Dig on this, cats... "where do SEC FB signees come from?"

[TUSK]

http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/102510/where-do-sec-football-players-come-from-look-to-georgia-and-specifically-atlanta

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html

Short & Skinny:

Only SEC states and SEC signees are considered...

As expected, GA, FL & TX had the most...

What I didn't expect is how much those numbers were skewed due to population...

SEC Signees - By State - Per 100,000 peeps....

STATE Per 100k
Mississippi 9.27
Alabama 6.65
Georgia 6.01
Louisiana 5.62
Arkansas 3.36
Tennessee 3.12
S Carolina 2.92
Florida 2.77
Texas 1.67
Missouri 1.52

[Ralph]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26635632/Photo%20May%2031%2C%207%2005%2033%20PM.gif

[Smitty]

Everyone in MS goes to MS schools. Other programs croot out of state more than us or have other big programs in state.

Also higher percentage black population here.

We skew it ourselves.

[messageboardsuperhero]

Meanwhile, Mississippi State (56.9% instate) and Ole Miss (29.6% instate) employed considerably different recruiting strategies when it came to talent from their home state. While Mississippi State had more in-state talent than nearly any other SEC program, Ole Miss ranked 10th out of the 14 teams, frequently looking to Florida, Georgia and Tennessee to fill out its recruiting classes.

[I seen it dawg]

In state talent isn't good enough for them

[I seen it dawg]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26635632/Photo%20May%2031%2C%207%2005%2033%20PM.gif

Greatest movie ever

[5 Star]

This has always been a baseless statistic to me. Yes, we have a bunch of players per capita. But we have also got TWO major schools, just like Alabama (with double population). I would say those are our closest peers in terms of who we're competing against, along with Arkansas and LSU. So it doesn't matter if we produce more players per capita....those other states have more PEOPLE to provide talent for two schools, or just have one school to begin with (like Arkansas or LSU) with the same population (or more in the case of Louisiana). So essentially, while Arkansas doesn't produce the per capita talent than Mississippi does, they get ALL of it and their population is the same as Mississippi. If anything, they are dead even with us - not at a disadvantage.

The only other states where we could see this as an advantage is schools with similar population AND two major schools, like Iowa or Kansas. Alabama, South Carolina, Oklahoma and others with only 2 major schools have nearly double our population. Pointless stat. To get a more accurate reading, you must adjust per capita to more more like 'per school'. To get deeper, I think you'd probably have to control for proximity to Atlanta.

Just dividing the total amount of signees by number of major schools in the state, it shakes out like this:

LA - 255.0
AL - 159.0
MS - 137.5
AR - 98.0

Population factor is already factored in, in this study, because it's indirectly tied to the numbers of signees. Looking at this list, it's pretty obvious we need to be recruiting in Louisiana more than anywhere else. They have a ton of talent and only 1 instate school can't take them all.

[TUSK]

This has always been a baseless statistic to me. Yes, we have a bunch of players per capita. But we have also got TWO major schools, just like Alabama (with double population). I would say those are our closest peers in terms of who we're competing against, along with Arkansas and LSU. So it doesn't matter if we produce more players per capita....those other states have more PEOPLE to provide talent for two schools, or just have one school to begin with (like Arkansas or LSU) with the same population (or more in the case of Louisiana). So essentially, while Arkansas doesn't produce the per capita talent than Mississippi does, they get ALL of it and their population is the same as Mississippi. If anything, they are dead even with us - not at a disadvantage.

The only other states where we could see this as an advantage is schools with similar population AND two major schools, like Iowa or Kansas. Alabama, South Carolina, Oklahoma and others with only 2 major schools have nearly double our population. Pointless stat. To get a more accurate reading, you must adjust per capita to more more like 'per school'. To get deeper, I think you'd probably have to control for proximity to Atlanta.

Just dividing the total amount of signees by number of major schools in the state, it shakes out like this:

LA - 255.0
AL - 159.0
MS - 137.5
AR - 98.0

Population factor is already factored in, in this study, because it's indirectly tied to the numbers of signees. Looking at this list, it's pretty obvious we need to be recruiting in Louisiana more than anywhere else. They have a ton of talent and only 1 instate school can't take them all.

5 star, your stock just went up (in my book)... post more.

[Schultzy]

No reason not to recruit Louisiana and, to me, especially Alabama more. We get so caught up in the dandy dozen that we forget the thirstiest best player in either state may be better than our 5th or 6th.

[OurState]

This has always been a baseless statistic to me. Yes, we have a bunch of players per capita. But we have also got TWO major schools, just like Alabama (with double population). I would say those are our closest peers in terms of who we're competing against, along with Arkansas and LSU. So it doesn't matter if we produce more players per capita....those other states have more PEOPLE to provide talent for two schools, or just have one school to begin with (like Arkansas or LSU) with the same population (or more in the case of Louisiana). So essentially, while Arkansas doesn't produce the per capita talent than Mississippi does, they get ALL of it and their population is the same as Mississippi. If anything, they are dead even with us - not at a disadvantage.

The only other states where we could see this as an advantage is schools with similar population AND two major schools, like Iowa or Kansas. Alabama, South Carolina, Oklahoma and others with only 2 major schools have nearly double our population. Pointless stat. To get a more accurate reading, you must adjust per capita to more more like 'per school'. To get deeper, I think you'd probably have to control for proximity to Atlanta.

Just dividing the total amount of signees by number of major schools in the state, it shakes out like this:

LA - 255.0
AL - 159.0
MS - 137.5
AR - 98.0

Population factor is already factored in, in this study, because it's indirectly tied to the numbers of signees. Looking at this list, it's pretty obvious we need to be recruiting in Louisiana more than anywhere else. They have a ton of talent and only 1 instate school can't take them all.

Plus, if you look a population density map, much of our population grows up closer to LSU or Bama than Ole Miss or State.

We have kids growing up LSU fans or Bama fans

[5 Star]

No reason not to recruit Louisiana and, to me, especially Alabama more. We get so caught up in the dandy dozen that we forget the thirstiest best player in either state may be better than our 5th or 6th.
Highly agree. I've wasted many a hour analyzing MSU's best recruiting situations (I have no idea why, guess I just like geography and demography). We have distinct advantages over most schools when recruiting LA and AL kids, namely that we're close. We feel like home and all that jazz. Plus, the big schools from around the country are going where to the population centers of the South.....not rural LA or AL.

I like this same strategy for all MSU sports, although we obviously have a further reach in baseball.