(05-08-2019 12:48 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 10:58 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 10:43 AM)FloridaJag Wrote:  As proof.

Dominance by Southeast ruining college football

Cry me a damned river. In the late 40's & 50's it was dominated by the Big 10 in an industrial post WWII economy that was booming in the Northern Midwest and because of jobs they had all the recruits they could dream of to select from. In the 60's that started shifting to the West Coast as population out west exploded. That brought the rise of the PAC due to recruiting. Now the jobs are in the Southeast and accompanied by a lower cost of living. Boom, we have the rise of the SEC and the ACC teams that invest in football.

The economy and standard of living creates these shifts and will eventually correct them.

The only other thing that could possibly deal with it would be to eliminate high school recruiting and move to a draft system for high school athletes. Instead of signing day we would have selection day. That's the only way to guarantee a disbursement of athletes that would help with parity.

But before we go there remember just 1 thing. The public despises parity. The public wants dominant teams. And the public loves brands. Alabama and Ohio State drew 70,000,000 viewers last year. Oklahoma drew 46 million and Clemson drew over 30 million and their numbers are growing as fans across the nation adopt them. The money is generated by winning, always has been and always will be, unless we become socialist in that too.

With college football dominance has resided where there we the most blue collar workers with tough kids playing sports. The more upper class and corporate a region becomes the fewer recruits they have to choose from. Right now blue collar is alive in the Southeast. That's the beginning and end of the story and the writer of the article either lacks the depth to grasp that, the longevity to remember the fluctuations, or is just plain stupid.

What are you talking about. The question concerns access to the playoff. The other conference champs won but are being denied access.

Your whole diatribe sounds like people in the North and the West are smarter than dumb people in the South. That's a crazy way to think my man.

I guess you can't read with comprehension. What it says quite simply is that wherever the blue collar base has resided historically that is where the best recruiting will reside as well. And those centers have culturally shifted historically. It has nothing to do with how smart someone is in a particular region as much as it does with affordable labor, resources, the tax base, and the cost of living. Right now most of those factors are met in the Southeast. Affluent kids tend not to play hard contact sports.

Coal mining in the Northeast, manufacturing in the Northern Midwest, population explosion and manufacturing in the Pacific Coast, and now relocation for natural resources, lower taxes, and right to work states in the Southeast have led to these changes.

Outside of that the majority of African Americans have traditionally resided in the Southeast. They aren't leaving in record numbers any longer because Jim Crow is 40 years dead, job opportunities exist here now, and the Southeast is a sports culture.

In WWII the beneficiaries of manufacturing were in the center of the nation for strategic purposes (easier to defend). When those moved or changed it resulted in less population in Oklahoma, Nebraska, and up into the Northern Midwest.

To understand the transition of power in college football you have to follow these demographic shifts.

For the foreseeable future the power will reside in the Southeast. No amount of changing criteria for selection, or whining about outcome is going to change it. When Urban won the natty at Ohio State he had a lot of Southern kids on the team. That's not a knock on Ohio State it is just to illustrate that if Northern schools are going to be successful they need to recruit the Southeast and Texas a lot better.