We have 6 on the All SEC team, only one first team, two who are kickers (the first team was our punter). Now perhaps we have talent that did not play but I don't buy that. http://floridagators.com/news/2017/12/4/football-six-gators-tabbed-to-all-sec-teams.aspx Comment as you desire.

I agree but we are very thin in talent in very critical areas. I might say that we are fine at the offensive skill positions on offense except QB, but the oline is very weak and lacking. Same of defense but there LB is an issue as is safety. These lacks can't be fixed very quickly, but I might be wrong and with the right coaching and strength and conditioning improvements can be rapid. I hope so, since at least some of our opponents are not standing still either.

Well let's see: 1. I counted the first team and there were two teams. So doubling the 27 slots on the first team it appears there were 54 slots. 2. The SEC has 14 teams. 3. The last time I checked (54/14) = 3.86 slots. 4. UF had 6 players chosen. 5. Thus UF has ABOVE the expected number of players on these teams. (And certainly UF has more than the expected number of players for a 4-7 team.) To me everything you need to know is in that two of the UF players on this list were special teams players, but UF's special teams were terrible. So once again that is it coaching not talent that was the problem this year shows up.

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.

The distribution is essential to any talking about average, so for our example the distribution is 10 at the top level with only one, and it might be zero. The real point I was trying to make is we are not good enough for our desires, that can only be fixed by better players and better player development. Coaches can effect both, especially the development.