(08-05-2014 02:51 PM)Saint3333 Wrote:  I would think the number of D1 football recruits would be more relevant than NFL players for this discussion.

yes, what does NFL players have to do with FBS football recruits.

I think the per capita numbers are more relevant in terms of determining the "Number 1" state. just my .02

(08-05-2014 02:47 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  these are 2013 numbers. best i could google in a short time. if we want to determine 'best' i'd think we'd go by NFL. by NFL number texas AIN'T number 1.

but nice try.

So... on a college message board where we are talking recruiting and talent rich, you decide to forgo the logical grouping, which is D1 recruits, and jump to the NFL?

Nooooo.... no bias on your part.

(08-05-2014 03:11 PM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  I think the per capita numbers are more relevant in terms of determining the "Number 1" state. just my .02

Why?

You are measuring quantity. Would a rich man who is 7 ft tall be any less rich than a 5ft tall person with the same amount of money?

Or better yet, would a guy that inherited millions and turned it into billions be any less rich than a guy that started from nothing and had billions?

No. This is simple numbers: Texas has more D1 recruits. They have, by virtue of simple mathematics, the deepest and richest talent pool out there.

Geez, this wasn't even meant to be a serious point of contention... Just something to shift away from the "you guys suck, no you do!" and now it's that all over again!!!!

(08-05-2014 03:44 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 02:47 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  these are 2013 numbers. best i could google in a short time. if we want to determine 'best' i'd think we'd go by NFL. by NFL number texas AIN'T number 1.

but nice try.

So... on a college message board where we are talking recruiting and talent rich, you decide to forgo the logical grouping, which is D1 recruits, and jump to the NFL?

Nooooo.... no bias on your part.

actually the discussion was on how bad the cusa sucks in comparison to the sunbelt.

the discussion 'veered' into the best football talent. someone said flarda. you countered texas. georgia got mentions.

where would my 'bias' come from? i was born in flarda, spent most of my life in the commonwealth of kentucky.

the ultimate measure of talent is who gets paid to do it. and i'm not talking about the sec. i believe the 'best' football talent ultimately resides in the nfl.

i'm sorry that cali producing more pros doesn't fit your texas sized 'bias' rev. you don't want the per capita folks to make their claim. you want it pigeonholed into making texas the victor. i'm fine with that. i understand people being wrong due to their passion. i'll stick with nfl and let you believe more talent resides in d1.

(08-05-2014 03:46 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  Geez, this wasn't even meant to be a serious point of contention... Just something to shift away from the "you guys suck, no you do!" and now it's that all over again!!!!

Says the guy basically insisting he's indisputably correct....

(08-05-2014 04:16 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:46 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  Geez, this wasn't even meant to be a serious point of contention... Just something to shift away from the "you guys suck, no you do!" and now it's that all over again!!!!

Says the guy basically insisting he's indisputably correct....

I think this phrase suits you best:

Aim low, Sheriff, they're riding Shetlands.

(08-05-2014 04:14 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  the discussion 'veered' into the best football talent. someone said flarda. you countered texas. georgia got mentions.

No, no one was talking best football talent. The point of contention was "deepest" and "richest" talent pool in all of college recruiting. (don't believe me? Check the post I quoted that started this).

You then decided to change the criteria to "get those mean ol' Texans" or whatever the hell you're doing.

If you're going to try and be indignant, at least make sure you are correct first. SHEESH.

(08-05-2014 04:36 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 04:14 PM)dahbeed Wrote:  the discussion 'veered' into the best football talent. someone said flarda. you countered texas. georgia got mentions.

No, no one was talking best football talent. The point of contention was "deepest" and "richest" talent pool in all of college recruiting. (don't believe me? Check the post I quoted that started this).

You then decided to change the criteria to "get those mean ol' Texans" or whatever the hell you're doing.

If you're going to try and be indignant, at least make sure you are correct first. SHEESH.

you have awful thin skin for a texan. and a napoleanic complex towards cali.

i'm too raw to be indignant. i've been called many things over the years but indignant has never been one.

let's agree texas is a good football state but california is better. nothing wrong with number 2.

all better now.

maybe ya'll have the best peewee football....i swear i think i saw a tv show on texas peewee football one time. but BEST football (not high school, not college, not d1 college) resides in the golden state. and it's not really close by the numbers.

yee haw!

Simplistic response... I know I shouldn't have expected more, but I did.

Mea culpa.

https://www.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1182411

In 2011, Florida had 344 signees. Texas had 345. Hardly worth this back and forth banter.

(08-05-2014 04:33 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 04:16 PM)MTPiKapp Wrote:  

(08-05-2014 03:46 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  Geez, this wasn't even meant to be a serious point of contention... Just something to shift away from the "you guys suck, no you do!" and now it's that all over again!!!!

Says the guy basically insisting he's indisputably correct....

I think this phrase suits you best:

Aim low, Sheriff, they're riding Shetlands.

I'm very concerned with what you think suits me best I promise.