In-State Recruiting: A Precursor to a Study

Texas has always been effective in hooking in in-state talent.

Rivals had an article today about in-state recruiting and the schools that are the best at keeping that in-state talent in-state. Unsurprisingly, Texas came on top:

But there's no doubt that schools from Texas rely more on home-grown prospects than any other state in the union. The numbers back it up. 

Rivals.com analyzed the last five recruiting classes from each of the 117 FBS non-academies to find out which schools had signed the highest percentage of in-state players during that stretch. Texas led the way, as 91.3 percent of its signees came from within its own state.

I don't think this methodology really works because some states have more talent, therefore you can afford to recruit entirely in-state. Actually, the article backs up this belief:

In fact, six Texas teams had among the 10 highest percentages of in-state recruits over the last five years. Baylor ranked second (88.1 percent), Rice sixth (85.3), Houston eighth (84.3), Texas A&M ninth (81.2) and TCU 10th (78.8). The only non-Texas teams in the top 10 were No. 3 Fresno State (87.8), No. 4 San Jose State (87.5), No. 5 San Diego State (85.7) and No. 7 Florida Atlantic (84.4).

The fact that Texas has six teams with the highest percentage of in-state recruits should tell you something; Texas produces a lot of Division 1 players. Additionally, these schools all have high percentages, which means that while there may be competition, they can all get their players. The bottom line is that recruiting in your own backyard is less competitive than recruiting against other schools in other states. It's a built-in advantage.

I'm not saying that Texas should be punished for having talent. I just don't think that this is the best way to examine a school's in-state recruiting. Some schools that aren't in talent filled states like Texas cannot fill their class with just in-state recruits if they want to be competitive. Furthermore, if you look at this list, you will see that only three of these teams are in BCS conferences. It's important to factor in the high level talent in the state.

For example, the state of Michigan only produced 7 four star players. The University of Michigan landed 4 of them and Michigan State landed 2. This means that Michigan took in 57% of the top in-state talent, while Michigan State took in 29%. Meanwhile, the state of Texas had 40 four or higher star players. The University of Texas landed 14 of them, which accounts to 35%. Texas A&M received the commitments of 8 of these players, amounting to 20%. When you look at these numbers, it becomes more clear that the numbers are deceiving. Texas did receive the commitments of 24 players from the state of Texas on the whole, which does represent a high percentage of in-state talent. To put that in perspective, Michigan received 9 commitments from in-state players out of their 25 man class.

It just goes to show you that the way you look at these numbers can change your perception of in-state recruiting dominance.

In the future, I plan on looking at these numbers further and possibly developing some metrics to evaluate these schools' recruiting better. I think it's important not just to look at stars, but also to look at in-state/out of state numbers to develop a more accurate assessment of a coaching staff's recruiting effectiveness. Additionally, I'm thinking about factoring in conferences. If I do evaluate the different schools, I will do it conference by conference.