In the College Football Playoff era, 69 schools have seen a player drafted in the first round. It’s a list that includes 51 schools from the Power Five (including BYU; not including Houston, UCF, and Cincinnati), 14 schools from the Group of Five, and four schools from the FCS. It includes every SEC school but Vanderbilt, and it includes every single school that’s been selected for the College Football Playoff. Here’s where the playoff appearers line up:
| School | Playoff Appearances | First Round Picks |
| Alabama | 7 | 25 |
| Clemson | 6 | 12 |
| Ohio State | 5 | 18 |
| Oklahoma | 4 | 5 |
| Georgia | 3 | 14 |
| Michigan | 2 | 8 |
| Notre Dame | 2 | 6 |
| LSU | 1 | 11 |
| Washington | 1 | 8 |
| Oregon | 1 | 6 |
| Florida State | 1 | 6 |
| TCU | 1 | 4 |
| Michigan State | 1 | 2 |
| Cincinnati | 1 | 1 |
The question we were curious about, pulling this together, is which schools are over and underperforming their average top-line talent. Here’s what we learned.
Among the fourteen schools who’ve made the College Football Playoff, the average ratio of appearances to first rounders is 0.35, or roughly three first-rounders per playoff appearance. Among all 69 schools with at least one first rounder, the number is 0.07, or roughly 14 first-rounders per playoff appearance. These numbers are a little incorrect, though. We don’t have the first round data from this season, and if it’s first round data that correlates with playoff appearances, it’s the playoff preceding the draft which we’re worried about. Put otherwise: We’ve had eight drafts in this era. We’ve had nine College Football Playoffs.
So, let’s remove the appearances from this year and leave ourselves with the following list:
| School | Playoff Appearances | First Round Picks |
| Alabama | 7 | 25 |
| Clemson | 6 | 12 |
| Ohio State | 4 | 18 |
| Oklahoma | 4 | 5 |
| Georgia | 2 | 14 |
| Notre Dame | 2 | 6 |
| LSU | 1 | 11 |
| Michigan | 1 | 8 |
| Washington | 1 | 8 |
| Oregon | 1 | 6 |
| Florida State | 1 | 6 |
| Michigan State | 1 | 2 |
| Cincinnati | 1 | 1 |
Using this new count, our averages come out to 0.34 appearances per first-rounder among the playoff-appearer caste and 0.06 appearances per first-rounder among the 69 schools taken as a whole. Really, it’s 15 first-rounders per playoff appearance, not 14.
Some schools of note:
Alabama: 25 First-Rounders, 7 Playoff Appearances, 1.61 “Expected” Playoff Appearances
Alabama has the most first-rounders over this era, and it has the most playoff appearances, and that’s not a coincidence. Still, any formula here clearly shouldn’t be linear, because doing it linearly leaves us with Alabama having overperformed expectations by a full 5.39 playoff appearances. Alabama has, by this measure, overperformed its talent.
This actually might be true. It’s possible Alabama really has overperformed its talent. Not to the tune of five extra playoffs, of course, but Alabama has taken its immense talent and turned it into much greater results than, say, Texas, who’s hung near Alabama in recruiting rankings but has produced only one first round pick in the last eight drafts and has no playoff appearances to show for it.
Florida: 10 First-Rounders, 0 Playoff Appearances, 0.65 “Expected” Playoff Appearances
Our biggest underachiever is Florida, who’s sixth in the country in first round picks over the last eight drafts but hasn’t yet made the playoff. Is Florida wasting its talent? Absolutely. With some of these—North Dakota State, for example—there’s a very top-heavy base of talent. There are a few first-rounders (2, in the case of the Bison), but the supporting cast isn’t near that level. We don’t have second or third round data pulled together ourselves, but we would imagine Florida is sending guys to the NFL in customary proportions, meaning the fact they have a lot of first round picks probably means they have a lot of seconds and thirds as well. Florida doesn’t just have a few studs. It has a lot. It has yet to turn those studs into playoff spots.
Oklahoma: 5 First-Rounders, 4 Playoff Appearances, 0.32 “Expected” Playoff Appearances
Who’s really the biggest overachiever? It might be Oklahoma, though again, this brings lurking variables into question. Would Oklahoma have made the College Football Playoff in any of these seasons were they already in the SEC? It’s up for debate. I love the Big 12, personally, but the facts are clear: If we were basing this formula on wins in playoff games, Oklahoma would no longer pop as a high achiever at all.
LSU: 11 First-Rounders, 1 Playoff Appearance, 0.71 “Expected” Playoff Appearances
Every team that’s made a playoff has “overachieved” by our formula. But LSU is the closest, of the thirteen, to having underachieved. For all the talent LSU has bestowed upon the NFL, they don’t have consistent success in this era to show for it.
Again, though, this doesn’t tell the full story. Four of LSU’s eleven first round picks were drafted immediately following their national championship, with a fifth drafted the next time around. For a lot of teams with a lot of talent, the talent is spread more uniformly. LSU had one really, really good team.
Cincinnati: 1 First-Rounder, 1 Playoff Appearance, 0.06 “Expected” Playoff Appearances
An argument certain folks like to make is that Group of Five schools are just as good as Power Five schools, but that they just don’t get the chance to prove it. This is…suspect. Cincinnati was every bit good enough to make the 2021 season’s playoff, and first-rounders isn’t the only way to measure this, but Cincinnati was a giant anomaly. The talent just wasn’t there to the same extent it’s been there for Alabama and Ohio State and even schools like Iowa, who’s produced five first round picks in the era but hasn’t cracked the playoff field. The debate is something of a moot point, with the four-team format going away, but it’s also getting more relevant, with the 12-team format putting more Group of Five schools close to the bubble.
Young, Then Whom?
The big question for tonight’s first round, narrative-wise, seems to be the order of the quarterbacks selected. Especially after Bryce Young. Either oddsmakers and pundits are in for a shock, or Young is going first overall.
After Young, things get really, really messy. C.J. Stroud, Will Levis, and Anthony Richardson can all be found in reputable mock drafts going in the top four (the Colts seem certain to take a QB at #4) and in others falling out of the top ten, which—as any number of quarterbacks throughout the years can tell you—can sometimes turn into a fall out of the top twenty. Is it a good class of quarterbacks? Time will tell. But it’s an uncertain one, at the very least.
Complicating matters on this front is the ascent of Hendon Hooker, who’s popping in a lot of first rounds after long being an afterthought in these conversations. Richardson rose early. Hooker, unless I’ve missed something, is rising late. After Hooker, there’s a big drop-off to the next tier—Jake Haener, Clayton Tune, Aidan O’Connell, etc.—so this is a five-quarterback mix, but the latter four of those five are at the moment almost anybody’s guess.
One last thought on the QB’s: Four of these guys are coming out of the SEC, and the other is Stroud, coming out of the closest thing to an SEC program anywhere in the country in terms of talent. Remember when the SEC wasn’t as strong offensively as it was on defense? When LSU and Alabama were deciding games with field goal shootouts? Good football begets better football. It’s a big, circular process.
Will Will Go Tonight?
Iowa State is not among the 69 schools with a first round pick in the College Football Playoff era. To find Iowa State’s last first round pick, you have to go back to 1973, when the Houston Oilers took George Amundson 14th overall. Will McDonald will hopefully change that tonight.
McDonald’s showing up in the first round in every reputable mock draft released within the last few days, but he’s not showing up comfortably in it in any of them. A lot of pundits have him going 29th, to the Saints. That doesn’t leave much room to spare, especially with this year’s a 31-pick first round thanks to Tom Brady’s attempt to be owner/quarterback for the Dolphins.
Two things to watch for early, if you’re interested in Iowa State getting a little shine? Watch where Will Anderson and Tyree Wilson go. They’re both edge rushers, and each shows up in a lot of top threes. If the Texans don’t take a quarterback, a lot of folks think they’ll take Anderson. If the Cardinals don’t trade the third pick and Anderson’s gone, a lot of folks think they’ll take Wilson.
After Anderson and Wilson, Lukas Van Ness comes next (out of Iowa, tragically), and then Nolan Smith and Myles Murphy are two others who show up in a lot of first round projections, but they’re more in the middle picks. McDonald appears a clear sixth of those six at the moment, but there’s a lot less scrutiny applied outside the top ten with these things, and the gaps between 15th and 25th aren’t the same as those between 5th and 15th. I don’t know where the chances stand relative to 50%, but they’re close to it, no matter which side they’re occupying.
Will the Packers Take a Catcher?
The Packers, for years, have declined to take offensive players in the first round. The last one they took was Jordan Love, and before that, you have to go all the way back to Bryan Bulaga and Derek Sherrod in 2010 and 2011. To find a non-QB skill position player? Javon Walker. 2002. This is not a franchise that historically has been fond of taking offensive stat guys in the first round. And yet, the most popular choice for the Packers at #13 in the mock drafts right now is Jaxon Smith-Njigba, the wide receiver out of Ohio State. Other popular choices include Paris Johnson Jr. and Darnell Wright, a pair of offensive tackles, as well as Van Ness, whom we mentioned above.
Broadly, the thought seems to be that the Packers will try to help Love in a different way than they tried to help Rodgers. For a long time, it was said that the Packers weren’t trying to help Rodgers, but really, what they were doing was trying to lower the point total he needed to reach in order to win. The thought seems to be, right now, that Brian Gutekunst and the crew will want to help Love more directly, by giving him players who help him score points, either through keeping him safe (Johnson, Wright) or giving him hands to throw to (JSN) or a mix of the two (a tight end, like Dalton Kincaid). I’m suspicious of that thought.
(One last anecdote here: The Packers have only drafted in the top 13 three times in the last twenty years. They took A.J. Hawk, B.J. Raji, and Rashan Gary with those picks.)
Are the Bruins in Trouble?
The question of whether the Bruins are or aren’t in trouble really comes down to how much rest matters in hockey, and how much it specifically matters for the Bruins. They’re still heavily favored to make it out of the first round, and they will be even if they lose Game 6 down in the greater Miami area. With the Leafs potentially wrapping up their first round at home tonight, though, Boston could be in a position of navigating a quicker turnaround than their opponent, meaningfully or otherwise. Another question, along the same vein? How dangerous is it to play extra games at a time of year when everyone’s already all beat up?
Other thoughts on the current playoffs:
- Sticking on the hockey side, I love how much Game 5 has shifted things for the Kraken. They’re knocking on the door of eliminating the defending champions, and the crowd in Seattle tomorrow will know it. At times, sports can be pure fun. Right now, that’s what’s going on in the Emerald City.
- Can the Devils keep doing what they’ve been doing? I am very much not a knowledgeable hockey guy, but I can read scores, and after allowing a combined nine non-empty–net goals on the first two nights of the series with the Rangers, New Jersey has shut the door. The Rangers’ shot numbers haven’t meaningfully changed, but Akira Schmid has been turning them away at a rate Vitek Vanecek didn’t. How much of that is the goalkeeping and how much is defense is lost on me, but it’s night and day, and it’ll need to stay that way with the Devils themselves averaging 1.5 goals per game in regulation so far, and only two of their seven goals so far coming in 5-on-5 situations.
- Gelo has the Knights as the fourth-best team in hockey right now. Is it right? Because these guys are not getting a lot of talk. Are we all still not used to Vegas having a hockey team? Are we biased towards teams we associate with existing?
- In the NBA: Either the Knicks or the Heat will play in the Eastern Conference Finals. That is a remarkable twist in the plot. I can’t say enough about how much I love Jimmy Butler—the man in the playoffs is a competitor like few others in sports today—and the Knicks winning two of three in their series on the road felt like a statement that this team really can compete. This series is, on paper, worse than any other so far in the NBA Playoffs by seed, but like whatever the other three end up being, it’s one where neither team winning would be a big surprise. That’s fun, and it’s a quiet success for the NBA.
- Do the Grizzlies get any advantage from being younger as their series against the Lakers goes on? They’re still such a heavy underdog, but they’re only flashing as a five-point underdog right now for Game 6 in L.A. That’s not a lot of points. Are the Lakers in trouble? How would things be different if the Grizzlies had closed out Game 4?
- The Warriors now get the Kings at home, but will they be too complacent? A team’s collective mental state is a big deal in all of the big four sports, but it’s on display a lot more in basketball because we know the players better as people and the concept of taking nights off without literally taking them off is visible and common. You would think the Warriors wouldn’t have become what they’ve become without having the “killer instinct,” so to speak, but is that correct?
- Much like Seattle’s tomorrow, Atlanta’s crowd should be something else tonight with a chance to force Game 7 against the Celtics. Joe Mazzula is starting to take some heat. Is that deserved? To many, Mike Budenholzer wasn’t a problem until he was.
