ADVERTISEMENT

Pitt vs Clemson recruiting areas

recruitsreadtheseboards

Lair Hall of Famer
Jun 11, 2006
88,279
78,959
113
There has been a lot of debate on here on what is Pitt’s true potential and ceiling and how Clemson took what was mostly a middling program into almost a dynastic college football program. One wonders what it would take. We focus a lot (rightly so) about attendance, revenue, stadium, coaching salaries, etc…and all are true. But Penn State, Michigan, Notre Dame is amongst the richest programs in the country, why aren’t they dominating? They are all national programs, brand names, they all have to go into other’s backyards to get talent. Fortunately for them, they mostly can do this. For Pitt? Not so much. Pitt’s great teams in the 70’s and early 80’s where based on talent accumulated via two distinct ways. 1) Local. Dorsett, Marino, Pryor, Fralic, Covert, Collins etc…where all national recruits. Pitt also recruited Eastern PA and Jersey well. 2) The SEC back then still was slow to recruit the southern black athletes, which allowed a Hugh Green, Rickey Jackson, Carlton Williamson to come north.

The times have changed. But nothing has changed more than the shift of talent. I am going to use Rivals as my source, as this is as good of a site and has as long of history as anyone.

Just to explain what I did. 2003 was the first year I could get Rivals State Rankings. That is over 15 years ago. So what I did, I took 2003, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2017, 18 and 19 as year’s to review. I didn’t “cherry pick”, it was obvious. 2003 was the earliest information, I can get, then I took 5 year increments, and obviously the 3 latest recruiting classes. I did this and am explaining this upfront just to reaffirm, I was not cherry picking years and data to support a narrative. It “is what it is”. What I am looking for through out this is there significant trends? Is the numbers that in favor of certain areas and if so, how different? Where is the talent at? Now I did not include Texas and California, we know they are loaded, nor Louisiana. I focused on the Southeastern states, PA, OH and the Mid Atlantic. What would be the typical recruiting areas for Pitt, for Clemson, for most of the ACC.

Other discoveries, Rivals tend to have more evaluations of kids now than they did in 2003. They definitely have more 4 stars, but not necessarily 5 stars. Anyways,

Pennsylvania. In 2003 Rivals had a top 50 for PA. By 2005-2010 it was a Top 40. 2015, It was a top 35. In 2017 it is a Top 30, in 2019 it is a Top 25. In this time, PA has basically had its “ranked” recruits cut in half, from 50 to 25. And while there are no clearcut rules, the “ranked” players appear to be guys with a 5.5 RR rating, which is a mid to low 3 star. So, if Pitt is getting say 20% of PA’s top 40 kids, chances are that 10-15 years ago, those kids at the bottom were better than they are now. Also, I looked at 4/5 star recruits. PA averages say 8-9 4/5 star recruits a year. Mostly all 4 stars. What I didn’t break out is WPIAL or Western vs Eastern Pa.

Ohio. In 2003 Rivals had a top 50 for Ohio. In 2010 they had a Top 75. In 2015-18 it is Top 60. In 2019 it is a Top 55. Ohio averages around 14-15 4/5 stars a year. This is one of the great mysteries to me. Ohio and PA have almost the same demographics, it is located in the same geographical region, yet Ohio football has not declined like PA football has. If someone can explain to me why, I would love to hear.

New Jersey. In 2003 Rivals has a top 25, 2010 a Top 30, and the latest few classes, they have had a Top 35. Again, a mystery. They now have more kids ranked than PA. Average 4/5 per class is around 10. Which is slightly better than PA. But again, why? What has happened to the great football state of Pennsylvania?

Now we are going to move down South. Clemson is 30 miles from the Georgia border. 2 hours from downtown Atlanta, an hour from northern suburbs, 90 minutes from Athens. It is also 90 minutes from Charlotte, and only 3 hours from Birmingham. So I drew on the states of Georgia, Alabama, Florida, SC, NC as their recruiting base. Of course Florida is “everyone’s recruiting base”.

Georgia: In 2003, Rivals had a top 50 with Georgia. In 2010-15 they had a list of Top 75. 2018, Georgia had a Top 100. In 2019, a Top 130. Georgia averages, 38 4/5 stars per year now. Think about this. Georgia has as many players listed as PA/OH/NJ combined. PA in these years, had five 5 stars, Georgia had 18. Georgia also has more 4/5 stars on average on hat’s one state.

Alabama: In 2003 Rivals had a top 30. In 2010-2015, Top 40, and now Top 50. Alabama is averaging 13 4/5 stars a year.

North Carolina, went from a Top 25 in 2003 to now a top 50. They have went from 5-8 4/5 stars per year to now around 12-15.

South Carolina , stayed relatively the same. Top 25, an average around six 4/5 stars a year.

Just for fun, Florida has always had a Top 100. (They probably actually have 250 guys in that 5.5 range or above). For example, the 98th, 99th and 100th guys on their Top 100 list this year are going to FSU, Miami and Iowa accordingly. Florida also is now averaging around 55 4/5 stars a year!!!!

Anyways, my point here, the talent in our backyard is so far below what the talent in Clemson or an Alabama or UGA’s backyard. What is also disgusting is seeing the top kids in Virginia, Maryland and Jersey now seem to be Penn State’s.

But the talent here is nowhere near. As Mike White wrote about a few months ago, there used to be 40-50 P5 type of kids in the WPIAL back in the 70’s/80’s alone. Now, maybe 10. So how is it even possible to compete year in year out at a top 10 level anymore? It is no longer possible. Not to mention, and this is a whole another topic, is how many of the top 15 (the true 4/5 stars) are Pitt getting now vs back in the day??
 
We dont have 1/10 the money or fan support that Clemson has. Not to mention they are in the best hotbed in the country for recruiting.
 
Sounds more like a reason to wonder why Georgia Tech isn't better....

I know the reasons, and they're similar to Pitt's. It doesn't matter that they're in the same hotbed. You can add South Carolina too.
 
Sounds more like a reason to wonder why Georgia Tech isn't better....

I know the reasons, and they're similar to Pitt's. It doesn't matter that they're in the same hotbed. You can add South Carolina too.
They get the scraps. Plus under Paul Johnson's offense, how are you going to recruit kids and sell them on going to the NFL?
 
The real reason is Dabo Swinney. He can go anywhere and get kids to play for him, just listen to the guy.
Listen to the guy and then listen to our guy. Duzz is a players' coach but you don't hear or see the charisma that parents and recruits need to see and hear to get a visit.
 
While you're investigation isn't wrong, I think there are a host of other factors to consider.

First off, if the migration of talent was having that big of an effect, why are there still two to three non-SEC/ACC schools consistently finishing in the top 5? This kind of takes us back to the argument over the strength of conferences and what they're doing to each other. 2017 is a great example of the B1G feasting on itself. Maybe that's division alignment, maybe it's because they weren't that good, or maybe it's because they were? But they wouldn't have fielded a champion, just an almost. That's kind of what the B1G always has been, to be honest. This stretch of two dominant programs is unusual but it's not permanent.

Second, the world has evolved a little since 2003. Technology has become a recruiting tool and there are literally scouting combines and recruiting camps everywhere, now. That dynamic has forced staffs to be more agile and less reliant on traditional recruiting grounds. Sure, it's advantageous to have kids in your backyard but if the Rust Belt fell so far, why are there still reasonably competitive teams in this area? Kids are still coming north. I'm also going to stop and suggest that the roster composition has also changed a bit. Kids are looking for playing time so big northern programs aren't stockpiling middling talent for practices and a chance to "be a part of something". Those kids aren't afraid to go down a level now. I can recall many local names that went to "big" programs and were mostly practice dummies for four years.

That brings me to my final point. I think the NCAA has changed. Transferring is all the rage and there is very little reason to be careful about your choice. It wouldn't surprise me if a guy like Dabo isn't telling kids, "Come here and give it a shot. If it doesn't work out, you can transfer with my blessing and everyone will want you because you're from Clemson." If you're going to ride the bench for a season anyway, what's the difference? (Mind you, I don't know if that's happening but when you think about it, it's really not a huge stretch.) Or you transfer down to FCS and play right away. Look at how many kids transfer multiple times.

Like I said, you're right. The talent migration probably has a lot to do with the situation. I just think there are a variety of other factors that are also contributing to a shift. I'm just not sure it's as monumental as we give it credit for being. In the end, schools like Pitt have to figure out how to stay competitive.
 
While you're investigation isn't wrong, I think there are a host of other factors to consider.

First off, if the migration of talent was having that big of an effect, why are there still two to three non-SEC/ACC schools consistently finishing in the top 5? This kind of takes us back to the argument over the strength of conferences and what they're doing to each other. 2017 is a great example of the B1G feasting on itself. Maybe that's division alignment, maybe it's because they weren't that good, or maybe it's because they were? But they wouldn't have fielded a champion, just an almost. That's kind of what the B1G always has been, to be honest. This stretch of two dominant programs is unusual but it's not permanent.

Second, the world has evolved a little since 2003. Technology has become a recruiting tool and there are literally scouting combines and recruiting camps everywhere, now. That dynamic has forced staffs to be more agile and less reliant on traditional recruiting grounds. Sure, it's advantageous to have kids in your backyard but if the Rust Belt fell so far, why are there still reasonably competitive teams in this area? Kids are still coming north. I'm also going to stop and suggest that the roster composition has also changed a bit. Kids are looking for playing time so big northern programs aren't stockpiling middling talent for practices and a chance to "be a part of something". Those kids aren't afraid to go down a level now. I can recall many local names that went to "big" programs and were mostly practice dummies for four years.

That brings me to my final point. I think the NCAA has changed. Transferring is all the rage and there is very little reason to be careful about your choice. It wouldn't surprise me if a guy like Dabo isn't telling kids, "Come here and give it a shot. If it doesn't work out, you can transfer with my blessing and everyone will want you because you're from Clemson." If you're going to ride the bench for a season anyway, what's the difference? (Mind you, I don't know if that's happening but when you think about it, it's really not a huge stretch.) Or you transfer down to FCS and play right away. Look at how many kids transfer multiple times.

Like I said, you're right. The talent migration probably has a lot to do with the situation. I just think there are a variety of other factors that are also contributing to a shift. I'm just not sure it's as monumental as we give it credit for being. In the end, schools like Pitt have to figure out how to stay competitive.
Definitely, who is coaching, and their strengths and support teams mean alot. But in another deep dive, breaking this down to pure numbers.

PA had 12.8 million residents in 2018
OH had 11.7 million residents in 2018
GA had 10.5 million residents in 2018.
AL had 4.9 million residents in 2018.

Georgia had a Top 100 and had 5 Five Star recruits, 40 Four Star recruits in 2018.
Ohio had a Top 60 and had 1 Five Star recruits and 16 Four Star recruits in 2018.
PA had a Top 30 and had 1 Five Star recruit and 14 Four Star recruits in 2018.
Alabama had a Top 50 with 2 Five Star recruits and 14 Four Star recruits in 2018.

Granted we know demographics are one thing, the southeast tends to be younger than the Rust Belt so more % are of High School aged kids. But there is another factor.

According to the 2010 census,
Georgia had 31.4% of its population listed as African American
Alabama had 26.4% of its population listed as African American
Ohio was at 12% PA was at 10.8%. Big difference in PA and also OH, is a lot of those African Americans are in failing city schools, schools where football is not well coached and in many cases, their only hope is to go to a Central Catholic, a St Edward's in Cleveland or St Joes Prep in Philly.

A lot of the rural and suburban schools in Alabama and Georgia are largely black. I would have to think this has a lot to do with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pittdan77
Definitely, who is coaching, and their strengths and support teams mean alot. But in another deep dive, breaking this down to pure numbers.

PA had 12.8 million residents in 2018
OH had 11.7 million residents in 2018
GA had 10.5 million residents in 2018.
AL had 4.9 million residents in 2018.

Georgia had a Top 100 and had 5 Five Star recruits, 40 Four Star recruits in 2018.
Ohio had a Top 60 and had 1 Five Star recruits and 16 Four Star recruits in 2018.
PA had a Top 30 and had 1 Five Star recruit and 14 Four Star recruits in 2018.
Alabama had a Top 50 with 2 Five Star recruits and 14 Four Star recruits in 2018.

Granted we know demographics are one thing, the southeast tends to be younger than the Rust Belt so more % are of High School aged kids. But there is another factor.

According to the 2010 census,
Georgia had 31.4% of its population listed as African American
Alabama had 26.4% of its population listed as African American
Ohio was at 12% PA was at 10.8%. Big difference in PA and also OH, is a lot of those African Americans are in failing city schools, schools where football is not well coached and in many cases, their only hope is to go to a Central Catholic, a St Edward's in Cleveland or St Joes Prep in Philly.

A lot of the rural and suburban schools in Alabama and Georgia are largely black. I would have to think this has a lot to do with it.

That's a good point. The economic disparity in the north is much greater than down south. There is probably something in how schools and governments are so finely divided in PA that create a lot of that. With county school districts, neighboring schools with differing economic conditions are able to effectively share resources and better manage costs. In PA, it's every school and every community for itself.

It will be interesting to see how the demographic shift in Pittsburgh manifests itself as the older population passes on. Does the population drop or does a younger demographic move in to take advantage of new industries?
 
Apparently, Narduzzi needs to up his references to God 1000% to better recruit the south.

Listen to the guy and then listen to our guy. Duzz is a players' coach but you don't hear or see the charisma that parents and recruits need to see and hear to get a visit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FayettePittDad
Nothing to do with the OP,

But I saw a recent mock draft.

Of the 32 projected first round picks ,

22.....almost 70%

Came from Clemson or the SEC
 
  • Like
Reactions: bubba31
That's a good point. The economic disparity in the north is much greater than down south. There is probably something in how schools and governments are so finely divided in PA that create a lot of that. With county school districts, neighboring schools with differing economic conditions are able to effectively share resources and better manage costs. In PA, it's every school and every community for itself.

It will be interesting to see how the demographic shift in Pittsburgh manifests itself as the older population passes on. Does the population drop or does a younger demographic move in to take advantage of new industries?
The thing is, the shift here, and I hear Pittsburgh and the surrounding area is on pace for its first uptick in population, but a lot of the jobs and industries relocating or popping up here, while exciting, usually don't produce the type of parents and kids who are going to become top athletes, let alone football players. While in the southeast, a lot of their growth has been on a lot of plants who have relocated from up here and the Rust Belt and the blue collar type of jobs produce those types of kids.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pbrad
Apparently, Narduzzi needs to up his references to God 1000% to better recruit the south.
Noticed it only after the championship game. He's a good interview always before a game and halftime by the sideline reporters. I'm not basing my opinion of him on one interview after a tremendous effort on the national stage. He's consistent in who he is.
 
Some long posts here in this thread but is there any mention of the weather? I may have missed it. Looking outside at the 10 degree windchill don't see any kids tossing around the new footballs they got for Christmas. Or does Santa even bother anymore around here?
 
The thing is, the shift here, and I hear Pittsburgh and the surrounding area is on pace for its first uptick in population, but a lot of the jobs and industries relocating or popping up here, while exciting, usually don't produce the type of parents and kids who are going to become top athletes, let alone football players. While in the southeast, a lot of their growth has been on a lot of plants who have relocated from up here and the Rust Belt and the blue collar type of jobs produce those types of kids.

I think that remains to be seen. There aren't quality manufacturing jobs anywhere, anymore.
 
They get the scraps. Plus under Paul Johnson's offense, how are you going to recruit kids and sell them on going to the NFL?

Why? If the shift of talent is the reason for Pitt's demise, shouldn't GT be better?

It's a number of things and location of talent plays a part in it, but it's not the overriding factor for potential success.
 
Why? If the shift of talent is the reason for Pitt's demise, shouldn't GT be better?

It's a number of things and location of talent plays a part in it, but it's not the overriding factor for potential success.

Well they did go to two Orange Bowls and won the coastal four times under Paul Johnson. So they are a little better than us despite having the same challenges with UGA than we have with PSU et al.
 
Why? If the shift of talent is the reason for Pitt's demise, shouldn't GT be better?

It's a number of things and location of talent plays a part in it, but it's not the overriding factor for potential success.
Maybe. But back when PA/OH/Jersey were powers, Rutgers never was. There are always going to be losers. Tech is battling heavyweights all around them.

Plus, how do you recruit top offensive talent to Tech running a HS offense that the NFL guys have no desire or interest in.
 
bdon't produce the type of parents and kids who are going to become top athletes, let alone football players. While in the southeast, a lot of their growth has been on a lot of plants who have relocated from up here and the Rust Belt and the blue collar type of jobs produce those types of kids.
So, if my Dad didn't have a post-graduate degree, I would have been a better athlete?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gunga_Galunga
So, if my Dad didn't have a post-graduate degree, I would have been a better athlete?
Maybe. It is a generalization for sure. But one thing about stereotyping, there usually is some truth behind them.

I mean those immigrants in 1900's who came to Western PA from Europe, the Poles, Italians, Germans, Slovaks and blacks from the south, etc..were hardy souls who used their physical attributes to make a living.

Now, you have a lot of post grad degrees, Asian Americans, Asian-Indians coming here for all the technology and looking up and down NFL, Top 25 college and HOF rosters, don't see many of these people.
 
There has been a lot of debate on here on what is Pitt’s true potential and ceiling and how Clemson took what was mostly a middling program into almost a dynastic college football program. One wonders what it would take. We focus a lot (rightly so) about attendance, revenue, stadium, coaching salaries, etc…and all are true. But Penn State, Michigan, Notre Dame is amongst the richest programs in the country, why aren’t they dominating? They are all national programs, brand names, they all have to go into other’s backyards to get talent. Fortunately for them, they mostly can do this. For Pitt? Not so much. Pitt’s great teams in the 70’s and early 80’s where based on talent accumulated via two distinct ways. 1) Local. Dorsett, Marino, Pryor, Fralic, Covert, Collins etc…where all national recruits. Pitt also recruited Eastern PA and Jersey well. 2) The SEC back then still was slow to recruit the southern black athletes, which allowed a Hugh Green, Rickey Jackson, Carlton Williamson to come north.

The times have changed. But nothing has changed more than the shift of talent. I am going to use Rivals as my source, as this is as good of a site and has as long of history as anyone.

Just to explain what I did. 2003 was the first year I could get Rivals State Rankings. That is over 15 years ago. So what I did, I took 2003, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2017, 18 and 19 as year’s to review. I didn’t “cherry pick”, it was obvious. 2003 was the earliest information, I can get, then I took 5 year increments, and obviously the 3 latest recruiting classes. I did this and am explaining this upfront just to reaffirm, I was not cherry picking years and data to support a narrative. It “is what it is”. What I am looking for through out this is there significant trends? Is the numbers that in favor of certain areas and if so, how different? Where is the talent at? Now I did not include Texas and California, we know they are loaded, nor Louisiana. I focused on the Southeastern states, PA, OH and the Mid Atlantic. What would be the typical recruiting areas for Pitt, for Clemson, for most of the ACC.

Other discoveries, Rivals tend to have more evaluations of kids now than they did in 2003. They definitely have more 4 stars, but not necessarily 5 stars. Anyways,

Pennsylvania. In 2003 Rivals had a top 50 for PA. By 2005-2010 it was a Top 40. 2015, It was a top 35. In 2017 it is a Top 30, in 2019 it is a Top 25. In this time, PA has basically had its “ranked” recruits cut in half, from 50 to 25. And while there are no clearcut rules, the “ranked” players appear to be guys with a 5.5 RR rating, which is a mid to low 3 star. So, if Pitt is getting say 20% of PA’s top 40 kids, chances are that 10-15 years ago, those kids at the bottom were better than they are now. Also, I looked at 4/5 star recruits. PA averages say 8-9 4/5 star recruits a year. Mostly all 4 stars. What I didn’t break out is WPIAL or Western vs Eastern Pa.

Ohio. In 2003 Rivals had a top 50 for Ohio. In 2010 they had a Top 75. In 2015-18 it is Top 60. In 2019 it is a Top 55. Ohio averages around 14-15 4/5 stars a year. This is one of the great mysteries to me. Ohio and PA have almost the same demographics, it is located in the same geographical region, yet Ohio football has not declined like PA football has. If someone can explain to me why, I would love to hear.

New Jersey. In 2003 Rivals has a top 25, 2010 a Top 30, and the latest few classes, they have had a Top 35. Again, a mystery. They now have more kids ranked than PA. Average 4/5 per class is around 10. Which is slightly better than PA. But again, why? What has happened to the great football state of Pennsylvania?

Now we are going to move down South. Clemson is 30 miles from the Georgia border. 2 hours from downtown Atlanta, an hour from northern suburbs, 90 minutes from Athens. It is also 90 minutes from Charlotte, and only 3 hours from Birmingham. So I drew on the states of Georgia, Alabama, Florida, SC, NC as their recruiting base. Of course Florida is “everyone’s recruiting base”.

Georgia: In 2003, Rivals had a top 50 with Georgia. In 2010-15 they had a list of Top 75. 2018, Georgia had a Top 100. In 2019, a Top 130. Georgia averages, 38 4/5 stars per year now. Think about this. Georgia has as many players listed as PA/OH/NJ combined. PA in these years, had five 5 stars, Georgia had 18. Georgia also has more 4/5 stars on average on hat’s one state.

Alabama: In 2003 Rivals had a top 30. In 2010-2015, Top 40, and now Top 50. Alabama is averaging 13 4/5 stars a year.

North Carolina, went from a Top 25 in 2003 to now a top 50. They have went from 5-8 4/5 stars per year to now around 12-15.

South Carolina , stayed relatively the same. Top 25, an average around six 4/5 stars a year.

Just for fun, Florida has always had a Top 100. (They probably actually have 250 guys in that 5.5 range or above). For example, the 98th, 99th and 100th guys on their Top 100 list this year are going to FSU, Miami and Iowa accordingly. Florida also is now averaging around 55 4/5 stars a year!!!!

Anyways, my point here, the talent in our backyard is so far below what the talent in Clemson or an Alabama or UGA’s backyard. What is also disgusting is seeing the top kids in Virginia, Maryland and Jersey now seem to be Penn State’s.

But the talent here is nowhere near. As Mike White wrote about a few months ago, there used to be 40-50 P5 type of kids in the WPIAL back in the 70’s/80’s alone. Now, maybe 10. So how is it even possible to compete year in year out at a top 10 level anymore? It is no longer possible. Not to mention, and this is a whole another topic, is how many of the top 15 (the true 4/5 stars) are Pitt getting now vs back in the day??
Do you think the higher percentage of black athletes in the South has anything to do with this? SEC speed they say.
 
And what if Aliquippa had a high school enrollment of 2400 like North Allegheny instead of 300 or whatever? There are just a higher percentage of students who get into football or who's parents get them into football in some places than others.

That is not a Jimmy the Greek thing and I definitely am not going to talk about how slaves were bred or something crazy. I think Stanford could contend for a national title with a bunch of white kids. It's just a statistical truth that certain populations are still more willing to play football than others. Probably based on income, then race, in that order.

And for all of Pine Richland's success, didn't they lose 42-0 to IMG academy (who lost themselves to Mater Dei, who lost to John Bosco prep, and so on?)
 
Sounds more like a reason to wonder why Georgia Tech isn't better....

I know the reasons, and they're similar to Pitt's. It doesn't matter that they're in the same hotbed. You can add South Carolina too.
The Gamecocks have no excuses. They're Clemson lite.
 
And what if Aliquippa had a high school enrollment of 2400 like North Allegheny instead of 300 or whatever? There are just a higher percentage of students who get into football or who's parents get them into football in some places than others.

That is not a Jimmy the Greek thing and I definitely am not going to talk about how slaves were bred or something crazy. I think Stanford could contend for a national title with a bunch of white kids. It's just a statistical truth that certain populations are still more willing to play football than others. Probably based on income, then race, in that order.

And for all of Pine Richland's success, didn't they lose 42-0 to IMG academy (who lost themselves to Mater Dei, who lost to John Bosco prep, and so on?)

What if they did have an enrollment of 2400? They might be Butler if they had to play better teams. You assume their athletes will scale and commitment to football will scale.

You want to compare Pine Richland to IMG? It's the equivalent of Pine Richland playing Aliquippa tomorrow.
 
What if they did have an enrollment of 2400? They might be Butler if they had to play better teams. You assume their athletes will scale and commitment to football will scale.

You want to compare Pine Richland to IMG? It's the equivalent of Pine Richland playing Aliquippa tomorrow.
Do you really think so??
 
What if they did have an enrollment of 2400? They might be Butler if they had to play better teams. You assume their athletes will scale and commitment to football will scale.

It did scale to the overall extent that when Allegheny + Beaver Counties had about 250,000 more people than they do now, and high school football had the sort of popularity it still does in Miami, we were a major football talent producing hot bed. That isn't true anymore.
 
Do you think the higher percentage of black athletes in the South has anything to do with this? SEC speed they say.
What's funny about this is that back in the late 50s, and early 60s, when there weren't that many black players overall, the then segregated SEC was winning a ton of games, and their reputation was that they had a lot of speed and quickness.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT