. Between Texas A&M and Baylor, the last two National Championships have gone to Texas teams, three out of the last eight NC's. The Lone Star State also contributes a disproportionately high number of players to the national pool of top high school players in most recruiting classes. Exactly what explains this phenomenon? .
Here is my take - Texas population 25,600,000+. That gives you a large base, and Texans play a lot of sports....just like the guys play Spring & Fall football, the girls play school and AAU and club bball all year round. Gives you a large talent pool of players to pick from....any other former Texans like to chime in??
There are a lot of factors, probably. One is the level of coaching at the high school level, which IMO is pretty good. Texas high school sports are really competitive in general, and girls bball often draws lots of fans. The rules allow teams to have an "athletic period" during school all year round, (other states probably do this as well, IDK) so teams are working out together all year, basically.
Texas in general also has a really strong basketball identity, even though it's normally associated with football. The Rockets were really good in the 90s, the Mavs are good now, and basketball in general is pretty popular. Those Hoop It Up tourneys when I was growing up were insanely crowded and lots of fun...the weather also lends itself to lots of pickup ball...mild winters means you can go outside, and super hot summers means you have no choice but to be a gym rat.
Yep. Texas represents 8% of the US population. Just check the first 50 top recruits each year. Are there more than 4 from Texas? A quick check of the Top Ten players on the ASGR list for the 7 classes from 2009 through 2015 inclusive has 14 out of 70 girls from the state of Texas. That's 20%, pretty damned high for a state that has 8% of the US population. .
As Sara indicated, it's largely a generational shift that's been slowly occurring since the early 1980s. Football is and always will be king, but there have been cultural and institutional barriers that have fallen and made basketball more popular for both boys and girls. The urban baller from Chicago or NYC isn't going anywhere simply because there isn't enough open space to play football in those cities. However, Texas has enough people to support both sports. Historically, Texas kids have had a propensity to stay in Texas (or at least close to home) as long as good options existed, so concentrating the talent there into relatively few schools also helps. The state, as well as OU, also has some of the relatively small number of schools willing to pay big bucks for top flight WCBB coaches. Let's be clear though. A&M doesn't win last year without Adams, who's from KC. Griner is not really a testament to the state's development of BB players. More that with more people, you're more likely to produce statistical outliers. And Baylor's 2005 run was somewhat anomalous. Stanford, Duke, and Uconn are now entering the fray more and more in terms of recruiting, so these Texas programs will need to respond competitively by trying to lure OOS recruits to them. It won't be easy to do that consistently.
Let's be clear, though - Stanford doesn't get to the last few Final Fours without the Ogwumike sisters, who are from Texas. .
That was in part what I was alluding to to in saying Stanford, among others, has entered the fray. Orrange is also from Texas. Tangentially, Stanford's and Duke's success may reflect that some girls are going to use basketball as a means to getting an elite education, so elite WBB prospects are more likely to leave the state than elite MBB or CFB prospects. And UConn's success and player development bona fides are also a draw.
And lots of flat land for courts, as opposed to Vermont. Rosters are not loaded with players from Vermont.
Not sure of population, but according to Hoopgurlz, the states had the following ranked players (out of top75): 2009 Texas - 1, 2, 5, 19, 64 California - 6, 20, 22, 24, 30, 31, 35, 40, 43, 67 Florida - 25, 39 New York - 7, 14, 66, 70, 73 2010 Texas - 3, 9, 10, 12, 14, 44, 59, 60, 71, 72 California - 18, 23, 31, 48, 49, 50, 51, 70 Florida - 55, 69 New York - 4, 13, 22, 36, 41, 58, 66 2011 Texas - 5, 15, 30, 32, 36, 41, 49, 63, 69, 75 California - 1, 7, 14, 16, 22, 25, 26, 27, 38, 46, 61, 72 Florida - 20, 43, 50, 53 New York - 8, 58, 65 2012 Texas - 2, 3, 9, 14, 19, 29, 45, 56, 61, 70, 72 California - 6, 10, 11, 12, 34, 52, 65 Florida - 16, 37, 43, 55, 58 New York - 1, 13, 60
One interesting point is that Florida seems to be underrepresented, especially in terms of top players. Why is that? The state produces an insane amout of football talent. Are the girls not as encouraged to play? Less funding for leagues and formal development/coaching?
Smart guess! By chance, I just checked the figures for Georgia. With a population equal to 3.1% of the US, Georgia should expect just a little over 2 players in that USGR 7-year Top Ten cohort I referred to earlier in this thread. Instead, they placed 7 players out of 70! Texas produced about 2 1/2 times what their population entitled them to, but Georgia produced nearly 3 1/2 the expected number! .
