FBS College FB players by state
A new piece on where the 2,371 FBS talent lies, no surprises but always interesting to read. Click on a state to view a list showing every player by name, position, hs, and college. Also contains a link on where NFL drafts picks came from by high school state, round by round.
B1G schools in state talent by the numbers
1. Ohio State - 121
2. Michigan and Michigan State - 72
3. Northwestern and Illinois - 66
4. Penn State - 56
5. Maryland - 56 (incuding DC)
6. Rutgers - 48
7. Indiana and Purdue - 38
8. Minnesota - 18
9. Wisconsin - 15
10. Iowa - 12
11. Nebraska - 6
Michigan and OH in top ten, OH only state in B1G with over a hundred. Contrast to FL and TX over 300, California over 200. Nebraska's on par with New Mexico and DC, but recruits nationally. Illinois the most glaring underachiever.
You do realize that no one actually lives in Nebraska, right? It's just one giant cornfield.
Seriously, though, CT has roughly double the population of Nebraska. Yes, they're all playing lacrosse and vacationing in the Hamptons, but a few kids end up playing football.
What?
I think I figured out what you were trying to say, but just by reading the (year-old) article. It's the number of FBS recruits per state for 2016. And then you list B1G schools by state, I believe, to show their in-state "territory"? And you consider Illinois an underachiever because it has so much in-state talent but such a terrible product, right?
Interesting to find out players' home state vs. where they classified for purpose of recruiting - thinking of guys going to IMG and becoming Florida players.
I LOL'd at the OP's definition of a "new" article. That is from May of 2016. I guess he meant to say "new to me".
Sometimes I forget Vermont exists.
Ben & Jerry and weed are mad at you...
Ohio is richest when it comes to dividing these numbers by P5 programs in state
obviously osu and lsu (and a few others) have great setups like that, not much power 5 competition for the top talent
It's part of why their ceiling will, for the foreseeable future, be a bit higher than Michigan's. Doesn't mean that Harbaugh won't figure out a way to consistently beat them, but he'll be starting a few feet back on the track as far as recruiting is concerned ...
That's always been true though. Ohio State has always had a slight recruiting edge on us, even when we were consistently beating them.
Thye had an edge, but it was not enough to be a difference maker by itself.
It is no coincidence that Michigan has only won one National Championship since Sparty joined the B1G in the early '50s. The state has a good overall level of football talent and Michigan wins more than its fair share of recruiting battles against State but I am sure that their presense has watered down talent enough talent over the years to have cost us a few conference titles, let alone championships.
of the numerous reasons why m has just 1 national title in past 70 or whatever and why theyve struggled to win conference titles of late, msu falls pretty low on that list. m struggled vs msu on the field for a short stretch and theyve lost some gifted recruits here and there but msu joining the conference as a major reason for m struggles? again, its obviously a factor as theyre major rival but its far down that list
Ohio 10.42
Maryland + DC 8.36
Michigan 7.25
Indiana 5.73
New Jersey 5.37
Illinois 5.16
Pennsylvania 4.37
Iowa 3.83
Minnesota 3.26
Nebraska 3.15
Wisconsin 2.60
Some takeaways as I see them:
(1) Obviously high school football is king in Ohio. And obviously OSU is benefiting big-time from being the only "Power 5" school in their state. They have a reason to keep down the Cincinnati's of the world. It also is clear why a fairly robust Ohio-pipleine is important for schools like U-M, MSU, Penn State, et cetera.
(2) Michigan ranks a whole lot higher than I intuitively expected - I grew up in MI and love the state, but was never impressed with the high school football scene.
(3) Pennsylvania is particularly low. It isn't the 70s and 80s anymore, the steel towns aren't producing college football players like they used to. As a result, it's become much more important for Penn State to recruit Maryland, NJ and the Mid-Atlantic. There's a fair amount of truth to the idea that a primary reason (besides additional BTN revenue) the B1G added MD & Rutgers was to avoid PSU looking at the ACC in the longer-term.
(4) The B1G West programs in the upper Midwest --- Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and Wisconsin. They are all capable of being good programs but there is a definite structural impedement: lack of home-grown talent. Access to Chicago is important to them --- access to Texas would really be nice for them. Why those schools in particular would look south in terms of any further B1G expansion.
The state of Michigan has historically been over-represented in hockey at the professional level.
It kinda depends where you are in Michigan. Football isn't nearly as big on the east side of the state as it is in the ole 616.
Your formatting is very misleading. These are players by the state in which their HS is, not the state in which they attend college....I was so lost at first. Also this article is from May 2016.
Again, old data is old, but even if the data had been updated, it wouldn't be much different. Bottom line -- there are as many FBS players in Florida, Texas, Georgia and California as there are in the other 46 states and DC combined. This is precisely why the SEC hates satellite camps -- they believe that everyone down there is theirs, and to say otherwise is hypocritical.
It was the two S's: System and Steriods.
They played an option system that they mastered, and all those dominant "walk-on" linemen were on steriods big time.
I'd like to see them at least re-create the first one.
SEC: 1240
ACC: 838
Big 10: 502
Big 12: 395
Pac 12: 343
Show again why you need a superstar coach who can recruit outside the footprint.
They certainly do for us.
The hell with the rest of the Big Ten.
Sending our little brothers at Michigan State back to also-ran status is going to help.
When we beat Ohio State at home this year we'll send a strong message to the 2018-19 recruits.
I'm surprised that CA is so relatively low given its population. Almost caught by GA.
Also would have thought NJ would be higher. They must have 10 really good players each year (of which we get half) and the rest are meh.
Conversly, surprised to see NC so high for football talent. They are nearly up there with Alabama and Louisana.