Interesting article on economy hurting B1G...

Certainly an interesting take, though I am skeptical.  Not of the population growth trends, those are undeniable.

But it's a stretch to make a bold claim like "the economy is causing the B1G to lag behind the SEC" without anything other than 2 disparate states and anecdotal evidence.

When it comes to articles in the STEM areas, "Peer review or it didn't happen."

It makes sense, but the southeast has had some employment issues as well. So it may be a factor, but I think institutional level differences are at least as important and macro economic ones.

Did you notice that the article is from Al Jazeera?

I think we're looking at a situation in which football is king in the south and the weather makes year round play much easier on the southern recruits.  Put in a natural tendency for kids to want to stay close to home and you have a recipe for SEC/Big 12/Pac 12 being stronger.  I don't think employment has much to do with it as the age of people migrating en masse for factory jobs is over.  The more mobile groups are the ones who are....... not likely to produce a lot of division 1 football prospects.  

...obviously those cheating SECer's have an advantage considering they been unofficially paying players.

The loss of General Motors jobs in the north has had a huge impact on Midwest athletics. My family moved to TN, basically my entire school's and district's athletes were comprised of "northern brats" as we were called who had to relocate due to Michigan's economy (most played college ball in some sport in the south.)



Since I graduated from college down here because out of state tuition was too great, it's nearly impossible to get a job in Michigan having a MTSU (largest institution in Tennessee) degree and Tennessee address. I've tried at times for about fifteen months to relocate.



Now, if I don't find a job in Michigan and continue to work in Tennessee, my *future* kids would more than likely go through the same thing. It's a tough predicament, but most importantly the B1G just needs to win BIG games if they are going to incline this upcoming generation to migrate north to play sports.

population loss and changes in the economy. Michigan is 9th largest state with almost 9.9 million population. This is about the same as Georgia and more than almost any other southern state. I believe, there are still enough kids here in the Midwest to build competitive teams. Perhaps with the crappy weather that we have, one needs a much larger population to field competitive teams.

By the Michigan has about 20% less population than Ohio and Pennsylvania. But we produce far fewer elite football players, I think. It must be the water.

I blame poor coaching for the weakened economy in michigan. No evidence, just based on my gut.

Overall, I don't think it's that hard of an argument to make that decreasing economic possbilities will mean smaller populations and less recruits.  My only problem with this argument is that top end schools like Ohio State still seem to have no problem getting recruits.  If this is possible, it puts a huge question mark on the validity of this argument.  

Now, I will say that it will have a huge impact on your lower end schools like an Illinois, Minnesota, and Purdue, but ultimately, I think it has much more to do with winning than anything else.  If the Big Ten starts having teams ranked consistently, wins big matchups, and wins bowl games, I think you will have no problem recruiting.

Midwest businesses have been failing to execute for decades

Too many nickel packages and not enough dime packages.

It's cold / cloudy for 6 of the 9 months of the school year.  The girls aren't as hot.  Football isn't nearly as king for the vast majority of the conference.  

Please spare me the academic BS.  Besides Northwestern, name me one school that rejects 4-5 star players who are clearinghouse eligible.  Note: Demar Dorsey couldn't even get into Louisville.

I think there is some truth to what the article says but it is not the only factor. Michigan used to get a lot of guys from the deep south, even into the 90s (Anthony Thomas, James Hall, Jarrett Irons, Chris Perry, Juaquin Feazell, Marcus Knight, Tommy Hendricks, etc.) and while they still get some from Texas and Florida, a lot of the top players are reluctant to leave the south.

For the kids in HS right now, the segregated football teams in the south forcing players to go to UM, Syracuse, MSU, and the like is a generation or two away. I imagine there was some reluctance by black players to go to places like Mississippi and Alabama even into the 70s and 80s that is pretty much gone now.

It is not the lack of jobs that is concerning to Midwest football. It is the lack of manual labor jobs that has an effect. Football is mostly affected by those families because they are the ones who let their kids play the reputably dangerous sport as opposed to others.



1. The northeast United States is doing fine with respect to jobs generally, yet they rarely produce football talent. They also have little reliance on mfg jobs.



2. California is a good place for finding football talent, but that is just because it is so big. The growing areas of Northern California (with white collar jobs), lag far behind in producing talent. California lags significantly behind Texas and Florida for top talent, despite being much bigger than both (almost twice as many people as Florida).



The reality, that not many here are willing to admit, is that football is considered a barbaric sport in civilized areas. It is the rare exception to get kids from white collar backgrounds. It is a sport that people in physically demanding jobs don't seem as concerned about and one which, although dangerous, is better than the other two most viable options after HS -- go to work in a factory or join the armed forces.



So, as the Midwest attempts to diversify its economy and rely more heavily on engineering, financial services, etc. it will be STRENGTHENING its own economy while losing many manual labor families to places where companies can treat the working poor families with less cost -- and less help. (Texas, Alabama, etc.).



But, since there is so much money in the Midwest focused on sports, those kids will continue to head up there for better opportunity.

Recruits get a larger signing bonus at schools down south where the boosters have high paying jobs...

Dang you Red Berenson and Steve Yzerman for making our northern young men want to play hockey instead of football!  We had a great soccer and hockey teams, track and cross country too but our basketball/football/baseball were atrocious.  The athletes didn't play those sports at our school for the most part.  Standard mid-size SE Michigan suburb.

As much as I can see a lot of truth to people moving south and raising their kids in SEC country, 7 of the past 16 Heisman winners grew up in the mid west.

2009: Mark Igram Flint

2008: Sam Bradford Okla

2006: Troy Smith

2003: Jason White Okla

2001: Eric Crouch Neb

2000: Chris Weinke Minn

1997: Charles Woodson

These issues don't seem to be hurting Big Ten basketball much.  I know there are fewer players on a team but there are more D1 schools competing for said players.  Perhaps some of the differences can be explained by the weather in that "up north"  7 on 7 football tournaments and practices can't take place much of the year while they essentially have year round for this "down south".  Basketball doesn't have this discrepency. 

Also, saying that Big Ten football is dying and then putting a cover photo of an OSU team that was ONE win away from the BCS championship seems a little strange. 

The south isn't exactly in an economic boom itself.

The article focuses mostly on the MW decline. Let me offer a few factors for the rise in the SE.

1. Urban population. Increased density is a factor as much as simply # of people. As an example, a 50% increase in Atlanta's population over the last 20 years creates more players but also a ripe training environment and recruiting base. As Spurrier has said, the population of Atlanta is now > than South Carolina so he recruits Atlanta as hard as SC.
2. Spring football. Three weeks of intense practices clearly improve/maintain skills. urban petitioned in Ohio for this practice in HS but lost.
3. Coaching. HS coaches are revered and given ample support, but they have to win. No one confuses the matter. In Georgia, only 8 coaches have been at their school for 10 or more years. Pressure to build a winning program.
4. Winter / summer training. Mandatory and based on the speed and conditioning at the SEC schools. Also a lot easier to build speed when 80 kids can run in shorts on the football field in January.
5. D1 mindset. High school football is treated as mini D1. The whole year mirrors colleges with mandatory winter conditioning, spring ball, kick-off classics, etc. 8th graders are "EE" as they start lifting and training with most HS teams as a class in Jan - 8 months before entering HS. Even moms talk about the top recruits from other schools and where kids are committed.
6. Passion. HS and D1 football are kings. No other sports are close. Basketball is well behind and receives far less talent and resources than football. A family friend from Stlanta signed with a B1G school for b-ball because he was amazed by the passion at games.
7. Resources. Population shift was also about companies moving executive roles to the SE. They've added financial resources. Coaches, facilities, travel, camps - the football resources have improved substantially.

I have been preaching this same concept for years now. Just look at Michigan's once 'elite' schools and they seem to tell the story. Schools like Country Day used to be loaded with solid athletic talent year in and year out. In large part, due to the economy those schools have not been getting the sheer numbers that they once did.



Not as many families here in the Midwest can afford to have their kids travel on the elite teams that compete against the best competition nation wide. Couple this with the poor weather for outdoor sports and the fact that seemingly annually another big business seems to leave a rust belt town for sunny Dallas or Atlanta, we find ourselves in an unfair battle.



We are competing against a region that already takes football more serious and now has a large influx of money and people to feed their obsession and pay those in charge of their athletes progression some of the best and competitive wages in the country.



When studying U.S. History you always learn about events like the great migration where southerners, both black and white, traveled north to booming Midwest towns in search of industrial work. Although maybe not near to the same extent a reverse migration has been going on here for years. Because thee are so few jobs available here I know many people personally that have packed up life here and moved to a southern city that is steadily growing.



You can disagree about why these events are taking place but one would be hard pressed to disagree with the fact that it is happening and has been happening for at least the last 15-20 years.



It's the American corporate way. Build up a great industrial empire in cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Pitt, and then when you find it too expensive to maintain those old, dilapidated buildings just leave them to rot with no consequence. Then if you want you can free yourself from a bad economy by simply moving to a place that has never had a large industrial identity and set up shop. Easy for all parties involved except the people who's jobs you left behind. You now have better weather, less restrictions, and a workforce that you can probably pay slightly less. Rinse, cycle and repeat when the people their begin to feel your buildings are becoming blight.

can deny Detroit and Flint do not produce the talent they once did.  Those are the two cities in Michigan that have lost the greatest population.

Think about the amazing talent in the 80's Flint and Detroit produced.  Its just not the same

The reason why the Big Ten isn't good is because of coaching, plain and simple. Some else mentioned it, but all you have to do is look at basketball. The Big Ten hired the best coaches, and now we're the best league. Look at the Pac 12 football. They all went out and hired great coaches, and now they're probably the best league. 

Big Ten football is bad because it's insular and acts like it's still the 1970s (outside of OSU, who's dominated the Big Ten). 

Here's the recent coaching hires before they came to the Big Ten:

Michigan: MAC/WAC coach.

Purdue: MAC

Illinois: MAC

IU: Oklahoma OC

Minnesota: MAC

PSU: Patriots OC (though now we'll see)

Wisconsin: Utah St

OSU: Florida (two time national champion)

One of these things is not like the other (and the other oddball, O'Brien, did about as well as you could expect). 

Let's compare to basketball:

IU: Big East

Michigan: Big East

OSU A-10 (following an Elite 8)

Illinois: MAC

Iowa: Sienna (after three straight tournament appearances)

Purdue: Big Ten Assistant

Dumb article!  One could argue that the state of Ohio and Michigan have been hit the hardest by the shitty economy. However, OSU and Michigan have two of the biggest athletic budgets in the country.  Michigan State will finish #2 in the country if Florida State beats Auburn.  They would be in the national title game if not for Dantonio playing musical QB's.

I don't get the correlation here.

If you look at Top 10 winning percentage by decade, this so called "southern domination" kicks in around the 1980s, and is only slight.  Otherwise it's pretty even. If anything there's a noticeable increase in winning % by western teams since 2000 caused by the likes of USC, Oregon, Boise St. Stanford.

1950-1959: Economic Boom. Only 4 of Top 10 teams in winning % are based in south: Oklahoma, Ole Miss, Ga Tech, S. Miss.  Rest are midwest, east or west coast.

1960-1969: War, economic and social turmoil, exodus to cities. Split 50-50. Top 10 teams in winning % based in south: Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, Missoui, Ole Miss

1970-1979: War, economic recession, inflation, off gold standard Only 3 of Top 10 teams in winning % are based in the south: Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas.  Rest are elsewhere: ASU, Michigan, Ohio St. , USC, NDame, Penn State, Nebraska

1980-1989: Economic recession in first half, followed by boom latter half, population migration to south and west.  6 of Top 10 teams in winning % are based in south: Miami Fla, Oklahoma, Clemson, Georgia, FSU, Auburn. Rest: BYU, Michigan, Penn St., Nebraska

1990-1999: War followed by Economic recession first half, with growth middle and latter half 6 of Top 10 teams in winning % based in south: FSU, Marshall, Florida, Tennessee, Miami Fla, Texas A&M

2000-2009: War, economic boom fueld by Fed printing first half, natiowide depression at end 7 of Top 10 teams are based in south: Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, TCU, LSU, Georgia, Virginia Tech.

2010-2013: End of wars, largely entirely an economic recession 6 of top 10 teams are based in south: Alabama, LSU, FSU, Oklahoma, OK State, S. Carolina.  Noticing the rise of the west: Stanford, Oregon, Boist St. and Northern Illinois.

The growing economic strength of the South relative to the Midwest strikes me as off the mark as a cause of SEC success.  I have always thought that football is played by individuals of lower socioeconomic backgrounds. As the concern about injury has increased this trend is likely accelerated with fewer wealthier kids playing the sport.  I did a quick search and found several items in research papers where this was related as fact but I could not find the actual data.  It would be interesting to see the numbers for average family income and marital status of the typical college football players’ parents.

I suspect we would find that the average incomes are lower than average and that the rate of single parent households is higher but I would like to see the data to confirm.

If we assume all of the above to be true it appears that the weaker economic status of the average southerner is a factor as opposed to growing southern affluence.   If I look at the percent of children in single parent homes 6 of the top 10 states are in the south (Georgia 39%, Alabama 39%, Florida 40%, South Carolina 43%, Louisiana 48%, Mississippi 49%).  Ohio 37% and Texas 36% are in the next ten.  Michigan is in the middle at 35% along with California at 34%. 

If we look at median family income a similar story appears.  The bottom 10 gives us Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama and West Virginia.  Eight of the bottom 10 states in terms of income are from the south.  Note that Ohio ranks 41^st.  If we look at the next 10 lowest states we pick up South Carolina, Florida and Georgia. That pretty much covers the South.  Texas is the exception ranking as the 21^sthighest in terms of household income. Michigan comes in at 25.

If we accept that college football players come from poorer families it is clear that the South offers an abundance of these types of families relative to other regions. The effect of culture would also be interesting to evaluate and may help explain Texas which is economically in the middle but generates the highest number of players. It would be interesting to see if the average income of players from Texas is higher than Midwest locations.  Essentially we would be trying to see if middle and upper middle class parents in Texas are more likely to have their children play football than parents in other regions.  If that is the case it would serve to expand the pool of potential college football players beyond what the demographics of the state/region would typically generate.

I think, more than anything else the difference lies in coaching. If you look at Big Ten basketball and compare the quality of coaching to Big Ten football, you can see why Big Ten basketball is so successful, while football is not. The top programs have Hall of Fame caliber coaches and the middling programs (guys like Groce, McCaffery, Painter) have highly regarded coaches as well. In football, this is just not the case from top to bottom. As long as we continue to hire mediocre coaches, the Big Ten will continue to lag behind the SEC. 

Knows everything about the US, the main issue is jucos in the sec and the bias in voting.



I hate MSU as much as everyone, but why does a 1 loss sec team go to the Nc game, while a 1 loss B1G does not? Is the sex team better? Let's ask Georgia. Or even SC from last year (in which an average M team was damn close to beating).



By the way, tell NJ that the south is the way to go.



We need negs on the iPhone for dumb threads.

Maybe SEC dominance has something to do with perception and media. The SEC is touted as the best conference so they are more often voted high (even when they lose a game) and get in NC games. Since they are in NC game more often they have higher odds of becoming champs- simple probabilities. The SEC hasn't looked all that dominant this year, is the South's economy going down?

My guess is, once we have some sort of limited playoff going and teams actually have to earn their title then you will see SEC dominance fade (unless they are voted into 2 of the 4 spots!) Oversigning may----- just may------have something to do with this also.

If the SEC football dominance was due to the economy, then they should be dominant is Basketball also since the same types of kids are into this as are football. So much BAD logic in that article.

Aljazeera. Quality source.. Buzz off

Like many others, I suppose, we moved south for the weather. I work for a national company, so getting a transfer within the company to another location worked out well. We wanted out of Illinois becaused of the cold and taxes and picked Atlanta. As you may know, it's a big city with a large number of 5A/6A suburban high schools within 45 miles of downtown. Makes for a lot of competition between schools just 15 minutes apart.

Now that I'm here I see kids are playing sports from late Feb to late October. Doesn't matter what the sport is, there is practice and games almost all year long. Kids specialize on one sport, have more time in the year to play (and improve), and more of them appear to be playing. My theory is that all this practice time and single sport dedication produces more and better athletes.

Not saying that all are better, but with a higher population and more practice time, this should produce more 5* kids than areas with areas with lower populations and shorter seasons.

Not sure how parents jobs would effect the outcome. I see low income families with great football players, softball players, and wrestlers at my kids' school ...and high school the 3 miles down the road!