There seems to be much debate on 11W and other websites as to
"why does the South in general seems to produce a disproportionate level of high school football talent?"
There have been theories floated from "the population is shifting to the South. More people = more talent," to "more African-Americans live in the South, and they're better athletes" to "the weather is relatively warm year 'round, allowing them to play 12 months of the year."
I am no expert in this area. But one cannot deny the fact that the SEC has won numerous NCs in a row, and most of the players that supply those teams come from their own backyard, south of the Mason-Dixon Line.
There was an article in the Toledo Blade yesterday that explores yet another theory that you may be interested in perusing. I happen to believe it is a thoery that makes most sense to me. And there is a cameo by Jayme Thompson, 2013 4* DB recruit from Toledo Central Catholic, an Ohio State commit.
I think Jayme should have a relatively easy transition to wearing a Buckeye uniform, as Central's are very similar. Nice colors, huh?
Look it's a clear combination of factors.
1) Population Shifts. As the population has shifted South it has changed the balance of power. Does the Midwest produce bad football players? Absolutley not. It might even produce football players at a greater proportion today than in decades past, but the fact is that with the population drain that still means that we produce less Division I prospects than we did in the past. When combined with the face that the Midwest has retained most of its Division I programs because colleges don't just go off and relocate it means that there is just less butter (DI recruits from the Midwest) to spread on the bread (Midwest DI football programs). This forces Midwest schools to have to recruit more nationally than programs in other regions.
Look at this number:
1972 Electoral College:
BIG States (minus recent additions of Neb, Maryland, and Rutgers)=146 votes.
SEC States (minus recent additions of Mizzou/Texas A&M)= 89 votes.
BIG with addtions= 178 votes.
SEC with additions= 127 votes.
2012 Electoral College:
BIG States (minus recent additions of Neb, Maryland, and Rutgers)=111 votes
SEC States (minus recent additions of Mizzou/Texas A&M)= 102 votes
BIG with additions=139 votes
SEC with additions=150 votes
As you can see the playing field in terms of population has not only been leveled but it's been turned upside down. Now a lot of you might say that the difference in votes isn't really that significant---that it's still close. There are other factors at play here that I'll go into, but I'll say this right here: If your recruiting footprint has less people you are automatically at a disadvantage.
2) Cultural Factors. I am not going to get into a scientific argument about whether certain ethnicities are "naturally" better than others. I think anybody that does this can look foolish and a bit racist at times. What I will say is that ethnicities do have certain cultural factors that can dominate what activities they will focus on. As others have pointed out the South typically has more African Americans. What others haven't pointed out is that the South tends to also be more impoverished and contain less urban areas. Families that are more impoverished are more likely to encourage their children to puruse activities like sports than things like school (an extremely sad fact). Sometimes this is done to keep kids from getting involved in dangerous gang/illegal activity. Other times it can be because parents don't place a major emphasis on education. Does this happen in regions outisde the South? Absolutely. But because the South is more impoverished the overall effect is amplified. Now you might be thinking, but what about people from rich families who can afford to send them to awesome camps and travel teams? I would argue that those families are less likely to focus on sports like football and more likely to spend their money in sports that have cost barriers AND are not present in every high school. Think of sports like soccer here. Is there good soccer in America? Absolutely. But each high school typically has a lower level of coaching than in other sports because of it's historically low popularity. So in order to get even an above average level of coaching you might have to travel as much as 4 hours away depending on where you live. This problem isn't present in most of America for a sport like football.
Football is the dominant sport in the South. They enjoy other sports like golf and baseball, but they don't have to compete AS MUCH with sports like Soccer, Hockey, Basketball(with some exceptions like Indiana it typically thrives in more urban environments), and increasingly laccrosse. This factor is the BIGGEST reason why the West Coast doesn't produce more football players. Baseball and Soccer are HUGE on the West Coast as well as other sports like Men's Volleyball. There are pockets of good bball in the South in places like Memphis and Atlanta. And obviously their Indiana is Kentucky, but on the whole there are less sports for their elite athletes to focus on. This combined with having a greater population base means that they naturally produce more football players.
3)Spring Football. The Midwest has been slow to adapt to running their high school football programs year round by allowing teams to practice during the Spring. Football is a sport that has more than a few players that strap on pads for the first time in high school. The more practice that someone has the better they get. Midwestern states have been reluctant to allow football practices to go on during the Spring. This can really hurt the development of the team as a whole because there is more of a focus on gaining skills and developing the playbook in the Spring, whereas Summer practice is focused entirely on getting the team game-ready.
That's good stuff, Strawman. +1
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Excellent analysis, Strawman. As I've said, I'm no expert but I think the Toledo Blade makes a valid argument in regards to the priorities in a certain culture. Just like Jayme Thompson said, "if i would have stayed in D.C., I probably wouldn't have tried out for football, as I did when I got to (Toledo)Ohio. I'd still be playin' basketball. "
The football-mad culture in Ohio is ingrained. In Michigan, the emphasis is on hockey. In Indiana, the empahsis is on basketball. These three states are an interesting trichotomy of America and each state's differing cultures. I find this to be a very important aspect.
Football is KING down south. Especially college football. I've heard some in the South refer to it as "their religion," more than NASCAR, which is also very popular. It's cultural.
Certainly, Spring football and population shifts play a part also. I think spring ball would go a long way towards improving the level of play at all schools in the Midwest, but again, weather makes it difficult.
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." Charlton Heston(1924-2008)
You know the south has a whole different culture too when it comes to "compensating" recruits. That good-ole'-boy network has no shame when it comes to improperly enriching the bankroll of an impoverished recruit's family. 'Bama, Auburn, O'le Miss, South Carolina, Arkansas, Mississipi St., Georgia. They all do it because THEY ALL DO IT! Sink or swim in the SEC. The real shame is how the NCAA has looked the other way for so long and not come down on that 'down-south' culture of doing things. How is it that OSU, USC, Oregon, Miami, etc. get blasted yet Auburn and all the rest get nothing? We're taking about a conference whose motto is "if you 'aint cheatin', you 'aint tryin'."
So whenever we have a discussion about why the South dominates, add in the cheating factor and how the NCAA does nothing about SEC cheating.
"Get him a body bag, Yeah!"
Excellent
I don't put as much stock in the demographics as others do. To me it's pretty simple, some states, cities, counties, and schools just put a higher value on some sports. Those states put out the best athletes in given schools. In Ohio, for the most part, the best athletes play football. They are born to go to certain schools and play the sport of that school. It's especially true for the big catholic schools like Elder, St. X, Moeller, St Ignatious etc. They start the kids out at very young ages, put them into football and when all is said and done the best of the best end up starting for that school.
I live in Kentucky. When I was in in school, there was a small rural county in Kentucky who always had the best baseball team in the state. The county has 18,000 people but they dominated Kentucky state baseball. They have sent players to the MLB. WHY???? Because from day 1 the boys are born to play baseball. They had a 6th grader dominate the state tournament one year.
In the south, kids are born to play football plain and simple. Kids aren't born bigger, faster, and stronger there overall. It's just that the big, strong, fast kids down south mostly play football. Texas, Georgia, and Florida are 3 states where kids are born to play football. I remember when Adam Dunn played for the Reds and was hitting 40 homeruns a year, he said he didn't really like baseball, he always wanted to be a football player. One example, I understand but that's just the way it is.
Look at a state like Illinois. You would think they could crank out great football prospects. They have a large population with a lot of talented athletes, but they just don't have a lot of elite football talent coming out. Why? They crank out basketball studs every year. Recently we've seen guys like Derek Rose and Anthony Davis dominate college basketball. They crank out lottery picks up there.
There just aren't many states in the B1G footprint that are traditionally very good at producing college football talent. The south's population may be growing, but Florida and Texas have ALWAYS produced a ton of talent. Georgia has always had pretty talented kids too. Those 3 states have far more talent coming out of them than any other state in the SEC footprint, and in my opinion it's because collectively they breed football talent there. As soon as the sex of the baby is determined they start plotting out there kid's football career.
You mean THIS Adam Dunn?
/Duff'd It
Yes, I remember one day they asked him about a game and he said oh I was more worried about my fantasy football draft. He ALWAYS talked about football. Kind of reminded me of Happy Gilmore when he said I'm not a golfer, I'm a hockey player.
I agree that the sports vs. states/regions popularity demographic is more important than where the athletes are. Some parts of the U.S. harbor certain sports over others. if you've ever lived in Minnesota or Wisconsin or the Dakotas you'll know hockey is king at all age levels in large areas of those states. That isn't a knock on weather but more on cultural differences (in the case of hockey different ethnic backgrounds and proximity to Canada make hockey the preferred sport). Other areas baseball is king (St. Louis and Boston and even NYC) and others basketball is king (Indiana and Kentucky being prime examples No. 1 and 2). Football is king in the deep south. It's king in Ohio. Go across the border to Indiana or Kentucky and notice the difference in sports culture.
"Sherman ran an option play right through the south" - Greatest.Civil.War.Analogy.Ever
Agree here. I said it on another thread. Top caliber Athletes are pretty similar statistically to population numbers in any given area It's just a matter of how those athletes are allocated to sports. IE what the main focus is. If the top guys play football, then likely the other sports are taking a hit. If the top guys focus on basketball, then likely the other sports are taking a bit of a hit. It all depends on the top sport skimming athletes thinning the potential numbers as the descend down the priority list. Certainly this is regional but there are definitely pockets/sub spheres within the region.
Doesn't seem like a new theory, sounds like an attemp to pick one and make it the silver bullet again. It's many factors, this one bing a major one. But why is Ohio then #5-6 instead of 1-2? Because population density and demographics. Ohio loves football, it's a football state. But other factors play into it as well.
You get what you emphasize as Urban would say. Tiny Canada and Minnesota emphasize hockey an produce a disproportionate amount of hockey players. Same with the northeast and lacrosse. When I lived in Michigan and California, kids weren't nearly as diehard about football as Ohioans. In the South they emphasize football more. To the point of less profitable athletic progams even. Think about that, they'd rather have a good football team than turn a huge profit. The second tier B1G schools like MSU, Illini, and Iowa certainly don't behave in such a fashion.
NFL players per capita, is dominated by the southern states. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, are 2,3,4, and 5 respectively.
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Montana is also in the top ten, shows what that list means.
Not really, it clearly shows an advantage for the southern states, there are always outliers.
UFM said high school spring football makes a huge difference.
Besides Tressel's inept line play, don't forget that OSU lost to Michigan under Cooper over and over, they played the SEC runner up. And every year they play with a giant chip on their shoulder, and the OSU sideline looked disinterested. Which is how I feel watching the Citrus bowl. And those games were not blowouts. They did not run all over OSU.
The year round play is definitely the biggest factor. It is far different down there. right now Louisville is covered in snow, kids can't go out and play football during the superbowl. Down in florida, they play every day! Trust me, I was one of those kids. There is no way I would still be playing the last month and a half north of the Carolinas. At least not as much.
Plus Northern Alabama doesn't get the best weather either. It is far from what its like in South Florida. and also Saban recruits all over the place. There have been a few posts talking about some of the top talent up north heading south to the SEC. The year round weather not only helps the southern talent but it also draws in the northern talent. It definitely wouldn't suck to play for Miami and be that close to southbeach all the time!
There are a number of good arguments on here. I currently live in Louisiana, and my son plays football for a high school that has started to consistently put out D1 talent. In fact, a couple of them currently play for and started this past year for LSU and Alabama, to name a few. Having my son play football both in Ohio and Alabama, here are some of the things I've noticed in Louisiana that seem to give the south an edge in player development.
1. Spring football. This pretty much is the same as college programs. They hold practices in the spring for 3-4 weeks and then end with a spring game. This also seems to be a popular time for college scouts to come visit.
2. Year round football in the form of a class. My son's school has what they call Football Gym. A "Student" can take this "class" for all four years they are in high school. What do they do in football gym? Well, they lift weights, go over and run through the football team's play book, practice route running, blocking techniques, etc, under the supervision of the Gym teacher (who is also one of the football team's coaches), and have organized flag football games. Sounds a little bit like year round football practice to me. Also, the students are encouraged to use weight training supplements to help them bulk up in this class. They even have a vending machine with protein shakes and the like.
3. Culture. Football is king. In the south these words seem to ring true, "We don't go here to play school." We experienced this first hand when we accompanied our son to his first class scheduling session with a counselor. When she found out he was a football player, she focused on getting him into football gym and making sure his schedule allowed it. She also spoke the virtues about how helpful it would be for him to take it every year. With our son being a good student, our focus was to make sure he got into Honors and AP classes. When she produced the schedule for our son, we saw that he was in regular English. We asked why that was the case when he qualified for and requested that he be in Honors. Her response was that she had to bump him down into regular English so that she could get him into Football gym since he was a football player. What???!!!! A high school academics counselor putting a higher priority on an extracurricular sporting activity than a college prep academic class? We were having none of that and made her put our son in the honors class. Her response.... "But he's on the football team, he needs to be in football gym." Our response, "He is also a student that wants to go to a good college. He needs to be in Honors English." To this day, I think that counselor is still confused.
4. Select players are targeted to work out with private trainers. Once college offers start rolling in, the football coaches help to direct the potential recruits to private trainers. Typically these private trainers work with these kids free of charge.
If these types of activities are the norm for the south, it is easy to see that southern recruits have a large advantage over other regions.
I really appreciate all of the comments, especially from those of you living "down South."
I have cousins from New Orleans. My cousin went to LSU back in the early 80s. I think he mostly learned how to drink there.
"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." Charlton Heston(1924-2008)
Warning: Ohio buckeye is highly toxic when taken internally.