re: Why Texas A&M and Texas have 1 Nati in 55 years despite some top recruiting classes

I don't have the screenshot, moron. I'm not a paying member of your insider boards. It was on Surly, screenshotted by one of your own, which they routinely do over there.

I'm not an aggot. I don't make up conspiracies. It was right there for everybody to read. I was surprised he would even share that with his readers. I really don't care what you think about it, it was right there for all of Surly to read. It's a little too specific and calls out Herman directly to be some made up story, dontcha think?

neither program has killer instinct, it’s really just that simple

we can all argue and fight all day but let's focus on the facts. It's true that, while we put more players in the NFL, we are far behind states like Louisiana and Georgia per capita when it comes to putting blue chip high school players in the NFL. Looking at the stats

These rankings reflect the number of players on opening-day NFL rosters relative to state population:

Georgia – 1 NFL player per ~71,400 residents

Louisiana – 1 per ~72,800

Alabama – 1 per ~83,700

Mississippi – 1 per ~92,500

Florida – 1 per ~121,000

Utah – 1 per ~125,800

Maryland – 1 per ~128,700

South Carolina – 1 per ~131,200

Texas – 1 per ~155,900

North Carolina – 1 per ~158,200

There is clearly a disconnect between recruiting rankings and players to the nfl. I have my own dumb theories why this is. I'm curious what other Texas or Texas A&M fans think is the reason for this?

If you can stop fighting long enough, that is.

quote:

---

we are far behind states like Louisiana and Georgia per capita when it comes to putting blue chip high school players in the NFL

---

What do you mean by "per capita"? If you didn't adjust for demographics, then I see no surprises in any of this.

quote:

---

What do you mean by "per capita"?

---

Fair point. When I look at only 4 and 5 star players and the percentage who go to the NFL, it looks much different

States with the Greatest Share of Drafted Blue-Chip Recruits (4? + 5?)
On3’s analysis (over roughly the last five years) gives the clearest rankings by Drafted Blue Chip Share — the proportion of all drafted blue-chip recruits that come from each state:

Florida: ~13% of all drafted blue-chips (15 five-stars + 61 four-stars)
On3
+2
ileskneiss.org
+2

Texas: ~11.3% of drafted blue-chips (11 five-stars + 55 four-stars)
On3

California: ~9.1% (14 five-stars + 39 four-stars)
On3

Georgia: ~8.2% (16 five-stars + 32 four-stars)
On3
+7
On3
+7
bannersociety.com
+7

Louisiana: ~5.0% (6 five-stars + 23 four-stars)
On3

Ohio: ~5.0% (2 five-stars + 27 four-stars)
On3

North Carolina: ~4.6% (2+25)
On3

Alabama: ~4.3% (8+17)
On3

Pennsylvania: ~3.8% (4+18)
On3

Virginia: ~3.4% (5+15)
On3

duplicate

quote:

---

I'm curious what other Texas or Texas A&M fans think is the reason for this?

---

I don't think I care all that much. It's up to the coaching staffs to make good evaluations.

Here are some of my thoughts:

1. The purpose of recruiting players to your school is not actually to develop them for the NFL. It's to win college football games. While success in the NFL is a critical marker in terms of future talent acquisition, success in college is the only real barometer. If someone from the state of Texas has been a key contributor to a successful football team, to me that's the important criteria. Not NFL success. That said, I understand NFL success is an important measuring stick, so I'm not trying to be dismissive of it. Just bringing up the fact it's not an end all measurement for college success, which is all I care about.

2. Gerry Hamilton, who covers recruiting for Texas but has also been a national person for ESPN, used to tell me 20+ years ago that he felt like the southeast had more high ceiling players by far than the state of Texas did. He pointed out some of the Haitian areas in south Florida, where the high school would have absolutely no resources. Kids were playing football under bare minimum conditions. Coaches didn't have high paying jobs with big staffs and huge training facilities to develop kids. So if you pulled a talented kid out of poor urban areas or poor rural areas in the South, there was a lot more upside. I know this for a fact. Gerry Hamilton has always insisted there's more upside football talent in the deep south/southern Florida than there is in Texas.

Texas high school football is such a factory in some regards. Even schools that are considered poor in resources in Texas would seem like HS football feudal kingdoms in those poorer areas in other states. It's not universal, but it is ubiquitous. Then you have all the recruiting that goes on, where kids and parents are given opportunities to transfer to another district and/or school, and the rich tend to get richer. Just like college.

It was said way more succinctly in an above post, but this means high school players coming out of Texas tend to be more developed physically and in terms of football IQ than players out of poorer areas in other states. It doesn't mean the only place to play HS football is Texas. It does mean, like the SEC likes to say, that in many cases it "just means more." This can lead to an overevaluation in terms of what their ceiling is after they get to college and have the resources of a top notch college program at their disposal.

3. I do think Texas gets kids a bump in the recruiting rankings. I remember in the years right after the 2005 national championship I felt like Mack Brown got really lazy on the recruiting trail. This was when Colt McCoy was the quarterback. I told other Texas fans I knew that based on the high school games I was attending, our recruiting had fallen off, even if the rankings weren't reflecting that. I was called out as a doomsayer, an Eeyore type. Which is fine. It got particularly bad when I pointed out the savior, Garret Gilbert, had a long release, wasn't particularly athletic, and that Mack Brown was making a huge mistake putting all his QB eggs in that one basket with absolutely no competition alongside him in the QB room, thanks to a deal Mack Brown made with Garret's Dad. But it wasn't just Garret Gilbert. Lots of subpar linemen were recruited, too. But my Texas pals would point out the recruiting rankings, and the success on the field, and say I needed to take off the tin foil hat and touch grass more.

For me the key is, are kids getting better year over year? And at Texas, for a long time the answer has been no. Frankly, for a long time the answer has been no at Texas A&M, too. Not trying to take a shot at them, although I'm perfectly willing to. We haven't been any better. Then you look at OU, and consistently players get improved over the course of their career under Stoops, and while Riley was terrible with the defense, the offensive players absolutely improved. Especially the QBs, but not solely that position.

So those are some of my long winded thoughts on the subject.

Thanks for the response and I agree with all of that.

quote:

---

You don't have the sack to reach out to him to confirm because it might be true (it is). It's okay lil hornlet. I understand your frailty. See you soon.

---

Coming from a guy who doesn’t have the sack to post any shred of evidence of his fake claims because you know you made it up

Jesus, no wonder you couldn’t get in LOL

quote:

---

Are you sure? Jaylen Waddle, Jalen Hurts, Jalen Milroe, Jam Miller, Greg McElroy, A'Shawn Robinson, Deionte Thompson, Jase McClellon, just some I recall in the Saban era.

---

Pointing out 7 or so recruits does not hold up to an entire NFL roster count of players from the state, comparing that to national average, then seeing what their recruiting is like. That's over hundreds of data points where as what you listed is just 8 or so. Plus McElroy would not be an example. He is not a 4 star and did not make the NFL. Not sure about the others.