Great Explanation on ISU recruiting out of state

The below is from DELT4CY on CycloneFanatic.com


I'm going to compare the number of D1 programs in Iowa to the number of "comparable" D1 programs in Texas to justify why it is absolutely necessary to recruit "out of state".

Iowa: Programs:

ISU 85 scholarship players
Iowa 85 scholarship player
Total = 170
(*guess 25 avg class/yr * 2 = 50 in-state players/yr)

Iowa Population of male 15-19 yr olds 111,172/5 = 22,234 per grade.

This means that in order to produce an all-Iowa D1 class; 50/22,234 = 445: 1 out of every 445, seniors would have to be D1 caliber. (Think about that)

Texas: "Comparable" Programs: (kids would choose over ISU to narrow pool size) Common sense: Texas pop. is large, but they also have more D1 programs to pick from.

Texas
A&M
Tech
Baylor
TCU = 85*5=425 scholarship players at or above ISU level.

25 avg. recruiting class * 5 = 125 seniors/yr.

Texas males 15-19= 811,456/5 = 162,291/grade.

In order to produce a comp. team for the 5 comp. schools in Texas, they have their pick from 1 out of every 1,298 kids.

Iowa: 1 of 445 kids would need to be D1 caliber.
Texas: 1 of 1,298 kids would need to be D1 caliber.

See the disparity. This shows two things IMO.

1. If we're trying to talk Apples to Apples, two comparable teams of in-state recruits Texas to Iowa would be like Valley HS playing Adel HS. Valley is statistically going to have more D1 athletes. Therefore, Iowa doesn't have as good of chance even if you take plain population figures out (that's why I compared 5 comp. Texas schools vs. 2 comp. Iowa schools)

2. For Texas specifically, this shows that there is an almost 3 times larger population base of potential D1 athletes to pick from than there are in Iowa. (When taking into account a pool of 125 needed D1 players for the 5 Texas programs)
Due to a per/student disparity we need to take advantage as much as possible and recruit Texas, as this example indicates.

This doesn't take into account talent, resources, etc., etc., just purely population figures. It also doesn't take into account the # of outside Texas programs preying on Texas athletes. (but I think that is an effect of the pop. figure) The logic is certainly flawed in a few areas but I think it's an interesting way to look at it.

Hopefully some of you can make some sense of that.