CSNbbs

Full Version: Where do (the best) recruits come from?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Inspired by a thread on the ACC forum, which cites a study of the home states of all FBS recruits from 2008-13, I thought I'd look a little deeper.

It's proving to be a tedious task, and I've only analyzed one year so far - the class that entered in 2013. Instead of looking at all recruits, I am limiting my analysis to only the top recruits. For my source, I am using the ESPN 300 (because I can find that data) for the five years 2013-2017 (the latter being the class that will enter this fall).

When I finish, I will compile aggregate data. But for now, it's on a year to year basis.

What I found is that the 80-20 rule does work here. Eleven states produced 80% of the ESPN 300 in 2013. They are:

Florida...........53
Texas.............40
California........33
Georgia..........30
Ohio...............18
Louisiana.........15
Alabama..........12
Virginia............12
North Carolina..10
New Jersey........9
Pennsylvania......8

The study in the other thread calculated the number of recruits per capita. I figure you can do that for yourselves. One thing I did look at was where those recruits went. In the process, something jumped out at me. Some states do a much better job of keeping their best players at home. The following table shows the percentage of the ESPN recruits for each of these states that signed with an in state school.

I think when I get the data for all five years, these differences may not be so stark. Then again, maybe they will.

Alabama.......... .67
Louisiana......... .60
Texas.............. .53
Florida............ .47
California......... .45
Ohio................ .39
Pennsylvania..... .38
Virginia............ .33
Georgia............ .27
North Carolina... .20
New Jersey........ .11


Fifteen schools signed 63% of these top players.

Alabama......18
Florida.........17
Ohio State....17
LSU.............15
Michigan......15
Georgia........14
Notre Dame..13
Florida St......12
USC.............12
Clemson.......10
Ole Miss........10
Texas A&M.....10
UCLA............10
Miami.............8
Texas.............8

What may have surprised me most about who was on this list was who wasn't on it. In the class of 2013, Tennessee only signed 3, Nebraska and Michigan State 2 each, and Wisconsin only 1.

I'll keep plugging away one year at a time, but it's time consuming.
That Texas has only 8 and Oklahoma didn't make your list goes along way in explaining the "psychological disadvantage" Boren spoke of, and why so many think the B12 is doomed.

California not being the largest (and by a wide margin), despite the size and youthfulness of it's population speaks volumes about the demographics of the state and the decline in football below the collegiate level (middle school game is gone, except the few Pop Warner teams; puts recruits far behind their Midwest, Texas, and Southern counterparts)
(06-20-2017 02:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]That Texas has only 8 and Oklahoma didn't make your list goes along way in explaining the "psychological disadvantage" Boren spoke of, and why so many think the B12 is doomed.

California not being the largest (and by a wide margin), despite the size and youthfulness of it's population speaks volumes about the demographics of the state and the decline in football below the collegiate level (middle school game is gone, except the few Pop Warner teams; puts recruits far behind their Midwest, Texas, and Southern counterparts)

Well if its 2013, I think that is the year Texas only had 15 scholarships available. What is interesting is how the top schools have their rosters dominated by top 300 players.
(06-20-2017 02:51 PM)bullet Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-20-2017 02:36 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]That Texas has only 8 and Oklahoma didn't make your list goes along way in explaining the "psychological disadvantage" Boren spoke of, and why so many think the B12 is doomed.

California not being the largest (and by a wide margin), despite the size and youthfulness of it's population speaks volumes about the demographics of the state and the decline in football below the collegiate level (middle school game is gone, except the few Pop Warner teams; puts recruits far behind their Midwest, Texas, and Southern counterparts)

Well if its 2013, I think that is the year Texas only had 15 scholarships available. What is interesting is how the top schools have their rosters dominated by top 300 players.

And all the G5 schools combined signed only 7 of those 300 players. To be sure, there are still some good players outside the top 300, but it's a lot easier to be a great coach when you have great players.

And, as I said, this is only one year. Let's see how it looks with four more years of data.

I am also planning to track how many of each year's top players actually get drafted. For one reason or another, a lot of highly touted players don't deliver the goods once they get on campus. But that data won't be available for several years, as the earliest class (2013) hasn't yet used up their eligibility. So far, by my count, only 58 of the 300 have been drafted before their five years were up. Let's see how the fifth year seniors do in the 2018 draft.
90% of the NFL 1st round draft picks are from P5 schools. Over 80% of rounds 2 and 3 over the last three years. About 2/3rds of the others are G5.

Most of the non-P5 drafted players can be put in one of three categories:
1) Late bloomers (their bodies grew and they developed their roles, had the hard work ethic; FCS QBs great examples)
2) Hard luck cases (grades and other eligibility issues, family need, some transfers)
3) Flat misses (always had the talent, P5 schools missed them, measure wrong skills; Trent Taylor from LTU an example)

The third category is the smallest, the P5 don't miss many like the old day. The first category is a shotgun pattern, such guys can emerge on any program. The second category has grown as P5 are more restrictive than ever.

I calculated the "average" P5 school (and that ranges from Syracuse, Indiana and Kansas to Alabama, USC, and Ohio State) roster has 11-12 NFL draft picks on it at any one time. The average G5 has just less than 2, the average FCS (scholarship school, throw out the non-scholarship ones) just less than 1 at any given time. A Boise State might have 7, while Indiana might have 5, but an Eastern Michigan might have 0 and Alabama might have 35.

I see no surprise in talent being concentrated in the highest resource programs with the best track record of converting Saturday talent into Sunday talent. It's human nature for the best to gravitate where they think their personal fortunes have the greatest chance of success. It happens in every field. Sports just happens to be under the spotlight more.
2014 looks a lot like 2013. I won't do a year by year, but will wait for all five years before recapping again.

I did, however, sneak a peek at Alabama's numbers. They signed a ridiculous 94 four or five star players over the five year span. No wonder they're winning.
(06-20-2017 03:54 PM)Stugray2 Wrote: [ -> ]90% of the NFL 1st round draft picks are from P5 schools. Over 80% of rounds 2 and 3 over the last three years. About 2/3rds of the others are G5.

Most of the non-P5 drafted players can be put in one of three categories:
1) Late bloomers (their bodies grew and they developed their roles, had the hard work ethic; FCS QBs great examples)
2) Hard luck cases (grades and other eligibility issues, family need, some transfers)
3) Flat misses (always had the talent, P5 schools missed them, measure wrong skills; Trent Taylor from LTU an example)

The third category is the smallest, the P5 don't miss many like the old day. The first category is a shotgun pattern, such guys can emerge on any program. The second category has grown as P5 are more restrictive than ever.

I calculated the "average" P5 school (and that ranges from Syracuse, Indiana and Kansas to Alabama, USC, and Ohio State) roster has 11-12 NFL draft picks on it at any one time. The average G5 has just less than 2, the average FCS (scholarship school, throw out the non-scholarship ones) just less than 1 at any given time. A Boise State might have 7, while Indiana might have 5, but an Eastern Michigan might have 0 and Alabama might have 35.

I see no surprise in talent being concentrated in the highest resource programs with the best track record of converting Saturday talent into Sunday talent. It's human nature for the best to gravitate where they think their personal fortunes have the greatest chance of success. It happens in every field. Sports just happens to be under the spotlight more.

You are spot on. To determine where the best recruits come from, look at the NFL draft and work backwards. Not recruit rankings.
Now that I have the five year data, the picture is clearer, and the usual suspects wind up at the top of the food chain. The top 30 schools signed 84% of all the blue chippers over that period. They are:

.1 Alabama........94
.2 LSU..............77
.3 Georgia.........71
.4 Ohio State.....69
.5 Florida St......65
.6 USC..............64
.7 Michigan........61
.8 Florida...........53
.9 Clemson........52
10 Auburn.........50
11 Texas............50
12 Notre Dame...47
13 Miami............45
14 Texas A&M.....45
15 Oklahoma......42
16 Tennessee......40
17 UCLA.............40
18 Ole Miss........38
19 Stanford........32
20 Penn State.....31
21 S. Carolina.....29
22 Oregon..........23
23 Baylor............19
24 Arizona St......18
25 Arkansas........18
26 Mississippi St..17
27 UNC...............17
28 Washington.....17
29 Michigan St.....15
30 Nebraska........15
A couple of things stand out to me in the five year data.

The first is that Wisconsin is nowhere to be found. Despite being a pretty good performer on the field over that span, the Badgers only signed a total of 7 blue chippers. That puts them at the same level essentially as Arizona, Cal, Duke, Mizzou,Texas Tech, Central Florida and Virginia, all of whom signed between 6-8 four or five star recruits.

On the other side of the coin, underperformers IMO would seem to be Georgia, Texas, and UCLA.

Keep in mind, these are all players who signed coming out of HS. Some of them may have been injured, kicked off the team or transferred before contributing much, if anything, to their team's success on the field.
Signees by conference also reveal a lot. The following data has been "normalized" for differences in conference size by using a per team average over the five year span:

SEC....40 blue chippers per team
PAC....18
ACC....17
B1G....16
B12....16

Not much difference outside the SEC.
Population adjusted (blue chippers per million population):

Alabama.....19
Louisiana....16
Georgia.......16
Florida........13
Mississippi...11
Hawaii..........9
Texas...........8
Tennessee....6
Virginia........6
S. Carolina...5
Ohio............5
Oklahoma.....5
Maryland......5
N. Carolina...5
California......4
New Jersey...4
Arkansas......4
Utah............4
The four states with the highest number of blue chippers are distributed by conference as follows:

State........SEC....PAC....B12....ACC....B1G

Florida.......101.....9........8.......95......21
Texas..........33....22.....133.......4........8
California......8....118.....10.......4.......11
Georgia......110.....8........1......26........7

Total...........252...157...152....129......47

Everybody gets a decent share of the highest producing states except the B1G.


Blue chippers within each conference's footprint:

......SEC....PAC....B12....ACC....B1G

.......945....231....238.....702....278

These add up to more than 1500 recruits because conference footprints overlap - especially the SEC and ACC.

Bottom line: The SEC has access to the most talent, and they cash in on that good fortune.
Of the dozen states with the most blue chippers, the ones with the highest retention rates (percentage who sign with an in state school):

Alabama........79
Texas............55
Louisiana.......53
California.......52
Pennsylvania..52

Those with the lowest retention:

New Jersey.....5
Virginia.........26
N. Carolina....28
Georgia.........31
Reference URL's