Around the Big Ten

[iam416]

The demographics explanation that most folks won't talk about -- and I understand why -- is African-American demographics. The reason no one really wants to take that angle is it's based on the premise that top football players are more likely to be AA than any other race. The number of AAs playing D1 football and NFL football in proportion to their actual population amply supports that premise. In and of itself, that's not offensive, but that sort of results based conclusion can be used for sinister explanations in other areas and hence the reluctance to embrace that sort of analysis. Totally understood.

But, let's *assume* that overwhelmingly disproportionate representation of AAs on NFL and BCS school rosters supports the conclusion. It would then follow that regions with higher AA populations would produce more top shelf football players. That would be the Southeast (see the chart below). Additionally:

1. The culture of the southeast is football dominant. And not only football dominant, but college football dominant. My *guess* is that better athletes, regardless of race, play football more frequently than in other regions. On the flipside, NYC appears to me (for a host of reasons) to be more basketball-centric. Not a lot of football players come from NYC, but the hoops players....goodness. The cultural emphasis, if any, can be an important factor in producing elite players in a given sport.

2. In the Southeast the AA population is dispersed throughout the entire region. In the MW, the AA population tends to focus on urban pockets. The significance, as I've argued previously, is that urban environments tend toward hoops (as a matter of availability). Also, based on what I know about Ohio, urban football programs tend to be god-awful. The rise of Glenville as a central football program in Cleveland was huge because it actually provided an opportunity for kids to develop their talents and skills. In the south, AAs appear more likely to play across the full spectrum of schools.

3. So, statistically, Illinois+Michigan+Pennsylvania+Ohio have a combined AA population of roughly 6.1M. Florida an Georgia alone have a combined AA population of 6M. Louisiana+Alabama+Mississippi=3.6M. And Texas and North Carolina have huge AA populations as well (5M combined).

4. A factor that probably hurts the Southeast a bit is that Midwest states, especially Northwest Ordinance states, have gads more schools than Southeast states so they actually *may* more kids playing football. That's a guess.

[iam416]

To add on to the above, of the top 100 recruits on the 247 Composite, 84 are AA.

I'd also say that a significant "shift" in the last 30 years is the Southeast's attitude toward AAs and AA attitudes toward State Universities. SECschools have managed to put behind them generations of segregation and hostile racism, and now are recruiting kids AND parents that only know S! E! C! and not Bull Connor or George Wallace or the like.

I do think the population growth and economic growth brings money, which brings better schools, which brings better coaching/facilities, which improves the overall state of the game indirectly.

[entropy]

talent... so explain why at non Div1 levels of CF, the south doesn't dominate they way it does in Div 1

[iam416]

I think once you get out of scholarship football, you introduce a host of new variables into the equation. Further, in terms of D3, there's not a lot of D3 schools in the deep south. There are more D3 schools in Ohio than there are in SEC states (excluding Texas) combined.

As for FCS, I think there's a lack of brand name programs in the Southeast. I think the fall of the Southern Conference -- with Georgia Southern and Appy State both going FBS, is huge. Right now, in SEC States, McNeese and Furman are about the only well-established FCS programs. In contrast, the SEC has/had 5-6 programs that were well-established prior to desegregation.

Finally, I'd guess that as you moved down the line through recruits, the numbers become more proportional. I'd guess that the percentage of AAs that are 5* is more than the percentage that are 4* and the 4* percentage is significantly more than the 3* percentage. I guess I could figure that out if I cared enough to do it.

Let me be clear -- I'm only postulating this as part of the explanation. It's not one thing. However, if you're going to talk "demographics" then I think it at least a rational idea to talk demographics of AAs -- especially when, as I noted, 84 of the top 100 rated recruits are AA. 84. I don't think, e.g., the massive influx of Hispanics into Southern California does much for football there because that's not the preferred cultural sport.

Out of curiosity, do you think I'm way off base?

[hack]

I agree that demographics isn't a sane discussion without acknowledging race.

[Hannibal]

The population shift in question occurred more in the '70s and '80s. The horrible suckitude of the Big Ten is something that has occcurred in the past decade and has accelerated the past five years. IMHO a big factor is that SEC and some ACC schools have ramped up their cheating considerably, now that it has been established that nobody ever gets punished. In the 1970 and 1980s, if you cheated, you eventually paid for it. That is no longer the case. A huge part of the southern portion of the country spent a few years in the 80s and 90s on severe probation. I'm guessing that in the dirty Auburn boosters were a little gunshy following the 1993 no TV season, but they are now working again, probably stronger than ever. Even Washington got hit hard with sanctions because of Billy Joe Hobert. Nowadays, that wouldn't be a blip on the radar. Oversigning is another huge advantage. I have yet to see an analysis of whether this is a relatively new phenomenon.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Interesting hypothesis but I dunno.

talent notes that race demographics is a determining factor in the success of SEC schools compared to the Big Ten.

As well, high skill AAs who live in the south, play HS football in the south and get heavily recruited by SEC programs by the time they are out of Pop-Warner, stay in the south .... it's low hanging fruit.

I'd say the increase in cheating IS a factor when the level of it present in the SEC is so significantly higher than it is in the BIG. But its only a positively modifying factor to race based demographics. Its going to take a lot for schools like ND, osu, psu, M and the like, schools that recruit nationally, to pull guys away form the south when they have to work up-hill to make it happen.

I think BIG higher-ups are aware of this problem. I know Delaney is trying to level the playing field, without much success, I'd say, because the SEC is not going to give up the historical advantages afforded its CFB programs that it has developed over the last 20 years or so.

[iam416]

Yeah, I think those reasons are more directly responsible for today's game, Hanni. However, I still think (and I'd reckon you'd agree), that's there's a number of factors in play. That's why the article Hoss and DSL shit on is so f'n shitty (as is any generic "demographics" nonsense).

[iam416]

talent notes that race demographics is a determining factor in the success of SEC schools compared to the Big Ten.

Just to emphasize -- A determining factor, not THE determining factor.

We haven't even touched on the massive amounts of money SEC schools pour into their football programs in terms of assistant coaches and facilities and how that compares with middle tier B10 spending.

We haven't even touched on the quality of HCs in the SEC.

I also firmly believe the gradual shift in perception amongst the AA community toward SEC schools as well as the gradual shift from what SEC Football represented to the southern community is A factor as well.

There are a number of factors at play. Some are within the B10's control to change (spending more; hiring better people). Some will eventually change ($$$$$, oversigning). Some will not change (AA demographics).

[entropy]

The Teeny (formerly Big) Ten

If say development in the south is better than hs development in the north. I think the number of no coaching positions in the sec actually doing coaching gives them an advantage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[whodean]

This is a very commonly repeated trope. "The Midwest is losing population, FAST!". I've heard this said on MANY message boards. People confuse losing population with losing proportional population.

I'm guessing the population in the Midwest is on average older than in the South. Sure, there are still plenty of people in the Big10 footprint, but many younger people born up there have migrated south or west, which are growing much faster.

btw, I believe Michigan was the only state to actually lose population in the last census.

[entropy]

whodean.. but the census is still higher than in the 1970's..

Hoss did a reveiw of Texas' population boom. It's hispanic driven. So how much of the population growth really is adding to football talent? I'd suggest it is other factors like HS coaching, football focus, differences in rules between conferences, cheating and college coaches.. I still think if the south was that superior in talent, you'd see more dominance at the lower divisions and across conferences..

[drok]

Coaching is the biggest factor in my opinion. But yes, one of many factors.

[whodean]

the southern states which are growing faster (because of Hispanics) get more of the proportional votes. That does not mean that we are seeing a flood of neo-carpetbaggers flowing North-to-South.

It ain't all hispanics. Young people move south and west out of the rust belt.

[THE_WIZARD_]

The SEC is better because they cheat. End of story.