Tigers Talent Is Relative

It was a throw away line. A few words at the end of a reply to a question about the level of talent on Clemson's 2008 football team. Tommy Bowden said he is blessed with more talent than he's ever had in his time at Clemson. Then he said, "How that relates to LSU or Texas or Oklahoma, I don't know".

To many Clemson fans and other doubters across the nation it was a typical Bowden. Excuses. Explanations. Rationalizations. Bowden again setting the tone for a let down. Poor mouthing his team so the expectations won't be so high and the seat so warm when the Tigers inevitably fall short.

Or was it? Bowden specifically mentioned three other teams, LSU, Texas and Oklahoma. I decided to take a look and see how Clemson's talent compares to those three other teams to try and determine the truthfulness of Bowden's statement.

First the caveats:

1. I looked at the two-deep lineups for each team as it was written in Lindy's 2008 College Football Preview magazine.
2. I used the Scout.com star ratings for recruits.
3. Not all players are playing the same position they were recruited at.
4. Some players were counted twice, because they are 1st team at one position and second team at another.
5. There are some inherent problems with this approach. I understand that some players ranked low have obviously exceeded their rankings. Aaron Kelley as a two star is an obvious example. However, there are 5 star rated player who are not performing at that level either, so the theory is that these will even out over the course of 44 players.
6. It's also obvious that a 5 star Freshman and a 5 star Senior are probably not performing at the same level. Again, this is about relative strength of talent on a team and is ONE way of measuring the talent on a team.

With those things in mind here are the average "star" rankings for these teams:

Offense

1. LSU 3.82
2. Texas 3.68
3. Oklahoma 3.45
4. Clemson 2.95

Defense

1. Texas 3.95
2. LSU 3.55
3. Oklahoma 3.50
4. Clemson 3.14

Overall Team Average

1. Texas 3.82
2. LSU 3.68
3. Oklahoma 3.48
4. Clemson 3.05

The Tigers ranked last in offense, defense and overall compared to the other three teams. It appears from this unscientific bit of research that Tommy Bowden has a valid point. Clemson doesn't stack up well against any of these teams in terms of raw talent.

Interestingly, Texas is lower ranked than the other teams across the board in the preseason rankings and predictions. So, in theory if Texas wins the Big 12 it will be a coup, even though the numbers show they have roughly a 7% higher talent level across the board than OU. Texas will be celebrated in the media as overachievers and a team that "gets the most of their talent", when in reality we should expect them to win the Big 12. And we wonder how some teams get the reputations of being either underachievers and others overachievers.

I am curious how the Tigers talent stacks up against the ACC, specifically Miami, FSU, Wake and Virginia Tech. I'll do some work and let you know what I find.