[washingtonismoney]

Players getting watch listed to different awards exists mainly as a way for bloggers/press people to get stories on otherwise slow days before practice starts, but I thought it might be interesting to take a look at the aggregated watch lists for the Pac-12:

http://www.pac-10.org/Football/Tabid/145...Lists.aspx

Let's reorganize things into two lists. First, how many watch list mentions there are, ranked by team (this version will double count one player watch listed to two different awards):

Literature's Greatest Losers: 26
Stanford: 18
Oregon: 15
Utah: 10
59ers: 8
Wazzou: 7
Colorado: 5
Oregon State: 5
UCLA: 5
UW: 4
ASU: 3
Arizona: 2 (1 is no longer playing)

And here's the ranking where we don't double-count players:
Literature's Greatest Losers: 11
Stanford: 10
Oregon: 6*
Utah: 5
Wazzou: 4
Colorado: 4
59ers: 4
Oregon State: 3
UCLA: 3
UW: 3*
ASU
Zona: 2 (1 is no longer playing)

*(Asterisk for something that annoys me. For both of these teams, players who are presumed to be starters are nevertheless being watchlisted. It's less presumptuous in the case of Oregon, which really does have an offensive machine; it's downright weird to presume Chris Polk's running back is one of the very best in the nation. It's one of those presumptions that we generally aren't the beneficiary of. Given how much success in college football is based on the self-fulfilling prophecies of perception and presumption, this is a minor grace note of an important phenomenon. Kenjon Barner and Jesse Callier haven't proven a damn thing.

Anyway, as you might have noticed Stanford performs quite well in these metrics. And yet we know what the familiar storyline of the season is--what's more important, the talent we lost or the talent we're bringing back? Viewed in that light these aggregated watch list stuff is kind of interesting: an optimist might call it an opportunity for arbitrage; a pessimist might call it the reflection of conventional wisdom hedging its bets.)

(As always, my math may be slightly off. I feel confident about the general gist of the numbers though.)

[washingtonismoney]

Players getting watch listed to different awards exists mainly as a way for bloggers/press people to get stories on otherwise slow days before practice starts, but I thought it might be interesting to take a look at the aggregated watch lists for the Pac-12:

http://www.pac-10.org/Football/Tabid/145...Lists.aspx

Let's reorganize things into two lists. First, how many watch list mentions there are, ranked by team (this version will double count one player watch listed to two different awards):

Literature's Greatest Losers: 26
Stanford: 18
Oregon: 15
Utah: 10
59ers: 8
Wazzou: 7
Colorado: 5
Oregon State: 5
UCLA: 5
UW: 4
ASU: 3
Arizona: 2 (1 is no longer playing)

And here's the ranking where we don't double-count players:
Literature's Greatest Losers: 11
Stanford: 10
Oregon: 6*
Utah: 5
Wazzou: 4
Colorado: 4
59ers: 4
Oregon State: 3
UCLA: 3
UW: 3*
ASU
Zona: 2 (1 is no longer playing)

*(Asterisk for something that annoys me. For both of these teams, players who are presumed to be starters are nevertheless being watchlisted. It's less presumptuous in the case of Oregon, which really does have an offensive machine; it's downright weird to presume Chris Polk's running back is one of the very best in the nation. It's one of those presumptions that we generally aren't the beneficiary of. Given how much success in college football is based on the self-fulfilling prophecies of perception and presumption, this is a minor grace note of an important phenomenon. Kenjon Barner and Jesse Callier haven't proven a damn thing.

Anyway, as you might have noticed Stanford performs quite well in these metrics. And yet we know what the familiar storyline of the season is--what's more important, the talent we lost or the talent we're bringing back? Viewed in that light these aggregated watch list stuff is kind of interesting: an optimist might call it an opportunity for arbitrage; a pessimist might call it the reflection of conventional wisdom hedging its bets.)

(As always, my math may be slightly off. I feel confident about the general gist of the numbers though.)

[CowboyIndian]

How do two Tight Ends fit in this category?:
ROTARY LOMBARDI AWARD
(Most Outstanding Down Lineman/Linebacker)

[CowboyIndian]

How do two Tight Ends fit in this category?:
ROTARY LOMBARDI AWARD
(Most Outstanding Down Lineman/Linebacker)

[Hank 91]

I noticed that, too. How'd Toilolo end up in that category? Perhaps someone looked at his height and assumed he was an offensive lineman.

[Hank 91]

I noticed that, too. How'd Toilolo end up in that category? Perhaps someone looked at his height and assumed he was an offensive lineman.

[CowboyIndian]

Fauria...the TE from UCLA...is also on the list.

[CowboyIndian]

Fauria...the TE from UCLA...is also on the list.

[FarmBoy]

WIM - very interesting review. Thanks for putting it together. I'll be curious to see if Ted Miller poaches it for his own use on the Pac12 blog.

Perhaps the inclusion of TEs in the ROTARY LOMBARDI has more to do with the fact that even football people are relatively ignorant of who the great OLine prospect are out there, outside of the top 3-4 who are already talked about as 1st round draftees? So they default to TE, where there are readily available "measurables", in order to fill out their 50 person watch list?

Hopefully that talent that's recognized by the football "experts" can disprove the common fan expectation that Stanford is DOA without a "once in a generation QB."

[FarmBoy]

WIM - very interesting review. Thanks for putting it together. I'll be curious to see if Ted Miller poaches it for his own use on the Pac12 blog.

Perhaps the inclusion of TEs in the ROTARY LOMBARDI has more to do with the fact that even football people are relatively ignorant of who the great OLine prospect are out there, outside of the top 3-4 who are already talked about as 1st round draftees? So they default to TE, where there are readily available "measurables", in order to fill out their 50 person watch list?

Hopefully that talent that's recognized by the football "experts" can disprove the common fan expectation that Stanford is DOA without a "once in a generation QB."