New reports on Texas Talent vs. World!

[zippy]

Oh guys, here is the start to the new info you wanted. This is the most recent 2005 class of recruits and their respected States that the represent:

Top 100 prospects of this years NCAA recruits

Top 50

Texas - 7
Califor - 6
Florida - 4
La - 1

Top 100

Cali - 12
Texas -11
Florida- 10
La -3

Texas === had the 9th overall player
La =====had the # 2 top recruit (SLC's qb might know his name)
Cali===== had the 1st overall
Florida got the==== #5, #6, and #7 spot.


Now its up to you do break it down. Cali got the #1 prospect, while florida had 3 of the top 10. Texas only had one in the top 10, but the most in the top 50, and second most in the top 100, behind Cali, who had the #1 best out there. This one is going to be hard to break down on which state produces the most talent. If it broken down into just the top 100 everything aside then it looks like this:

Top 100

Cali - 12 == 12% (of top 100 recruits produced)
Texas -11== 11% "" "
Florida- 10=== 10%
La -3=== 3%

Overall breakdown and ranking: La is out, and I would have to rank it Florida, Cali, Texas this year as much as I had to do so. Florida goes ahead of Cali due to the fact that they produced 3 in the top 10, and Cali had more than total than Texas, with the # 1 recruit compared to Texas's # 9. So based on talent in the US here is my final best talent producing team from the 2005 graduating class

#1 Florida
# 2 California
# 3 Texas

The year prior it was:

Texas, La, Fl and then Cali. Now there are several kids that may not have been a top 100 prosepect that might be great in college or the NFL, however some of these top players might not be very good. But as of this, this is how it stands right now.

Here is another fun fact, between these 3 power states they had 33 percent of the top recruits in the nation, yet they only make up 6% of the nations states. More to come. Analyze this and see where you might disagree with anything. I was going to take more time on it, but I really wanted to find out today!

[zippy]

moving it up, please add insight to this, and dont let it get away. I had some people that are off to bed that wanted to see it. Thanks

[Firebird]

Zippy, you are taking us so deep inside the numbers I don't know how to find your way back out. I really do think that analyzing top ten lists and top 100 lists can give you the answer as too the best talent producing state. The rankings systems are far too subjective.

How do you determine who is "better" between a top- tier quarterback and an offensive lineman? TD passes are a sexier statistic than pancake blocks, but colege coaches need both. How much difference is there, really, between the number 10 and number 11 players according to Rivals.com? Or, for that matter 100 and 101? What if Texas had that number 101 player, thereby giving us 12 players in the top 101? (I always felt bad for number 101.) Would that push ahead of California? True, Florida has 5,6, and 7, but what if Texashad the 9, 11, 12, 13? How would that put us in the rankings?

The fact of the matter is, the there is often very little qualitative difference between any of the top 50 players in the nation, with the possible exception of the truly outstanding players in perhaps the top 2-3 spots. (Which are nearly always hogged by "glamour" position players- QB's, RB's, WR's). All of them are outstanding athletes, any college coach would salivate at the thought of landing a top 50 player for his team. Often a players stock can rise because of the number of great players available at his position-- if it is not a good year for LB's-- then the ones that are out there get a lot of press, with less competion to detract attention.

I still think the best yardstick is number of Division 1- college scholarships awarded, although it too is imperfect. Instead of a world of questionable 40 times, benc presses, and padded stats, one question is answered-- were there collge coaches willing to give a kid a free ride to college in exchange for his skills at football, or not? (Texas nearly always wins this one).

All in all though, all the quibbiling and number crunching won't give you an answer. The big three-- Fla, Cali, and Texas-- produce an abundance of football talent, a testament to their huge populations and the popularity of the sport. Who is number 1-- too close to call, ever, if you are honest about it.

[westlake]

i think pancake blocks are very sexy.

[ThEgReAtOnE]

In 2004 ABC reported that Houston, Texas had more athletes in the NFL than any other city in the country.

Dallas was 3rd, behind Miami, Florida.

High School Football to Texas is like Hollywood to California.

[Texasfrog]

In 2004 ABC reported that Houston, Texas had more athletes in the NFL than any other city in the country.

Dallas was 3rd, behind Miami, Florida.

High School Football to Texas is like Hollywood to California.

Ya, and if you took a region. The East Tx region is probably the best in America (per-capita) for producing top line football players.

[owlbandad]

Here is another fun fact, between these 3 power states they had 33 percent of the top recruits in the nation, yet they only make up 6% of the nations states. More to come. Analyze this and see where you might disagree with anything. I was going to take more time on it, but I really wanted to find out today!

The 6% number is useless. CA, TX, and FL contain 25.5% of the population. 33% of the top recruits from 25% of the population is, I think, a better reading on high school football quality. And if you consider that Texas is roughly neck and neck with California, even though Texas has less than two thirds of California's popluation, the picture of Texas as an over the top high school football state becomes a good bit clearer.

[DW@SunshinePreps]

A case can be made for California for the fact they have the most NFL players, they have won a NCAA championship recently, and point to the success of many of their home grown talent.

A case can be made for Texas in how many D1 kids they sign, the fact their players have made a big impact in the NFL and have helped schools like Oklahom build their program with Texas talent, and their recent success with Texas becoming a dominant elite team.

A case can be made for Florida in how they put the same number of kids in the NFL with 66% less population (TX has 1500 HS football teams compared to FL having 500 roughly), Florida can also claim 3 of their college teams having all won championships and also helping other college teams win as well. Also Florida has a definite winning percentage against California and Georgia both in their states all star games.

My point being the level of football played in the Big 3 (CA,TX,FL) is as good as it gets. Quality can be found in a big way in many other states but due to the large number of populations in TX/CA, the numbers will be much less. Do not count out some of these other states though. A team of Georgia's top 40 kids could come into Texas and whip their top 40 one year and whip Florida's top 40 the next. Same goes for Ohio. For sheer numbers though and the ability to recruit a great deal of talent in one state, CA/TX/FL are obviously where it is at.

Just my opinion.....

[dragonsdaddy]

the ncaa champs argument is bordering utter absurdity due to the globalization of college football. there will never be a team, much less a championship caliber team that plays with only home-grown talent. there may be a propensity of locals on some teams, but you can't make the leap to hs supremacy because it just doesn't hold water.

[DW@SunshinePreps]

When I make an argument about the quality of high school football in the state of Florida, pointing to the success of the Florida schools and other schools who have recruited heavily out of our state would be one way of making my point. For example, the year Ohio State beat Miami for their national championship, a great deal of their success was in part due to their Florida talent. Andre Johnson wasn't shut down one game his final year in college until he went up against Chris Gamble (FL talent) in the championship game. About 8 starters on the Ohio State team were Florida talents.

It is just my opinion that this helps an argument being made for Florida.

[DW@SunshinePreps]

I feel college is a good place to start comparing because it is at this time that we begin to see how the talents start stacking up against each other. In HS it is impossible in my opinion to get a gauge on how HS teams stack up against each other if they do not pay against eah other. Sure HS all star games are great and Florida has a winning record against every state they have gone against but it does not tell you the bigger picture. Now if HS had some sort of playoff system which is not possible, then you could look at how some of the states best stacked up against each other. This is why I feel college is the first true gauge on how much quality a state produces.

Just my thoughts....

[Redneckn]

I am of the opinion that the egos here in Texas over football (or anything for that matter) are over inflated.

There is some good talent here. Some real good talent. But I don't really think it is all that much more than what it is in any other state that fields pretty good teams.

I think Texas has more mediocre 5A teams than any other state though. That would stand to reason since Texas is the largest state. I agree with whomever said it about EastTexas football being supurb. If it weren't for the Eastern and Northern parts of Texas, football here would be overlooked like it is almost everywhere else in the country.

I don't think of Louisiana as a football state either. The fans are about as rabid as anywhere else, but the teams are mediocre. They run the ball. They have substandard coaches (generally) and think they are better than what they are. (generally)


I think in the end, we end up with a few really good teams from a few states and the rest are just that, the rest.

I don't think of football past high school because that when football turns into the future and its not played for fun anymore. Very few players in the NFL play because they love the game. Most are looking for a way to make a check and feel important because they cant read and do basic math.hahahaha..


No really. I just find these discussions funny. It all depends on what state you are in as to how the discussion will go. In Ca. they think they are on top. In La, they think that. In Fla. they think they are the best. Pick a state and they all think it. Except Wyoming. I think they know they suck and have accepted it.

[DW@SunshinePreps]

Good post.

I would disagree with you however on not watching guys past high school. While there are plenty of Terrell Owens out there, there are way more guys who play this game not only for the money but also for the passion they have to play the game. Sure guys like Ray Lewis, Zach Thomas, and others make a ton of cash but anyone watching what those guys do on the football field know it is more than just money that drives them towards excellence.

For every 1 guy you name that is in it for the money, I bet I could name 2 who would play it for the love of the game.

[implacable44]

Texas is the largest state? I know we have a tendency to just include MExico but we can't - they just come here and steal our jobs and commit crimes. Texas has a land mass of 261,797 sq. miles - while Alaska has a land mass of 571,951 sq. miles.

as far as population goes - well California of course has the most people - roughly 35 or 36 million while Texas has around 4 million.

Florida of course has far more people than Texas at 17.5 million and you could always throw New York in there if you were to say that the amount of people should correlate to better players - a la the judson theory I read on here so often because NY has a startling 19.5 million people.

[Redneckn]

I dont really consider Alaska as a state. They are line an annex or something to me..hahaha...

Dont want to get me started on the whole Mexico thing. I think you and me would agree on that. There may indeed be other states with more population, but on the whole, Texas in in the top 10 on the population scale.

I don't really think population has all that much to do with it really though. I mean, I look at Shreveport (Louisiana) that has all the publics and a few privates and nobody can hang with ECA. A school with the enrollment of a 1A school. They dont have a bunch of NFL kids or giants. They are just coached really really well and want to play the game.
They are coached on a level that most of the other schools in the state are not. I think the same could be said for the top 10 teams in Texas. They are coached really well and the kids really want to play the game.

[Texasfrog]

I dont really consider Alaska as a state. They are line an annex or something to me..hahaha...

Dont want to get me started on the whole Mexico thing. I think you and me would agree on that. There may indeed be other states with more population, but on the whole, Texas in in the top 10 on the population scale.

I don't really think population has all that much to do with it really though. I mean, I look at Shreveport (Louisiana) that has all the publics and a few privates and nobody can hang with ECA. A school with the enrollment of a 1A school. They dont have a bunch of NFL kids or giants. They are just coached really really well and want to play the game.
They are coached on a level that most of the other schools in the state are not. I think the same could be said for the top 10 teams in Texas. They are coached really well and the kids really want to play the game.

I've argued this for years.. I've seen alot of football from (Texas, born & raised) thru California, Virginia, Florida, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama, Ga. I've seen State Championship games from about 20 States on DVD and ect for years now.

If you took the top 60 National High school teams (Legit 60) there would be:

Texas= 12-15 teams
Cal = 5 teams
LA = 4 teams
Okla = 2 teams
Ark = 2 teams
Miss = 2 teams
Ala = 2 teams
Fla = 5 teams
GA = 3 teams
S.C = 2 team
NC = 2 team
Tn = 1 team
Ohio = 5 teams
NV = 1 team
AZ = 1 team
Wash. = 2 team
HW = 1 team

There is about 7 or so more teams scattered around the country that could say they honestly belong in the National Top 60. (Legit 60).

I have no doubt that Texas would have on average about 12 to 15 of those National Top #60 High school teams annually.

The biggest thing that seperates Texas over "EVERY" other State is its DEPTH of quality teams.

Teams Texas #16 thru #30 aint that far behind Texas #1-#15 many years.

No State has the quality of Depth of talanted (well coached) teams like Texas. I'm a 100% believer of that from what I've seen in PERSON and on DVD over the last 7 years.

PS. The other note.. Many of those other State teams are PRIVATE schools , but in Texas its done with Public schools which makes it even more legit in my opinion.

[Redneckn]

What is it that makes a private school illegitimate?

To me, that kind of thinking is kind of odd. I mean, when you are pulling players from the 5a pool with publics. The privates are pulling students from a much smaller (usually 1A or 2A) pool.

To me, it really doesnt matter public or private. If you're good, you're good. If you arent, then I guess you just get beat everyweek.

I honestly would have to contest your numbers about Texas schools simply on the fact that I have seen a few Texas teams play some games and I havent seen more than 2 or 3 that were really just bad to the bone.
And by that, I mean any more bad to the bone than any other school i've seen play from any other state.

Inflated egos...

Which is fine as long as your arent from canada.

[zippy]

I understand your point, and it is correct. One thing you have to consider is what if the NCAA had a draft? The best player would most likely go #1. The pre-draft predictions are always very close to the acual event. There is no way to compare a QB with a OL, or WR with a DL, but there has to be some sort of ranking to the quality of the player. This is all we have to use, and I just presented the numbers. The outcome may not be what we want it to be, but it is what it is.

Zippy, you are taking us so deep inside the numbers I don't know how to find your way back out. I really do think that analyzing top ten lists and top 100 lists can give you the answer as too the best talent producing state. The rankings systems are far too subjective.

How do you determine who is "better" between a top- tier quarterback and an offensive lineman? TD passes are a sexier statistic than pancake blocks, but colege coaches need both. How much difference is there, really, between the number 10 and number 11 players according to Rivals.com? Or, for that matter 100 and 101? What if Texas had that number 101 player, thereby giving us 12 players in the top 101? (I always felt bad for number 101.) Would that push ahead of California? True, Florida has 5,6, and 7, but what if Texashad the 9, 11, 12, 13? How would that put us in the rankings?

The fact of the matter is, the there is often very little qualitative difference between any of the top 50 players in the nation, with the possible exception of the truly outstanding players in perhaps the top 2-3 spots. (Which are nearly always hogged by "glamour" position players- QB's, RB's, WR's). All of them are outstanding athletes, any college coach would salivate at the thought of landing a top 50 player for his team. Often a players stock can rise because of the number of great players available at his position-- if it is not a good year for LB's-- then the ones that are out there get a lot of press, with less competion to detract attention.

I still think the best yardstick is number of Division 1- college scholarships awarded, although it too is imperfect. Instead of a world of questionable 40 times, benc presses, and padded stats, one question is answered-- were there collge coaches willing to give a kid a free ride to college in exchange for his skills at football, or not? (Texas nearly always wins this one).

All in all though, all the quibbiling and number crunching won't give you an answer. The big three-- Fla, Cali, and Texas-- produce an abundance of football talent, a testament to their huge populations and the popularity of the sport. Who is number 1-- too close to call, ever, if you are honest about it.

[Redneckn]

Yes, ranking the players. Good, OK, or NOT GOOD.

This is high school ball we are talking about. Not college or nfl.


There is point where you can over examine anything to the point of being absurd.

[Texasfrog]

What is it that makes a private school illegitimate?

To me, that kind of thinking is kind of odd. I mean, when you are pulling players from the 5a pool with publics. The privates are pulling students from a much smaller (usually 1A or 2A) pool.

To me, it really doesnt matter public or private. If you're good, you're good. If you arent, then I guess you just get beat everyweek.

I honestly would have to contest your numbers about Texas schools simply on the fact that I have seen a few Texas teams play some games and I havent seen more than 2 or 3 that were really just bad to the bone.
And by that, I mean any more bad to the bone than any other school i've seen play from any other state.

Inflated egos...

Which is fine as long as your arent from canada.

You can call it inflated egos if you like. I think its pretty much on par.

Louisiana has West Monroe, Evangel, John Curtis and then there is usually one other that steps up each year and is very good.

In Texas there is 12 to 15 teams that are on par with those 4 Louisiana powerhouse teams. Period.

West Monroe, Evangel, John Curtis and that 4th team "DOMINATE" everyone in Louisiana. DOMINATE !!! They pull their starters out near the end of the 3rd QT because they're usually up by 35 or 40pts.

I read your post how some Louisiana 3A's could probably beat Leander and Austin Westlake. All I can say is "Hahahaha" I'm freaking laughing !! There isnt one freaking Louisiana 3A team that would beat either one of those Texas 5A teams.

Too me that "EGO" when you can say that some of the Louisiana 3A's would beat Leander & Austin Westlake.

West Monroe and ECA could beat Longview and it wont mean squat to me honestly. Because Longview is one of the Texas Top #15 and WM and ECA or #1 and #2 in Louisiana just like they are 100% of the time.

Just hope that little Texas 4A (Texas High) doesnt beat ECA. Last years 9-2 win for ECA wasnt that impressive over a Texas 4A team. Wasnt ECA the Louisiana 5A State Champs !!!!!???

PRIVATE SCHOOLS: Your from a state (Louisiana) where Private schools is the norm in sports. Texas they arent. It is 100% clear that Private Schools enjoy certain benefits that Publics dont.

I'll go ahead and say it now.. "RECRUITING !!!" Dont give me there no proof stuff either. ECA "attracts" bigtime football players (D-1A caliber) to their program. They give these kids "FINANCIAL AID" to come to the school because they are "bigtime athletes !!" Now put 1+1 togehter please.

Financial Aid + athlete = RECRUITING !!

I'll give you the definition of athletic scholarship if you like....

That's what the Private schools enjoy over the publics. Peace and OUt.

PS. I also think its funny how you claim that Private schools get thier athletes from 1A, 2A and 3A level teams. Wow..

If you go and "ATTRACT" ie. RECRUIT some of the top athletes off of Jasper, Burkeville, Newton and some of the other schools in the area.. Guess what ? You've got a powerhouse team (with coaching). Hmmmm, can anyone say EVANGEL.