In partnership with CBSSports.com
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Here is where the Big Ten is failing, and why we have to hear about a lack of elite players every year. Go look at the top 100 guys. Then look at those from Midwest states (and Pennsylvania).
I count 8 out of 16 going out of the Big Ten, not including the one going to Notre Dame (I included guys who are down to non-Big ten teams).
I've noticed this happens every year with the top Midwestern talent. It's a serious issue that seems likely to continue. It's impossible for the Big Ten to get back to being considered anywhere near powerful when half it's top local talent gets cherry picked.
"We don't care about anything but winning. No one cares about ethical standards thats for losers..."
BUCKNUTS 21 self trolling.
Big 10 has to do better in bowl games and that will change.
I agree but it's been a trend that's been going on for a while. A lot of these kids want to play in warmer climates.
The flip side is that the B1G is getting a fair share of kids from other footprints as well.
You can only source that as a 'cause' if you have comparative data from years past that demonstrates a shift...Other than that, it's pure conjecture.
The key thing people are missing is pure demographics: simply more kids in the south now.
2011 vs 1990 populations (roughly same as a 'generation' of college aged kids right?)
School 2011 1990 Change
Alabama 4.8 4.0 0.8
Arkansas 2.9 2.4 0.6
Florida 19.1 12.9 6.1
Georgia 9.8 6.5 3.3
Kentucky 4.4 3.7 0.7
Louisiana 4.6 4.2 0.4
Mississippi 3.0 2.6 0.4
Missouri 6.0 5.1 0.9
South Carolina 4.7 3.5 1.2
Tennessee 6.4 4.9 1.5
Texas 25.7 17.0 8.7
TOTAL 91.3 66.8 24.6
AVERAGE 15.2 6.1 2.2
School 2011 2010 Change
Illinois 12.9 11.4 1.4
Indiana 6.5 5.5 1.0
Iowa 3.1 2.8 0.3
Michigan 9.9 9.3 0.6
Minnesota 5.3 4.4 1.0
Nebraska 1.8 1.6 0.3
Ohio 11.5 10.8 0.7
Pennsylvania 12.7 11.9 0.9
Wisconsin 5.7 4.9 0.8
TOTAL 69.5 62.6 6.9
AVERAGE 7.7 7.0 0.8
So in 1990, there was 4.2 million more people in SEC states--but in 2011 there are 21.8 million more. If you use the US 2010 national average for males age 15-19 (11%), that's 2.4 million more high school boys in the SEC.
From here, we compare the participation numbers and # of FBS players (http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1182411 from Feb 2011) and you can see the delta is borne out: SEC states: 1237 FBS signees, B1G: 417: That's 820 more from the SEC states.
When you combine that with the fact that the SEC continues to oversign players every year, it should be ZERO surprise that the SEC is winning the battle.
So to summarize:
(1) Higher population means more players to choose from
(2) More annual 'roster capacity' (from oversigning) means stronger rosters
(3) Comparatively cheaper to access (travel costs, B1G vs SEC) means they can see more kids
Umm wow. Checked my phone right when I woke up at 6:30 and this was the first post I read.....information overload
I didn't say it's the only cause, or I didn't mean to, but we can't change demographics. The Big Ten can, and should, do a better job of keeping the top local talent.
I agree with everything else you said.
Hey. It was either that or update these TPS reports...
Yeah. I agree it's beneficial, but the other side of this is that it's becoming increasingly easier to go elsewhere and still stay in touch back home--skype, social media, etc.
Ten years ago, a kid wants to go to Wherethefuckami U, he's basically alone except for email, phone calls and mom might catch one of his games on TV a year. Now, he can have a face-to-face with moms anytime he wants. Almost every BCS game is available online, dish, etc. Just saying the barriers are coming down, so I would expect a bit of geographic hopping in that sense.
Bottom line remains: B1G ain't cool no more--you don't see shots of Katherine Webb in a B1G telecast amirite? Erin Andrews. Johnny Football. Tebow. Cam. Honey Badger. That stuff moves the needle.
Urban, Hoke, and hopefully GA will inject some new blood, but you're fighting an uphill battle unless the playing field is leveled and B1G uses the only real advantage it has: forcing X% of TV money to be spent directly on football and in certain ways (i.e mins on coaches salaries, recruiting, facilities, etc.).
Did you just copy and past one of my old rants? I agree with all that. All I was doing was pointing out a problem. I don't have "the solution" as it were.
The only real solution I've come to is we need to win more against other conferences, and to win you need to recruit, and to recruit in the modern world you need good assistants or one of maybe 5 "name" coaches (like CUM at OSU).
I do think the rest of the Big Ten is waking up from it's slumber. Purdue and Nebraska just jacked up assistant salaries, and it will be interesting to see what Illinois does once the Tim Beckman experiment crashes and burns in year 2. I am also very interested in what we are paying the new staff.
This post was edited by highspeed 18 months ago
Texas A&M wasn't in the SEC in 1990.
Nebraska always paid assistants and coaches a lot. Good to see Purdue putting more money into assistants. I wonder if Wisconsin will?
I'm very curious to see some sort of salary reports for our assistants. Its rumored that we're paying Ludwig a lot, but I'll believe that when I see it. Hopefully our DC/OC are over 500K, and our assistants average near 200K.
Of course, but Texas is still a huge source of players for the SEC.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports