Or at least according to Rivals and ESPN.com’s recruiting rankings.
In the Rivals ranking, one-third of elite recruits are from Florida, Georgia and Louisiana (combined population: 33 million). Only one-quarter of such recruits are from California and Texas (combined population: 72 million). Georgia and Louisiana (combined population: 15 million) are allotted more elite players than California (population: 37 million). You can pretty much forget about any notion of elite talent coming from the Ohio/Pennsylvania/Michigan nexus. Their combined population of 35 million apparently can only come up with 10 elite players, or about as many as Georgia and South Carolina together (combined population: 15 million).
Here is the Rivals top 100 broken down by state:
Florida–20
Texas–14
California–11
Georgia–7
Louisiana–6
North Carolina–6
Ohio–5
Alabama–4
Michigan–4
South Carolina–3
Arizona–3
Mississippi–2
Arkansas–2
Oregon–2
New Jersey–2
Iowa–1
Pennsylvania–1
Virginia–1
Maryland–1
New York–1
Tennessee–1
Illinois–1
New Mexico–1
Washington–1
The top 100 in ESPN’s rankings are even more skewed toward the South and Florida in particular. Florida is said to have FOUR TIMES the prospects that California possesses despite having about half the population. Georgia and Florida together comprise a ridiculous 40 percent of the total. Here’s the breakdown:
Florida–28
Texas–13
Georgia–12
California–7
Louisiana–5
North Carolina–5
Ohio–4
Alabama–4
Arizona–3
Arkansas–3
Virginia–2
Mississippi–2
New Jersey–2
South Carolina–2
Maryland–2
Oklahoma, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee, Michigan, Washington–1
So, maybe the overwhelming majority of elite players tend to come from the South, right? Well, not according to this story by the USA Today:
A comprehensive database of the past 20 NFL drafts, assembled by USA TODAY, illuminates trends in geography (school and conference), position and player size.It is no surprise that California, along with Florida and Texas, produce large numbers of draftees. After all, they are three of the four largest states in the USA, making up 26% of the population.But those three states out-produce their population when it comes to NFL draft picks. They account for 1,808 of 5,395 players drafted — 34% — according to a USA TODAY analysis of the NFL draft from 1988-2007.
According to the data, three of the most populous states produce 34 percent of NFL players. Which makes perfect sense. We all know Florida, California and Texas are the main hotbeds of talent. But the ratio between the three when comparing NFL talent is not skewed the way it is when it comes to the recruiting rankings.
That’s because counting the NFL talent is merely a matter of tallying up the facts. There is no opinion brought to bear. Tallying up the elite recruits, however, is a matter of pure conjecture. I have a feeling it is conjecture based on the almighty dollar, as pleasing the rabid SEC fanbase is rule No. 1 when it comes to monetizing recruiting information–as well as everything else related to college football.
The vast majority of these highly-ranked recruits will stay close to home, which means that more SEC teams will, as a result, be ranked higher in the recruiting rankings. This will bolster the media’s justification for such unprovable bromides as ‘SEC speed’ and the constant, drumbeat perception that the SEC is far and away more talented than any other league. This, then, leads to higher preseason rankings and the benefit of the doubt late in the year when it comes to things like BCS berths.
All of which keeps the SEC fanbase very excited and always willing to keep watching the TV games, reading the internet columns, buying the recruiting subscriptions and shelling out top dollar for home matchups against the likes of Georgia State.
In the end, money is what makes it all go ’round.
Would be interesting to see a breakdown of NFL draft picks by home state, just to see if the trend holds once the players go through college or if the south just overhypes their players.
Here’s the problem with recruiting rankings. Players are not judged against a standard. They are ranked by slots. Rivals and Scout both arbitrarily say there are 50 5 star recruits each year. But the reality is some years produce more talent than others. The recruiting rankings don’t reflect how good a player is relative to how good previous or later to come players have been or will be.
I’d also surmise the rankings are geared to appeal to where the greatest demand is for college football. That would just happen to be the southeast. Look at the number of premium subscribers there are to the team fans sites from SEC schools. They are spending lots of money. Why put that at risk by saying California and Texas have better players? After all, there is no objective measure of talent with the recruit rating services, and projecting talent is a crapshoot, so who would ever know?
HP –
Rerun! The outrage than New York doesn’t get their quota.
So why do you think California produces so much less college and NFL talent on a per capita basis?
Humm…..kinda like the trend of Surpreme Court Justices huh? Seems only the NE USA area can produce someone with the ability to sit on the highest bench in the nation? But at least the kids from the south make the scouting services look good by winnin the BCS Title every chance they get.
Ok. I get why you are arguing, since the population ratios don’t seem to match up.
But when you look at the most successful programs of the last 25 years, you have:
Ohio St.
Michigan
USC
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Texas
Tennessee
Miami
Florida State
Florida
When you have 5 schools that can make this list by recruiting almost exclusively in 2 states, then those states must definitely be talent-rich. There is no other way around it.
Texas and Oklahoma soak up all the Texas talent, while The Big 3 gobble up all the athletes in Florida.
If Florida doesn’t clearly have the most talent, how could it sustain 3 elite programs for 25 years?
It isn’t the money that southerners like to spend on recruiting. And it isn’t media bias that make people think the best players are from the south.
It’s the 10 National titles in 25 years that have come from the state of Florida.
Thank you. Have a nice day.
This is a good list:
http://championsportsviews.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/breaking-down-the-ap-poll-the-10-best-programs-of-the-past-20-years/
A National Football League release this week(SEPT 09)revealed these (3) states indeed have produced the most active NFL players – California is tops at 205, followed by Texas (179) and Florida (176). But when it comes to per capita, the ratio of players per population, none of the those pit bulls rank among the top five.
There are 80 Louisiana high school graduates in the NFL in a state of just under 4.5-million, meaning one-per- 55,862. That’s better odds than the Lions winning, well, just about anything. The next highest ratios are Mississippi (42 players, 1/67,730), followed by South Carolina (51, 1/78,667), District of Columbia (7, 1/81,723) and Alabama (53, 1/83,908). The national average is 1-per-166,031.
After the big three, the states with the most NFL players are Ohio (90), Georgia (80), Louisiana (80), Alabama (53), South Carolina (51), Virginia (51), Pennsylvania (50), Michigan (49), North Carolina (46), Maryland (43) and New Jersey (43).
After the top five per capita were Florida (1/90,809), Hawaii (1/93,195), Georgia (1/102,331), Texas (1/116.491) and Maryland (1/123,174).
Miami (Fla.) is the most popular hometown of NFL players (31), followed by Houston (23), Detroit (15), Dallas (12), Cincinnati (11), Cleveland (11), Los Angeles (11), New Orleans (11), Chicago (10), Atlanta (9), Columbus (Ohio, 9), Washington D.C. (9) and Charlotte (N.C., 8).
I agree with HP, “That’s because counting the NFL talent is merely a matter of tallying up the facts. There is no opinion brought to bear.”
1st round draft picks per million residents based on high school they attended:
1 Louisiana 5.8
2 Mississippi 5.4
3 Florida 5.0
4 Alabama 4.0
5 South Carolina 3.8
6 Georgia 3.6
7 Arkansas 3.5
8 Delaware 3.4
9 Ohio 3.1
10 Virginia 2.8
Other high population states:
11 North Carolina 2.8
13 New Jersey 2.5
14 Texas 2.4
15 California 2.4
20 Michigan 1.8
21 Pennsylvania 1.7
23 Arizona 1.4
24 Washington 1.4
28 Illinois 1.1
31 Massachussetts 0.6
33 New York 0.5
Among the largest states, Florida has set itself
apart. And the latest prep data suggests the gap may be growing.
All these points are well and good. No one is saying that Florida or the South doesn’t produce a lot of talent.
But I’m sorry–when we look back on things a few years from now, Georgia will not have ended up producing more top talent than California. That’s just a joke.
For those who say that Florida, Miami and FSU’s success is a result of all that Florida talent, fine. But California just doesn’t provide talent to USC, but to all the Pac-10, and many schools west of the Mississippi. Heck, some of those great Miami quarterbacks were from Cali. Lawrence Phillips was from Cali.
My point is that even if Florida has more talent per capita, that does not mean it has FOUR TIMES the elite talent that California has. That’s just nonsense and a way to kowtow to the Southern fanbase.
California has 11 players in Rivals’ Top 100… you appear to have a long whiny diatribe based on one year and the fact that you can’t count.
On a per capita basis Georgia has produced more talent than California and will probably continue to do so.
Let’s look at Scout’s Top 100 recently:
YR FL CA
11 17 10
10 15 14
09 19 12
08 14 13
07 10 12
06 7 16
05 11 12
Tot 93 89
Again your assertion that California doesn’t get it’s do isn’t justified.
All these facts are really hard for HP.
To compound his misery, he has Lame Kitten as his team’s leader.
Do some of these commenters even understand HP’s post? Sure, states like Georgia and Louisiana produce more talent PER CAPITA than California, but HP is not arguing that. He’s saying that it is a joke that the recruiting rankings have more TOTAL players (not per capita) in the top 100 from Georgia + Louisiana than from California. This is completely illogical when you look at the TOTAL players in the NFL from California vs. Georgia + Louisiana.
Some of these commenters either need to re-read the post or take a basic statistics class.
We understand what HP and you are saying but don’t really care about those opinions! We have our on theories and 50% of all BCS Championship Trophies to prove those services may just be right. That Cali has lot’s of talent, tis true. However…it has yet to actually produce one single legal BCS Crystal Ball. Give my Tigers the ring USC got “at any cost” in 2004 and the SEC is looking at 7 of 12 Titles! Read ‘em and weep cause those are the facts. AS was mentioned above, add in all the FSU and Miami championships into the mix and the the South does produce the most top talent despite per capital or actual population.
Guy who thinks he can think logically, If you see someone doing something or hear someone say something that seems completely crazy remember this,….it makes all the sense in the world to them.
Guy -
I don’t think you understand the word “population.” HP uses it NINE TIMES in his article. He clearly asserts that California is being slighted on a per capita basis; as if your population entitles you to recognition. Obviously New York has a much better case on that front.
My favorite line is when he lumps Florida in with California to make California’s production look better than it is. California colleges produce fewer 1st rounders than the national average. Even though the state is twice as big as Florida, Florida has produced 100 1st rounders while California has only produced 69.
I was stunned by the lack of interest in college and high school football when I lived in California. Even USC has had half-filled stadiums in the last decade. And that was before we knew about all the cheating. You don’t have to look outside California to understand why the state produces less talent than most states where football can be comfortably played year round.
“California colleges produce fewer 1st rounders than the national average”
Of course we are not talking about California colleges, but California high schools.
DJ Williams is an example of a Florida first rounder who came from California…but i guess in your book he’s counts as a Floridian.
HP -
The article and database you site talks equally about college and high school. Maybe you don’t want to emphasize the college data, but it is certainly part of the discussion.
But I’ll throw you a bone. When you lump in states like New York, California is slightly above average.
FYI – Mike Williams and Keith Rivers are examples of Florida prep products that helped carry California teams. It seems that USC leans more heavily on Florida products than Florida schools do on California products.
The New York thing is a misnomer. Most of the state’s population is in NYC, and it’s just not a football state.
No one on this comment thread has yet to be able to justify California having 7 elite players with 35 million people.
I’ll bet anyone here that four years from now, more than 7 players from California will be drafted.
So recruiting services have California at 7, 10 and 11 top 100 players. Their “quota” is 12. It’s a pretty silly basis for two articles. It seems much more reasonable that this is a weaker than average recruiting class from California.
7 draftees in 4 years would be less than 4 percent… way to put your money where your mouth is!