menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Why school like Michigan, Ohio St. etc recruit the south so much
Page: 1 of 2
mail
greencat
4/18/2017 11:58 AM
According to NCAA Research, Florida has a higher percentage of high school players recruited by Division I programs (9.9 percent) than any other state in the U.S. Georgia is second at 8.6 percent, and Louisiana is third at 8.1 percent. Tennessee and the Carolina states also ranked high on the list.

https://www.seccountry.com/sec/florida-georgia-louisiana

Again, these stats are from the NCAA, not the SEC.
mail
person
allen
4/18/2017 12:27 PM
The numbers don't look right. Texas, Cali and Ohio feed 40-50 programs. Texas feeds the whole southwest plus they feed 50 juco's that produce hundreds of D1 athletes like Blinn Junior College. We don't even need to start with the California JUCO's. Florida, Georgia and Alabama are great football states, but those numbers have to be off.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2016/...
Last Edited: 4/18/2017 12:30:01 PM by allen
mail
person
allen
4/18/2017 12:33 PM
Here is a breakdown of the 2016 signees. http://usatodayhss.com/2016/which-states-produced-the-mos...
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/18/2017 12:39 PM
allen wrote:expand_more
The numbers don't look right. Texas, Cali and Ohio feed 40-50 programs. Texas feeds the whole southwest plus they feed 50 juco's that produce hundreds of D1 athletes like Blinn Junior College. We don't even need to start with the California JUCO's. Florida, Georgia and Alabama are great football states, but those numbers have to be off.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2016/...
Yeah because your opinion always trumps facts and numbers. Spare us. Here are the raw numbers, though OHIO is ahead of Alabama and Louisiana in total number, the original post alludes to the percentage or ration. OHIO has quite the population advantage on the other states, making their ratio even higher.

http://usatodayhss.com/2016/which-states-produced-the-mos...


This one is from 2015, but shows both the numbers and percentages. Note, that while OHIO has 80 more than Maryland/DC, the Maryland/DC area is more fruitful.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/sec-states... /

This one looks at a four year period and the number by ratings.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2015/...
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/18/2017 12:41 PM
allen wrote:expand_more
Here is a breakdown of the 2016 signees. http://usatodayhss.com/2016/which-states-produced-the-mos...
As usual you missed the entire point of the original post, which was based on percent and not raw number of signings.
mail
person
L.C.
4/18/2017 1:52 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
...
This one is from 2015, but shows both the numbers and percentages. Note, that while OHIO has 80 more than Maryland/DC, the Maryland/DC area is more fruitful.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/sec-states...
...

These are dramatically different numbers. In the first article, 9.9% of Florida players get a scholarship. In this article it's under 1% (1 in 104).

The first article is "players recruited by Division 1" schools. Would that include those that don't actually get scholarships? I presume it does include those recruited by FCS schools as well.

The second article is "FBS signees", so only those that actually sign with FBS schools. That would be a lot smaller than if you include FCS, too, but really it's a 10:1 difference? That doesn't sound right, and there have to be some other differences here, too, in the data being used.
mail
person
allen
4/18/2017 2:10 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
...
This one is from 2015, but shows both the numbers and percentages. Note, that while OHIO has 80 more than Maryland/DC, the Maryland/DC area is more fruitful.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/sec-states...
...

These are dramatically different numbers. In the first article, 9.9% of Florida players get a scholarship. In this article it's under 1% (1 in 104).

The first article is "players recruited by Division 1" schools. Would that include those that don't actually get scholarships? I presume it does include those recruited by FCS schools as well.

The second article is "FBS signees", so only those that actually sign with FBS schools. That would be a lot smaller than if you include FCS, too, but really it's a 10:1 difference? That doesn't sound right, and there have to be some other differences here, too, in the data being used.
+1
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/18/2017 3:56 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
...
This one is from 2015, but shows both the numbers and percentages. Note, that while OHIO has 80 more than Maryland/DC, the Maryland/DC area is more fruitful.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/sec-states...
...

These are dramatically different numbers. In the first article, 9.9% of Florida players get a scholarship. In this article it's under 1% (1 in 104).

The first article is "players recruited by Division 1" schools. Would that include those that don't actually get scholarships? I presume it does include those recruited by FCS schools as well.

The second article is "FBS signees", so only those that actually sign with FBS schools. That would be a lot smaller than if you include FCS, too, but really it's a 10:1 difference? That doesn't sound right, and there have to be some other differences here, too, in the data being used.

You do realize that "recruited" and signed are two different things, so yes the numbers are different, both have different measurable variables. However, both show the same thing, and that is that Ohio is not the place on the mantel it once was. No shame in that, Ohio Football is still some of the best played anywhere you go.
mail
person
allen
4/18/2017 5:26 PM
Recruited is intangible and signed is tangible. There are a lot of guys at Mount Union and Ashland that may have been recruited at one time by a D1 school. Signing someone is actually buying in (going the whole 9 yards).
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/18/2017 9:33 PM
allen wrote:expand_more
Recruited is intangible and signed is tangible. There are a lot of guys at Mount Union and Ashland that may have been recruited at one time by a D1 school. Signing someone is actually buying in (going the whole 9 yards).
And the numbers still bare the same results, the odds of coming out of Ohio has decreased when compared to some other states. Is being an a$$ just natural to you?
mail
person
allen
4/18/2017 10:57 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Recruited is intangible and signed is tangible. There are a lot of guys at Mount Union and Ashland that may have been recruited at one time by a D1 school. Signing someone is actually buying in (going the whole 9 yards).
And the numbers still bare the same results, the odds of coming out of Ohio has decreased when compared to some other states. Is being an a$$ just natural to you?
I have this friend named Demedi and Demedi is a true college football fan. He has been known to do something stange to hang around the gang. He once approached high school football star and said his bestie was an agent and the coach had the whole team pelted him with snow balls, they all had arms, I mean D1 arms but they had to play different positions, so only a few of them got D1 scholarships, Demedi has never been the same every since that pelting. I try to be good friend to Demedi and be patient, but he has lost his confidence. he will try to tell you that cannot order a pizza successfully, he has lost all confidence in himself. I remember an instance where somebody got tackled and broke his leg during a spring practice, Demedi was a waterboy assistant and he thought that he had something to do with this poor kid getting his leg broke. He casually told people that he broke somebody's leg during spring practice, people laughed and scoffed at Demedi. I kind of got off track, but the point is that a lot of kids like Demedi that we listed on our rosters to make them feel good, even though he was the water boy assistant, others did not play their optimal position, scenarios like this could skew numbers. The fact is Ohio is still a recruiting hotbed. Here are some great articles.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2015/...
Last Edited: 4/18/2017 11:03:10 PM by allen
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/19/2017 10:47 AM
A. No one ever said OHIO is not a hotbed. You just took offense to the original article that shows the number of scholarships offered v. the number of athletes playing the sport. I actually already posted this "map", which clearly shows OHIO at best in the 7th spot, which is lower than OHIO has traditionally ranked. This map also includes the states in the original post, and this one adds Missouri as being ahead of OHIO.

B. You are again ignoring facts.

C. The article you link has OHIO ranked 16th as a state in their metrics, so that's a real hotbed, with power house states of Arizona and Mississippi ranked ahead of OHIO. ;-)
Last Edited: 4/19/2017 10:58:24 AM by BillyTheCat
mail
bigtillyoopsupsideurhead
4/19/2017 11:20 AM
allen wrote:expand_more
I have this friend named Demedi and Demedi is a true college football fan. He has been known to do something stange to hang around the gang. He once approached high school football star and said his bestie was an agent and the coach had the whole team pelted him with snow balls, they all had arms, I mean D1 arms but they had to play different positions, so only a few of them got D1 scholarships, Demedi has never been the same every since that pelting. I try to be good friend to Demedi and be patient, but he has lost his confidence. he will try to tell you that cannot order a pizza successfully, he has lost all confidence in himself. I remember an instance where somebody got tackled and broke his leg during a spring practice, Demedi was a waterboy assistant and he thought that he had something to do with this poor kid getting his leg broke. He casually told people that he broke somebody's leg during spring practice, people laughed and scoffed at Demedi. I kind of got off track, but the point is that a lot of kids like Demedi that we listed on our rosters to make them feel good, even though he was the water boy assistant, others did not play their optimal position, scenarios like this could skew numbers. The fact is Ohio is still a recruiting hotbed. Here are some great articles.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2015/...

My reaction when I see Allen posted another wall of text: https://i.imgur.com/aLeBGKn.gif
mail
person
allen
4/19/2017 11:22 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
A. No one ever said OHIO is not a hotbed. You just took offense to the original article that shows the number of scholarships offered v. the number of athletes playing the sport. I actually already posted this "map", which clearly shows OHIO at best in the 7th spot, which is lower than OHIO has traditionally ranked. This map also includes the states in the original post, and this one adds Missouri as being ahead of OHIO.

B. You are again ignoring facts.

C. The article you link has OHIO ranked 16th as a state in their metrics, so that's a real hotbed, with power house states of Arizona and Mississippi ranked ahead of OHIO. ;-)
Yes, Ohio has more football players, because most of their schools have JV and Freshman teams, they also have inclusive policies. I never saw a kid get cut from a Cleveland Heights football team while I was there. There are a lot of things that go into the numbers. How many kids are multisport athletes and choose another sport? My main argument was California and Texas.
Last Edited: 4/19/2017 11:24:11 AM by allen
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/19/2017 11:30 AM
allen wrote:expand_more
A. No one ever said OHIO is not a hotbed. You just took offense to the original article that shows the number of scholarships offered v. the number of athletes playing the sport. I actually already posted this "map", which clearly shows OHIO at best in the 7th spot, which is lower than OHIO has traditionally ranked. This map also includes the states in the original post, and this one adds Missouri as being ahead of OHIO.

B. You are again ignoring facts.

C. The article you link has OHIO ranked 16th as a state in their metrics, so that's a real hotbed, with power house states of Arizona and Mississippi ranked ahead of OHIO. ;-)
Yes, Ohio has more football players, because most of their schools have JV and Freshman teams, they also have inclusive policies. I never saw a kid get cut from a Cleveland Heights football team while I was there. There are a lot of things that go into the numbers. How many kids are multisport athletes and choose another sport? My main argument was California and Texas.

Your belief that Texas and California do not have JV football teams is silly. JV football exist in both states. Freshmen is a different animal though as some areas still have true Senior High Schools and youth football at those ages. But stop drifting, the numbers are pretty concrete, Ohio has been slipping in the ratio of 3-star plus players and the overall percentage that is achieving scholarships at the FBS level. You've yet to show ONE piece of evidence that supports your claims.
mail
person
L.C.
4/19/2017 11:44 AM
To get this discussion back on track, Ohio shifted it's recruiting quite a bit this year, away from Ohio and to Florida, Georgia, and Maryland. Casper has been arguing a long time that Ohio should make such a shift. Meanwhile Bucknut was argued that Ohio should continue to focus on Ohio. Will the new shift pay off, or will Ohio undercut it's support in Ohio?
mail
person
allen
4/19/2017 12:54 PM
I am talking about Georgia and Lousiana, the states rated ahead of Ohio. All of the states listed are good football states, when it comes to numbers we are consistently in the top ten for producing NFL players.
As far as Ohio, we have to get the best talent that we can. It is good that we have a national presence recruiting wise. This year we got a lot of speed, we have always got talented players, but our athletes did not match up. This year we got four or five, 4.4 guys, We got a 4.6 guy at linebacker. We got big nasty lineman, now we have to build on that. The one thing that scares me is that we don't always play the best players. How was Hagan number 3 on the safety chart at the start of last year. You have to avoid having tunnel vision. We recruited a lot of Defensive end studs the last two years, if we see none on the two deep, than that is a problem. Some of the defensive backs that we recruited this year deserve the opportunity to compete for playing time. You have to get the athletes and let them play.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/19/2017 12:56 PM
Georgia currently has more NFL players than Ohio by quite a bit, and Louisiana has only two fewer than OHIO, with a significantly fewer people in the state.....Nice try though.

Georgia even had more players drafted last year than Ohio did. So, what else do you have Mr. Lame
Last Edited: 4/19/2017 1:02:30 PM by BillyTheCat
mail
person
allen
4/19/2017 1:14 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Georgia currently has more NFL players than Ohio by quite a bit, and Louisiana has only two fewer than OHIO, with a significantly fewer people in the state.....Nice try though.

Georgia even had more players drafted last year than Ohio did. So, what else do you have Mr. Lame
You are trying to combat me because I exposed your numerous lies. Who has more players in the NFL?
California
Texas (Dallas has more than Louisiana)
Georgia
Louisiana
Is Ohio constantly in the top 10 like I stated?
Yes
I could go low, but I will not, lame is going on sport sites and lying your butt off.
mail
person
L.C.
4/19/2017 1:43 PM
allen wrote:expand_more
... The one thing that scares me is that we don't always play the best players. How was Hagan number 3 on the safety chart at the start of last year. ....

Often there have been players that you thought should be playing, but once they play, well, maybe there were where they belonged after all.

Last year Hagan was the #3 Safety because he had yet to prove himself, and because you had returning starters in Kylan Nelson and Toran Davis. Once Kylan moved to corner, and Hagan proved himself, he became the starter. That's exactly how it's supposed to work. Players who show they have talent get playing time, and when they prove themselves, they move up.

I can give you lots more examples of young players with talent moving ahead of older players. Other Freshmen we saw play significant roles last year were Pleasants, Maxwell, Ball, Belack, Mayne Williams, Tupa, Popp, Chuckwu, Farakas, and Zervos.
Last Edited: 4/19/2017 1:43:36 PM by L.C.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/19/2017 1:51 PM
Allen, this all started as you tried to diss the original article, but you failed, and have continued to fail to bring any substance to any of your post.

Oh and by the way that original article you diss comes from an NCAA study. So I love how you are such a savant that you know know more than the NCAA.
Last Edited: 4/19/2017 1:55:00 PM by BillyTheCat
mail
person
allen
4/19/2017 2:04 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
... The one thing that scares me is that we don't always play the best players. How was Hagan number 3 on the safety chart at the start of last year. ....

Often there have been players that you thought should be playing, but once they play, well, maybe there were where they belonged after all.

Last year Hagan was the #3 Safety because he had yet to prove himself, and because you had returning starters in Kylan Nelson and Toran Davis. Once Kylan moved to corner, and Hagan proved himself, he became the starter. That's exactly how it's supposed to work. Players who show they have talent get playing time, and when they prove themselves, they move up.

I can give you lots more examples of young players with talent moving ahead of older players. Other Freshmen we saw play significant roles last year were Pleasants, Maxwell, Ball, Belack, Mayne Williams, Tupa, Popp, Chuckwu, Farakas, and Zervos.
that is the problem, you have to have a competition to prove yourself. Nelson needs to be tested, he missed a lot of tackles and three open blitzes where he was not touched. There are about 5-6 guys who have earned start forever status. We give it out way too liberally. If the kid is not all-mac or in the top five at his position, he needs to be challenged. We fall in love with players and bombard the coaches with questions about them and that is what we get. If it were not for injuries, we would have hid an all-american on the bench.
Last Edited: 4/19/2017 4:36:08 PM by allen
mail
person
allen
4/19/2017 2:05 PM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
Allen, this all started as you tried to diss the original article, but you failed, and have continued to fail to bring any substance to any of your post.

Oh and by the way that original article you diss comes from an NCAA study. So I love how you are such a savant that you know know more than the NCAA.
God bless you brother or sister. Have a great day.
mail
person
L.C.
4/19/2017 4:15 PM
allen wrote:expand_more
that is problem, you have to have a competition to prove yourself. Nelson needs to be tested, he missed a lot of tackles and three open blitzes where he was not touched. There are about 5-6 guys who have earned start forever status. We give it out way too liberally. If the kid is not all-mac or in the top five at his position, he needs to be challenged. We fall in love with players and bombard the coaches with questions about them and that is what we get. If it were not for injuries, we would have hid an all-american on the bench.

No one has start forever status. If you look at all the young players who have passed other players, I don't know how you can even believe that. In the specific case of Hagan, if there had been no injuries, he would have played anyway, and as well as he played he would have earned additional playing time.

I, frankly, don't see any alternative to a system where you have to earn playing time by how well you play on the field. What are you going to do? Measure raw athletic ability, and ignore experience, knowledge, and performance in games?
Last Edited: 4/19/2017 4:17:15 PM by L.C.
mail
person
allen
4/19/2017 4:45 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
that is problem, you have to have a competition to prove yourself. Nelson needs to be tested, he missed a lot of tackles and three open blitzes where he was not touched. There are about 5-6 guys who have earned start forever status. We give it out way too liberally. If the kid is not all-mac or in the top five at his position, he needs to be challenged. We fall in love with players and bombard the coaches with questions about them and that is what we get. If it were not for injuries, we would have hid an all-american on the bench.

No one has start forever status. If you look at all the young players who have passed other players, I don't know how you can even believe that. In the specific case of Hagan, if there had been no injuries, he would have played anyway, and as well as he played he would have earned additional playing time.

I, frankly, don't see any alternative to a system where you have to earn playing time by how well you play on the field. What are you going to do? Measure raw athletic ability, and ignore experience, knowledge, and performance in games?

You have to be honest with the players. If they have not done well, you have a competition in the the spring and fall. Starting positions should be earned and not guaranteed. It is now way that Hagan should be our third safety, no way, especially when how secondary is rated in the last quartile facing depleted or underachieving MAC East offenses. We played Akron and Kent's fifth string qb's or our secondary could have been last. You watch videos with the players and let them know that they have to be accountable for their mistakes and you are recruiting guys to compete for jobs and you have a honest competition. You don't award start forever status to people. Prueh's, HAGAN, Moore, Aloese, Porter, Farkas and Zervos have earned the right to start, everybody else should be competing, may the best man win, Oulette should also have the ability to win his position back.
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 29
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)