I'm trying to be nice without saying your chart is bull ****.

https://thespun.com/nfl/graphic-the-10-u...fl-players

As of 2020:

Florida 194
Texas 192
Cal 170
Georgia 134
Ohio 71
Bama 60, PA 60
La 59, NC 59
NJ 57

(06-29-2021 02:36 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Where did you get your unattributed map?

...Obviously what you posted is wrong or it's pertaining to all NFL players over the last 100 years. Why don't you tell us where you got it.

I don't have a doctorate in Demography per se, but the ONLY way your map is accurate is for it to represent where NFL players list their current addresses or it's a map of the origins of players over the last 80-100 years.

Sorry it took so long for me to reply - I was working.

I found it after a quick Google search (I know, I know). Anyway, here it is (from 2012):

http://thedailyviz.com/2012/04/

Quote:Mapping The NFL: Where Do Its Players Come From?
By Matt Stiles | April 19, 2012 | Topics: Sports
I stumbled upon an interesting data set that lists the home states of more than 20,000 NFL players in history. I wondered: Do some states send a disproportionate amount of players to the pros?

This map shows which mainland states produced the most NFL players. As one might expect, it looks like a population map. Texas and California, the nation’s two most-populous states, produced the most players — more than 2,000 apiece. Vermont, which trails only the District of Columbia and Wyoming in population as of the 2010 Census, produced the fewest players

The obvious difference is your data is 5 years younger.

(06-29-2021 04:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The obvious difference is your data is 5 years younger.

The difference is his data is current NFL players and your data is all 20,000 players that had ever played in the NFL up until 2012. Demographics for football were much different 50 years ago.

(06-29-2021 04:50 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 04:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The obvious difference is your data is 5 years younger.

The difference is his data is current NFL players and your data is all 20,000 players that had ever played in the NFL up until 2012. Demographics for football were much different 50 years ago.

Well, curse my quick and dirty Google search!

That's the last time I argue sports with you guys (today).

(06-29-2021 04:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 02:36 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Where did you get your unattributed map?

...Obviously what you posted is wrong or it's pertaining to all NFL players over the last 100 years. Why don't you tell us where you got it.

I don't have a doctorate in Demography per se, but the ONLY way your map is accurate is for it to represent where NFL players list their current addresses or it's a map of the origins of players over the last 80-100 years.

Sorry it took so long for me to reply - I was working.

I found it after a quick Google search (I know, I know). Anyway, here it is (from 2012):

http://thedailyviz.com/2012/04/

Quote:Mapping The NFL: Where Do Its Players Come From?
By Matt Stiles | April 19, 2012 | Topics: Sports
I stumbled upon an interesting data set that lists the home states of more than 20,000 NFL players in history. I wondered: Do some states send a disproportionate amount of players to the pros?

This map shows which mainland states produced the most NFL players. As one might expect, it looks like a population map. Texas and California, the nation’s two most-populous states, produced the most players — more than 2,000 apiece. Vermont, which trails only the District of Columbia and Wyoming in population as of the 2010 Census, produced the fewest players

The obvious difference is your data is 5 years younger.

It would only be five years younger if it were comparing players on 2012 rosters to players on 2017 rosters. The 2012 data includes players who were on 1950 rosters.

(07-01-2021 01:18 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 04:31 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(06-29-2021 02:36 PM)Statefan Wrote:  Where did you get your unattributed map?

...Obviously what you posted is wrong or it's pertaining to all NFL players over the last 100 years. Why don't you tell us where you got it.

I don't have a doctorate in Demography per se, but the ONLY way your map is accurate is for it to represent where NFL players list their current addresses or it's a map of the origins of players over the last 80-100 years.

Sorry it took so long for me to reply - I was working.

I found it after a quick Google search (I know, I know). Anyway, here it is (from 2012):

http://thedailyviz.com/2012/04/

Quote:Mapping The NFL: Where Do Its Players Come From?
By Matt Stiles | April 19, 2012 | Topics: Sports
I stumbled upon an interesting data set that lists the home states of more than 20,000 NFL players in history. I wondered: Do some states send a disproportionate amount of players to the pros?

This map shows which mainland states produced the most NFL players. As one might expect, it looks like a population map. Texas and California, the nation’s two most-populous states, produced the most players — more than 2,000 apiece. Vermont, which trails only the District of Columbia and Wyoming in population as of the 2010 Census, produced the fewest players

The obvious difference is your data is 5 years younger.

It would only be five years younger if it were comparing players on 2012 rosters to players on 2017 rosters. The 2012 data includes players who were on 1950 rosters.

This shows that the much discussed demographic change is real, at least for a long term. I guess this is another reason not to add UConn. The trend does not look good.

Adding UConn a a partial member makes zero sense for the ACC. And I know that some posters fantasize about Texas coming in as a partial. That might make some sense for the ACC but zero sense for Texas.

If I were willing to have more partial members in the ACC, I would try to find a way to persuade Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College and Syracuse to take a deal. If they would be willing to take a half share of the media contract payout and the expected increase in the CFP contract if they go to 12 teams, those four could still get about $30 million a year from the ACC plus what they could get as members of a new eastern FBS football only conference.

The remaining 10 ACC football members would increase their media distribution by about 20% plus the potential CFP increase.

I would guarantee Duke and Wake annual games against UNC, NC State and Virginia, and would give BC games against Virginia Tech, Notre Dame and Miami, while Syracuse would get Notre Dame and Pitt every year and would have room for a home/home vs West Virginia. Both would have five home/home games along with two buy games.

The new conference I would propose would include BC, Syracuse, Army, Navy, UConn, UMass, Temple and Liberty.

None of this will ever happen, of course, but neither will UConn or UT to the ACC.

To weigh in on the OP, UConn as a partial is a terrible idea. If we ever lose a member then there would be pressure on the existing members to add UConn for football too. Then we miss out on getting an up and coming program like Cincy (who also has good basketball) and get stuck with UConn's worst in FBS football program.

If the ACC loses 6 programs (keeping ND as a partial) we could add WVU, Cincy, Temple and one of Memphis/Houston/UCF to get back to 12. I'm not sure UConn even gets in if the ACC loses 8 members. And if the B12 falls apart too, many of those programs would be chosen over AAC schools.

(07-04-2021 12:28 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  To weigh in on the OP, UConn as a partial is a terrible idea. If we ever lose a member then there would be pressure on the existing members to add UConn for football too. Then we miss out on getting an up and coming program like Cincy (who also has good basketball) and get stuck with UConn's worst in FBS football program.

If the ACC loses 6 programs (keeping ND as a partial) we could add WVU, Cincy, Temple and one of Memphis/Houston/UCF to get back to 12. I'm not sure UConn even gets in if the ACC loses 8 members. And if the B12 falls apart too, many of those programs would be chosen over AAC schools.

I see 7 with a fairly equal chance of jumping ship: Clemson, Duke, Florida St, North Carolina, North Carolina St, Virginia, and Virginia Tech.

Add in 5: Central Florida, Cincinnati, Memphis, South Florida, and West Virginia.

North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
South: Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Memphis, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest

If back to 14 is the goal, add Temple to the North and Houston to the South.

(07-04-2021 08:38 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(07-04-2021 12:28 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  To weigh in on the OP, UConn as a partial is a terrible idea. If we ever lose a member then there would be pressure on the existing members to add UConn for football too. Then we miss out on getting an up and coming program like Cincy (who also has good basketball) and get stuck with UConn's worst in FBS football program.

If the ACC loses 6 programs (keeping ND as a partial) we could add WVU, Cincy, Temple and one of Memphis/Houston/UCF to get back to 12. I'm not sure UConn even gets in if the ACC loses 8 members. And if the B12 falls apart too, many of those programs would be chosen over AAC schools.

I see 7 with a fairly equal chance of jumping ship: Clemson, Duke, Florida St, North Carolina, North Carolina St, Virginia, and Virginia Tech.

Add in 5: Central Florida, Cincinnati, Memphis, South Florida, and West Virginia.

North: Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, West Virginia
South: Central Florida, Georgia Tech, Memphis, Miami, South Florida, Wake Forest

If back to 14 is the goal, add Temple to the North and Houston to the South.

So.... you don't have UConn in the ACC either.

Interesting you don't think GT has any options or desire to leave. They were mentioned as a possible B1G addition back before the GoR. Atlanta is a very desirable region even if it is UGA first.

(07-04-2021 01:27 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  So.... you don't have UConn in the ACC either.

Interesting you don't think GT has any options or desire to leave. They were mentioned as a possible B1G addition back before the GoR. Atlanta is a very desirable region even if it is UGA first.

I'm sure the big wigs in Birmingham and Indianapolis are salivating over playing in Wallace Wade Outdoor and all the negative income that will bring.

(07-04-2021 12:28 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  To weigh in on the OP, UConn as a partial is a terrible idea. If we ever lose a member then there would be pressure on the existing members to add UConn for football too. Then we miss out on getting an up and coming program like Cincy (who also has good basketball) and get stuck with UConn's worst in FBS football program..

^^^^
This!!!

(07-03-2021 06:38 PM)ken d Wrote:  Adding UConn a a partial member makes zero sense for the ACC. And I know that some posters fantasize about Texas coming in as a partial. That might make some sense for the ACC but zero sense for Texas.

If I were willing to have more partial members in the ACC, I would try to find a way to persuade Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College and Syracuse to taks a deal. If they would be willing to take a half share of the media contract payout and the expected increase in the CFP contract if they go to 12 teams, those four could still get about $30 million a year from the ACC plus what they could get as members of a new eastern FBS football only conference.

The remaining 10 ACC football members would increase their media distribution by about 20% plus the potential CFP increase.

I would guarantee Duke and Wake annual games against UNC, NC State and Virginia, and would give BC games against Virginia Tech, Notre Dame and Miami, while Syracuse would get Notre Dame and Pitt every year and would have room for a home/home vs West Virginia. Both would have five home/home games along with two buy games.

The new conference I would propose would include BC, Syracuse, Army, Navy, UConn, UMass, Temple and Liberty.

None of this will ever happen, of course, but neither will UConn or UT to the ACC.

Interesting editorial. But, misplaced in this thread.

Did Jim Calhoun return to Connecticut and I missed it?