Hi guys,
I was curious as to why the South produces so much more D1 talent now days than the North and what I found was quite surprising. Below is the difference in population between BIG states and SEC states (Rutgers and Maryland Included – If they were took out it would be even worse). I included the % of change. I think this has to be a reason behind the drive for expansion. It amazes me how some of the states in SEC country have blown up. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think this is the major contributor to the SEC winning 6 (this makes me puke in my mouth) strait NCG’s? Go Bucks!!
BIG States 1970 population 2010 population
Minnesota 3,805,069 5,303,925
Wisconsin 4,417,933 5,686,986
Nebraska 1,483,791 1,826,341
Iowa 2,825,041 3,046,355
Illinois 11,113,976 12,830,632
Indiana 5,193,669 6,483,802
Ohio 10,652,017 11,536,504
Michigan 8,875,083 9,883,640
Pennsylvania 11,793,909 12,702,379
New Jersey 7,168,164 8,791,894
Maryland 3,922,399 5,773,552 % Change
71,251,051 83,866,010 17.70%
New York Included (Rutgers Addition)
New York 18,241,266 19,378,102 % Change
89,492,317 103,244,112 15.37%
SEC States 1970 population 2010 population
South Carolina 2,590,516 4,625,364
Florida 6,789,443 18,801,310
Georgia 4,589,575 9,687,653
Louisiana 3,643,180 4,533,372
Alabama 3,444,165 4,779,736
Mississippi 2,216,912 2,967,297
Tennessee 3,924,164 6,346,105
Kentucky 3,219,311 4,339,367
Missouri 4,677,399 5,988,927
Texas 11,196,730 25,145,561
Arkansas 1,923,295 2,915,918 % Change
48,214,690 90,130,610 86.94%
Come on Man!
I've been a big believer in the population shift argument (I'm pretty sure it's been discussed on here previously) but I actually think the data you posted is almost an argument against it. Looking at the total number, rather than the change, the difference is not that notable. More specifically, if you remove Texas as an SEC state (since it hasn't been an SEC state during their run of national championships) then the B1G population is much larger than the SEC state population. It would be more interesting to look at what portion of the population is in the high school to college age range because those would be the kids actually affecting the state of college football and the talent pool.
That’s interesting. I never thought of it that way. The question to me is why states like Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, produce much more D1 football talent than New York when New York’s state population is more than all 3 combined. If New York was equivalent to a Florida of the North the BIG would be in great shape. Do they not stress football at the high school level? I know a lot of athletes opt for basketball in the North. I read a good article that asked where the speed players in the North were and a guy responded playing PG on the hardwood. I thought it was interesting and the impact it could have on player development. Does the love for basketball in the large northern cities (Chicago, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, New York, Philly) hurt football talent in their states? There is no reason New York is not putting more D1 football players in college.
It's easy, same reason China doesn't pump out NFL stars, no one plays. Not so much no one, but the star athletes focus more on different sports like bball. Some places don't do so well in fitting football stadiums (NYC) and other areas are big bball towns (CHI). Sar athletes are everywhere, but each population only has so many to excel at a college/pro level and therefore can't sustain all sports with talent. States like cal and tex will pump out talent regardless because they he such a large population. Same with Florida where so many young families are moving.
its more than population, it is demographics... and that goes beyond just age and race but type of city, weather, etc. History plays a big part in it as well, but lets not go down that rabbit hole...
Pat Forde and others have written about this trend and give it as part of the explanation why SEC football has been so dominant in the past decade or so. I don't know if this is necessarily a reason for expansion, but obviously if you can get your "product" to more people, you will make more money. And as you've shown, there are an ever-growing amount of people in other areas that the B1G does not currently set up shop. I do think this impacts recruiting significantly though. Not to say there isn't talent in the mid-west, but there is conistently more talent in the South. With more people there, it only makes sense that the odds of having more talent is greater. This is why Urban recruiting the South hard is very important. Being able to swoop in and get top recruits from Texas, Georgia, Florida, and the Carolinas, among other Southern states and mixing in the best Ohio and other mid-west talent is vital.
That was the point I was trying to stress with the numbers above. We all know that OSU, Mich, PSU will be great programs because of $$$$, facilities, tradition, and so on…But what does the population shift effect have on the rest of the BIG 10 teams that don’t have the recruiting pools that the mid level to lower level SEC teams have access too? For example, let’s say the SEC states produce 100 4 star + prospect while the MW produces 50 (probably close to actual amounts). OSU, MICH will account for about 25-30 of the 4 stars +, when PSU is back you can count on them getting 8-10. That leaves little for the rest of the Midwest schools that don’t have the power/tradition to pull kids out of the south. You also have to throw in ND pulling some as well. Just something to ponder. I think the difference between top end talent is why the BIG will only have 3 top tier teams, maybe 4 if Nebraska is able to recruit nationally while the SEC can support 5-7 easily.
You know why kids from Ohio are always sought after? Number 1, the best athletes in the state TYPICALLY play football, but 2, the quality of coaching the kids have their entire careers playing football. They start very young playing, and they are coached very well. So, when you end up with a college recruit/prospect who is a senior in high school he is college ready from a talent perspective and fundamentally.
Footbal is king in states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia, just like it is in Ohio. The best athletes in those states play football and they are states with pretty large populations and well organized youth leagues. People are born in Texas to play high school football. Kids are born to go to St X, Moellar, and Elder in Ohio. It's determined EARLY on in these kids lives.
Excellent points.
But I laughed pretty hard at the end when you mentioned 3 Cincy schools with the discussion going on over at Guess Who Is Not Coming to Dinner
I haven't read that blog entry yet, I'll have to go check it out.
Let me ask you a question. Would you want to play in the cold winter weather up here or play down south in a seemingly always warm climate? Actually not just play, but also live on a daily basis? The only reason we are starting to pull kids from the south is because of the prestige of our university and the SEC swag Urban has brought up here. Im telling you right now I'm a senior in high school and have been accepted to TCU for their business program and I am so excited because I get to go to a warm climate and spend the next 4 years of my life down there. The reason for the population shift is because people would rather live where it is a warm climate and thats just how it is. Well most people.
I'd think that coaches from up here could sell playing up here as getting the players ready for the NFL. The Pros play during the winter and had better be ready to handle it. As far as that's concerned, if I was a tough college football player, the climate would be one of the last things I would be worried about. For that matter, I'd much rather play in Ohio than the humidity of the south. It can get bad up here in August, but it would even be worse in the SEC.
How often have the Buckeyes played in cold winter weather they last 10 years? The Game this year was the coldest I can remember the Buckeyes playing in for the last 3 or 4 years. I really don't think weather is the determining factor everyone else does. If it were UCLA, USC, Stanford, Cal, and San Diego State would all be powerhouses every year.
It's coaches that make the difference. The B1G needs great coaches and right now, that is just not the case in the B1G
This is a very shallow argument. I know because I said the same thing when I was 18. There are so many more important things than temperature in regards to where someone will live or go to college. I'm in the military and have lived in DC, Pensacola Fl, Jacksonville nc, and yuma az. If given the chance, I would move back to DC or Ohio in a millisecond. The schools in the south are a joke. There are exceptions, but they are mainly private schools. My wife taught at a catholic school in Pensacola and they were easily 2 grade levels behind their public school counterparts from Ohio or DC.
There are too many examples of why weather is not/should not be the sole reason for choice of residence, but I've lost interest.
Congrats on tcu. Dallas/ft worth area is awesome, but not for the climate. While it certainly isn't Cleveland, it isn't Hawaii either.
Fundamentals are a crutch for the talentless.
If I could leave Ohio for the warmth of California (where some family lives) I would do so in a heart beat. Cali is simply my personal warm weather destination, but the south is closer and far more affordable for many in the Midwest. It's a lifestyle choice. A friend I grew up with in Columbus, who now lives in San Diego, says he hasn't checked the weather in the 15 years he's been out west. He knows it's almost always going to be be 70-something and sunny. How much is that, and that alone, worth??? I think generations of people living in Midwestern weather have been worn down, and the last generation or two, finally fed up, said "screw it. I'm never shoveling snow again". NY being an exception because, well, it's NY. But the B1G states? People are simply far more willing to take a chance and go to a place they'd prefer vs. staying in the state in which they grew up. Because of that shift in attitude there has been a shift in population, and the population shift has, more than anything else, had an effect on the shift in high school football talent... IMO.
I guess my thought is, a good chunk of the south the weather really isn't that great. It's even more oppressively hot and humid in the summer, and while you may not get below zero temps, places pretty far south still get snow and ice in the winter. Dallas gets a snow or ice storm every year. I went to visit some friends in North Myrtle Beach in march and it was as cold there as it was here.
I do think the opportunity for jobs in places like Charlotte, Nashville, Atlanta, Dallas, Austin, etc as opposed to Detroit and some of Ohio and Indiana's old manufacturing strongholds probably caused a lot of people to move away. Also, people who may have went to college other places stayed in those places instead of coming home. I think weather is a factor for some, but those are usually people who are a little older and can afford to do so.
If weather alone were a factor I'd move to San Diego in a heartbeat, but at the same time I'm not sure I want to be in traffic for 1 1/2 hours trying to go a distance that only requires 15 minutes of travel here.
Left Cali to come backe here because of family. I love Cali, best place I've lived, I miss it already... But my fam is in Ohio. Bummer! Nothing like Santa Barbara!
Cali is losing tons of people every day because of the taxes (highest income tax in the country now) and other factors I won't get in to so as not to be political. Great state, I lived there for two years and the San Diego weather is unparalleled, but the older I get the more I realize that every place you can live has its pros and its cons. Everywhere. It's all a matter of what is most important to you. That said, glad I'm back in Ohio, and damn glad to be born in the USA....
Regardless of political ideology, California is becoming a festering shithole fiscally, and even with their incredible revenue stream, they still excel at placing themselves in tremendous debt. I have lived in the Mid-Atlantic/South my whole life (North Carolina) and while the Summers were hot and humid, Fall-Spring is similar to that in Ohio. I'm a cold weather person, so I've never understood the draw to places like Florida or California.
For us warm weather folk it is heaven...
The best athletes in B1G country play at least 2 sports (football, basketball, wrestling, track). Because of the weather, culture, proliferation of 7 on 7 organizations and high school association rules (spring practice rules) in $ec territory, kids spend a lot more time on football and to a lesser extent baseball. They are not genetically faster, stronger, or better but they do spend more time on technique and training specific to football than kids from the midwest.
Wow, it seems like anyone who expresses any firm opinion on any subject is guaranteed to get a downvote. C'mon people, the purpose of downvoting is to make it easy to spot trolls and otherwise un-civil posters, not to discourage discussion.
Here's an up-vote, even though I disagree with the statement that "They are not genetically faster, stronger, or better...". I think the correct statement is something along the lines of there's a higher proportion of athletes in black populations that are genetically gifted enough to reach elite performance levels than there are in white populations.
Nothing very radical there, and I think the last 40 years (when blacks weren't prejudicially excluded from participation) in the major sports (football, basketball, baseball, track) prove that beyond any possibility of doubt.
I appreciate the up vote but will stick with my original post. I wasn't commenting on race at all. I was responding to the OP.
The arguement of why there is so much D1 talent in the south east is as clear as black and white. Look at the US map that shows white-black population percentages and the south east has a MUCH bigger black population than any where else in the US.
What percentage of NFL players are black? 75%? What percentage of the US population is blacks? 12%? That is an astronomical "flop" in percentages. That leaves the conclussion that there is a much better chance to have a more talented team if you have more black players and if more black players live in your state then you have a better chance to recruit them to your state school .
When is the last time you saw a white D lineman or LB inthe SEC? 10 years ago? 15 years ago? When Florida State went almost exclussively "black" with their football roster and was in the top 3 nationally for about 15 straight years, the SEC decided winning was more important than skin color and opened their rosters to as much talent as they could get their hands on. Thus, their team pictures are radically different than they were 15-20 years ago and they are a lot better.
Waler Payton and a whole lot of other players would have played for LSU or Bama instead of Jackson St. if the SEC were color blind back in the day. We are seeing the results of that southern change of heart each Sat.
People talk about SEC speed and lets not kid ourselves- that is code for fast black players. When is the last time OSU went down to Fla. or GA to get a fast white recruit? Maybe never. If Ohio was 40% black like Fla. or GA. seem to be, I doubt we would ever have to recruit outside the state of Ohio.
Its good to be the king
Finally, someone willing to point out the elephant in the room. Not only in the room, but sitting on the couch, sipping your milkshake.
I actually find it kind of disturbing that this post could get about ten comments in without a single person bringing up race, like most of you are still in that mode where you dare not imply that there are genetic differences among racial groups. The result, no doubt, of 40 years of politically correct zealotry eating at our brains.
Then again, it's probably wiser for us all to pretend that we don't know better, lest the PC idiots get wind of this. Next thing you know there'd be a Slow White Guy Equal Playing Time Rights movement, and we'd wind up being forced to watch Billy Joe Bob and his beer gut run a few plays every week, to make up for the great INJUSTICE of it all. And the Braxton Millers of the world, of course, would be strapped down with ankle weights and body girdles to make things FAIR, so EVERYONE CAN WIN A TROPHY.
(HINT to the originator of this thread: you are looking at the wrong map, assuming you really want to understand the reasons for SEC dominance. Find a states map color coded with african-american population densities. It's rather shocking. You'll think you made a mistake and got a map that highlights SEC states instead.)
I said I didn't want to open up those can of worms... ;)
An interesting discussion would be to note why blacks in the southeast of the USA are significantly better in sports than other areas of the world... But let's not go there!
Pretty simple: it takes a certain standard of living to become an elite athlete, especially to gain the muscle mass necessary to be a football player. Or a sprinter, for example. Look at countries with substantial black populations that can invest at least a little bit into development of athletes, and you'll see countries producing elite black athletes. Not just the US, Canada, GB, France increasingly, and other 'first world' coutries, but also Jamaica, Trinadad, Cameroon, Nigeria, even the dirt-poor Ivory Coast produced Drogba. You need, in no particular order, genes, standard of living sufficient for athlete not to want for food while growing up, and coaches+facilites necessary to learn the sport. Third one is why you don't get football players from Jamaica or soccer players from Dixie.
EDIT: Forgot Brazil. Check out the makeup of the Brazil soccer team some time.
As Rightfield and Zenshade have already pointed out, a big reason is quite clear once we accept a few things. I'll save you all from my own 10 page report by providing a few more simply stated sources.
The first is a wonderfully written piece to easily disperse any internet hall monitors from trying to debunk the claim that there aren't atheltic differences between blacks and whites (as well as other racial groups, and a whole myriad of different racial characteristics/abilities). As Gladwell explains, and I agree, there is a higher variability in black athletes when it comes to athletic prowess. More extreme on both ends. It is a pretty quick read. If you haven't checked out Malcom Gladwell, I really think you are missing out!
http://www.gladwell.com/1997/1997_05_19_a_sports.htm
The next is a USA Census.gov population density map (as requested above). It is in PDF format and titled "The Black Population 2010". More than enough information to sort through, but save yourself some time and skip right down to page 11.
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf
Now obviously, population density alone means nothing, but in combination with total population and population growth over the past 40 years, as well as other factors mentioned like climate and sports availability, I think it is a more than sufficient explanation for the shifts in footballl recruiting and the abundance of talent found in the southern states.
edit: typo
If you look at page 12 on your second link, that would seem to indicate that demographics are moving away from the SEC and we'll should soon see effects on the field.
The fastest growing areas on that map are Arizona and the east coast areas right around where two schools named Maryland and Rutgers are located. Can I get a "Delaney's still a genius" from the crowd?
Gladwell offers that as a hypothesis, but he doesn't actually show that the distribution curve is flatter for blacks than for whites. Are there really a disproportionate number of blacks (relative to whites) in both tails of the curve? I'd like to see the data.
I clicked on it... I regretted it immediately...
There's probably very limited data on non-elite athletes. But you don't even need to hypothesize about WHY it happens. You just need to look at what fraction of the overall population is black vs what fraction of professional athletes. Same with world black population and, let's say the finals of all international 100, 200, and 400 meter sprint events put together. Your 'eyeball' will tell you the same thing in this case as hypergeometric test for enrichment - the probability of such a small fraction of the overall population placing that many representatives into a 'random' sample from that population is negligible.
I also don't see how this can be construed as racist, unless you're inclined to assume there's a corollary: blacks are good athletes, bad at 'brain stuff'.
For what it's worth, I think it's actually MUCH harder to argue that corollary, precisely because blacks make up a small part of the overall population. Under-representation of a small fraction is harder to demonstrate than over-representation. And there are undeniable structural disadvantages (unrelated to genetics) for blacks getting into ... theoretical physics, for example.
If you want an example of a strong argument for 'smart' genes along the same lines, look no farther than ashkenazi jews. Similarly over-represented in all areas related to math.
No offense intended, but you seem to be anticipating a lot of objections I haven't made. Your eyeball and mine are seeing the same thing (we agree on what we're seeing, just not why). I question Gladwell's insistence, made without supporting data, that the explanation is variability rather than a difference in group averages.
I clicked on it... I regretted it immediately...
It really isn't "as
simple(clear) as black and white". While Florida, Louisianna, Georgia and Alabama produce the highest percentage of Division 1 recruits per capita, your position doesn't explain why Utah and Oklahoma came in 5th and 6th on the list of division 1 recruits. If it truly was as simple as you say then Mississippi would be at the top of the list instead of 13th since 39% of their population is African American. Florida on the other hand has an African American population of just 15% which is very comparable to what you see in NY, Illinois, Michigan and Ohio but they produce more division 1 scholarship players than those states combined. Sometimes it's just easier to make a "simple" general statement about race that sounds logical than to look at the facts. Maybe on your next post you could apply your logic to college basketball talent.African American population density by state
Division 1 football recruiting by state
I don't have any evidence to back this up, but I'm betting, while racial makeup of population IS a factor, there are other factors as well. It seems states experiencing rapid population growth are placing very highly. I'm betting this has something to do with age demographics. Rapid population growth usually means influx of young families, while stagnant growth or, worse, decline usually means loss of young families. This also might address an argument made earlier in the thread - that, while the south has nearly doubled in population and has overtaken the midwest since 1970, the current overall difference in population is actually not very large. That rapid population growth may in part account for the difference. Not just more athletes per capita, more young people per capita in general.
While there is no refuting the facts, it would be interesting to look at the people who are going to these regions. Florida especially I'm sure has an increase due to older people, and Texas hardly counts due to the flagship school being in the Big 12. I don't refute the facts, but as stated above there are other things involved in these stats. In Ohio the best athletes play football, while in Illinois it is completely spread out. Some play basketball, football, soccer etc.
or it could have something to do with the number of recruit they have commit every year...nah that would be ridiculous, has to be the sec speed!
1) That argument doesn't address why SEC territory produces so many more top recruits overall, unless oversigning extends to high school and middle school football teams?
2) I know B1G fans like to argue that oversigning somehow 'unethical', or something, but to me it's just an additional embarrassment for teams who can't lure away recruits from programs which are signing more players than they can keep on scholarship. If an elite recruit would rather join an Alabama class without even a guarantee of scholarship than the class at your program, YOU'RE doing it wrong, not Saban.
Are you suggesting Saban tells recruits he can't guarantee a schollie and they sign anyway?
That kind of gets to the point of why oversigning is extremely unethical. It amounts to elite professional salesmen (Nick Saban, et. al.) preying on naive families with the promise that they will take care of their sons, ensuring they get a good education and the opportunity to improve their football skills for four years.
There would be no problem at all if Saban we're pitching the truth, such as "Look here, son, you look like a great player, but we really don't know. So what we're going to do is treat you like cattle, run you through our system and see if you survive. We're going to sign 25-30 more players just like you so we can be sure we get some winners when the dust settles. If you don't make it, we're going to treat you like any other non-performing slob out there in the business world (and you do understand this is Big Business, right?) and basically just fire your ass and leave you to your own devices."
As somebody who grew up in Cincinnati and has lived in Florida since 2001 I feel it is a combo of 2 things. Racial population in the south, and warm weather allowing for year-round training
"Because I couldn't go for 3"
Glad to see that this discussion has largely stayed in the logical/factual realm. You couldn't have had this conversation 20 some years ago when John Cooper made his "too many slow white guys" comment. There would inevitably arise a critical mass of slow-thinking emo types to shout you down with "RACIST!!!" as soon as they realized the implication was that some sets of genes are "better" than others. It was just too traumatizing for them to stay with that line of thought long enough to realize that "better" can only be judged in the context of very specific and narrow performance criteria (which sports naturally provide).
Several posters have pointed out counter evidence that suggests race doesn't explain everything about the SEC's recent rise. Which I think is entirely correct. The other factors, in order of importance, I believe, are:
1) Culture - the SEC doesn't excel in basketball (outside of Kentucky) because, well, not that many people actually care about basketball in the South. The rest of the black world (meaning tropical Africa, the distinct gene set we're really referring to, as distinguished from likely very different gene sets among other dark skinned people around the world) doesn't excel in football because they've never had a culture that cared one whit about it.
2) Climate - having access to playing fields year around means that many more individuals will have the opportunity to try out the sport (contributing to Culture, above), and that those few that are obsessed with it will be able to work on their skills far more often than in colder climates.
3) Oversigning - all of the other factors (Culture, Climate, Race) feed into this one. Once those other factors are in place to provide a large pool of players to choose from, the way to maximize that advantage is to sift through as many of those players as possible to find the exceptional out-lyers. Not so much the Hershel Walkers and Bo Jacksons that everyone can see, but the players that have exceptional physical ability that will totally dedicate themselves to getting better once they arrive on campus. That last part is the great unknown, even with players that have that characteristic in high school. Oversigning is simply the most efficient (and despicable) way to get the very best concentration of football talent on your team.
The rust belt... People have been moving south and west not only for the weather, but for the jobs too. When manufacturing began dying in the mid-west 20-30 years ago, the migration began. The population in the mid-west and north east has been aging for all those years too. So there are more younger (i.e. child rearing) people down south than there used to be, hence more children then there used to be. As far as the white elephant in the room, I think its more a case of African American culture being more athletically involved than European American culture. Joe Pa put it best when John Saunders asked him about black athletes being so dominant. He said they're hungrier as a culture for athletic success. I think he's right.
So, weather, population, demographics, coaching, culture... but don't forget over-signing. The SEC signs an average of 25 more players per school every five years than the B1G. That's an extra class every five years to evaluate and cherry pick for better athletes. Clearly this allows the best of the SEC to stockpile 4 and 5 star recruits 2-5 players deep on their rosters. Much like OSU, Mich etc used to do in the 50's when they had 100+ players on scholarship.
I see some people throwing out all sorts of numbers and statements without any links to the source info. It's nice to back up your claims with a source, which some of you do. This topic is an interesting mix of geographical and social demographics, culture and sports. It's a shame some people make statements like "when's the last time you saw a white DL or LB in the SEC" or "SEC speed is code for fast black guys". I'm not naive about our country and the race factors. But lumping generalized statements together about race is just stupid. I'm of mixed race so where do you quantify my African-American and German-American ancestry in regards to demographics? Don't be so quick to make it a "black and white" issue, when the line is clearly blurred.
Wayne Woodrow Hayes
Generalizations aren't stupid at all. They are heuristics, without which intellectual activity would be extremely hamstrung.
But I do understand your point. One should be very careful not to draw unwarranted conclusions from those generalizations.
I really do recommend everyone read the Malcolm Gladwell essay linked above. He also cites a number of researchers and studies that can be referenced. His main point, and the data absolutely backs it up, is that genetic variability among blacks of African descent is higher than just about any other group of people on the planet. This is likely because homo sapiens originated in Africa and have intermixed on that continent for the whole history of humanity under just about every environmental stress that the planet has to offer.
Because of this, you are far more likely to find extreme outliers (freaks of nature, if you well), both good and bad, among blacks. So it's not a wrong generalization to say that black populations will tend to produce a greater proportion of elite athletes than white populations. It IS a wrong generalization to say that any given white player will be inferior to a black player because he is white, or a black player will be the better player because he is black. You simply don't know what genetic cards they were dealt.
Another thing Gladwell quite rightfully points out is that beliefs about one's ability also play a vital role. A white Michael Jordan - and I can absolutely guarantee you there are white guys out there with similar athletic ability, just due to the sheer numbers - probably isn't going to bounce back after being cut from the team in HS, if he buys into the stereotype that being white somehow limits how good he can get.
I've played with the census demographic numbers about a year ago. One thing to consider is the population shift by age. Retired people who are done having children move around for warmer climate and other reasons.
When I played with the numbers, I instead used the 15-18 years of age male cohort and sorted them by conference footprint. It has been a while but I recall that in terms of raw numbers, the BIG10 had the highest or second highest number of young men in this age bracket in their footprint. This was before the recent conference additions.
The percentage of 15-18 males by county throughout the U.S. was almost perfectly evenly distributed at roughly 7% per county. There were execption such as some counties in Utah and Idaho.
So, I don't buy into the population shift as the reason for "better" football in the south. There are many other reasons but this is not one. Coaching (H.S. and college), facilities, history, tradition, budget, etc. Each school can only take so many players and usually you can recruit a class full of 4 and 5 star players right in your own backyard (your state or conference footprint). Another key is the culture and quality of high school football within your state. Ohio is usually loaded since H.S. football is a passion and quite developed. Plus teams like tOSU recruit nationally which eliminates geography. I also did an analyses on identify hotspots by recruits and recruited position to see where all the QBs, OLs, DLs etc. came from. Again, the results did not follow conventional wisdom but I can't remember the details.
The source of the informaton above is me so you will have to take my word on it. I do this stuff for a living. GIS and data are my game. Ha. I tried to hook up with a recruiting site (with a database) to publish the results, but it didn't work out. I still have the data and the maps.
I agree that generalizations are a key factor of the collection of data and mapping of trends. My point was to bring to your attention that the generalization of a specific "population" is really tough to do based on the intermixing of races and the inexact science of genetic mapping.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2010/05/14/genetic-ance...
Wayne Woodrow Hayes
Yeah, that's a very good point, The genetic boundaries we want to reason about are quite fuzzy indeed. Most of us in America are in fact genetic "mutts" by now, whether we realize it or not. I appear to be about as white as white can get, but I can guarantee you I have some recent African ancestry in my DNA as well, as most everyone does who can make any legitimate claim to having Indian bloodlines within the last 300 years or so.
As an educated American, it is difficult to ignore the fact that African-Americans (those who identify as such) have largely dominated certain sports in America. It's a taboo subject to some, because of the correlation to "profiling" an athlete based on his race. I find it extremely interesting, and the mystery surrounding ones genetic ancestry just adds to the debate. I appreciate your insight Zenshade, it has been truly thought provoking.
Wayne Woodrow Hayes
Just a side note. The largest increase was the state of Florida. With the Baby Boomers retiring and the lack of state income tax (those who establish a residency as a tax shelter) would explain that delta. And it's doubtful that those groups are creating more high profile athletes.
Thank you Zenshade for the reference back up to my statement that race has a large part of the SEC's dominance. If they wouldn't have opened up their rosters to blacks they wouldn't have had the success they are experiencing now. Pure and simple. Just as I early mentioned how FSU and also Miami dominated during the late 80's and 90's with an almost exclusively black roster, the SEC good old boys decided winning was more important than having a bunch of Bobby Joes wearing their team colors.
One other factor that helps to develop the extra talent in the south east is HS spring football. It does give their players more time to practice and thus hone their skills.
IMHO the order of importance of the SEC's advantages are as follows:
1) race population
2) oversigning
3) HS spring football
4) lower academic standards in the SEC in general
Its good to be the king
Norwalk, your arguement about Mississippi is very weak. Yes, it has a large black population but it has less than 3 million people overall. Almost half the pop. as the next smallest SEC school. That is the reason it is 39th in the country in producing D1 college football players.
Its good to be the king
I think the population thing has less to do with the SEC's run and more to do with ESPN protecting their investment in that conference and in college football. They gotta sell what they're showing on TV so why not manufacture a league that really isnt all that strong but becomes so WHEN THEY GET EVERY MAJOR BOWL BID. When the SEC eventually does fall back to earth and to the middle of the pack and once again suck canal water ESPN will start favoring another conference and, voila, the population argument becomes moot.
"Sherman ran an option play right through the south" - Greatest.Civil.War.Analogy.Ever
It also helps that SEC teams almost never play outside of the south east. Every bowl or early season match up is played in their back yard. I would love to see Bama, Fla., LSU play OSU, ND, Oregon,ect. on Jan.1 in Chicago, Seattle, GB, Cleveland, NY, Boston or Philly.
But it doesn't erase the fact that the SEC's top 3-4 teams are better than everbody else's top 3-4 teams. Wish it were not true.
My friends that live down south crow about that they play "big boy football" in the SEC but in reality "big boy football" is only played in the NFL and to win championships in the NFL you have to play in ALL climates and time zones.
The SEC already has a built in advantage but when you through in the other things that can be changed but are not, then the tables are tilted in such a way that they almost can not lose.
Did I mention that "money flows like a river in SEC recruiting". That was the quote from the Miami booster who said that what he was giving was small apples compared to the $ given by SEC boosters. Another elephant in the room that the national media wont talk about but knows is true.
Its good to be the king
Fascinating discussion, wow do we have some really interesting and articulate posters! Another reason why I love 11W.
I believe another factor that has to be included in the discussion is poverty- according to the National Poverty Center, in 2010, "The poverty rate for all persons masks considerable variation between racial/ethnic subgroups. Poverty rates for blacks and Hispanics greatly exceed the national average. In 2010, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.1 percent of Asians." (http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/) Sports have always been seen as one of the ways to get out of poverty and low wage deadend jobs-either to play professionally or to be able to go to college and thus break out of the poverty/low wage cycle. As to the SEC, there is a much higher concentration of poverty in the South, predominately black, as compared to the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest, save for the Appalachian areas. (http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v2/wimmor.htm) Perhaps the closest Midwestern equivalent is in the formerly heavy manufacturing areas of the Rust Belt- how many kids came from lower to working class towns with steel mills, auto plants or coal mines who wanted to escape from a grinding hourly job at the mill, factory or coal mine? (Nowadays, those jobs often aren't there any more.) You still see a number of kids from these areas playing for OSU, PSU, other B1G and MAC teams.
Your comments on the Rust Belt remind me of one of my favorite movies of my youth, "All The Right Moves".