For FranktheTank: more evidence of some football talent in the state

[upstater]

of Connecticut: http://www.maxpreps.com/news/J_G3Ol...ery-active-nfl-player-went-to-high-school.htm

You can't lump Conn. in so easily with Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine as areas which constitute the worst football talent in the nation.

 

[frankthetank]

The NFL numbers carry a little bit of weight, but what's much more relevant for any conference is who are attending Division I football programs overall. Look at the number of Division I recruits by state from this year's National Signing Day from the same site that you've linked:

http://www.maxpreps.com/football-signing-day/football/home.htm

CT and MA produced 9 Division I recruits each from their entire state populations this year. RI, VT, NH and ME didn't produce a single Division I recruit. None of them. So, that's 18 Division I recruits signed this year from all of New England. The state of Kansas alone (with a fraction of the population and I mention it because KU could very well be a long-term Big Ten target) had 21. You can also see from that list why Rutgers and Maryland were added by the Big Ten - out of the "Northern" options available, they are actually very competitive in producing football talent (63 recruits from NJ and 48 from MD). NJ, MD and PA are basically where all of the football talent in the Northeast comes from, and now the Big Ten has all 3 of those states in its footprint.

It's also pretty clear from that list why Georgia Tech keeps coming up: the State of Georgia produced 184 Division I recruits. That is, the State of Georgia alone produced over 10 times as many football recruits as all of New England combined. Heck, a single high school in Georgia (Stephenson) produced 14 Division I recruits BY ITSELF in 2012. Only the much larger states of Texas, California and Florida produced more football talent in sheer numbers than Georgia.

There are several reasons why New England would provide value to a conference (namely TV markets and an affluent population), but the football recruiting numbers are simply awful when compared to the other targets people are discussing. There's no way around it. Contrast this with Rutgers and Maryland, which are both connected to large TV markets yet also bring a lot of value to the table in recruiting territories.

 

[upstater]

The NFL numbers carry a little bit of weight, but what's much more relevant for any conference is who are attending Division I football programs overall. Look at the number of Division I recruits by state from this year's National Signing Day from the same site that you've linked:

http://www.maxpreps.com/football-signing-day/football/home.htm

CT and MA produced 9 Division I recruits each from their entire state populations this year. RI, VT, NH and ME didn't produce a single Division I recruit. None of them. So, that's 18 Division I recruits signed this year from all of New England. The state of Kansas alone (with a fraction of the population and I mention it because KU could very well be a long-term Big Ten target) had 21. You can also see from that list why Rutgers and Maryland were added by the Big Ten - out of the "Northern" options available, they are actually very competitive in producing football talent (63 recruits from NJ and 48 from MD). NJ, MD and PA are basically where all of the football talent in the Northeast comes from, and now the Big Ten has all 3 of those states in its footprint.

It's also pretty clear from that list why Georgia Tech keeps coming up: the State of Georgia produced 184 Division I recruits. That is, the State of Georgia alone produced over 10 times as many football recruits as all of New England combined. Heck, a single high school in Georgia (Stephenson) produced 14 Division I recruits BY ITSELF in 2012. Only the much larger states of Texas, California and Florida produced more football talent in sheer numbers than Georgia.

There are several reasons why New England would provide value to a conference (namely TV markets and an affluent population), but the football recruiting numbers are simply awful when compared to the other targets people are discussing. There's no way around it. Contrast this with Rutgers and Maryland, which are both connected to large TV markets yet also bring a lot of value to the table in recruiting territories.

I showed you the link from Grantland in the other thread that showed Connecticut produced the same number per capita as Wisconsin and New Jersey. New Jersey, of course, has more people, so they will produce a lot more recruits. In other years, Conn. has produced double the amount it produced this year, and it looks like this year is a bumper crop as well. The main point is that you can't simply lump New England altogether, when 4 of those states produce very little in terms of NFL talent. UConn has reached for 2 New Hampshire players in the past: one is Kendall Reyes of the San Diego Chargers, and the other is Ryan Griffin who will get a shot at the NFL this year. But other than that, UConn hasn't even recruited New Hampshire players (maybe Gus Cruz?).

The point is, Conn. is in that range with states that are not top football powers but also not bereft of talent, states like Wisconsin and such.

 

[upstater]

I totally buy the argument that the B1G wanted the New Jersey and Maryland recruiting grounds, but the link below shows Conn. per capita produces an amount that is relatively similar to NJ.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id...in-big-ten-expanding-include-maryland-rutgers

In this link, for instance, it's there with Wisconsin and West Virginia and in the same middling category as New Jersey.

Penn State and Iowa, in particular, have been recruiting Conn. for ages taking multiple players yearly (Iowa not so much anymore).

 

[frankthetank]

I showed you the link from Grantland in the other thread that showed Connecticut produced the same number per capita as Wisconsin and New Jersey. New Jersey, of course, has more people, so they will produce a lot more recruits. In other years, Conn. has produced double the amount it produced this year, and it looks like this year is a bumper crop as well. The main point is that you can't simply lump New England altogether, when 4 of those states produce very little in terms of NFL talent. UConn has reached for 2 New Hampshire players in the past: one is Kendall Reyes of the San Diego Chargers, and the other is Ryan Griffin who will get a shot at the NFL this year. But other than that, UConn hasn't even recruited New Hampshire players (maybe Gus Cruz?).

The point is, Conn. is in that range with states that are not top football powers but also not bereft of talent, states like Wisconsin and such.

I understand the argument here, although I don't know how the per capita numbers could be close to equal when NJ has 2.5 times the population of CT and produces 7 times the number of football recruits. In any event, it's a moot point when you compare it to a place like Georgia - the numbers aren't even close. All I'm saying that I'm just perplexed as to how anyone here can't understand why the Big Ten would be looking South. Even there is a debate about the value of those Southern TV markets, it ought to be completely obvious when you look at that National Signing Day state-by-state list. The culture in the South is that (a) LOTS more kids play football and (b) those kids are playing football 52 weeks a year. That's why you see such a stark difference between the North and South and gap is getting worse every year. The only way to counter that is to actually move South (because Northern high school football participation has been going down and a conference like the Big Ten can't control that).

 

[frankthetank]

I totally buy the argument that the B1G wanted the New Jersey and Maryland recruiting grounds, but the link below shows Conn. per capita produces an amount that is relatively similar to NJ.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id...in-big-ten-expanding-include-maryland-rutgers

In this link, for instance, it's there with Wisconsin and West Virginia and in the same middling category as New Jersey.

Penn State and Iowa, in particular, have been recruiting Conn. for ages taking multiple players yearly (Iowa not so much anymore).

Interesting piece (although I'm still curious about how those per capita figures were calculated when it would clearly be off when looking at the National Signing Day figures). Still, the maps included in that piece hammer home the point, as UConn isn't getting compared to Rutgers or Maryland now in Big Ten expansion. It's getting compared to Georgia Tech, and the state of Georgia has the darkest shades of both red and blue (indicating the highest levels of both overall recruiting and blue chip recruits per capita). The state of Florida is in the same category, and both Florida and Georgia are large population states in and of themselves, so they have both quantity and quality.

 

[Adios]

We were able to sign 6 out of 9 in-state recruits. That goes to show how marketable UConn is to recruits.

 

[upstater]

I understand the argument here, although I don't know how the per capita numbers could be close to equal when NJ has 2.5 times the population of CT and produces 7 times the number of football recruits. In any event, it's a moot point when you compare it to a place like Georgia - the numbers aren't even close. All I'm saying that I'm just perplexed as to how anyone here can't understand why the Big Ten would be looking South. Even there is a debate about the value of those Southern TV markets, it ought to be completely obvious when you look at that National Signing Day state-by-state list. The culture in the South is that (a) LOTS more kids play football and (b) those kids are playing football 52 weeks a year. That's why you see such a stark difference between the North and South and gap is getting worse every year. The only way to counter that is to actually move South (because Northern high school football participation has been going down and a conference like the Big Ten can't control that).

I think this is out of context a bit. My argument and yours as well. I'm certainly not comparing Conn. to Georgia. I always thought Maryland New Jersey had great football too, and I agreed with you that this could be an excellent reason to add those states. I think you went beyond that though to state that one of the things hampering UConn was the lack of talent. Maybe this is perception because of the size of the state, but its recruiting and its talent base compare well to many BCS schools. Look at the Senior Bowl and the NFL combine this year, 4 players. And that's not necessarily an outlier either as they sent Darius Butler, William Beatty, Donald Brown and Cody Brown just 3 years ago.

 

[upstater]

I understand the argument here, although I don't know how the per capita numbers could be close to equal when NJ has 2.5 times the population of CT and produces 7 times the number of football recruits.

9 is certainly a down year for Conn. It produced 15-20 in the past. So, NJ produces 3.5 times Conn. Also, while Grantland had Conn. and NJ is in the same tier, Conn. was rated a .4 and NJ a .6 which means that NJ produces more per capita.

 

[UConn Dan]

Read this article and you'll understand why CT doesn't produce as many elite athletes per capita as other areas if the country. Kids really aren't allowed to specialize and coaches down south don't teach history they coach and that's all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/s...-school-coach-vito-montelli-lets-go.html?_r=0

 

[methodology]

Frank I'm sure it was just a mis type but new jersey and Maryland aren't in New England.

CT is the only state that is part of new England, the northeast, and tri state area

 

[ZooCougar]

B1G is looking south. The last thing they need us more north in their conference. The perception of the B1G is that it is a bunch slow footed northern schools with a bunch fat fans who guzzle beer and cheese curds. And it's kind of the truth.

 

[frankthetank]

I think this is out of context a bit. My argument and yours as well. I'm certainly not comparing Conn. to Georgia. I always thought Maryland New Jersey had great football too, and I agreed with you that this could be an excellent reason to add those states. I think you went beyond that though to state that one of the things hampering UConn was the lack of talent. Maybe this is perception because of the size of the state, but its recruiting and its talent base compare well to many BCS schools. Look at the Senior Bowl and the NFL combine this year, 4 players. And that's not necessarily an outlier either as they sent Darius Butler, William Beatty, Donald Brown and Cody Brown just 3 years ago.

That's fair enough.

I think the reason why the football recruiting issue is emphasized by me (and people that matter much more than me in the Big Ten) is that it is the single most glaring area that the conference is weak in compared to the other power leagues. The Big Ten has the best TV markets out of the power leagues. It has the best academic institutions. It has the TV ratings. It has the great bowl tie-ins. It has the large fan bases. Those would all be true whether the Big Ten expanded further or not. However, the Big Ten has the weakest football recruiting base out of any of the power conferences... and it's getting progressively worse. So, the feeling is that any type of further expansion is going to need to close that gap, and that's going to take both quantity (sheer numbers of recruits) and quality (blue chip prospects). If anything, the website that you pointed to made it much clearer in my mind why Georgia Tech is being discussed so much (and I've been a general GT to the Big Ten skeptic). Out of all of the ACC schools, only FSU would have a greater impact on the recruiting front (and it's actually not even close once you get past the states of Florida and Georgia).

 

[ZooCougar]

This post should be pinned and all of the UConn people who think that the B1G is knocking on our door any day now need to read it.

If CT wants to figure into the process more we're going to have to grow the sport down and develop players better at the HS. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to occur to the extent that we need it, for cultural reasons. Frankly, we have other priorities.

That's fair enough.

I think the reason why the football recruiting issue is emphasized by me (and people that matter much more than me in the Big Ten) is that it is the single most glaring area that the conference is weak in compared to the other power leagues. The Big Ten has the best TV markets out of the power leagues. It has the best academic institutions. It has the TV ratings. It has the great bowl tie-ins. It has the large fan bases. Those would all be true whether the Big Ten expanded further or not. However, the Big Ten has the weakest football recruiting base out of any of the power conferences... and it's getting progressively worse. So, the feeling is that any type of further expansion is going to need to close that gap, and that's going to take both quantity (sheer numbers of recruits) and quality (blue chip prospects). If anything, the website that you pointed to made it much clearer in my mind why Georgia Tech is being discussed so much (and I've been a general GT to the Big Ten skeptic). Out of all of the ACC schools, only FSU would have a greater impact on the recruiting front (and it's actually not even close once you get past the states of Florida and Georgia).

 

[uconnell]

B1G is looking south. The last thing they need us more north in their conference. The perception of the B1G is that it is a bunch slow footed northern schools with a bunch fat fans who guzzle beer and cheese curds. And it's kind of the truth.

Guess you have never been to a NASCAR race in the south with a bunch of fat fans who guzzle beer and try to tan their shirtless bellies. That's definitely the truth.

 

[ZooCougar]

Guess you have never been to a NASCAR race in the south with a bunch of fat fans who guzzle beer and try to tan their shirtless bellies. That's definitely the truth.

I lived in both. The Midwest is scary. The Walking Dead is what you see in any Wisconsin grocery store.

 

[HuskyHawk]

This post should be pinned and all of the UConn people who think that the B1G is knocking on our door any day now need to read it.

If CT wants to figure into the process more we're going to have to grow the sport down and develop players better at the HS. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to occur to the extent that we need it, for cultural reasons. Frankly, we have other priorities.

Its true in more ways than one. HS football needs to move to Friday nights which increases time for college football on Saturdays. When I visit my parents I get Savannah and Charleston TV. Friday night after the news its all HS football. Recapping all the games. We have all our football families at HS stadiums Saturday, so they can't fill the rent.

With concussion issues rising I think northeastern football will trend down, with soccer and lax replacing it for more kids. But the state does nothing to create a football culture.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2