Michigan's Geographical Disadvantage

Submitted by champswest on

It has long been my contention (& I think that few will disagree) that the 5 hot bed states for prep talent are FL, CA, TX, OH and PA. Therefore, I feel that universities in those states could probably sign only players from thier own states (if they really had to) and still compete at the upper level. For supporting data, I use Scout's 2010 final recruiting team ranking and stats. I list in this order: State, University, final ranking, # of 5 stars signed from within their own state, and # of 4 stars signed from within their own state. For example: MI, UM, 12/1/2 (UM finished ranked 12 in the nation with 1 in state 5* signee and two in state 4* signees.

The 5 Hot Bed States
FL - Florida 1/2/9, FSU 10/3/5, Miami 17/0/3.
TX - Texas 3/4/13, Texas A&M 25/1/3
CA - USC 5/3/8, UCLA 8/1/10, Stanford 24/0/2
PA - Penn St 9/2/5, Pitt 16/0/3
OH - OSU 20/1/4
These 5 states put 11 teams in the final top 25 (MI put only 1). Of the 11 teams which finished higher ranked than UM, 6 were from the hot bed states. Those 6 averaged 2.5 5* from within their own states and 8.3 4* (this compares to UM's previously mentioned one 5* and two 4*). MSU was also one 5*&two 4*. Also, teams from those 5 states have won 7 out of the last 10 BCS Championships. Clearly, just winning the in state battle with MSU isn't going to be enough to be in the upper tier of schools. There usually are not enough in-state 5&4 star players to fill a class.  The recruiting task becomes even harder when you consider the type of player that RR is looking for to run his O and D. Finally, OH is the only near-by state for UM to easily draw from, whereas Oklahoma has TX, Alabama, Auburn&LSU have nearby FL and WSU (edit: Washington) has CA. Considering all of that, JOB WELL DONE, RR and staff.  I can't wait to see how the classes look when we are coming off of winning seasons.

Comments

steve sharik

February 8th, 2010 at 12:30 AM ^

...not only borders FL, but also borders TX. Furthermore, LA is a very under-the-radar state for HS talent--top 10 IIRC. Regardless, I think the Longhorns have the best ability to recruit. Weather isn't cold, UT is a very good school, Austin is a great city, and the girls down in TX are beautiful. Oh, and the 'horns have great football tradition in a state loaded with talent. I think I heard someone say that Florida has great athletes that play football, but Texas has great football players who are very athletic. I love RR and crew targeting FL, but it'd be nice if we had an assistant or two with ties in TX.

Joined: 08/08/2009

MGoPoints: 13860

DoubleB

February 8th, 2010 at 1:09 AM ^

Texas has the most polished players coming out of high school. The quality of football there is better than anywhere else. Florida has the best athletes and most upside. They may not be as ready to go upon hitting campus, but their ceiling is generally higher. FWIW, Florida has something like 80 1st round draft picks since 1990, Texas has 50 or so. The state of Florida also has a lot more national championships (10) in the last 30 years than Texas (1).

Joined: 11/19/2008

MGoPoints: 7470

Bluerock

February 8th, 2010 at 9:02 AM ^

The Texas players are more polished because they might be older and have had more time at their position. Some years ago,the education system of Texas was on 60 mim. The story involved students being held back in school because they were under weight or hadn't reached their full potential as it relates to their play on the football field. I don't know if this still goes on,but old habits are hard to break.

Joined: 07/01/2009

MGoPoints: 1148

DoubleB

February 8th, 2010 at 11:01 PM ^

My point was that they were more polished because they were better coached and had been exposed to more football (the reason you gave above being a good example). High school football coaches in the state make excellent money compared to their counterparts elsewhere and it shows on the field.

Joined: 11/19/2008

MGoPoints: 7470

Tamburlaine

February 8th, 2010 at 7:11 AM ^

This is something Colin Cowherd has been saying for years. That and his "warm-weather schools" thing--and of course he gets ripped for it. A few years ago someone did an analysis of national recruiting, and ranked UM the best at it because of the reasons the OP mentions. Not much in-state talent, recruiting kids to play to an area considered to be an icebox (an overblown issue IMO during football season), and going up against not just the SEC powers that are in states and regions loaded with talent, but also going up against northern powers like OSU, PSU, and Notre Dame who have more inherent advantages. It's a tough sell out there for Michigan. UM had an identity for awhile as Quarterback and Wide Receiver U and that helped. Now it's the Spread Guru at the helm, and hopefully that identity can be parlayed into getting the best playes for that system. I'd like to see some flexibility--great athletes are great athletes (outside your standard 6'5 230 lbs dropback passer), and they can be used in just about any type of offense.

Joined: 01/30/2010

MGoPoints: 5

jg2112

February 8th, 2010 at 8:09 AM ^

Is this last paragraph sarcasm, or are you just not paying attention to Rich Rod's recruiting? I would say these guys: Miller, DORSEY, Gardner, White, Hopkins, Williamson, Pace are great athletes who can be used in any kind of offense. Matter of fact, Rich Rod only recruits guys that are great athletes or have that potential.

Joined: 11/24/2008

MGoPoints: 9925

blueheron

February 8th, 2010 at 11:08 AM ^

Thanks for the insightful follow-up. I'd wager that Jake Long also would have been effective in both a spread and a BADGERSMASHMOUTHYEAH offense. I'm really tired of hearing all the "system" talk. People buying that logic are the same ones who believe RR misused Steven Threet and didn't play to his pro-style talent. Ha. Indeed, *talent* has been the elephant in the living room for the past couple of years. NFL draft results have ('09) already shown this and I'd guess that they will this year and next, too.

Joined: 03/26/2009

MGoPoints: 31218

saveferris

February 8th, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^

I'm really tired of hearing all the "system" talk. People buying that logic are the same ones who believe RR misused Steven Threet and didn't play to his pro-style talent. Ha.
You're forgetting how Coach Rodriguez "ran off" all of our good players after taking over. I can't wait until the program gets back to winning consistently so we don't have to listen to that tired bullshit anymore.

Joined: 07/02/2009

MGoPoints: 24841

Search4Meaning

March 24th, 2010 at 10:07 PM ^

I must be going crazy! I've agreed with you twice in one night! Holy crap. BUT... when you're right, you're right. I heard the Colin Cowherd show, and I agree. I think Michigan can get almost any high school athlete's attention, but that does not always equate to commitments.

Joined: 01/06/2010

MGoPoints: 3175

benjahen

February 8th, 2010 at 8:03 AM ^

how many 5* and 4* were even available from MI? Detroit produces its fair share of talent - are we losing to out of state schools for in-state talent as well?

Joined: 02/10/2009

MGoPoints: 24

OHbornUMfan

February 8th, 2010 at 8:59 AM ^

I would say that getting key in-state guys is fairly important, especially when you consider that anybody from MI who gets pulled to an SEC or Big XII school must really have some chops in order to compare favorably with the local 4 and 5 stars. For my one data point, I submit Michigan's own Mark Ingram - Heisman and National Champ, and coming back for more.

Joined: 01/22/2010

MGoPoints: 2338

Bosch

February 8th, 2010 at 9:25 AM ^

The weather. I think, to a large extent, that these kids aren't afraid to get out of state. In fact, a lot of them probably haven't traveled too far beyond their back yard. Getting away from home can be intimidating, but it's also exciting. However, the northern schools will forever be at a disadvantage to Texas, Florida, USC, etc. because kids are taking their final visits in December and January. Sub zero temps are a punch in the gut for those of us who live in Michigan. Think what it must be like when kids who have never owned a winter coat step off that plane in Detroit for the first time. Yeah, things are reversed a little bit for September recruiting trips. I'm sure most kids would rather play football in Michigan's mild temps versus the 90's in Austin or Orlando. However, it's a long time between September and February and it may unfortunately come down to what is fresh in the recruits' heads. (And USC? Curse LA's year round mild temps.)

Joined: 04/03/2009

MGoPoints: 8194

Bosch

February 8th, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^

Schools generally recruit strong in their region first. However, I would like to see the same study done for 4 and 5 star recruits, i.e. the ones that are recruited hard nationally. Weather is undoubtedly a factor. Wasn't it Tony Grimes that said he wasn't going to Michigan after the "Team USA versus The World" game because he didn't care for the cold spell that hit Miami during the game?

Joined: 04/03/2009

MGoPoints: 8194

saveferris

February 8th, 2010 at 12:51 PM ^

I've never bought the weather argument. The weather in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana/Illinois sucks just as much as Michgan and I don't see it hurting OSU, PSU, or Notre Dame's recruiting. OSU and PSU have the benefit of being able to recruit in talent rich backyards and Michigan and ND have to look nationwide to stock their cupboard.

Joined: 07/02/2009

MGoPoints: 24841

Bosch

February 9th, 2010 at 4:03 PM ^

In the past 5 years, the only northern schools that have cracked the rivals top 10 recruiting classes have been Michigan, OSU, PSU, and Notre Dame (I do not consider Chapel Hill, NC or Knoxville, TN to be northern climates). These four schools will always have the brand name to overcome most all recruiting biases. I think it is very telling that no other cold weather school has made the top 10. Comparatively, some of the southern schools to be ranked in the top 10 the past 5 years: Tenn 3 times UNC once. Georgia 3 times Auburn 3 times South Carolina once UCLA once I stand by my opinion.

Joined: 04/03/2009

MGoPoints: 8194

jsquigg

February 8th, 2010 at 10:30 AM ^

Can't wait to bring Harbaugh's recruiting excellence over here. That combined with his winning character and smash mouth offense will surely have Michigan back to the top....

Joined: 09/06/2009

MGoPoints: 9621

Section 1

February 8th, 2010 at 12:55 PM ^

He only got a Bachelor's in General Studies, and due to his coaches, he was steered away from his true love of Elementary Particle Physics. Leaving Jim as the intellectually impoverished shell of a man we see today. He should stay at Stanford, where they will provide him with intensive intellectual therapy and rehabilitative trips to the Sun Bowl.

Joined: 06/29/2009

MGoPoints: 16535

blueheron

February 8th, 2010 at 11:11 AM ^

We should also remember that players from football-intensive states (OH, much of the Deep South, and Texas) probably have a higher skill level from all the reps they get. Contrast that to just plain athletes (Martell Webb as an example) that you'd commonly find in Michigan. Even with the increasingly common concentration on one sport, you still see the talented guys playing multiple sports (hoops in Webb's case).

Joined: 03/26/2009

MGoPoints: 31218

labattsblue

February 8th, 2010 at 7:32 PM ^

I was very suprised when I relocated to PA from Maryland. At the time my son was to enter 2nd grade, at registration the school assumed he was going to enter first grade. I looked at the average age of his peers and after a lengthy discussion with my wife he repeated first grade. The principal stated boys start school late, (girls not so much) for athletic purposes. After living here for ten years I have noticed most senior football players are very mature, as a result they are bigger, faster, and physically stronger, The overwhelming majority of boys in western PA graduate at the age of 18, some are 19. High school players here graduate as men. I graduated H.S. at age 17 in Michigan. So are PA kids better than Michigan and Maryland kids or just more mature?

Joined: 02/08/2010

MGoPoints: 100

James Howlett

February 8th, 2010 at 10:10 PM ^

Two(Texas 179 NFL players, Florida 176) of the three behemoth NFL producing states are in the south but, overall California is #1(205 NFL players). Georgia, Mississippi and Louisiana have incredible per capita NFL player production. Louisiana--LSU, Tulane. Has the highest per capita production of NFL players of any state in the country. It currently has 80 former LA prep players in the NFL. Tied for fifth in overall NFL production with Georgia. LSU, is adjacent to one of the monster football producing states in Texas(179 NFL players second only to Calif.)and has the second highest per capita state adjacent to the east, Mississippi. Isn't hard to understand why LSU recruits so well, or many of the other SEC schools. Of the northern states only Ohio has more NFL players than LA does with 90. Pennsylvania, is 10th in NFL player production, with a relatively paltry 50(#11 Michigan is just one behind-49) behind small southern states like South Carolina(51) and Alabama(53). So, if we're going to talk "hotbed" recruiting states in sheer numbers California leads. Then begins the south's recruiting domination(especially the deep south)with huge sheer numbers and much higher per capita production. Certainly, UM suffers from being out of the 5-10 schools in NFL player production but, relative to a lot of other Big Ten states not named, Ohio or Pennsylvania. Michigan has a significant edge. States like Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota and Wisconsin produce small numbers of NFL players, and of course, those Big Ten state schools don't have UM's kind of regional, nor our national reach. So, if we're going to compare recruiting bases(not talking about national reach now) certainly we're going to pale to schools like Florida, LSU, Texas, USC and Georgia. But, relative to most of our opponets we have a significant recruiting advantage. A look at NFL production by state. http://www.usafootball.com/articles/displayArticle/7022/8314

Joined: 06/22/2009

MGoPoints: 92

James Howlett

February 8th, 2010 at 10:44 PM ^

http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2010/recruits/starsearch.aspx One stat that stuck out: 1 of every 7 Big Ten players(89) comes from the State of Florida. Ohio, the northern state where the most SEC players come from, has 12 SEC players on their rosters. Florida, is fourth among Big Ten producing states ahead of Pennsylvania(actually that stat seems iffy).

Joined: 06/22/2009

MGoPoints: 92

bronxblue

February 9th, 2010 at 12:00 PM ^

It will always be hard to recruit in a talent-limited state, but I don't think factors like weather or location itself are necessarily at the heart of the issue. Most kids stay close to home, and so states that produce top-notch athletes (like Texas, Florida, California, Ohio, etc.) in bunches are going to have a recruiting advantage compared to outsiders. They grew up watching the local team, had alums bombarding them from an early age to attend one of the local powers, and they are simply used to the local culture and may find it daunting to go beyond the borders. sure, the 5* uber-recruits are going to be wooed by everyone and might move around more, but championship teams are built by the 3* and 4* kids you get who mesh best with the system, and most of those kids are local talents who decided to stay home. As for recruiting rankings themselves, I've read quite a few stories noting that certain regions tend to be "overrated" by the gurus because they see those kids more and have more positive expectations for them than others. In other words, if you expect good players to come out of a particular Texas school, you are going to rate them higher than a kid who comes from a small school in Iowa, even if objectively they have the same talent and potential. That's why I've come to care less about how UM recruits according to ESPN or Rivals and instead be concerned with the types of players they get and how those players will fit into the current system. Teams like Tennessee, Ole Miss, and South Carolina have brought in supposedly "great" recruiting classes, yet these offseason victories really haven't translated to on-field success in recent years.

Joined: 11/22/2008

MGoPoints: 171843

SysMark

February 10th, 2010 at 12:25 PM ^

It is true that geography can work against Michigan in some cases. Offsetting that disadvantage at least somewhat is Michigan's superior academic stature in comparison to most of the competition (granted some are comparable but not most). That counts with some recruits and many parents. That academic stature, combined with a large, loyal alumni base gives Michigan more of a national presence than most other BCS football schools.

Joined: 11/15/2008

MGoPoints: 21739

M-Dog

August 25th, 2010 at 9:11 PM ^

2 of the 5 hot bed States (OH and PA) are close to Ann Arbor, and the hot bed regions of those 2 States (Northern OH and Western PA) are even closer.  Michigan has recruited those areas well year after year.

Add in Michgan's strong presence in the Chicago area, our emerging presence in FL, and our ability to cherry pick key recruits nation-wide, and the picture is actually pretty good.

No, it's not as convienient as TX being able to recruit Dallas/Houston, or FL being able to recruit Southern FL, or USC being able to recruit Southern CA, but it is not bad at all.

Yes there are a half dozen schools I'd like to trade places with recruiting-wise, but there are a hundred-plus that I would not.

    

Joined: 07/06/2008

MGoPoints: 257535