College v. Pro - Page 3

Artdogg · #21 07-23-2006, 07:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so it's not like a one-in-a-billion shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

would be closer to one-in-a-zillion

dkgojackets · #22 07-23-2006, 08:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so it's not like a one-in-a-billion shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

So youre tellin me theres a chance...

SammyKid11 · #23 07-23-2006, 08:02 PM

Here's a more interesting question...

If they played 100 times, how many times could the BEST college TEAM of a particular decade beat a team of NFL players who were put together at random (random picks from the squads and coaching staffs of all NFL teams)? Assume the NFL Randoms were a different team each game and each team only had 2 weeks to become a team and prepare for the game while the great college team was at their peak form of the season?

Basically, how much is cohesiveness and knowing your role and schemes, etc., worth to the outcome of 100 football games?

dkgojackets · #24 07-23-2006, 08:03 PM

What rules would we be playing these games under?

SammyKid11 · #25 07-23-2006, 08:14 PM

Let's assume college rules...the pros have to adjust. And let's assume a neutral site for each game...both teams have to travel an equal distance north from their training facilities, both teams have an even number of fans rooting for them.

JackWhite · #26 07-23-2006, 08:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Theres no way that a college team comes close to beating a pro team. Every player in a pro team was a star in college. The pro team will be more experienced, faster, stronger, and bigger.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've never seen a football game where the bigger, stronger, faster, and more experienced team lost? I've seen it a lot. I've seen many 20 point dogs win outright.

damaniac · #27 07-23-2006, 09:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Theres no way that a college team comes close to beating a pro team. Every player in a pro team was a star in college. The pro team will be more experienced, faster, stronger, and bigger.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've never seen a football game where the bigger, stronger, faster, and more experienced team lost? I've seen it a lot. I've seen many 20 point dogs win outright.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but the difference is bigger here. Think of it in terms of a recent example even us youngin's can understand. The recent Lions teams. They've had, among others: Mike Williams, Roy Williams, Charles Rogers...Joey Harrington...some dominant college OL (A. Gibson, J. Backus, Raola)...some of these guys absolutely crushed anyone they faced in college. They've mostly been ordinary to bad for the Lions. Not even looking at the Lions as a whole, but even their individual stats have been weak. These were sick college players all on one team and are very pedestrian in the NFL.

JackWhite · #28 07-23-2006, 11:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, but the difference is bigger here. Think of it in terms of a recent example even us youngin's can understand. The recent Lions teams. They've had, among others: Mike Williams, Roy Williams, Charles Rogers...Joey Harrington...some dominant college OL (A. Gibson, J. Backus, Raola)...some of these guys absolutely crushed anyone they faced in college. They've mostly been ordinary to bad for the Lions. Not even looking at the Lions as a whole, but even their individual stats have been weak. These were sick college players all on one team and are very pedestrian in the NFL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that illustrates the importance of coaching and team chemistry. Superior talent doesn't always prevail if those ingredients are missing. That is why I think a great college team might have a shot to beat, or at least could play close a terrible NFL team. With superior coaching, team chemistry, and motivation, an upset could be possible.

If you take a look at the starting offenses of the 2005 Houston Texans and the USC Trojans, I think it is a difficult case to make that Houston was significantly more talented. They had more experience, but the overall talent levels were similar, in my opinion.

bernie · #29 07-24-2006, 12:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I have been watching Detroit Lions games for years and watched many guys who couldn't catch a pass when it hit them between the numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like D-Jack and Korin Robinson did on the Seahawks? LOL. (D-Jack has gotten a bit better, but could still use some stickem. Note that we didn't really miss him when he was injured.)

Yknow what amazed me about those wonderful times, people around here were complaining about Hass throwing it. I would counter with how much better does he have to throw it? God it was painful to watch. We'd say that they were playing in the wrong position. DB would've suited them better since they could knock the ball down like nobody's business.

Back to your statements, for whatever reason, they're dropping and scewing up. Fact is, your average college player, even on a great team, will likely fare worse than the experienced crappy pro players. Especially with the initial shellshock of playing against that much higher caliber of a players.

b

bernie · #30 07-24-2006, 12:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming college teams can only play pro teams from their own era, I don't think there has ever been a college team that would be favored over a pro team.

Of course, as mentioned before, huge underdogs do win on very rare occasions, so it's not like a one-in-a-billion shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those underdogs beat other teams of similar development. Not someone a big level between them.

Could the winner of March Madness beat an NBA team?
Could a college baseball team beat a MLB team?(I think the gap may be closer in baseball than NBA or NFL. I think NFL has the widest gap, imo)

b