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.
I think people from outside the South don't quite get just how intense the love of football is in that region. Granted, that's not always a good thing, as it probably comes at the expense of education, but that's another thread. The bottom line here is, the south loves its football, and that's why the Southeastern Conference is so passionate and committed to building winning programs. I remember being in South Louisiana during the lean years of LSU, and it was ugly. Talk radio hosts suffered from chronic high blood pressure, wondering when LSU was going to turn its program around. I mean, these are the fans who wanted to fire Les Miles who had already won the national title, just because he lost a close game or two with a sophomore QB. I'm sure it's no different in Tuscaloosa, Knoxville, Starkville, Columbia, Athens, or Gainsville.
There are other parts of the country that have a good, strong football tradition. No doubt, Texas and Oklahoma are about as intense when it comes to their football as any group of folks you'd find in the south. I get that, and I respect their fans. I think you'd probably be able to say the same about coal miner country in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio. After all, that area did produce Joe Namath, Joe Montana, and tough guys like Matt Millen.
The real difference maker, as the article points out, is the talent. There's just so much home-grown talent in the south. As politically sensitive and incorrect as it might be to point out, I would suspect that it probably has to do with the fact that there are more African American athletes who play football. I might be off base, but when you track the progress of athletes, most of the ones with the combination of strength, quickness, and agility to play the game are African American, and the Deep South just has more of them.
As politically sensitive and incorrect as it might be to point out, I would suspect that it probably has to do with the fact that there are more African American athletes who play football. I might be off base, but when you track the progress of athletes, most of the ones with the combination of strength, quickness, and agility to play the game are African American, and the Deep South just has more of them.
You are dead on.
No one should be sensitive to that... If they are they are in denial. I wrote about this last year in a thread and got some flack for it. But it's strikingly obvious that the south is better because of slave trade breeding. the SEc schools are benefiting from this homegrown talent now. Back when other conferences dominated the SEC was not fully integrated and many black players had to go to HBCU's and Big 10 and Big 8 schools. Now that the SEC schools can recruit ALL of the top talent it's showing. if people wanna get offended by that so be it but its a fact... a painful fact for the rest of the country!
No one should be sensitive to that... If they are they are in denial. I wrote about this last year in a thread and got some flack for it. But it's strikingly obvious that the south is better because of slave trade breeding. the SEc schools are benefiting from this homegrown talent now. Back when other conferences dominated the SEC was not fully integrated and many black players had to go to HBCU's and Big 10 and Big 8 schools. Now that the SEC schools can recruit ALL of the top talent it's showing. if people wanna get offended by that so be it but its a fact... a painful fact for the rest of the country!
Yeah, I certainly don't mean that to be racist or anything, and I don't think anyone else does when they point that out either. It's sensitive to discuss differences between races, but that's just my opinion - if it's wrong, hey, it's wrong.
It's not like I'm saying that they're good just because they're black. They have to train just like anyone else, and the vast majority aren't qualified to be college or pro-level players, just like players of any ethnicity. But how else, for instance, can you explain why there have been absolutely, positively no - zero, none, zilch - corners in the NFL since Jason Sehorn left the game? And he was a well-documented, much-celebrated novelty even in his day. Even he acknowledged that it was rare for someone to have the speed and agility to be able to play that position. You will occasionally see a white safety because a safety is not playing in isolation against an opposing player; he's calling secondary formations and assisting in pass coverage and run or short pass tackling. A different skill set. But even there, white players are in the minority. I don't think it's a fluke. Running backs and receivers also typically tend to be black, because of speed.
The real difference maker, as the article points out, is the talent. There's just so much home-grown talent in the south. As politically sensitive and incorrect as it might be to point out, I would suspect that it probably has to do with the fact that there are more African American athletes who play football. I might be off base, but when you track the progress of athletes, most of the ones with the combination of strength, quickness, and agility to play the game are African American, and the Deep South just has more of them.
You said what everyone else was thinking. Everyone knows black people are on average superior athletes. There is a reason why Peyton Hillis was the first white guy in like 25 years to rush for 1000 yards...and why WRs like Wes Welker and Jordy Nelson are oddities. The southeast has the highest concentration of black people, and since nationwide the trend is that most recruits tend to stay close to home, that provides a natural advantage for the SEC.
Fertility rates are generally higher in the South than they are in the Northeast and Midwest. That provides a larger stream of potential talent, and the excitement for college football that's a pillar of Southern culture harnesses that potential and turns the SEC colleges into veritable football factories.
Another thing to consider is demographic phasing. The players in college football today were born between 1989 and 1993, which are the years in the shadow of the economic collapse of the early and mid-1980's in the Northeast and Midwest. Economies of the more heavily industrialized parts of each region began to atrophy at the same time that economies in the South began to flex their muscles. This explains why so many people from the Northeast and Midwest moved to the South during the 1980's and 1990's.
States like Ohio and Michigan began an economic roller coaster ride in the early 1980's that went down more than up, and has only bottomed out within the last five years, while Pennsylvania just went into an absolute free fall after which it bottomed out hard in the 1990's, and didn't begin to recover from until the 2000's. As a result, the talent pools shrunk in each state as many families with young children relocated to the South, and fertility rates among those who remained dropped dramatically. At the same time, the "New South" was taking in displaced potential talent from the Northeast and Midwest, and that, combined with more black football players committing to colleges in the South, helped greatly enhance the SEC's profile during the 1990's.
Today, the disparity between the SEC and the Big Ten can primarily be explained by demographic changes that occurred in the United States 20 years ago. The Big Ten wasn't always this downtrodden. It was still a very powerful, dominant conference through the early 2000's. Why? Because college football players in 2000 were all born between 1978 and 1982, right before the economic collapse that devastated large parts of the Northeast and Midwest, and ultimately created a diaspora into the South. The party ended for the Big Ten in the mid-2000's as abruptly as the economy collapsed in large parts of the Northeast and Midwest in the early to mid-1980's.
Unfortunately, I see the 2010's being a relatively lean decade for Big Ten football as a result of those demographic forces, and it probably won't begin its return to prominence until the 2020's, when children born in recently resurgent states like Pennsylvania reach college age. Ride the wave while it lasts, SEC.
Fertility rates are generally higher in the South than they are in the Northeast and Midwest. That provides a larger stream of potential talent, and the excitement for college football that's a pillar of Southern culture harnesses that potential and turns the SEC colleges into veritable football factories.
Another thing to consider is demographic phasing. The players in college football today were born between 1989 and 1993, which are the years in the shadow of the economic collapse of the early and mid-1980's in the Northeast and Midwest. Economies of the more heavily industrialized parts of each region began to atrophy at the same time that economies in the South began to flex their muscles. This explains why so many people from the Northeast and Midwest moved to the South during the 1980's and 1990's.
States like Ohio and Michigan began an economic roller coaster ride in the early 1980's that went down more than up, and has only bottomed out within the last five years, while Pennsylvania just went into an absolute free fall after which it bottomed out hard in the 1990's, and didn't begin to recover from until the 2000's. As a result, the talent pools shrunk in each state as many families with young children relocated to the South, and fertility rates among those who remained dropped dramatically. At the same time, the "New South" was taking in displaced potential talent from the Northeast and Midwest, and that, combined with more black football players committing to colleges in the South, helped greatly enhance the SEC's profile during the 1990's.
Today, the disparity between the SEC and the Big Ten can primarily be explained by demographic changes that occurred in the United States 20 years ago. The Big Ten wasn't always this downtrodden. It was still a very powerful, dominant conference through the early 2000's. Why? Because college football players in 2000 were all born between 1978 and 1982, right before the economic collapse that devastated large parts of the Northeast and Midwest, and ultimately created a diaspora into the South. The party ended for the Big Ten in the mid-2000's as abruptly as the economy collapsed in large parts of the Northeast and Midwest in the early to mid-1980's.
Unfortunately, I see the 2010's being a relatively lean decade for Big Ten football as a result of those demographic forces, and it probably won't begin its return to prominence until the 2020's, when children born in recently resurgent states like Pennsylvania reach college age. Ride the wave while it lasts, SEC.
The Big 10 is down because of the economic collapse? The economy is bad in the south too...
and you believe that the SEC players come from family's that migrated south? where's this proof?
And what dominance are you talking about in the early 2000's? because Ohio State won a Natty that makes them dominant?
This article sounds like a lot of excuses that have nothing to do with football...
The Big 12 and Pac 10 were both been more powerful than the Big 10 in the early 2000's.... I think its funny how the Big 10 compares itself to the SEC but the SEC doesnt compare itself with the Big 10. I think the Big 10 should compare itself to the Big 12 and Pac 10/12 first. I think those conferences are better than the Big 10.
This article sounds like a lot of excuses that have nothing to do with football...
I think a lot of people come up with these complex and elaborate arguments, because it is uncomfortable for them to admit that race is a factor.
i was not too impressed by the articles in the OP. One says the factor is fan support / homefield advantage, and another says it is "Fertile Recruiting ground" but makes only a half-assed attempt to investigate exactly how and why that is.
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.
The bottom line here is, the south loves its football, and that's why the Southeastern Conference is so passionate and committed to building winning programs. I remember being in South Louisiana during the lean years of LSU, and it was ugly. Talk radio hosts suffered from chronic high blood pressure, wondering when LSU was going to turn its program around. I mean, these are the fans who wanted to fire Les Miles who had already won the national title, just because he lost a close game or two with a sophomore QB. I'm sure it's no different in Tuscaloosa, Knoxville, Starkville, Columbia, Athens, or Gainsville. 
