There are only a couple of surprises at the top of the list, the biggest being California. It should come as no surprise that Jeff Tedford was fired. Also, his situation is probably a pretty good example of a coach that both stayed a season or two too long (for a more thorough treatment see Grobe, Jim) and didn't adapt to the changing environment in his conference. But apparently he could eyeball potential NFL talent, so he has that going for him.
Even more interesting is looking at starts per round. Georgia seriously tearing up the lower rounds (check out the combined 4th and 5th round starts). Also interesting: Alabama had very few lower round guys starting in the NFL. Related: Alabama was that much more talented than the rest of the world over that period.
Which is reflected in the efficiency (# of players drafted by round divided by games started by round) listing:
You will note Alabama didn't not appear on the most efficient list. Neither did Ohio State. Why do you think that is? Villiotti has an idea:
It is interesting that Alabama does not appear on the “most efficient” list for any round. Georgia and Florida are the only colleges to appear three times in the most efficient column. Are Alabama players “overdrafted”? This at least raises the issue.You can't argue that Alabama and Ohio State have been the two most dominating teams over that time span, so you know the players, as a group, are better at the footballs than their peers. Do you think there is something to be said about those players' college coaches being that much better at getting those players to work inside their systems than their NFL peers?
On the least efficient side, Ohio State appears on that list for five of the seven rounds. Another potential case of “overdrafting”? Again, no definitive answer here but the issue is raised.