other 24 schools all have a single prospect.

An average of 22 DTs have been drafted every year since 1995. Another 39 have been brought into camp as undrafted free agents. 61 out of roughly 450 draft-eligible DTs get a shot each year. Since 2005, 670 DTs have made it to an NFL camp. They’ve come from 204 schools. From 2005 to 2015, which schools have the highest success rate for DTs translating from college to the NFL?

How have Alabama, Nebraska, and USC prospects fared? Read on.

55 Qualifying DT Schools

117 schools have sent one or more DTs to NFL camps since 2005. The focus of this study is on those that can generally be relied upon to produce consistent DT prospects for the NFL – qualifiers must send at least one DT every two years to the NFL. Only 55 schools meet these criteria. (With only 4 DT campers since 2005, Nebraska did not make the cut for the study.) Georgia has sent the most to NFL camps with 14. Eight schools tied for the low-water mark of 5. USC has the highest success rate at 83% - 10 of their 12 campers went on to contribute on the field in a regular season NFL game. Three schools (with at least 5 campers) had a 0% success rate – Oklahoma State, Colorado, and Hawaii.

Rk	School	Campers	On-Field Contributors	Success Rate%	Pts/ Camper	Rk	School	Campers	On-Field Contributors	Success Rate%	Pts/ Camper
1	USC	12	10	83%	140.6	30	Georgia Tech	5	2	40%	41.7
2	N.C. State	6	5	83%	40.6	31	Connecticut	5	2	40%	36.4
3	Alabama	11	9	82%	60.9	32	Southern Miss	5	2	40%	31.9
4	Wisconsin	5	4	80%	49.9	33	Clemson	10	4	40%	22.8
5	LSU	12	9	75%	113.4	34	UCLA	5	2	40%	14.4
6	Florida	11	8	73%	63.8	35	Missouri	8	3	38%	56.0
7	Temple	7	5	71%	108.6	36	Michigan	8	3	38%	51.3
8	Texas	7	5	71%	78.7	37	Miami	8	3	38%	10.2
9	Penn State	7	5	71%	40.2	38	Memphis	6	2	33%	71.2
10	Michigan State	9	6	67%	99.4	39	Arizona	6	2	33%	32.8
11	Mississippi State	9	6	67%	81.5	40	Syracuse	6	2	33%	30.3
12	Utah	12	8	67%	74.1	41	Oregon	10	3	30%	66.7
13	Auburn	11	7	64%	100.5	42	North Carolina	10	3	30%	10.1
14	Florida State	11	7	64%	60.4	43	Minnesota	7	2	29%	20.0
15	Oklahoma	11	7	64%	48.9	44	South Carolina	7	2	29%	4.9
16	Iowa	8	5	63%	117.0	45	Mississippi	7	2	29%	3.9
17	Tennessee	8	5	63%	64.0	46	Virginia Tech	7	2	29%	0.7
18	Maryland	8	5	63%	8.4	47	Louisville	9	2	22%	30.8
19	Georgia	14	8	57%	58.6	48	Iowa State	5	1	20%	73.2
20	Stanford	7	4	57%	12.8	49	Pittsburgh	6	1	17%	30.5
21	Arizona State	6	3	50%	27.0	50	Cincinnati	7	1	14%	25.5
22	Virginia	6	3	50%	10.5	51	Troy State	7	1	14%	15.2
23	East Carolina	9	4	44%	49.7	52	Arkansas	7	1	14%	8.6
24	Texas A&M	9	4	44%	48.8	53	Oklahoma State	6	0	0%	0.0
25	Notre Dame	9	4	44%	38.8	54	Colorado	5	0	0%	0.0
26	California	7	3	43%	91.8	55	Hawaii	5	0	0%	0.0
27	Rutgers	7	3	43%	35.3
28	Kentucky	7	3	43%	33.0
29	Ohio State	7	3	43%	19.9

Despite sending less campers than the top-12, when N.C. State, Wisconsin, Temple, Texas, and Penn State do send someone, they have a 71% success rate or higher. This would seem to bode well for Austin Johnson (PSU), Hassan Ridgeway (TX), and Matt Ioanniddis (Temple).

In addition to drawing conclusions with respect to viable sources for NFL talent, there are probably correlations to be made by high school recruits. If a college prospect at Elizabeth City State is good enough, he’ll get noticed – that goes without saying. However, the above numbers would suggest that you’re going to get more exposure at some schools than others. They also seem to suggest that there are some schools where your odds to get developed are higher than the rest.

Conclusion

Just as there will always be bumper crops of talent from sources previously untapped, there will always be bias. Comparing NFL success to camp invites, by position, allows us to filter through the noise and see what schools have the best success rates. For those that are enterprising enough and have access to the data, an equally compelling study would be to identify success rates by DL coach.

Ever since I started to use Twitter as an information source, I’ve been reminded again and again that real scouts don’t adhere to the narrative which suggests there is a correlation between schools and player success. Each prospect is treated and graded as an individual. Say what you will, but there’s something to BC, Iowa, Miami, Texas, Auburn, Notre Dame and USC continuing to produce NFL OL talent that performs above average. There’s also something to 12 out of 14 Arkansas Defensive Ends underwhelming in the NFL. Texas Tech Quarterbacks, FSU/AUB/LSU CBs, FSU/PSU LBs, Cal/USC/LSU RBs, Miami/Stanford/ND/Wisco TEs, and OSU/LSU WRs. They all follow similar patterns - some good, some bad. As with all positions, DT patterns will change over a 10-year span, but for three schools (listed above), the next DT they send to the NFL that contributes on the field will be the first in a long long time.

¹ - Going back to 1998, I’ve tracked individual NFL player productivity with an automated point system that measures everything from sacks and touchdowns to passes broken up, yards, penalties, first downs, tackles for loss, and everything in between. Values can vary by position. Prior to 2005, I manually tracked hundreds of players. Starting in 2005, I tracked all non-OL players. In 2009, I began tracking all offensive linemen as well. For the last seven seasons, I’ve tracked all players at all positions in the NFL.