Michigan's Geographical Disadvantage

Is WSU washington state? And if so, how do they fit into this diary at all as they haven't been competitive since Ryan Leaf was there.

...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.

OK, so there are a few geographical disadvantages, but we've got ALL THE FRESH WATER so it pretty much evens out.

In this years "All Mighty ESPN 150" Michigan had the most in the BIG TEN country with 5.

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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....

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).

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?

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

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.

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.

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.