Basketball Talent by State

[jeffto]

This NOT scientific but interesting.

If you take the 96 US raised players on the Rivals' Position Rankings (see Yahoo) and index them by state based on population here are the top 10 states for producing high quality college basketball players (4 players are from out of the country: all centers)

Top 10 (State,# players, Index): DC, 1, 469%; AK, 1, 406%; LA, 5, 317%; WV, 2, 299%; IN, 6, 259%; AL, 4, 237%; OR, 3, 221%; HI, 1, 212%; MD, 4, 194%; TN, 3, 135%

Bottom 10: OK, 1, 76%; VA, 2, 71%; TX, 6, 69%; CA, 9, 67%; PA, 3, 66%; KY, 1, 65%; SC, 1, 63%; MN, 1, 53%; FL, 2, 30%; GA, 1, 29%

For those of you who flunked Stats, an index of 100% (average) would indicate that the state is represented proportionally based on the state's population. Ohio is average (96%).

To me the surprises are at the bottom. Florida and Georgia!

Limitations: Small sample size, only current players ranked (but from 4 years of high school graduates).

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

This NOT scientific but interesting.

If you take the 96 US raised players on the Rivals' Position Rankings (see Yahoo) and index them by state based on population here are the top 10 states for producing high quality college basketball players (4 players are from out of the country: all centers)

Top 10 (State,# players, Index): DC, 1, 469%; AK, 1, 406%; LA, 5, 317%; WV, 2, 299%; IN, 6, 259%; AL, 4, 237%; OR, 3, 221%; HI, 1, 212%; MD, 4, 194%; TN, 3, 135%

Bottom 10: OK, 1, 76%; VA, 2, 71%; TX, 6, 69%; CA, 9, 67%; PA, 3, 66%; KY, 1, 65%; SC, 1, 63%; MN, 1, 53%; FL, 2, 30%; GA, 1, 29%

For those of you who flunked Stats, an index of 100% (average) would indicate that the state is represented proportionally based on the state's population. Ohio is average (96%).

To me the surprises are at the bottom. Florida and Georgia!

Limitations: Small sample size, only current players ranked (but from 4 years of high school graduates).

One more reason to ignore Rivals player ratings. I'd bet recruiters don't use an analysis like this.

[jeffto]

One more reason to ignore Rivals player ratings. I'd bet recruiters don't use an analysis like this.
Why would they? Only an ***** would think this useful for recruiting. These are not recruits. I thought I made that clear.

These are current players. This represents a very subjective assessment of where the best current players are from. Rivals may be off on a player here or there but that doesn't make the whole list wrong.

Whatever happened to gray. For some there is only black or white. They're not intelligent enough to know that the world doesn't work that way.

[red_n_black_attack]

Louisiana, Maryland, and the Hoosier state jump out. Any state can be expected to have 1 (Alaska, D.C.) or 2 (WV). But when you get a few more than that and a high index, then it may be considered more of a trend. :)

[Bp4thebest]

it doesnt matter where they are from this year.. doesnt matter which states traditionally send out more talent.. if a guy can play in indiana in a given year go after him.. if a guy from oklahoma can play go after him.. yeah some states are bigger in basketball with better talent but if a guy can play go get him.. alot of teams tend to go after the samw areas.. uc use to always have a player from texas... but i say just go after a player wherever he is

[jeffto]

it doesnt matter where they are from this year.. doesnt matter which states traditionally send out more talent.. if a guy can play in indiana in a given year go after him.. if a guy from oklahoma can play go after him.. yeah some states are bigger in basketball with better talent but if a guy can play go get him.. alot of teams tend to go after the samw areas.. uc use to always have a player from texas... but i say just go after a player wherever he is You're exactly right. You've got to go after the best player.

The list shows where the current cream of the crop came from. As the mutual funds say: "past performance is not indicative of future results. etc."