Started By
Message
re: Per capita, Louisiana is producing the most NFL skill/speed talent, and by a large margin
Posted on 5/4/21 at 3:38 pm to paperwasp
Posted on 5/4/21 at 3:38 pm to paperwasp
quote:
I somewhat knew there was a controversy over "per capita" on this board, and yet posted this anyway.
And now here we are, embroiled in a vigorus back-and-forth on the legitimacy and appropriate application of "per capita."
Sorry, baws. My bad.
But hey, at least we're having a semi-serious discussion about football.
ETA: I also blame RD Dawg for starting all this bull shite about "per capita."
paperwasp: IMO, you have nothing to apologize for. I for one appreciate you linking the article. Very informative and it is in fact very relevant for SEC Rant football discussion. SEC footprint talent is instrumental for success of SEC football teams and produces a ton of NFL talent. 4 SEC footprint states as of 2020 were in terms of absolute numbers (FL, GA, AL and LA), the top 8 in their respective HS football ranks producing NFL talent.
100% relevant post to SEC football discussion. In addition, you made your points and opinions without some of the extracurricular stuff that I took issue with regarding another Bama poster in this thread.
1
Posted on 5/4/21 at 4:05 pm to JKChesterton
Thanks man, I appreciate the kind words.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 4:19 pm to paperwasp
quote:
Thanks man, I appreciate the kind words.
What bullshite?
It's not a very valid metric.
Why is it so difficult to figure out that per participant is a better metric?
So all those retirees in Florida count just as much in the per cap pool as someone who grows up in Louisiana?
And then you pick out drafted players only from 2 of the best skill player classes ever from LSU?
Heck,I'm sure Louisiana does very well in a per participant metric but this "data" has a big thumb on the scale.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 6:00 pm to RD Dawg
quote:
What bullshite?
It's not a very valid metric.
Why is it so difficult to figure out that per participant is a better metric?
So all those retirees in Florida count just as much in the per cap pool as someone who grows up in Louisiana?
And then you pick out drafted players only from 2 of the best skill player classes ever from LSU?
Heck,I'm sure Louisiana does very well in a per participant metric but this "data" has a big thumb on the scale.
How about when those retirees move to Florida, lets say at 65 are earlier (early retirees), etc and then their Children in their 30's follow bring their kids to Florida.
Per Capita is the easiest way standardize the measure although if you have a NFL player per state based on HS football participation rates in each state that would be an interesting metric as well.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 6:06 pm to Riseupfromtherubble
quote:
Bama signs a lot of those kids
Not in the last couple seasons. Say what you want about Ed O but he’s locked down the top in state talent as of late.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 6:09 pm to Sun God
What good is the talent when you have no idea how to coach it? Our highest rated class ever says we didn't miss a beat. 
Posted on 5/4/21 at 6:17 pm to EarlyCuyler3
That’s why I prefaced my statement with “ Say what you want about Ed O” 
Posted on 5/4/21 at 6:19 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Then why has Alabama beat them NINE out of the last TEN meetings?
Wrong.....LSU has beaten Alabama 3 times since 2010 and 10 times since 2000 RTWFU
Posted on 5/4/21 at 6:20 pm to BigVoodoo
quote:
Wrong.....LSU has beaten Alabama 3 times since 2010 and 10 times since 2000 RTWFU
Well neither of you are wrong
Alabama is 9-1 vs LSU in the last 10 games
Alabama is 9-3 vs LSU dating back to 2010
Alabama is 11-4 vs LSU under Nick Saban
Alabama is 12-10 vs LSU since 2000
Alabama is 14-11 vs LSU over the last 25 games
Alabama is 18-12 vs LSU since the 1992 SEC Expansion
This post was edited on 5/4/21 at 6:23 pm
Posted on 5/4/21 at 6:22 pm to BigVoodoo
His statement is correct. You just don't like it. Keep thinking those games under Shula and sanctions matter when it comes to your annual arse whooping in 2021.
This post was edited on 5/4/21 at 6:22 pm
Posted on 5/4/21 at 6:25 pm to EarlyCuyler3
Nick Saban has coached in the Alabama/LSU game 20 times. He is 15-5.
2002 LSU - 31-0 to Alabama
2007 Alabama - 41-34 to LSU
2010 Alabama - 24-21 to LSU
2011 Alabama - 9-6 to LSU
2019 Alabama - 46-41 to LSU
2002 LSU - 31-0 to Alabama
2007 Alabama - 41-34 to LSU
2010 Alabama - 24-21 to LSU
2011 Alabama - 9-6 to LSU
2019 Alabama - 46-41 to LSU
Posted on 5/4/21 at 6:26 pm to JKChesterton
quote:
How about when those retirees move to Florida, lets say at 65 are earlier (early retirees), etc and then their Children in their 30's follow bring their kids to Florida.
Do what? Can you possibly make up a more bizarre scenario?
quote:
Per Capita is the laziest way standardize the measure
FIFY
Posted on 5/4/21 at 6:27 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Look at the difference in their margin a victory. We win ever single blowout and they squeak out 4 games.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 6:35 pm to RD Dawg
No, per capita is a valid measurement. Most Statistical analysis is done that way. Your point about Florida retirees and population growth their does not mean that population growth is limited to just retirees. So using population to scale it tells me something about how football is valued in a state.
I did not say it was the only way to measure it, standardizing by Football participation rates is good as well but it also has limitations. But Participation rates also have problems as participation rates vary across States and thus reflect a self-selection problem. So the ratios of State A vs. B reflect a Self-selection problem where Population rates do not. Population as the scaler does not reflect self-selection bias as much as HS participation rates, although yes people can move to State A vs. State B.
Still the ratio of NFL talent in Numerator to total population (Denominator) is not a bad measure.
I did not say it was the only way to measure it, standardizing by Football participation rates is good as well but it also has limitations. But Participation rates also have problems as participation rates vary across States and thus reflect a self-selection problem. So the ratios of State A vs. B reflect a Self-selection problem where Population rates do not. Population as the scaler does not reflect self-selection bias as much as HS participation rates, although yes people can move to State A vs. State B.
Still the ratio of NFL talent in Numerator to total population (Denominator) is not a bad measure.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:22 pm to JayDeerTay84
quote:
Why do people have a problem with per capita? Makes sense. Rather spend your time in states that produce elite talent at a higher clip than states that don't. Saves time, money, etc.
That's not really how recruiting works.
The advantage of in state talent is they have likely grown up being a fan of the local team and/or their is a decent amount of local pressure who would want them to go.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 11:22 pm to JKChesterton
quote:
No, per capita is a valid measurement. Most Statistical analysis is done that way
It's completely different other per capita analysis because your dealing with a specific subset of the population compared to the rest of the population that can't or won't ever be counted.
quote:
standardizing by Football participation rates is good as well but it also has limitations. But Participation rates also have problems as participation rates vary across States and thus reflect a self-selection problem.
It's a far better metric and OF COURSE the vary from state to state...its the entire point.
I did find a PDF from the National High School Participation survey. It breaks down per state but I'm unable to copy right now but it did confirm that participation rates were higher in Alabama,Mississippi and Louisiana than Florida and Georgia.I'll edit later with the numbers they publish and try to copy the link...currently I'm able to do so on my phone.
LINK
Scroll to digital page 8
FOOTBALL
CROSS COUNTRY 11-PLAYER GOLF GYMNASTICS
State Schools Participants Schools Participants Schools Participants Schools Participants
Alabama 258 3,804 386 32,366 288 1,690
Alaska 83 1,003 30 1,564
Arizona 237 3,507 209 16,498 195 1,634
Arkansas 171 1,862 201 10,255 214 1,211
California 1,354 31,880 1,069 91,305 1,015 11,023 3 5
Colorado 247 4,122 222 15,593 196 2,167
Connecticut 174 4,038 144 9,017 55 1,589
Delaware 51 1,060 45 2,843 44 334
Dist. of Columbia 33 505 29 1,456 18 133
Florida 597 8,709 594 40,361 509 4,188
Georgia 422 8,213 415 31,904 389 3,084
Hawaii 68 1,160 54 4,310 52 354
Idaho 115 1,998 88 6,482 102 1,061
Illinois 523 11,320 535 38,366 497 7,322 52 1,338
Indiana 398 5,592 323 20,344 356 3,544
Iowa 326 5,619 266 15,984 332 4,896
Kansas 301 3,857 224 12,586 246 2,633
Kentucky 244 3,157 221 13,033 237 1,934
Louisiana 317 2,928 304 19,629 240 935 38 31
Maine 106 1,343 84 3,207 95 975
Maryland 187 3,741 181 12,146 154 1,392
Massachusetts 313 7,127 328 18,019 289 4,212 8 117
Michigan 634 9,588 572 33,868 504 6,136
Minnesota 410 7,568 345 23,185 370 5,495
Mississippi 166 1,810 244 22,440 178 2,290
Missouri 428 5,863 348 19,951 329 3,981
Montana 124 1,223 78 3,476 115 907
Nebraska 245 3,348 153 8,579 243 2,585
Nevada 87 1,195 74 6,678 78 766
New Hampshire 73 1,084 58 3,120 63 786
New Jersey 373 8,491 343 22,515 288 3,690
New Mexico 117 1,552 98 6,061 79 645
New York 583 9,927 502 27,652 543 6,583 42
North Carolina 390 6,268 377 26,969 361 2,828
North Dakota 105 774 82 2,903 122 895
Ohio 738 12,912 718 39,794 690 7,496 15
Oklahoma 296 3,406 257 13,132 218 1,730
Oregon 226 4,076 196 11,140 162 1,464
Pennsylvania 572 11,440 567 25,515 515 5,150
Rhode Island 45 999 42 2,690 37 395
South Carolina 180 3,550 205 17,789 157 1,541
South Dakota 151 1,037 66 3,133 136 971
Tennessee 334 4,066 367 20,920 309 2,357
Texas 1,481 26,068 1,317 165,641 1,340 14,163
Utah 132 3,792 106 8,596 120 1,543
Vermont 30 403 22 993 24 179 3 32
Virginia 304 6,282 307 22,526 288 2,405
Washington 317 7,332 299 18,348 284 3,196
West Virginia 102 1,140 113 5,551 106 880
Wisconsin 418 6,949 388 23,154 370 5,316
Wyoming 46 607 51 2,426 38 516
Haven't cross referenced vs population but in order it looks like Mississippi followed Alabama,Louisiana,Georgia then Florida (pretty wide margin) as far as participant vs population
This post was edited on 5/5/21 at 9:03 am
Posted on 5/4/21 at 11:40 pm to Sun God
You can always count on Early Gurley to to add a certain element of “shite stain” to each thread he posts in. (Insert laughing emoji)
Posted on 5/5/21 at 12:18 am to geauxbrown
Always on your mind.
Posted on 5/5/21 at 8:15 am to RD Dawg
RD Dawg: I clearly said NFL players by participation rates is a good measurement. But like all measurements, it to has problems. The one problem I will note is that participation rates might reflect as you say higher participation rates in LA, but those players are all at a minimum very good HS football players. still in LA, I will also note that rural parishes probably don't have as many kids playing as potentially could be playing due to economics. Eg., How many players can a rural school in rural parish in LA support?
Some schools in Texas when I watch the Texas HS football games in Fox Sports SW have > 100 to 120 kids dressed on on varsity, when you add those schools probably have a Freshman team with 50 to 60 players and a Sophomore team with as many, you can get some 200 plus kids playing football for Texas HS teams.
There are few programs in LA like that, West Monroe being one of them, etc.
Now I am all far as many kids playing HS ball, but lots of those kids play because they want to be part of team, football builds team work, discipline, etc, and those big schools with excellent tax bases can support large number of kids playing. The more kids, the more parents in the booster club, more grandparents and relatives in the stands, etc. I think there are HS stadiums in Texas that holds 20K.
So the ratio of Kids in NFL to participation rates will be skewed downward due to excess kids playing who likely will not only ever play college ball, but never hit the field for the HS team except in the 4th QTR when the game is at hand and they can run down the field on special teams.
So in summary, I think both measures are good and give you information.
Some schools in Texas when I watch the Texas HS football games in Fox Sports SW have > 100 to 120 kids dressed on on varsity, when you add those schools probably have a Freshman team with 50 to 60 players and a Sophomore team with as many, you can get some 200 plus kids playing football for Texas HS teams.
There are few programs in LA like that, West Monroe being one of them, etc.
Now I am all far as many kids playing HS ball, but lots of those kids play because they want to be part of team, football builds team work, discipline, etc, and those big schools with excellent tax bases can support large number of kids playing. The more kids, the more parents in the booster club, more grandparents and relatives in the stands, etc. I think there are HS stadiums in Texas that holds 20K.
So the ratio of Kids in NFL to participation rates will be skewed downward due to excess kids playing who likely will not only ever play college ball, but never hit the field for the HS team except in the 4th QTR when the game is at hand and they can run down the field on special teams.
So in summary, I think both measures are good and give you information.
Posted on 5/5/21 at 8:57 am to JKChesterton
quote:
will also note that rural parishes probably don't have as many kids playing as potentially could be playing due to economics. Eg., How many players can a rural school in rural parish in LA support?
What? If anything,the numbers provided show the lower participation rates prove the quality of players compared to AL and MS. It also proves my point about Florida and it's very low participation rate compared to the other states mentioned.You certainly can't blame the economy for their low rates.
quote:
So the ratio of Kids in NFL to participation rates will be skewed downward due to excess kids playing who likely will not only ever play college ball, but never hit the field for the HS team except in the 4th QTR when the game is at hand and they can run down the field on special teams
No idea of what kind of point you're trying to make here with nothing more this anecdotal evidence.Texas is obviously a huge state with huge high schools but Alabama is about the size of LA and has a much higher participation rate than LA as does Mississippi (which is a smaller state) and it also shows odds of making it to the NFL are higher in LA than those two other states.
This post was edited on 5/5/21 at 9:04 am
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News