Pac 12 Recruiting RE Population Growth
Other Pac-12 states, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Idaho, are also among the highest population growth state. We've definitely seen this reflected in the increased talent coming out of Utah and Nevada recently.
California on the other hand has slowed its growth relative to other states (losing a house seat).
Anyway, the takeaway here is that the distribution of talent in Pac-12 is becoming less centralized on California, and its becoming more and more important to recruit every area well. Theoretically this is good for us, and other non-California Pac-12 schools, but these changes obviously take a long time to make an impact.
S/O Split Zone Duo for talking about why this matters
Comments
-
California itself has changed. Places like Murrieta and Temecula emphasize schools and sports to get people to move. Palmdale and Lancaster. Upland and Rancho Cucamonga
LA recruiting is less important
-
No one wants to live in WV or MS? I’m surprised your surprised.
-
@dncdirtysouwfdawg said:No one wants to live in WV or MS? I’m surprised your surprised.
-
Transplants don’t care about the local schools. It has meant nothing for the Arizona schools as a comparison where they all leave the state anyways.
Also the culture of youth football in Washington sucks. Less kids are playing and there is a lot of shitty high school teams. Junior high programs dwindling. The future importance placed on youth and high school football is way more important. Just sayin. -
Couple years ago I saw an article on Malibu High and more boys turned out for surfing than footballAtomicDawg said:Transplants don’t care about the local schools. It has meant nothing for the Arizona schools as a comparison where they all leave the state anyways.
Also the culture of youth football in Washington sucks. Less kids are playing and there is a lot of shitty high school teams. Junior high programs dwindling. The future importance placed on youth and high school football is way more important. Just sayin.
Not judging. I found it amusing. Probably would do the same -
This. Playing from a young age is how kids that aren’t top 1% athletes get good. Playing early also helps those guys as well.AtomicDawg said:Transplants don’t care about the local schools. It has meant nothing for the Arizona schools as a comparison where they all leave the state anyways.
Also the culture of youth football in Washington sucks. Less kids are playing and there is a lot of shitty high school teams. Junior high programs dwindling. The future importance placed on youth and high school football is way more important. Just sayin.
Kids play baseball and basketball before kindergarten. I understand delaying tackle football, but kids need to be playing football early and in big numbers. I don’t think that will happen on the West Coast. -
Christ. Been saying it for years and people thought it was a schtick.
West coast football is dying. Larry Scott sucked ass but anyone is going to have a tough time selling this shit sandwich. If you think the Pac12 will get any prime time TV slots over football hotbeds of the midwest of south, you are just a fucking doog. Half full (at best) stadiums and awful TV ratings. Even UW and UO have trouble selling out games anymore. -
It’s not dying. Despite the over saturation and false emphasis put on 7 on 7, it still helps kids improve.TommySQC said:Christ. Been saying it for years and people thought it was a schtick.
West coast football is dying. Larry Scott sucked ass but anyone is going to have a tough time selling this shit sandwich. If you think the Pac12 will get any prime time TV slots over football hotbeds of the midwest of south, you are just a fucking doog. Half full (at best) stadiums and awful TV ratings. Even UW and UO have trouble selling out games anymore.
It will never be big on the West Coast like in the South or even Midwest/Mideast but the inner city kids are still playing.
The white kids in the sticks are still going to play. It’s big in LA, it’s big in the Bay Area. Washington only churns out 10-15 legitimate P5 guys in a good year. I don’t think that will change, at least anytime soon. -
It’s been on the decline in inner cities for years. Some junior highs don’t even field teams any more or have very small rosters. As the population grows participation hasn’t necessarily increased. This is absolutely A regional problem. It’s trending that way.RoadDawg55 said:
It’s not dying. Despite the over saturation and false emphasis put on 7 on 7, it still helps kids improve.TommySQC said:Christ. Been saying it for years and people thought it was a schtick.
West coast football is dying. Larry Scott sucked ass but anyone is going to have a tough time selling this shit sandwich. If you think the Pac12 will get any prime time TV slots over football hotbeds of the midwest of south, you are just a fucking doog. Half full (at best) stadiums and awful TV ratings. Even UW and UO have trouble selling out games anymore.
It will never be big on the West Coast like in the South or even Midwest/Mideast but the inner city kids are still playing.
The white kids in the sticks are still going to play. It’s big in LA, it’s big in the Bay Area. Washington only churns out 10-15 legitimate P5 guys in a good year. I don’t think that will change, at least anytime soon.
The difference between the west coast and north east vs Midwest and south is widening. Fan interest in college football is also shrinking on the west coast. Hell, so many of the stadium rebuilds in the west coast have made their stadiums smaller in recent years. Your fan base in college should theoretically grow exponentially as enrollment and alumni increase over time. All these schools shrunk their stadiums.
Uw
Cal
Stanford
ASU
Wsu
Usc
-
This is all true. But while fan interest/player base is declining, I don't buy that any of this has much impact on the real talent pool for college football players. Any kid with a shot of making the NFL is still playing football in middle school/high school, there's just fewer unathletic white kids signing up to get run over.AtomicDawg said:
It’s been on the decline in inner cities for years. Some junior highs don’t even field teams any more or have very small rosters. As the population grows participation hasn’t necessarily increased. This is absolutely A regional problem. It’s trending that way.RoadDawg55 said:
It’s not dying. Despite the over saturation and false emphasis put on 7 on 7, it still helps kids improve.TommySQC said:Christ. Been saying it for years and people thought it was a schtick.
West coast football is dying. Larry Scott sucked ass but anyone is going to have a tough time selling this shit sandwich. If you think the Pac12 will get any prime time TV slots over football hotbeds of the midwest of south, you are just a fucking doog. Half full (at best) stadiums and awful TV ratings. Even UW and UO have trouble selling out games anymore.
It will never be big on the West Coast like in the South or even Midwest/Mideast but the inner city kids are still playing.
The white kids in the sticks are still going to play. It’s big in LA, it’s big in the Bay Area. Washington only churns out 10-15 legitimate P5 guys in a good year. I don’t think that will change, at least anytime soon.
The difference between the west coast and north east vs Midwest and south is widening. Fan interest in college football is also shrinking on the west coast. Hell, so many of the stadium rebuilds in the west coast have made their stadiums smaller in recent years. Your fan base in college should theoretically grow exponentially as enrollment and alumni increase over time. All these schools shrunk their stadiums.
Uw
Cal
Stanford
ASU
Wsu
Usc
The best athletes get identified early, sign up to 7on7 teams, and get recruited to play at private schools. High school football may be less important, but as Roadie said, 7on7 teams and 24/7 training programs help so that it doesn't matter if their community doesn't care about football.
