Interesting, but averages without distribution is worthless. Say Vandy should only have one or two, how many does Bama have and are any of them kickers?
Bama had 10 and no kickers, vs our four.
I don't want us to be average, we need to be superior.
Actually there are many other factors to consider than just the distribution or even variance which might be what you mean. I mentioned one. There is "win-lose record" bias in all such selections particularly at positions like OL where there are not many objective statistics. When there is some doubt voters or selectors in for such a team will tend to err on the side of a player from a team with a better win-lose record.
Additionally other than some personal problem with love/envy that seem endemic around here, I am not sure why you mentioned UAL? I guess one could see where UF is above or below the median.
Well I should be working but it was not too big a problem so after writing the above I tallied the data and did the calculation. There were actually a total of 58 slots making the expected number or average is 4.12. BTW, UF's 6 members is by my quick count tied 4 2nd or 5th if you like with AU, UGa and LSU it is also the mode of the sample. It is also well above the median of 3.5. (Again I did this quickly and did not check the accuracy of my quick count.)
And to answer your love/jealousy/envy UAL question at the 95% level you can not reject the null hypothesis that UF has as much talent as UAL BASED ON THIS METRIC YOU SUGGESTED IN YOUR ORIGINAL POST. You can reject equality of observations at the 90% level if you choose to use that level of significance.