The level of offense NFL fans take to my claim is amusing. Very defensive on this subject.

I couldn't give a crap about the NFL and I'm not being defensive at all. (Though I do notice you take every disagreement with you as a moral failing. Whatever.)

The Miami Hurricanes of 1998-2002 had more NFL 1st rd picks than entire NFL divisions.

Also, your comment about the game being a misrepresentation was supported by almost nothing. If anything, the fact that the college team won once is a remarkable fact that strongly indicates my contention that the best college team could compete, even win a game, (maybe even hammer) against the worst NFL teams, is worth consideration.

If anything there are 3 more strong reasons the All-Stars v NFL Champ game is worth studying. Most people believe that all-star teams don't play very well together, that is likely most true about a football team, where familiarity and "system" has so much influence on performance. In this case, the college players were inflicted with the All-Star status, and they were playing the NFL Champion, the best team in the world. I'm only suggesting the best college team could beat the worst of the NFL, not the best, a massive difference. Also, the way that the NFL distributes talent today, v yesterday, it is clear the best players are spread thinly throughout the league, there is largely little separating the top from bottom. Incredibly, occasionally, there is a team like the Lions, that can't even win one match against a single team. College football is nearly the opposite, talent distribution is very uneven, infact, top talent distribution is absurdly proportioned to a handful of teams.

Nothing you say supports your claim the case I'm making be summarily dismissed. Others will simply "assert" unquestioned NFL superiority..... forgetting I'm not making a claim College better than NFL, but instead worst NFL team, worse than best college football team.

There has been dominating rookies in the NFL at every position, not just RB. LB is dominated by rookies each of the past 3 years. Hell, this year's final 4, only 2 QBs earned D-1 scholarships. I contend there are about 5-6 good QBs in the NFL, the next 50 QBs are identical, commodities, it is this way largely because NFL teams run unnecessarily complex playbooks that harm QB development as much as help development. It is a product of coaches having too much time on their hands. The language is unnecessarily different, you reverse the language, we go back to K Warner watching from the bench, Tom Brady throwing picks deep.

The college team QB'ing would be just fine. They wouldn't be using the wrong language.

I couldn't give a crap about the NFL and I'm not being defensive at all.

Understood Shooty, but you are being uneasy about it Bro.

FYI: Brent Lawrie has asked to be moved to 2nd base, off catcher. This hit yesterday I believe. He said it would get him to bigs 1 year quicker. I believe the Brewers touted his willingness to learn Catcher as a reason they took him. I don't mind, as Milwaukee seems to have depth at Catcher, but it seemed strange the quit the project so quickly. Anyone on Earth ever see him catch?

I meant you were misrepresenting the results of the game. You said "not so long ago" and I pointed out that the last time the game was played was 1976 and the last time the college team won was 1963. Maybe 45 years isn't so long to you, but I think the game has changed a lot since then. While an all-star team isn't as good as the same players playing together for a long time, I think it's pretty likely that a college all-star team is better than a given school's team.

The actual performance of quarterbacks in the NFL varies quite widely - you don't see 5-6 good QBs, a sudden drop, and then a plateau that even includes nearly every backup in the league. Quarterbacks also progress, and their peak is not in college.

Finally, I don't understand what you mean by "had more 1st rd picks than entire NFL divisions". In one case you're saying how many of a team's players were chosen in the first round, and in the second you're saying what exactly? You don't draft from NFL teams, so maybe you mean how many picks they had? How many they had playing for them?

The Lions were pretty awful, so maybe they'd lose a game against the best college teams every once in a while, I'll give you that.

This used to happen not all that long ago, the NFL/Super Bowl champ would play a college all-star team in an exhibition and the college all stars won a few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_All-Star_Game

Last game in 1976, last college win in 1963. I don't know if a win 45 years ago is applicable to today's difference.

9 college wins in ~45 games.

The Miami Hurricanes of 1998-2002 had more NFL 1st rd picks than entire NFL divisions.

What's your point? Tom Brady was a sixth-round pick. Who cares how many first-round picks are rostered on actual teams. Plus the Hurricanes of 1998-2002 is a team that exists only in your imagination. The notion that any college team could remotely compete with any NFL team that had a chance to properly train and prepare is comically absurd. All those later All-Star games you cite were held in late July and early August when players used training camp to get in shape (they had to have off-season jobs back then).

It's dumb to compare baseball to football when it comes to win probability. Football is a game of physical dominance. Any NFL team against any college team is literally men against boys. Sure, some random factors could come into play in some extreme situations but I'd expect the pro team would win 95-to-99 percent of the time. Something crazy like that. Every player on every pro team is in the 99.999th percentile of football playing ability. Most of the players on even the best college team ever would be lucky to be in the 95th percentile. That's a bigger difference in ability than exists between, say, the best starting QB in the NFL and the worst. Then multiply that by 48 players and you have a massacre of epic proportions.

9 wins in 45 games against the best team in the world is pretty good. I'm only suggesting the worst NFL team would lose a few in 10 to the best college team. Perhaps there would be a matchup where the college team would hammer one of these sad NFL teams.

The 1994 Miami Hurricane D had both Warren Sapp, Ray Lewis, in addition to Kenard Lang, Kenny Holmes on the DL, the Rock Dwayne Johnson as backup (kidding, but seriously), This is a unit with 2 NFL Defensive Player of the year winners, 2 likely NFL hall of famers, and 3-4 more 10 year NFL vets in that front 7. I'd bet less than 3 NFL teams at that time, or any given time have that kind of talent playing together. These players came into the NFL and displaced NFL vets and started immediately, and were very good, if not great. Did the Lions have even 1 player as good as these guys? Two? 3? The gap between a street free agent and the guys starting for the Lions or (insert_____ NFL worst team) is nil. Schools that are riding on top like the Hurricanes send nearly every starter and backup to the NFL draft, very few end up as street free agents.

Talent distribution in college is at times absurdly unequal.

9 wins in 45 games against the best team in the world is pretty good.

I wouldn't assume that the teams were giving 100%.

Any NFL team against any college team is literally men against boys.

This used to be true, (when the college all stars would occasionaly beat the best team in the world) today the improvement and readiness in the college football athlete is substantial. The reason for all of the absolutely dominating NFL rookie seasons we have seen recently is because football players no longer reach their physical peak in the NFL. Most are reaching their physical peak in college, a few in HS. Age 20-25 is your football playing peak. So roughly 33-40% of your physical peak football playing career occurs in college, age 20-22 or 23.

When L Fitzgerald was in college not a single NFL WR was as big and fast as he was. When A Boldin was in college, not a single NFL WR was as strong as he was. Boldin was, if not the best WR in all of the NFL his rookie year, he was 2nd or 3rd best.

Last year, Patrick Willis led the NFL in tackles as a rookie.. This year the guy that led the Pats in tackles was a rookie. A Pederson was immediately the best player in the entire NFL when he was in college, he was NFL ready in HS. LT was immediately relegated to #2. The list goes on and on....if all of these rookies are schooling the entire league at the top, just imagine the volume of rank and file rookies that are upgrades over vets at all the other positions. You dont have to dominate to fit in......these top college teams don't resemble triple-A teams where maybe 1-2 or 3 guys have careers, entire rosters of great college programs crank out players, starters and superstars.

The NFL is now the league where rookies dominate like nowhere else, even more so than the NBA.

The 1994 Hurricanes didn't even win the NCAA championship, correct?

That is a ton of defensive talent. But look at the offense. You have Frank Costa at QB. Check out the offensive line. Those guys would get crushed. That's the problem with pitting a college team against a pro team- every college team, no matter how good, has some weakness that a pro team is going to be able to exploit.

Schools that are riding on top like the Hurricanes send nearly every starter and backup to the NFL draft

You know we can look these things up, right? In the absolute best years 10-12 players from a team are drafted - the record as of 2004 was 14 (twice by USC in the 70's). Of course not everyone declares or is eligible for the draft, but the majority of those who would be drafted are. Let's say in the most extreme case there are 18 players who would be drafted. Let's further say that they're all ready to play right away, and at a level equal to their career average (which is generous/false). There could also be some players who weren't drafted but will have careers, but also some who were and will never even make a team, let's assume they cancel, which again I think is generous. That means you have 18 players that are capable of playing NFL football on the best college team in one of the best years. The rest of the team - about 30 players - are below NFL caliber. That team is not going to compete.

I wouldn't assume that the teams were giving 100%.

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. How do the results of an exhibition game tell us anything at all? Is there any reason to believe -- especially in a physical sport like football, where injuries are such a problem -- that the NFL players would play hard? (Presumably the college players had an incentive to play hard, for scouts who would be watching...)

Not to mention that the NFL wasn't nearly as big a deal for most of those years, so the talent level was almost certainly significantly lower.)

Every player on every pro team is in the 99.999th percentile of football playing ability.

Are you including my grandma in this? Obviously pro, or even college football players, for that matter, are in the 99.99% of the population for football ability. Silly argument here.

If there was a top 30 football players by position list, at any given time, 20% of this list would be populated by current college football players.

There's no way an NFL team would lose to the best college teams. A college allstar team may be able to beat one or two teams. Even the best teams have several positions with no one even near NFL talent.

If there was a top 30 football players by position list, at any given time, 20% of this list would be populated by current college football players.

This isn't true and even if it was at pretty much every offensive position besides RB it would be the bottom 20%. And the players are spread out between college teams. I don't know why I'm getting involved in this silly debate, there are plenty of people picking your arguments to pieces.

I would suspect that a football all-star team has a significant disadvantage against a team that has been playing together all season, as well.

If there was a top 30 football players by position list, at any given time, 20% of this list would be populated by current college football players.

I just looked at the top 30 by rushing yards in the NFL, figuring RB was a rookie-friendly position. There are 3 rookies on the list. Maybe, if you ignore aging (and when you talk about physical peak being in college or HS, do you have an evidence for that?) you can get to 20% over a multi-year span, for RB. But then here's the problem - those three RB came from football powerhouses West Virginia, Tulane, and East Carolina. So unless you're willing to take Patrick Pickney as your QB, none of these guys are playing for your team.

That's before we even get to QB, where I think it is ludicrous that 20% of the current best players are in college.

Last year, Patrick Willis led the NFL in tackles as a rookie.. This year the guy that led the Pats in tackles was a rookie.

What does that mean? I don't even know who Willis or the Pats guy are. But I'll assume Willis is a MLB/ILB or maybe a safety on a bad team. The Pats guy is probably a MLB/ILB. They were good enough to start as rookies, that's to their credit, but leading in tackles is mostly an artifact of their position and the team's defensive scheme and talent. It certainly doesn't prove that those two are the best defensive players in the league or even on their own teams, as you seem to be implying.

Yup, Willis played ILB for the 5-11 49ers. I'm sure he's a good player (I have no idea) but that's a pretty good place to start looking for the league leader in tackles.

I would suspect that a football all-star team has a significant disadvantage against a team that has been playing together all season, as well.

The all star games were played in July. The NFL players were likely leaving their jobs tarring roofs to play the game.

I was wondering when someone was going to point that out. How do the results of an exhibition game tell us anything at all? Is there any reason to believe -- especially in a physical sport like football, where injuries are such a problem -- that the NFL players would play hard? (Presumably the college players had an incentive to play hard, for scouts who would be watching...)

The college all-stars were already drafted by the time the all-star game was played. One of the reasons why it was eventually canceled because teams complained that they were losing their rookies to injuries in the game.

Are you including my grandma in this? Obviously pro, or even college football players, for that matter, are in the 99.99% of the population for football ability. Silly argument here

No, it isn't. The vast majority of starters on the best college teams ever weren't even close to being the best players at their position in college, i.e., at the AMATEUR level. The best any Miami roster ever did in a two year period in getting guys drafted ANYWHERE in the draft is about 17 or so. And a fair number of those guys never amounted to squat. That means that most starters on the best college teams ever couldn't even make the roster of any of worst NFL teams in that period. You do not respect the pro game and the god-like ability of professional athletes. But you won't be convinced and you'll never be proven wrong, so this is a waste of time.

I would love to direct the conversation back to prospects, but I don't know much about the current ones. The Red Sox only have two on the list, which is fine since they've had a lot come to the big leagues recently.

I'm game for reading more Matt Wieters facts though.

I'm game for reading more Matt Wieters facts though.

The best college football team could beat the worst NFL team, if you gave them Matt Wieters.

Of course, so could the best girl's volleyball team.

Well played!

The 1994 Hurricanes didn't even win the NCAA championship, correct?

Correct. That great Hurricanes D was man-handled by Nebraska's supposed "stone age" option offense. Ray Lewis and Warren Sapp simply weren't fast enough to stop it. That Nebraska team had 4 NFL starters on the OL, 3 more as backups.

Even the best teams have several positions with no one even near NFL talent.

I think you are way overrating the gap between the last 200 guys or even 400 guys in the NFL with the next 2000 guys that are on the street. The NFL has 55 or so (whatever it is) guys on an active roster, those bottom 25 guys are one whistle away from being on the street, utterly interchangeable. Bill Walsh himself said this.

Yup, Willis played ILB for the 5-11 49ers. I'm sure he's a good player (I have no idea) but that's a pretty good place to start looking for the league leader in tackles.

I love it, of the 32 NFL teams, and of the 50-60 or so starting NFL Mike backers, you have a handful of rookie starters, yet, sure enough, it is a rookie, a guy that never played a snap in the NFL that solved the league and dominated from the start. Not one of the 45-55 or so NFL vet Mike backers, yet you think this somehow proves me wrong. Ha!

The all star games were played in July. The NFL players were likely leaving their jobs tarring roofs to play the game.

I love how several people have commented on this game, and all of the excuses have it where the NFL players were at a disadvantage, not the hodge-podge of amateur college players.

The biggest gap in football is HS to college, not college to NFL.

Almost zero true frosh start and star immediately in college. HS to college is where the the steepest arch in the "learning" curve exist. It is also where the athletes need to develop their bodies the most. The biggest hurdle in college to pro is learning their new team's "language". Some teams are smart and make it easy, others are dumb and make their language difficult and worse, teach is poorly.

Also, the other hurdle, is an SEC player playing in front of 80-90k seat sold out stadiums to playing in front of a half empty stadium of 40k in Arizona. It's hard to get up for that kind of thing.

One of the reasons why it was eventually canceled because teams complained that they were losing their rookies to injuries in the game.

IIRC, Steve Bartkowski broke his leg during one of the last ones.

love it, of the 32 NFL teams, and of the 50-60 or so starting NFL Mike backers, you have a handful of rookie starters, yet, sure enough, it is a rookie, a guy that never played a snap in the NFL that solved the league and dominated from the start. Not one of the 45-55 or so NFL vet Mike backers, yet you think this somehow proves me wrong. Ha!

Did he dominate the league? I have no idea. I'm just saying that leading the league in tackles doesn't prove that he did. Didn't Eugene Lockhart have something like 230 tackles for the '88 or '89 Cowboys? No one thought he dominated the league. His team was just terrible. A starting ILB on a bad team is going to get a lot of tackles, and a good one will get even more. Your original comment insinuated that Willis was perhaps the best defender in the league because he led the league in tackles. I'm merely pointing out that the stat does not really prove anything, as he was in a good position to rack up a lot of tackles.

OB, you are right, tackles in of itself isn't all that telling, it is the RBI of football. However, Willis is very good, some will say great.

Either way, football is done, baseball is here.

I will say, if Appalachian State could beat Michigan, I can't say that a college team could NEVER beat a pro team...

There's no need to consider whether a team consisting of nine Matt Wieterses would win the pennant. A team of one Matt Wieters would win the pennant.

Your football prime for most positions (outside of QB) is 20-25. College players are aged 17-22 or 23.

Nah. Runningbacks may peak that early, but that's the only position, AFAICT. Sure plenty of players at other positions have their best years at those ages as well, but the ones that survive the "injury nexus" usually ppeak later.