I've been playing around with the idea of providing a deeper look at the dynamics of football recruiting, and the success of major football teams. I would like to provide this on a regular schedule, say every two weeks or so depending on my workload.

I started working on the idea awhile back (roughly 5 years ago) but let it get stale due to other competing interests.

Most people think that certain regions have a built-in advantage due to the changing population - more in the south and less in the north. The south and west have access to MORE top recruits, right?

Well, not always. Why? Geography, demographics, and population change play a major role in the recruiting landscape but the local football culture, facilities, history, and coaching are also very important. Plus, a football team can only take so many recruits. They just have to find the right ones.

So how do we untangle all of this? It is complicated but I would like to start with providing you with a sample of a mapping analysis that I did a few years back.

This map is based on older Census data (I have yet to update everything) but it shows you the total number of young men by state who are in the 15 - 18 age cohort (tan circle) as well as the percent change in the number of these young men from 2000 - 2010 (red and greenish circles).

The pattern speaks for itself. Generally, the far West and East (of the Mississippi) has gained young men. Anywhere in between has generally lost.

Is this something y'all would be interested in discussing? It is a ton of work on my side, but I've always wanted to formalize and structure the recruiting landscape is some form and get widespread feedback.

Thanks!