Where the Best HS Players From the Most Prolific States Committed To

Submitted by alum96 on

I thought I'd share some data from information I was curious about myself in case anyone else was curious about this topic ... and/or you are just bored and want to read stuff on MGoBlog.

What I was searching for is to see what schools the top 2016 HS players landed at from the ranks of the states that produce the most NFL talent.    I saw a story a year ago that had some great data on which states (and even HSs) produced the most NFL players in absolute terms - and then per capita (I did a post here if interested).  So I went thru the 247 data by state for 2016 and was curious which schools pull the top players from each state.  Also I wanted to see how many top players each state produced in 2016 - there were some surprises.

My table below has 7 columns - let me explain how it works:

  1. State Name
  2. State Rank in Absolute # of players in NFL
  3. State Rank in Per Capita players in NFL (I only have the top 10, so if a state was not in the top 10 I just labeled it n/a)
  4. # of 5* in 2016 class in that state
  5. # of 4* in 2016 class in that state
  6. Distribution of those 10 players by college i.e. OSU (3 - 0/2/1) means Ohio State got 3 of the top 10 players with two 4* and one 3*
  7. The last column was a look at players 11-20 in that state just from a 40,000 foot point of view as I was curious where the next batch of kids was going in each state if any patterns.

 

Image result for thoughts

Here are some national thoughts:

  • As expected Georgia, Ohio State, and LSU have a very special advantage.  States rich in talent, without any serious in state competition (GA Tech haha) where lots of the very top end kids go to the "state school", and then they can fill the bottom end of the class with still quite talented kids.  LSU in particular right now is just off the charts in retention.
  • USC, Texas, and FSU / Florida are not quite as lucky as the 3 schools above as they have in state competition plus a lot of schools from outside the state vie for their players, but they are in amazingly talent rich states and USC and FSU right now are killing it.  UF and Texas not as much.   Miami is on the outside looking in right now at least in top top talent - they do grab a ton of 4* talent rated a bit lower in the state of FL.
  • UM is sort of like PSU & Clemson (and I imagine Oklahoma) in that it has solid in state talent but not one of the "supreme" states and has an in state rival that sucks some of it off (MSU, Pitt, South Carolina, OK State respectively).  However I'd say the rise of MSU gives UM the largest disadvantage of these 4 schools as MSU has the longest reign of success vs the in state rival, and OK and CLEM were just in the playoffs so have the mindshare in those states.  PSU is sort of in its own category as PITT is a long ago power - but PSU isn't great shakes either. 
  • Bama (the state) had far less in state talent this year than I thought - it was good at the top but fell off to 3* very fast.  I did not expect that but "sample size".  That said Bama basically goes into every state and has a chance at their top 5 players.  But I was expecting Bama to be similar in talent to a state like LA - it was not close in 2016.
  • USC should never win less than 10 games - the type of talent they get is silly.
  • Amazing amount of talent in FL and so many schools are there from all over the country trying to get to it.
  • Texas (the school) is obviously struggling with the top 10 but did good in the 11-20 range which in many states would be similar to a top 10.
  • Very impressed with Stanford's recruiting - they are in almost every top state and have a vast geographic footprint; it surprised me - I expected a ton of CA kids and then a few here or there. 
  • MSU owned Illinois - I don't like that.  It's a solid state for talent once you get past the top 10 without an in state power and we can't just concede the state.
  • MSU doing well in other states means this is the first year they didn't have to settle for a lot of kids in the 11-20 range in Ohio; that talent instead went to places like Pitt.
  • Les is silly.  I know its easy to say "they have all the talent in state" but you still need to retain it.  And I know everyone cheats down there so whatever is happening Les is able to "out incentive" everyone - he has an amazing retention rate in state when you consider Bama, Auburn, Ole Mi$$ are going for those kids.
  • PSU had a hell of a year in MD - they got three 4* there.  OSU was just behind as well.

 

Image result for strategy

Strategy/Thoughts for for UM:

  • UM did very well in CA; not easy to get kids to travel 3000 miles and we got 1 of the top 10, and 2 of next 10.
  • UM needs to do better in FL.  OSU got 3 of the top 25 kids (obv Urban has his old connections there) while UM's best player was #45 (Bush Jr) and then Eubanks at 50.  Maybe we don't get top 10 kids out of there but we need to make inroads in that 15 to 30 range.
  • UM obviously owned NJ.  I dislike that MSU made inroads there too.
  • UM whiffed in TX but its round 1, it's a state "open for business" just like FL.  Such a deep talent pool.  Again like FL - getting a #17 ranked kid from TX would be like #5 in most states.
  • The VA/DC/MD area is a place we need to do better long term and attack with an EUTM like Jersey.  Obviously not getting Davis, and losing Hamilton late hurt but there is a lot of population shift there and a good amount of talent without in state powers.  Every guy we pull out of there is one that doesn't go to B10 East competitors (just as in Jersey)  PSU & OSU took 5 of the top 10 out of MD and OSU got a top 1 out of VA/DC.  This is "north enough" that we can do well in the future.
  • North Carolina (the state) surprised me with a good talent haul this year - while that is more ACC country again OSU went in there and got a guy; it's another place to kick tires and get a presence as its a growing state without an in state power.
  • Don't condede the state of IL. 
  • Do better in top 5-6 of MI.
  • At some point get some OH kids - obviously winning vs the Buckeyes would help.

 

 

Image result for data star trek

Data:

(Note - I rolled in D.C. with Virginia although it could have been thrown in with Maryland just the same - D.C. is 3rd in per capita talent and had four 4* this year)

Below are the top 14 states in NFL production - and then I threw Maryland (state #18) in there as it is now in our footprint and our B10 East peers killed it there.

    Per      Top 10 Star  
State Absolute Capita 5* 4* Distribution 11-20
CA 1 n/a 5 40 USC  (4 - 2/2/0) 4 UCLA, 2 UM
          ALA  (1 - 1/0/0)  
          OU   (1 - 1/0/0)  
          UCLA  (1 - 1/0/0)  
          STAN  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          FSU  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          UM  (1 - 0/1/0)  
             
FL 2 6 3 44 FSU  (2 - 0/2/0) 3 FSU, 2 MIA
          UF  (2 - 0/2/0) No FL!
          MISS  (1 - 1/0/0)  
          OSU  (1 - 1/0/0)  
          GA  (1 - 1/0/0)  
          AUB  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          LSU  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          CLE  (1 - 0/1/0)  
             
TX 3 n/a 2 50 MISS  (2 - 1/1/0) 4 TX
          BAY  (2 - 0/2/0)  
          HOU  (1 - 1/0/0)  
          UF  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          STAN  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          TX  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          AUB  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          LSU  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          A&M  (1 - 0/1/0)  
             
GA 4 8 3 22 AUB  (3 - 1/2/0) 5 GA
          GA  (2 - 1/1/0)  
          UF  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          CLE  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          TN  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          USC  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          Uncommited 5*  
             
OH 5 10 0 12 OSU  (4 - 0/4/0) 3 OSU, 2 PITT
          ND  (2 - 0/2/0)  
          WVA  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          PITT  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          MSU  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          AUB  (1 - 0/1/0)  
             
LA 6 1 2 19 LSU  (9 - 2/7/0) 4 LSU
          ALA  (1 - 0/1/0)  
             
SC T7 2 0 5 CLE  (3 - 0/2/1) 2 STAN, 2 SC
          SC  (2 - 0/2/0)  
          ND  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          DUKE  (1 - 0/0/1)  
          CC  (1 - 0/0/1)  
          2 Uncommited 3*  
             
PA T7 n/a 1 8 PSU  (3 - 1/2/0) 5 PITT, 2 TEMP
          PITT  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          FSU  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          TEMP (1 - 0/1/0)  
          SC  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          USC  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          STAN  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          UM  (1 - 0/0/1)  
             
VA* T7 9 1 9* FSU  (3 - 1/2/0) 3 NC, 3 VT
DC has    3     DUKE  (1 - 0/1/0)  
four 4*         MARSH  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          STAN  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          OSU  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          ALA  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          A&M  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          MD  (1 - 0/1/0)  
             
NJ T7 n/a 1 7 UM  (5 - 1/4/0) 2 STAN, 2 RUTG
          MSU  (2 - 0/1/1)  
          OSU  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          TN  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          MIA  (1 - 0/1/0)  
             
AL 11 5 2 5 ALA  (4 - 2/2/0) ALA, AUB, LOU
          AUB  (2 - 0/2/0)  
          UF  (2 - 0/1/1)  
          MSU  (2 - 0/0/2)  
             
NC 12 n/a 1 14 CLE  (3 - 1/2/0) 2 STAN
          FSU  (3 - 0/3/0)  
          OSU  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          OK  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          TN  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          ALA  (1 - 0/1/0)  
             
MI 13 n/a 0 9 MSU  (4 - 0/3/1) 2 IOWA
          UM  (2 - 0/2/0)  
          ND  (2 - 0/2/0)  
          OSU  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          LOU  (1 - 0/1/0)  
             
IL 14 n/a 0 6 MSU  (4 - 0/3/1) 2 STAN, 2 IOWA
          OSU  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          PSU  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          ISU  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          MISS  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          OK  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          NEB  (1 - 0/1/0)  
             
MD 18 n/a 0 11 PSU  (3 - 0/3/0) Everywhere
          OSU  (2 - 0/2/0)  
          MD  (2 - 0/2/0)  
          ALA  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          STAN  (1 - 0/1/0)  
          WVA  (1 - 0/1/0)  

 

Comments

alum96

February 6th, 2016 at 1:25 PM ^

I am thinking about doing a OSU v Bama v UM comparison just for kicks and giggles as the first is the roadblock we need to get thru in the conf and the second is the ultimate standard in CFB today.

OSU's top 150 guys came from this distribution:

  • OH - 3
  • MI - 1 (sigh)
  • IN - 1
  • FL - 2 (Bosa brother was one)
  • MD - 2
  • NJ - 1

To your point though it's a bit misleading.  For example, WR Binjimen Victor is the 99th ranked player in the country but only the 17th best in FL.  That's almost identical to say Crawford for UM who is 119th overall but 17th in CA.

This is why I stated we dont need to get in the top 10 kids in FL (or TX) but we need to do better in the 15th thru 30th bracket which would still be top 150-200 kids.

alum96

February 7th, 2016 at 8:46 AM ^

Nope.  Far from it.  CA has the most in absolute terms since its a huge state.  I believe if CA was its own country it would be #7 or #8 in the world in population.  Per capita means a massive concentration of football players relative to population.  TX has same issue.

Follow the link at top of the story to see per capita results but #1 is LA and #2 is SC.  Relatively medium to smallish populations with a ton of football being played.  The only "big state" with both high absolute #s and high per capita is FL.  OH is pretty decent too on both counts.

Michigan4Life

February 7th, 2016 at 1:44 PM ^

They basically concluded that Florida is #1. There are a much larger concentration of NFL talent coming up in the rank which hails from the state of Florida.

http://www.scout.com/nfl/story/1547234-which-states-ruled-the-2015-nfl-draft

Positional breakdown: http://www.scout.com/nfl/story/1471731-regional-positional-breakdowns-of-the-nfl?s=127

schreibee

February 8th, 2016 at 11:49 AM ^

96, I'm just getting around to reading this, as I'm in SF and SB weekend has been a bit hectic.

I got to bullet point #3 and just had to skip over to comments to see how many people had pointed out that you might wanna think about saying our in-state rivals "siphon off" some of the local talent, not "suck them off"?!

beef supreme

February 6th, 2016 at 1:19 PM ^

Wow. We aren't there yet, but continuing forward, I believe we will be able to be in the conversation with a top ten kid in any state. Also, watched highlights on the rb from Antioch ca today! Do want!!

On another front, for anyone who is tied in with recruiting, for all these kids that don't want to play school,how does urban continually get the qb's that he does when he has no track record of producing successful nfl qb's other than alex smith?

bluebyyou

February 7th, 2016 at 8:24 AM ^

Nice piece of work, Alum96.

Michigan is getting a ton of publicity from Harbaugh coming home to coach, a winning season, a good recruiting class and events such as the Summer Swarm and SOTS which brings the "brand" to the forefront in the minds of potential recruits

The single thing that will make the biggest difference, imo, is winning and beating MSU and OSU.  When that starts happening with regularlity, recruiting will get easier. I think we will have an easier time beating Sparty than OSU going forward and that will help shift things with in-state recruiting.  With respect tothe Buckeyes, it's going to be a tough row to hoe as their long term success is going to take a while to overcome. I would also expect that if Meyer remains their coach and Harbaugh is here long term, which I expect him to be, it will be another Bo/Woody situation with similar outcomes.

StephenRKass

February 6th, 2016 at 2:01 PM ^

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Seriously, here is my question for your suggestion on strategy for Michigan. Where, pray tell, would you have us take away from the current class?

You highlighted FL, TX, VA/DC/MD, IL, and MI as states we needed to "do better." You also mentioned OH and NC, but let's limit this to five, given that OH is currently locked down by OSU, and NC being a place to "kick tires." Let's assume we got 2 top 10 players and 3 top 20 players total from these five states in the current class. Who would you remove? This is a negativity game none of us really want to play. But I'd submit you need to get the best possible players for the team, for your needs, REGARDLESS of where they come from. Maybe you do what you can to establish relationships with coaches in each of those locales, but if 20 the best 28 players all come from three or four areas (CA, NJ, MI, and PA, for example), that's where you sign players from.

Let's look at several examples from this year shall we?

  1. Michigan did have a player from IL. Swenson was a consensus 4 star, in an area of need, from metro Chicago. And yet, Drevno (with Harbaugh's backing), decided to pull the offer. Certainly, they could have kept Swenson. THEY DECIDED TO TAKE THEIR CHANCES ELSEWHERE.
  2. Also, we had Devery Hamilton from MD, and he went to Stanford. I won't blame that one on Harbaugh. I'd take a free ride to Stanford in a heartbeat, as much as I love Michigan.
  3. In Michigan, we got two of the top three guys. Maybe we should have gotten one or two more, but you're going to lose some to MSU, (Corley), OT Michael Jordan grew up in OH as an OSU fan, where he ended up, and more than one person on the board said there were good personal reasons for Hayes to get out of Dodge.

Looking at those few examples, I don't blame Michigan for doing something different. I just don't. So, yes, your strategy makes sense on paper, but it doesn't always work out the way you want it to.

alum96

February 6th, 2016 at 2:22 PM ^

Well we had an unusual year with the massive NJ influx.  If they continue to take 5 of the top 10 out of NJ every year than it takes away from other places I agree.  Not sure if that is going to be probable long term.  So maybe you get 3 of the top 8 in NJ long term.

If we continue to get 3 of the top 20 out of CA each year that will limit what is available elsewhere.  I hope that is repeatable in the next 3 years but I don't know. 

So yeah if you are going to get 5 out of NJ a year, 3 out of MI, and 3 out of CA that limits where else you will go.  Not sure that is going to be a set in stone thing.

I'd take away from some of these lower end FL recruits as one spot.  We have the 103rd and 140th guy out of FL.  (that is probably a 1 off thing due to Flanagan this year but I just speaking in general) In future, replace that type of kid with 2 elite kids (top 10) out of the MD/DC/VA area.  Go get a Josh King from IL.  Get 1 of the top 10 kids out of OH eventually as OSU now does it annually in MI - its not a Michael Jordan thing - its Damon Webb, Weber, etc.

Even within FL its just a matter of moving up the food chain to higher level guys.

I think we'll do better in MI next year just because we didn't look like a friggin joke vs MSU like we did the prior 2 years.

Making inroads in NC is not for 1 year - its to establish the brand down there just like we are trying to do in AL, FL, TX.  It's a comment for the long term - NC had better talent this year than AL when you go 1 thru 15.  OSU is down there competing with Clemson and FSU (so is Stanford) - UM can be too.

Obviously there is no pattern from year to year that is symmetric because what kids fit you and what kids are interested in you are different.

ifis

February 6th, 2016 at 3:01 PM ^

the folks we recruited from Florida were individually targeted (Bush, McDoom, Uche, Eubanks) because the coaches REALLY liked them or showed skills at camps (Gil and Metellus).  Who would you replace Gil and Metellus with?  They both show talent and fill positions of extreme need (LB and S respectively)?

Also, there are good indications that all of these players are under-rated on the recruiting services, so we shouldn't care whether they are in the top 200 or not.

alum96

February 6th, 2016 at 7:49 PM ^

"the coaches REALLY liked them or showed skills at camps (Gil and Metellus)"

This was said after each low 3* we took at a camp, and eventually most were jettisoned when better players came along.  Uche I get due to coach Brown wanting him and knowing him but I think the other 2 guys were sort of a package deal to get Bush and establish hopefully a pipeline.

"The coaches really liked X at camp" was said for a lot of people.  If the #4 guy from MD wanted in and this was not a year we were establishing a relationship I think they would have taken their place.

Again not a big deal in 1 year and I am not being critical at all - just saying reality is the #4 player in IL or #2 player in MD has a better than even chance of having a high ceiling than the 140th player in FL.  That said they have to want to come to UM too.

ifis

February 6th, 2016 at 8:34 PM ^

I think we have to be careful about getting too wrapped up in recruiting service rankings.  One of the principal puroposes of the camps is to evaluate the talent that recruiting sites miss.  Some players, such as Drake Johnson, get overlooked for a host of reasons.  Sometimes the kids don't go to the services' camps.  Other kids are really good fits for our scheme or are likely to have an upside over time.

The only camp commitment we clearly parted ways with was Kiante Enis.  Dytarious Johnson appears to be academics.  Swenson was not a camp commit.

FWIW, Metellus got a glowing review by ESPN (I think that's what Brian said on the podcast) and none of the other sites bothered to evaluate him even semi-thoroughly.  

Gil is up to 220/230 material, fast for a LB, and a good tackler.  He will compete for the SAM position immediately.

They were also teammates of Devin Bush Jr., whom the coaches clearly had higher on the board than recruiting service rankings would indicate.  

I have no complaints about the camp commits.  

I do, on the other hand, think we bungled offensive tackle recruiting.  We should have maintained contact with more tackles than we could offer scholarships, just like we did at wide receiver (e.g. Pie Young).

In any event, thanks for the write-up.  It was a fun, informative read, as always.

alum96

February 7th, 2016 at 8:55 AM ^

Don't want to get into an argument on these 2 players but you could say that for every low 3* in the country that a P5 program takes - "I'll take the coaches view over the scouting services anyday!"  There are 100s of these cases each year.  Some will work out big time (Willie Henry), many will be pretty true to their ratings out of HS.

I find it hard to believe Flanagan players were lightly scouted - they were state champions this year. 

You can say the services screwed up these 2 but thats an opinion - lets see in 3 years.  If your belief is that the 120th or 140th player has just as good of a ceiling as the 5th then there is no reason to follow recruiting rankings at all.   That's akin to saying a low 3* corner in CA is just as good as David Long so no worries.

Again every year there are a lot of 3* that outplay their ranking - but who knows if its going to be these 2.  We have no clue at this time.  Desmond King was not a highly thought of recruit and is now All Big 10... but there are plenty of guys who bracketed Desmond King out of HS and didnt do much at all. 

 

ifis

February 6th, 2016 at 2:49 PM ^

Most of our recruiting will be about specific players, not regions.  Resource limitations are such that we just can't lock down all of these areas for ourself.  It's just not going to happen.  Keep in mind that devoting resources to a second-place finish with a recruit is a total loss.  Focusing on a few relationships is ordinarily better than spreading one's self thin.  

Look at how much time, effort, and resources we put into our relationship with the northeast, especially New Jersey/New York.  2 of the top 3 players (the other is Fournette, in my opinion) in the country chose to join UM during a downturn in our program.  That is a ridiculous success in my book.  

No way you can achieve that in California, Texas, Florida, Alabama, and the DC area too.  We might be able to do it in one or two more regions, but probably not.  In my opinion, we have our eye on developing in-roads in Florida and that's a smart move.  

Lock down the Northeast and lock down Michigan.  Keep the door open everywhere else and tailor recruiting to individuals, rather than regions.

 

alum96

February 6th, 2016 at 7:59 PM ^

I agree with item #1 about it being about specific players; I disagree with lack of resources.  We have the same resources as Stanford and OSU - they are everywhere.  That doesnt mean you need to commit resources to Idaho or Kansas or Maine.  Harbaugh has shown a propensity to expand our recruiting resources far more than what it was under Hoke.

But going back to point 1 I agree - it is about players.  If the top 4 safeties we want are all in Wisconsin well we go to Wisconsin to find a safety, overall trends be damned.  To that end I think multiple top DTs are in NJ next year (good for us) so when we go after DTs we are going to be mining NJ because that just so happens to be where the 2017 vintage is.  In 2018 it could be very different.  I am just speaking bigger picture - not in any 1 year, and where to lay groundwork.  And where to hurt our enemies.

To that end Maryland/DC/Va corridor makes sense not just because OSU PSU do well there but because its where population shift is happening to.  IL I was taken aback how MSU dominated it like we dominated NJ.  I dont want it to be easy for MSU anywhere.  Its worth devoting resources there as they have 6-8 kids a year worth looking at, just like in MI and its close by and a long time Midwest footprint without a national power in it.

2016 was a unique class in UM went after every position in great number.  It's a massive class size and we had needs everywhere.  Other years won't be like this, I imagine the 2017 class will be mid 20s and by then we will have 55 kids devoted to 2017 and 2016.  That doesnt leave much for 2018 even with Harbaugh attrition.  So that year you need to have more precision and building groundwork so you can go into other states with relationships built is good to do ahead of time.

I do believe Harbaugh is doing these things - I do wonder if he will go after LA harder once Les retires or is pushed out.  What I have seen so far is

  1. Leverage NFL and Stanford for CA.
  2. Start offsetting some of that Urban Meyer wow factor in FL with Flanagan
  3. Jim went to TX a ton even if it didnt result in anything, along with I believe 2 camps there (at least 1)
  4. We looked like we might bring Biff to UM until the Hamilton thing went down.  But we did try to mine both MD (David) and VA (Hamilton, Spanellis).
  5. Starting a relationship in AL even if its a school without a lot of D1 prospects (Pratville doesnt have a single 4/5* in past 3 years) 
  6. Massive push in NJ

These are all good things - some will take longer (TX, AL, D.C. corridor) than others (NJ, CA, FL) to develop.  I think Jim is laying the groundwork.

doggdetroit

February 6th, 2016 at 11:14 PM ^

People love to criticize the most recent B1G expansion, but it has significantly increased the amount of talent available to B1G teams. Pre-expansion, recruits in NJ and DC/MD went mostly to the ACC. This year, looking at 4 star and above recruits only, the B1G got 9 out of 15 in DC/MD. The SEC got 3. The B1G got 7 out of  8 in NJ. In terms of 3 stars, the B1G got 13 out of 34 in MD.  The ACC got 4 out of 34 in MD. In NJ, the B1G got 12 out of 38. ACC did better among 3 stars. getting 11 out of 34.



What that means is if you are a recruit in either area, and you want to play big time football, increasingly your first option is a B1G school, where your friends and family can easily see you play.



Point is, I don't think it's possible to box out MSU anymore like Michigan could do in the pre-expansion days. Back then, OSU and Michigan would dominate the Midwest and MSU would get shut out because they would have nowhere else to recruit from. Now, the B1G's footprint includes two areas that combined produce more talent than Ohio. Those recruits want to play in the B1G.  So either Michigan heavily recruits the East Coast and leaves OH and IL for MSU, or it heavily recruits OH and IL and leaves the East Coast for MSU.

M-Dog2020

February 7th, 2016 at 10:37 AM ^

The B1G's recent success in MD/DC and NJ is directly correlated to PSU, Maryland and Rutgers joining the conference. When a recruit and family realize that the distance to Columbus or Ann Arbor is a doable weekend plus they pick up away games easily at PSU, M, R ... heck, IU or even MooU are doable. Thus, except for a far away cross-over, every other game is drivable. So the best B1G East schools should cleanup in these talent rich states. Recruits want their families to see them play college ball. Most of these football families (Dad, Mom, Siblings) probably can't afford the extra time and travel cost to travel in mass cross-country. But all piling-in the minivan Friday after work/school headed to see junior play ball? Doable.

M-Dog

February 7th, 2016 at 2:35 PM ^

Yes, I grew up in and have lived in these Big Ten East footprint states:  NJ, PA, MD, Northern VA.

I've been following CFB intently since the early 80's and I can tell you that Michigan is now seen as a "local" team in these states.  That was not the case as recently as a decade ago.  

It used to be mostly just Penn State with some Notre Dame thrown in.  Now it's clearly Michigan too.  You see Michigan stuff everywhere.  And it's not just people that went to Michigan or are transplants from the Midwest like it used to be. It's indigenous East Coast people (and recruits) too.

Being in the Big Ten East is the best thing that ever happned to Michigan.  The "price" of having to play Rutgers and Maryland every year is well worth it.

One of the things that scares me to death is the prospect of another B1G realignment because the Big Ten West does poorly in head to head competition.  The last thing I want is to get shipped back into another "Legends" type division with Iowa and Illinois and Minnesota while Ohio State and Penn State get the mind-share in the Eastern states. 

Do Not Want.

M-Dog

February 7th, 2016 at 2:38 PM ^

It's something of an overstatement about how much Urban Meyer "locks down" Ohio.  

During his entire time at OSU he has averaged 40% of his recruits per year coming from Ohio.

That's it.  40%.  Not the 80% some people believe.  Not even a majority. 

It was Tressel who was the big Ohio guy, taking 60%-70% Ohio kids for his classes.  We may have forgotten, but it was a bit of a local dust-up in Columbus when Meyer came in and shifted their focus away from majority Ohio to more national recruiting.

Meyer is taking about 10 kids a year from Ohio.  That's it.  10 kids from the 5th most fertile recruiting ground in the country.  And he's not getting all 10 of the top 10.

Ohio is open for business if and when Harbaugh wants to go in there.

 

Rabbit21

February 6th, 2016 at 3:31 PM ^

I did something similar over the summer(two months of unemployment waiting for the new job to start and hanging out at the in-laws while bored means an ability to do.stuff like this, and updating this after signing day took just a couple of hours).  

I looked at which states the players for all of the power five schools came from since the class of 2006.  Slightly different than your lens of top players, I used power five signees as a way to arrive at a similar point.

I wanted to check:

A.  Geographic distribution by school, by conference, and nationally.

B.  Changes in player distribution over time.

C. To what extent coaching changes and conference changes had an influence over geographical distribution by school.

This is what I found:

1.  The big four states every year are TX, CA, FL, and GA.  The gap between them and the next tier of states(OH, LA, NJ, VA, NC, IL, PA) is significant.  CA and TX have been losing share recently, while FL and GA are growing share pretty rapidly. FL this year had the most number of power five signees, overtaking Texas which had been #1 for the previous ten years.  OH is generally #5, but loses the #5 spot every once in a while to a PA, VA, or a LA.  So.while it is the best of the rest, it's a big gap between Ohio and Georgia right now.

2A.  California is almost wholly dominated by the PAC-12.  Almost 80% of California players sign with a PAC-12 school and every PAC-12 school draws on California is for the largest percentage of it's players.

2B.  A similar dynamic is in place with Texas and the Big12.  Most Texans go to the Big 12 and most Big 12 schools get the highest percentage of their players from Texas.  

3.  Conference affiliation does seem to matter:  Both Mizzou and Utah changed conferences and not coaches for a significant amount of time and unlike TCU are not located in talent heavy states.  Since joining the SEC Mizzou has recruited less from Texas and more from.the south, and since joining the PAC-12 Utah has become more national in scope and has slightly de-emphasized California.

4.  Coaching changes do change geographical distribution but often not to a great extent.  Think Rodriguez adding some guys from.Florida, but still recruiting mostly from MI and OH.  One big exception appears to be Harbaugh who changed Stanford from getting about 50% of its players from CA to about 25%, Shaw seems to be upholding the.pattern.  There's also the much discussed seeming de-emphasis of Ohio with Harbaughs Michigan debut.  Based on his history when he says he wants to recruit nationally we would do well to believe him.

5. The private, academic schools that Michigan can likely.consider peer institutions also tend to recruit nationally and often have comparatively small.local bases.  This might be the group Harbaugh is trying to.emulate rather than becoming a regional superpower supplementing with out of region talent.  

So from this in terms of strategy I am mostly with you alum, with a couple small changes.

Florida and Georgia are both growing and appear to.be more "up for grabs" among the various conferences than CA and TX appear to be, and I would put more resources there.

New Jersey and the DMV area between them put out slightly more talent on a yearly basis than does Ohio, but without the 800 pound gorilla sitting there, further efforts in that area should pay off until Michigan can actually beat the Buckeyes and Spartans on the field and get it's local reputation back.

Great diary, looking forward to more thoughts on this moving forward.

bronxblue

February 6th, 2016 at 8:09 PM ^

Good stuff.  I agree that MSU making inroads in Illinois and NJ are annoying, but UM still carries better in both those states, and my guess is that UM can still grab a bunch of those kids if they direct their efforts toward it.  I also suspect Ohio will be more "open for business" in 2017, even with OSU's success, as there appears to be more all-around talent.  I know OSU has a lot of those kids locked down already, but situations change a decent number of them strike me as kids who commit to OSU but are still open to exploring other options.

BlueCE

February 6th, 2016 at 9:18 PM ^

Very cool... I was actually looking at the list of all time top recruits and put together the following ranking showing the number of kids from the top 250 list that have gone to each school.  In addition I gave 10 points for getting one of the top 30 kids, 5 points for getting a kid 31-100 and 2 points for getting a kid 101-250. As OP mentioned, USC and FSU are and have been killing it for a while.

 

Sad to see the number of top prospects we had a really good chance with that we missed on: DJ Williams, Kevin Jones, Willie Williams, Charles Rogers, Seantrel Henderson, Travis Johnson, Marcus Houston, Vernon Hargreaves, Da'Shawn Hand, Kwame Harris, Myron Role, Reggie Williams, Gerald Riggs, Bryant McFadden, Stefon Diggs, Marcus Spears, Haloti Ngata, Mike Munoz, Beanie Wells, Marquise Hill, Leon Washington, Taylor Mays, Dan Connor, Isaac Nauta, Justin King, Darrell Lee, Mike D'Andrea....

 

  Top 30 Top 100 Top 250 Power Pts
USC 3 7 17 99
FSU 3 7 14 93
Alabama 3 6 7 74
Florida 2 7 8 71
LSU 1 5 9 53
Miami 1 4 8 46
Texas 1 5 5 45
OSU 2 2 5 40
Georgia   5 5 35
Michigan 2 2 2 34
Ole Miss 2 2   30
Tenesse   3 6 27
Oklahoma 1 1 4 23
Auburn   2 6 22
Clemson 1 2   20
Texas A&M 1   5 20
Notre Dame   3 2 19
Virginia 1   3 16
South Carolina 1   2 14
Penn State   1 4 13
Washington   2 1 12
Colorado   2   10
Mizzou 1     10
Virginia Tech 1     10
Stanford   1 2 9
BYU   1 1 7
Oregon     3 6
Michigan St   1   5
UNC   1   5
Maryland     2 4
Arkansas     2 4
Kentucky     2 4
Illinois     2 4
UCLA     1 2
West Virginia   1 2
Rutgers     1 2
Nebraska     1 2
NC State     1 2
Cal     1 2
Louisville     1 2
Houston     1 2
Miss St     1 2
ASU     1 2
Wisconsin     1 2

 

 

YoOoBoMoLloRoHo

February 6th, 2016 at 8:58 PM ^

The issue for UGA is the presence of FSU, Auburn and Clemson just 20 minutes from the GA border. Especially FSU actually closer to the football powerhouses in south GA than UGA. Then there is the fiercely contested Atlanta area with UT, S Car and Bama within a few hours joining the other schools.

UM can pluck some talent from GA, VA, FL, CA and OH just like Notre Dane. The success of UM will boil down to scheme and development while still winning enough recruiting battles nationally. JH is better in prep and in game than his peers.

I don't think any FBS coach wants to face JH on scheme alone or even development since it is one of JH's hallmarks, so they will fight in every way to win the recruiting battles. The noise over satellites was essentially this concept. Urban will go full bore on recruiting to cut off. JH. Wait for the flap to erupt from all corners over spring ball in FL.

alum96

February 7th, 2016 at 9:11 AM ^

Yes it was interesting to see Auburn do so well in GA this year but there was a coaching change and some kids who probably committed to Richt decided to go elsewhere.  So it will be interesting to view 2017 and see how it changes.  After the big 3 (CA, TX, FL) in comes GA so there is plenty to be had for everyone.  GA dominated the 11-20 ranks which again - in most states - would be akin to 1-10; just loaded with high to mid 4*.

GA has 9 of the top 22 kids in GA - and all are 4* (except one 5*) ... just such an advantage.

But what GA faces brings me back to LSU.  Everyone down south has to be going for those kids too - they border TX, MS (with AL a stone's throw away) and somehow Les has kept almost everyone in state.  One day I might go look back at the last 5 years and see if that has been happening constantly and its somehow a "cultural thing" in LA to stay home vs other states, or if this year was just an amazing outlier.

M-Dog

February 7th, 2016 at 3:36 PM ^

 
 
Fun facts about our 2016 recruiting class:
 
More of our recruits are from the Southeast than any other region (34%).
 
The next biggest region for us is the Mid-Atlantic (28%).
 
The talent-rich areas of the country - Southeast, West, and Mid-Atlantic - make up a whopping 76% of our class.
 
The Midwest only accounts for 21% of the class.
 
Our biggest recruiting state is a tie between Florida and New Jersey.
 
We have as many kids from California as we do from Michigan.
 
We have no kids from Ohio.  None.  New Jersey is the new Ohio.
 
Welcome to National recruiting in the Harbaugh era!
 

Tecumseh

February 8th, 2016 at 9:04 AM ^

UFM tries to take 10 kids from Ohio as part of his class. I doubt he'll do that for 2017 because f the numbers. As it relates to Ohio, 2017 is the inroads year. OSU's numbers are so tight they've basically offered all the kids they're going to offer for the foreseeable future. They're not going to offer Bowden. They're not going to offer Richardson. Or Aijan or Danny Davis. Those kids are all B10 caliber and I think Richardson, in particular, is a legit 4* WR talent. 2018 may be a good year to get a couple kids only because two of the higher regarded kids are from Springfield, and M -- at least Coach Hoke -- did suprisingly well in that area, which is typically a big OSU area.

 

WRT New Jersey, Partridge's ties will diminish with each passing year. He'll still be a good guy for NJ, but he won't the guy who actually coached the #1 player in the country ever again. This year will rate as abnormal for NJ kids. I expect JH will land another top 5ish class in 2017 -- but he'll go where the kids are. For example, McCaffrey and Wilson are two kids who will crank up the class ranking. That doesn't mean M needs to really hit Colorado and Brooklyn hard, though.