I excitedly jaunted over to Johncarlo Valentin's profile to learn as much as I could about Oklahoma's newest football player. I was happy to see so much interesting information and analysis about his ability, and I'm very excited to see what this latest commitment will bring to the table in Norman next fall. This post isn't a complaint or worry about Valentin's ability or ranking.
I was surprised to find that the #9 player in Pennsylvania was not ranked in the top 250 players in America, given Pennsylvania's reputation for producing top-level football players. I found my way, via Google, to the annual report on NFL players by state-of-origin. It turns out that only 3.2% of of NFL players hail from Pennsylvania, so Rivals.com is right to not include the #9 player in the top 250, as 3.2% of 250 is exactly 8.
However, while I was looking at the data, I couldn't help but investigate one of my suspicions: that Rivals.com and other rankings sites over-represent the Southeast United States in their rankings. Of course, those states do produce a huge proportion of talent, especially on a per capita basis. This proportion of highly rated players still seemed too high to me.
After looking at the numbers very briefly, I think these suspicions have been validated.
Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana produce roughly 25% of all NFL players, according to data reported by USA Today as provided them by the NFL.
This year, 10 of the top 18 players in the country are from one of those states, and 34 of the top 100.
Last year, 14 of the top 23 players were from these states, and 35 of the top 100.
I couldn't find data on Mississippi's production of NFL talent (because it represented less than 2% of the NFL, and the data cuts off there), but it appears to be the most overrepresented state of all in these rankings. Assuming they are just below the threshold at 34 players, they should have 5 guys in the top 250, and they have 9.
California, based on the numbers, should also have fewer top 100 players, as they produce around 13% of NFL players, but 18% of Rivals 100 players. Texas, meanwhile, produces 11% of the NFL, and 12% of the Rivals 100.
In a ranking system where the elite players are disproportionately more valuable than the above average players, it would seem that the SEC schools have the board tilted in their favor, as far as team rankings are concerned. Obviously, the bias isn't gigantic, but it exists significantly, and is an interesting bit of data we should keep in mind when judging the relative merits of Oklahoma's class and teams from other parts of the country. The biases are most clearly at the top, where the SEC region accounts for roughly half the 5-star players, and as recruiting assets, those are the most valuable.
Anyway @josh_m , food for thought whenever you get to make rankings input this last round.
I was surprised to find that the #9 player in Pennsylvania was not ranked in the top 250 players in America, given Pennsylvania's reputation for producing top-level football players. I found my way, via Google, to the annual report on NFL players by state-of-origin. It turns out that only 3.2% of of NFL players hail from Pennsylvania, so Rivals.com is right to not include the #9 player in the top 250, as 3.2% of 250 is exactly 8.
However, while I was looking at the data, I couldn't help but investigate one of my suspicions: that Rivals.com and other rankings sites over-represent the Southeast United States in their rankings. Of course, those states do produce a huge proportion of talent, especially on a per capita basis. This proportion of highly rated players still seemed too high to me.
After looking at the numbers very briefly, I think these suspicions have been validated.
Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Louisiana produce roughly 25% of all NFL players, according to data reported by USA Today as provided them by the NFL.
This year, 10 of the top 18 players in the country are from one of those states, and 34 of the top 100.
Last year, 14 of the top 23 players were from these states, and 35 of the top 100.
I couldn't find data on Mississippi's production of NFL talent (because it represented less than 2% of the NFL, and the data cuts off there), but it appears to be the most overrepresented state of all in these rankings. Assuming they are just below the threshold at 34 players, they should have 5 guys in the top 250, and they have 9.
California, based on the numbers, should also have fewer top 100 players, as they produce around 13% of NFL players, but 18% of Rivals 100 players. Texas, meanwhile, produces 11% of the NFL, and 12% of the Rivals 100.
In a ranking system where the elite players are disproportionately more valuable than the above average players, it would seem that the SEC schools have the board tilted in their favor, as far as team rankings are concerned. Obviously, the bias isn't gigantic, but it exists significantly, and is an interesting bit of data we should keep in mind when judging the relative merits of Oklahoma's class and teams from other parts of the country. The biases are most clearly at the top, where the SEC region accounts for roughly half the 5-star players, and as recruiting assets, those are the most valuable.
Anyway @josh_m , food for thought whenever you get to make rankings input this last round.
