Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hey, they have something that goes down annually called the CaliFlorida Bowl. They pit the best HS Football players from Florida against the best from California.
Yeah, blame it on laws that ceased to exist 46 years ago. These kid's parents weren't even born then. What a laugher.
It's true. Back in the 60s, 70s and even 80s, black athletes were not messing with programs like Ole Miss like they are now. At least not the best ones anyway. I think I read in Sports Illustrated that Bear Bryant's Crimson Tide got crushed by some school back in the day and he was quoted as saying, "We need to integrate." It's really no coincidence that southern schools are winning all of the national championships these days.
It's really simple. For all of the NFL playes California produces, they should be winning national titles at least every other year. Alabama and Louisiana are much smaller states, but yet their programs stay winning even when doing most of their recruiting in-state.
In the 14 seasons the BCS has been around, the Champ has come from the South and/or Florida. I remember that B.S. game when Ohio State beat Miami by taking out McGahee's knee. What does it say when Ohio St. is ranked number one and then gets demolished by the No. 2 team (Florida) 41-14?
Nah. OSU was the better team than Miami in 2002. But as far as BCS champions. Look at it this way. If your state doesn't have Interstate 10 running through it lately, you're not winning a championship. Follow me here.
2005- Texas
2006- Florida
2007- LSU
2008- Florida
2009-Alabama
2010 - Auburn
2011 - LSU or Alabama
For good measure -2004 USC and 2001 Miami and 1999 Florida State. Coincidence? Maybe.
It's really simple. For all of the NFL playes California produces, they should be winning national titles at least every other year. Alabama and Louisiana are much smaller states, but yet their programs stay winning even when doing most of their recruiting in-state.
Are you insane? Why don't you try reading what I wrote earlier.
If you can't handle reading that much, let me break it down to you in a few simple bullet points.
-The NHL outdraws the MLS in attendance by a factor of about 4:1, 21million+ to 5.5 million.
-The NHL's highest rated television broadcast last year surpassed 7 million.
-The MLS's highest rated television broadcast failed to break 1 million and that broadcast was it's championship game, a rating which was bested on another station which rebroadcasted an EPL game that had occurred earlier that morning.
-The NHL in hockey markets like Philadelphia, Boston, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, etc, the local NHL telecast is regularly the highest rated cable broadcast of the day, and keep in mind, Philadelphia and Boston are respectively the 4th and 5th largest media markets in the country. That's a lot of people watching the NHL.
-The MLS in comparison has team that don't even have all of their games televised in their local markets, and when they are televised they are actually regularly outdrawn by the WNBA!
Bottom line, if you think the MLS is anywhere near the NHL as the 4th most popular league in this country, you're sadly mistaken. The MLS is not even the most popular soccer league in this country, the EPL gets much higher ratings.
And as far your ridiculous talk about people in the NE not being about to play sports because of weather, and how California is dominant or whatever, you just sound ridiculous. You're misinformed and childish.
As you can see California has produced A LOT of pro sports athletes. However they also have by far the most people living there, so that makes sense.
More telling is how many athletes a state produces proportionally by population. 11.91% of Americans live in California, so you would expect them to produce 11.91% of the professional athletes in this country. In fact thought he only sport where they exceed their expected contribution is baseball where they produce 12.86% of all american born MLB players. IN EVERY OTHER SPORT THEY PRODUCE LESS THAN THEY SHOULD PROPORTIONALLY. INCLUDING THE NFL.
Much more impressive than California? My state Pennsylvania. Only 4.06% of the population lives here and yet my state has produced 8.8% of baseball players in this country more than twice the amount you would expect, and they also produced 5.57% of NBA players, also exceeding their expected output here.
So honestly give it a rest. Most of the posters from California are among the most level headed and intelligent on this board. You're giving them all a bad name with your misinformed rantings.
I'm glad you refered to that thread. Apparently, you missed this:
NOTATIONS It's important to note that many of the sunbelt states disproportionately don't have athletes from their state. This is because up until the last 30 years, many of these states didn't have the same proportion of the US population as they have today. For example, Florida went from having 2.76% of the US population in 1960 to 6.01% of the US population in 2010. In the most extreme case, Nevada went from 0.16% of the US population to 0.85% today! Keep this in mind when you're interpreting the statistics.
I.e.: CA has produced 9.49% of the four major professional sports despite CA not being more than 9.49% of the population before 1970. IOW: the numbers from CA currently playing their respective sports and reflected in that analysis were drawn from a lower state percentage of the total population that CA currently represents. In application: CA accounts for just over 13% of all players in the NFL, just a little over its weight. California Is An NFL Player-Producing Factory - Business Insider
But I like the fact you insult my intelligence. Calling me childish was cool also.
The number of athletes from CA roughly correlates with its population. It’s a consequence of a very large state and its sample size. That is stipulated.
I know this upsets you, but I’ll return, again, to my original question: relative to the South and CA, why does the NE, as region with a MASSIVE sample size, under-produce in the nation’s two most popular sports?
Now that black athletes are choosing to go to schools like Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Georgia and South Carolina, Cali schools can kiss those winning days goodbye.
And if we ever get uppity, ya'll can get the NCAA to knee-cap the program.
It's really simple. For all of the NFL playes California produces, they should be winning national titles at least every other year. Alabama and Louisiana are much smaller states, but yet their programs stay winning even when doing most of their recruiting in-state.
It's really not that simple though. California is alot like Texas in this regard. California, like Texas, has a huge amount of FBS schools in the state. Not to mention that they have a good amount of FCS schools. Pac 12 schools, like Big 12 schools, leach off of California athletes to field winning teams. The Oregon and Washington schools have been successful because they dipped into California. Look at Boise State's roster? You think they came from Idaho? Nearly all or at least most of the best players come from California. FSU, Miami, and Florida, which dominated college football from 1983-2008 with mostly primarily Florida athletes, is about to go through the same thing as the Texas and California schools.
Alabama has two schools in FBS. Not that much quantity of talent so they also have to go across the borders to get players. LSU has more talent than Alabama but only one school runs that state. That's why it's easier for them to contend for national titles compared to say, Arkansas, who is the only FBS program in it's state but has little amount of talent compared to Louisiana and especially Texas. But even LSU, with the big pool Louisiana is, still has to leave to get some talent. Texas rarely has to do that. USC rarely has to do that. Florida rarely has to do that. LSU doesn't need to but they do it for needs as certain positions. Arkansas's and Oregon's have to leave the state and recruit the closest state where the talent is richer.
It's really simple. For all of the NFL playes California produces, they should be winning national titles at least every other year. Alabama and Louisiana are much smaller states, but yet their programs stay winning even when doing most of their recruiting in-state.
Total numbers favor the South as a region. CA merely punches its weight, with a relatively smaller AA population in a largely "non-rural" region where football is hardly a religion.
I'm looking to explain the NE.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
