cause and effect

I'm stuck listening to Colin Cowherd (Blowhard) on espn radio. Two days in a row he has made statements as fact that I would argue need a little more investigation.
Yesterday - you can anticipate the number of wins for a college football team based on the #of starts the offensive linemen have coming into the season. He sighted examples of USC, Oklahoma, Alabama etc as having OL with >65 starts coming into the season. Some disappointing teams like Missouri (I don't remember the others) had inexperience OLs and that explains their relatively poor seasons. He was using this to say that Notre Dame will win 10+ games this year because they have 80+ starts in their OL. Hello Mr. Blowhard welcome to anecdotal evidence. I have no data to back it up but I would guess one could state an equal number of teams that had relatively few OL starts that were winners and teams with many OL starts that weren't. I'm not saying that OL experience isn't important, but there a many other things especially in college, that determine the teams ultimate record. ND might win 10 games because they have a pretty easy schedule. OSU could have a totally new line and I would still pick them to win the BigTen this season. USC might have complete turnover but I'm guessing they're going to have a chance to win the Pac10...
Today it is - good teams trade down in the draft, bad teams trade up. In the last X years the Patriots, Steelers, Giants etc have traded down and the Lions, Bengals and Raiders have traded up. Well guess what the Patriots, Steelers and Giants are good teams and likely don't to take a chance with as many rookies, where as the bad teams need a lot of help and might try to jump up to get someone they think they really need. You don't think the Lions want to trade down? No one wants to give them anything of "value". No one wants a top 5 pick this year...