re: List the states in order of importance of recruiting to you

quote:

---

List the states in order of importance of recruiting to you

---

1. GA
2. FL

None else matter

quote:

---

Not true at all Mr. Vandy fan.

If you are doing it right, then you have a system in place that can best utilize the talent in your state.

For example, in Texas most major high schools run a spread or some sort of high powered offense. We at TAMU run an Air Raid offense that best utilizes that talent.

So, when you get down to it, we DO have a reason to prefer a Texas player in some cases. If we have to chose between a Texas QB and a Louisiana QB, well lets just say I hope the Louisiana QB can play WR.

---

That's an extremely limited and flawed perspective, though, Mr. TAMU fan. For one, it assumes that all -- or even most -- major football recruiting states have some sort of monolithic football "identity" that neither varies over time nor produces quality recruits capable of playing in multiple systems. Let's face it -- unless you're talking quarterback or are worried about the size of the defensive ends and secondary -- there are very few positions that can't be filled one way or another by a player from most any system. Yes, a given player might have to play Jack instead of Sam depending on the system (just to use an example) but we're not talking coaching style here, we're talking size and speed. A run-blocking back in a spread system isn't suddenly going to be useless in a pro-style system, after all. He'll just have a slightly different job description.

(I'd actually counter your current example with Slocum. He's more famous for his defenses, granted, and rightly so, but I'm under the impression that he preferred pro-style. He had trouble getting that system into place in Texas, but that was primarily because he couldn't recruit as many pro-style quarterbacks (and couldn't evaluate receivers as easily), not because Texas is inherently a bad place for players in that system. If he'd recruited a pro-style quarterback from, say, California, that would have allowed his preferred system to click. As it was, he was still damned successful.)

One problem is that you're dangerously close to falling into post hoc ergo propter hoc here. Just because a program succeeds with local talent doesn't mean that local talent is somehow superior to non-local talent in terms of success. Yes, a coach that can best utilize the talent he recruits is going to be more successful than one who can't utilize it. That's self-evident. If that talent is local, then, yes, the philosophy applies. But just because you happen to recruit locally and manage to keep your job -- thus implying success at utilizing the talent -- that doesn't mean you have to lock down your own state (or any other state.) It just means it's easier to recruit locally...which has nothing to do with my reply, which was directed at "importance" rather than "ease." I made no assumption about convenience, just pointed out that if you can get the talent, it doesn't matter where it comes from. If you want to discuss the issue of which states are easiest to recruit for your particular university, that's a different issue and we can discuss that if you'd prefer.