What you do not get often in the smaller conferences is the competition vs other players that will be playing on Sunday next year. That is a good reason SEC matches are big. I think QB is different in that the skill set is easier to evaluate no matter the conference. I think WR is one of the hardest to evaluate at the college level. Coaches will use the spread to get a mismatch somewhere. Many of the WR do not know more than 4-5 routes and may not run them correctly because they have not had to. For WR I always try to look at route running 1st. That is a premium with the NFL rules for bumping. Run good routes and you will get open, even after you slow down.

_________________
everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts

ok, so if you could explain to me what the disconnect is, I'd be glad to listen, because I don't see where I said anything other than "question mark"

Not "disqualifier".

"Question mark".

your wording and my thought process match. "top guys in MAC" = "solid but unspectacular guys in big conference"

and I agree about the Big East, which is practically a small school football conference anymore. *sigh* I remember the glory days of Pitt football...

_________________

I did a chart last year, tracking the last ten drafts or so... I categorized the picks by conference and by result... Bust, solid, star. Surprisingly, the most busts percentage-wise came from the biggest conferences.

What does it mean? Maybe it means the big conference guys are overrated... Maybe it just means they vetted the small school guys more thoroughly?

_________________
"Joe Flacco is the best QB in football."-- Ray Rice

could be they scouted the small school guys more thoroughly, could be the small school guys just wanted it more.

*shrugs*

whether it is "legitimate" or not, small school guys tend to come with more of a question mark than the larger school guys.

_________________

I think a kid can either play or he can't... Higher competition might reveal physical limitations but his character and ability to play the game are likely already visible. That's why people get excited when a player is both successful at a lower level and has the physical explosiveness or potential.

_________________
"Joe Flacco is the best QB in football."-- Ray Rice

well sure, but what gets you MORE excited, seeing a guy do well against Louisiana State or Louisiana Tech? vs. Alabama, or University of Alabama-Birmingham?

put it this way, Dontari Poe is a divisive prospect. Most either hate him or love him, and the biggest knock on him is "what did he do against ANYBODY who might make it to the NFL?"

now imagine if he had gone to the Senior Bowl and just tore it up? The questions about his "lack of competition" will be substantially reduced. I'm not saying a small school guy CAN'T be good or WON'T be good, that would be ridiculous. But unless the guy had a really good game (or perhaps Senior Bowl or even Shrine Bowl), there's going to be the question about his level of competition.

Take a look at all the NCAA passing records. They darn sure aren't being set by QBs playing SEC or Big 12 schedules. If Ben puts up the type of season he did playing against BCS teams (I know, 2003 was different), he might've been the one that went first overall. Who knows?

I don't think I'm off base in saying that a prospects level of competition is taken into consideration.

_________________

of course... in fact I like seeing small school guys vs the toughest opponent they faced. I liked Ryan Moats one year because, playing for Louisiana Tech, he had a huge game against Miami (Fla.) in one of those payday games.

I think a guy should stand out against lesser competition... but, sure, there's no way to know how he'll react when someone has the size/speed/skills to counteract what he does best.

_________________
"Joe Flacco is the best QB in football."-- Ray Rice