In-State Recruiting

[Yertle]

Okay, two things before I get to the point:

1. Zurp and I were talking about this during a Cleveland cornhole tournament today. This topic is mainly his idea, so he gets credit for the thread...
2. If this belongs in the main football forum, then please move it mods... and I apologize...
3. I can't count... Zurp and I did very well in the cornhole tournament. We won our entry fee and all of our beer money back. YAY!

Okay, so the question is, which college would benefit the most if high school players were required to go to an in-state school? And which would be hurt the most?

My thoughts on the most beneficial:

1. Penn State - they must lose a lot of high school talent each year. Look at Pryor!!!
2. Buckeyes!!! - After Texas, Florida, and California, Ohio must be the most rich state for high school talent. Although those other states have multiple Div 1 teams in each state, keeping Ohio kids in-state means keeping them at Ohio State for the most part. We would make out big.
3. Maybe USC??? They are definitely the place to be in California right now. They would have their pick at CA guys... although they basically do already.

My thoughts on the least beneficial:

1. Michigan - They would be crushed with no out-of-state recruiting. DEAD!
2. Louisville - Can Kentucky really have that much in-state talent?
3. WV - same as Louisville?

Granted, I'm no recruiting expert, so smash my theories if they're stupid. Go ahead!!! SMASH THEM!!! COME ON!!! DO IT!!!

 

[Best Buckeye]

Add Texas and Fla. and that would be about it

 

[The Man]

Add Texas and Fla. and that would be about it

not sure which Florida school you would add since there are 3 major D1 schools there.........

 

[Best Buckeye]

not sure which Florida school you would add since there are 3 major D1 schools there.........

All three since the player base is so large

 

[PapaBucks]

My thoughts on the least beneficial:

1. Michigan - They would be crushed with no out-of-state recruiting. DEAD!
2. Louisville - Can Kentucky really have that much in-state talent?
3. WV - same as Louisville?

Granted, I'm no recruiting expert, so smash my theories if they're stupid. Go ahead!!! SMASH THEM!!! COME ON!!! DO IT!!!

I would think Notre Dame would top this list, given your scenario.

 

[Yertle]

Good point. ND would be crushed.

 

[OSU_D/]

other states...

LSU would do very well!!! They are like OSU - the dominant instate team.
UGA would do very well. They would take the majority of the top recruits and GT would get the rest.

The states of Louisiana and Georgia put out a lot of football talent.

 

[Yertle]

You know, maybe I'm a bit biased, but Ohio seems so deep in HS talent that Kent State, Akron, Cincy, Toledo, and BG would benefit quite a bit too. I think their recruiting classes would go up if they got the in-state players that the Buckeyes missed.

 

[Muck]

Rutgers would absolutely explode

Illinois and Northwestern would become major players in the Big10.

Ohio State, Georgia & LSU would come out very well. They are all the big dog (sorry Georgia Tech) in a talent rich state. (90 NFL players)

I wouldn't be surprised if Louisiana as a State drops off a little bit given the population shift after Hurricane Katrina but they would still be ridiculously strong. Even a slight drop in talent would leave them with plenty to pick from.

Mississippi would be similar to Louisiana although the total numbers are a bit smaller and Ole Miss & Mississippi would battle.

The second tier Florida teams would benefit greatly....USF, UCF, Florida Atlantic, Florida International...would do well just getting the leftovers in the sunshine state. (179)

UCLA, Stanford, SDSU, Fresno State would all get major boosts if the Cali kids had to stay home. (199)

Texas would be similar with A&M, Baylor, TCU, SMU, Houston, Tech etc being the major beneficiaries of kids staying home.

Syracuse & Maryland would make plenty of noise.

Penn State & Pitt would be strong but probably a bit behind the top tier fighting over their in-state kids (58)

Michigan wouldn't completely disappear but they would have to battle with MSU over a slightly underrated small but talented pool.

Alabama & Auburn would bitterly fight over the local crop. Even splitting the 'bama kids they would still be somewhat competitive.

South Carolina & Virginia would be similar to 'Bama, Penn & MI...each has decent talent with two teams fighting over them.

Tennessee would still be competitive although they would take a hit.

There aren't enough kids to feed NC, NC State, Duke & East Carolina.

Washington & Washington St would re-emerge while Oregon & Oregon St would go bye bye.

Nebraska, Kansas & Kansas St would cease to exist competitively.

Oklahoma would fare better than the above but would still take a major hit without the Texas kids.

All three of the Indiana teams (IU, Purdue & ND) would be decimated (ie the other two would turn into the Hoosiers).

No more BYU.

West Virginia, Kentucky & Louisville would disappear even more completely than the Huskers, Jayhawks & Wildcats.


Regarding the State of Ohio specifically....unless one team could step up behind Ohio State (Cincy maybe due to conference affiliation) the other in State schools would probably be a bit better but there are far too many of them and the talent would still be diluted by the sheer numbers.

Kent, Akron, Ohio, Miami, Toledo, Bowling Green & Cincy are a pretty large group to be picking over the Buckeye leftovers.

While the Ohio talent is top shelf there is nowhere near the depth to support that many programs unlike Texas, Florida & Cali.

 

[stxbuck]

Winners-Penn St.,Rutgers,Missouri,all the Carolina schools-they get raided quite a bit-North and South,Georgia/Georgia Tech,Alabama

Losers-Nebraska,ND,Oklahoma,Tennessee-big time,scUM,Auburn-they depend on OOS recruiting more than Alabama does

no impact/already happens-tOSU,Texas schools,USC,UCLA,Florida schools-Miami and Florida State would benefit more than Florida

 

[RB07OSU]

Texas would have benefited from it this year, due to Oklahoma stealing a bunch of top talent.

 

[Zurp]

I think a lot of this has to depend on your definition of "benefit" is. Are you only benefited if you win your conference? Or if you do better than you are currently doing? I think there are a lot of teams that would do better than they currently are doing, but may not win their conferences, still. For instance, I haven't heard much from Mississippi or Mississippi State lately. Since I know very little about them, I'm going to guess it's because neither has done well lately. I would also guess that Mississippi is a decent place for football recruiting. One of those schools, I would think, would improve if the in-state players were forced to pick one or the other. (One would eventually out-recruit the other, and would basically own the state.)

I think USC would top my list of most hurt. However, I think that they'd be a top program in the country. Of course, this opinion is based on knowing no facts about USC, except for the fact that they have something like 1/4 of all 5-star recruits over the past 4 years. They basically own the country right now. Whoever they want, they get to USC. Start this rule, and they have to limit their search to just California players. The California players will still win them a bunch of games, but they won't have all the players they currently have.

I'd say that Ohio State would be pretty good, and Penn State. Neither would have to battle for recruits. Texas, I think, would be able to win most battles for the in-state players, and might battle USC every year. (Note: I think USC would pretty much get whoever they want in California, so they'd still rock.) I don't see much change in Alabama/Auburn, since I heard somewhere that they already have a wall built around the state - no player from Alabama gets out of the state. I would think that one of the three Florida teams would win most in-state recruiting battles (eventually) and dominate that state, and would challenge Texas and USC for national champions. I'm probably missing a big recruiting state. Georgia? I would imagine that Georgia would dominate that state.

I would guess that the teams in the top ten every year would actually change very little.

Edit - stxbuck's note about Auburn is different from mine. I'll guess that he's right - Alabama and Auburn recruit more out of state than I had thought.

 

[ProudBuck67]

Wouldn't it depend also on number of schollies available? Take our year for instance, would we be able to get all the top tier talent, when you can only give out 17 - 20? With limited scholarships, the availability of playing time becomes important for a young man, that is why we are seeing the rise in the Non-BCS conferences. Why go to the big boys when you can play early and still get exposure with a smaller team. Same would go in Texas and California. Eventually the big boys run out of playing time, and with so many other schools to choose from, they migrate to them. So the Texas A&M's, Houston's, Cal's, UCLA's,... start to become stronger. This is happening now with out of state recruiting, so why wouldn't it happen when your geographical area is limited? College powerhouses will be cyclical it has shown itself to be over the last few years, eventually USC will fall out of favor with recruits, you can't have 35 5* RB's forever and still get the next bunch, or can Petey?

GO BUCKS!

 

[Zurp]

Wouldn't it depend also on number of schollies available? Take our year for instance, would we be able to get all the top tier talent, when you can only give out 17 - 20? With limited scholarships, the availability of playing time becomes important for a young man, that is why we are seeing the rise in the Non-BCS conferences. Why go to the big boys when you can play early and still get exposure with a smaller team. Same would go in Texas and California. Eventually the big boys run out of playing time, and with so many other schools to choose from, they migrate to them. So the Texas A&M's, Houston's, Cal's, UCLA's,... start to become stronger. This is happening now with out of state recruiting, so why wouldn't it happen when your geographical area is limited? College powerhouses will be cyclical it has shown itself to be over the last few years, eventually USC will fall out of favor with recruits, you can't have 35 5* RB's forever and still get the next bunch, or can Petey?

GO BUCKS!

I agree that it would be cyclical. But I think it would change more because of the actual talent of each recruiting class. Just like an NFL draft class has "up" and "down" years, so would recruiting classes out of a particular state.

I also think you wouldn't get EVERY great prospect out of your state, if you're that state's power football team. Take Ohio State, for example. Even if they had roster spots for 25 players, they wouldn't get the top 25 players from Ohio. But I think they would get 25 of the top 50. Those are the players who know that they can be part of a great team, and they probably won't get there anytime soon, but they'll get there with enough hard work. Those players will be sold on the NFL potential and the history of the team and everything that makes Ohio State Ohio State. The remaining 25 players in the top 50, and everyone below that, will go to the other 7 Div-IA teams. I'd guess that Cincinnati will get most of those, based on being in a BCS conference. Those players would be, like you said, interested in creating an impact NOW. They'll get the opportunity to play sooner. They want to be the big man, even if that means being the big man on the smaller campus.

The big-time teams in each state will still "win" when it comes to recruiting battles.

 

[buckeyebri]

I would also be curious to see the impact this would have on scheduling in-state schools. If OSU continues to play more in state schools along the way, those games could get even tougher than they currently tend to be.

Of course, not considered in any of this is the kids desire to go to a particular school based on field of study, family ties, etc....