Football Cities: Where the Stars are Bred

This is the final look at the metro, state, and regional breakdown of the 2012 NFL player class.

Having looked at where all players come from, this one looks at where the best ones are bred. Using Pro Bowl appearances, All-Pro team recognition, and Offensive/Defensive player and rookie of the year awards, I calculated a point total for each of the 254 active players who have earned any (or all) of the above recognitions. Here’s how metro areas perform. In total, 81 metro areas have produced at least one active player with one of the accolades. 10 have produced 4 or more.

Miami, second to Los Angeles in overall players, jumps ahead in both stars and points accumulated. Established players like Steve Hutchinson (OG, Tennessee), Andre Johnson (WR, Houston) and Devin Hester (WR/KR, Chicago) lead the way, while emerging stars like Patrick Peterson (CB/KR, Arizona) and Jason Pierre-Paul (DE, New York Giants) figure to keep the metro’s reputation for success alive. Los Angeles similarly boasts a combination of veteran stars like Tony Gonzales (TE, Atlanta), Troy Polamalu (S, Pittsburgh) and Steve Smith (WR, Carolina) to go along with ones in their prime like Clay Matthews (LB, Green Bay) and DeSean Jackson (WR, Philadelphia).

The New York City metro boasts New Jersey-bred stars like Brian Cushing (LB, Houston) and Ray Rice (RB, Baltimore). Houston has produced young stars like Brian Orakpo (LB, Washington) and Andy Dalton (QB, Cincinnati). It’s also the home of this year’s first overall pick, Andrew Luck, who figures to join the list of stars soon.

New Orleans is home of Peyton (QB, Denver) and Eli (QB, New York Giants) Manning, along with veteran (Reggie Wayne, Indianapolis) and young (Mike Wallace, Pittsburgh) star receivers. Atlanta’s stars figure to dominate this list for a long time, led by Calvin Johnson (WR, Detroit), Cam Newton (QB, Carolina), and Eric Berry (S, Kansas City), and Philly is home to two quarterbacks named Matt (Ryan of Atlanta and Schaub of Houston).

Beyond the top 10, 9 metros produced 3 stars, 19 produced 2, and 42 produced 1 each.

Metro vs. Small Town
75% of all players are from a Metropolitan Statistical Area, and the proportion of stars is slightly higher at 77%.

However, the number drops below that to 71% when we count the share of points earned.

Notable stars from outside metro areas include Ed Reed, Brian Urlacher, Charles Woodson, Julius Peppers, and Champ Bailey.

Yet, the large metros (and a handful of football hotbeds such as New Orleans) are leading the way in both quantity and quality.

Advertisements

Football States and Mega Regions: Where the 2012 NFL Players Come From

On Wednesday, I looked at the metro areas that produced the most NFL players at the start of the 2012 season. This post looks at the states and mega-regions that have done so.

The Top 10 States Overall

Many of the most populous states dominate the top 10, with only one state (Louisiana) ranking below 12th overall in population. California and Florida, home of the top two NFL-producing metros (LA and Miami) finish 1st and 3rd. Both have several other metros that also produce many players. Sandwiched between them is Texas, home of Dallas and Houston – two of the top 5 metros.

New Jersey’s inclusion, while New York state doesn’t show up on the list, is a reflection of the fact that most of the New York City metro area’s players actually come from the New Jersey counties that are part of it.

Top 10 Per Capita

The southern states, like the colleges, dominate this list. 7 of 10 states are from the south and/or sun belt, with only Ohio (the best performing northern state by nearly every metric), midwest powerhouse Nebraska, and the island state of Hawaii cracking the top 10 from outside those areas. The deep south states (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina) atop the list are home to only one NFL team (New Orleans Saints, though part of South Carolina is included in the Charlotte MSA – home to the Carolina Panthers); however, many college football powerhouses play in that region.

Mega Regions Overall

Going back to the 11 Mega Regions, the most populous regions, the Great Lakes, is first, followed by the Piedmont and Florida. Southern California does well on the strength of Los Angeles and the Inland Empire.

Mega Regions Per Capita

The Piedmont, whose colleges lead the way in producing players, shows up atop this list, edging out Florida. Cascadia, whose colleges do well, is one of the two worst performing regions, a sign that it imports players at that level.

The final post will focus on the metros where star players are bred.

Football Cities: Where the 2012 NFL Players Come From

Pile Up
Miami, Florida, led by Baltimore Ravens defensive stars Ed Reed (pictured) and Ray Lewis, is one of the top producing regions for NFL players.

The National Football league regular season kicks off tonight, with two marquee teams – and markets in Dallas and New York – facing off. Last week, I looked at the states and regions whose colleges produce NFL players. This post looks at which cities and metro areas the 2012 NFL rosters come from, to see which ones produce the most players.

Using data available from this map, as well as player biographies on Wikipedia and their college and NFL team sites, I assembled a database of players along with their hometown and metro region (according to Metropolitan Statistical Area). The list is comprised of 1917 players who were on an NFL roster (active, injured reserve, or practice) as of late August/early September.

Looking at the 51 metro areas of over 1,000,000 residents, here are the top 10, with overall rankings on the left side and per capita on the right.

The Miami area shows best, coming in a close second in both overall and per capita numbers. Los Angeles edges out Miami in overall numbers. Both metros have produced many notable NFLers, in particular local players who went to prominent local colleges (USC and the University of Miami, respectively). Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, and Andre Johnson are three Miami locals who starred at The U before launching successful NFL careers. The Los Angeles area has seen quarterbacks such as Carson Palmer and Mark Sanchez go from local high schools to USC to the pros, and is also the home of defensive stars like Clay Matthews.

New Orleans, home of the Manning brothers, leads the way per capita. The overall top 10 track fairly closely to overall population. While the Northeast (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington) lacks colleges that produce top players, the region itself is sending many local players from high schools to the pros, with the exception of Boston (and most of New England). Texas and Georgia are known football hotbeds, so it’s no surprise to see their teams show up here. On the per capita side, the south leads the way, with only Cincinnati (on the border) cracking the top 10 from outside the region.

In the overall top 10, Los Angeles is the only metro without an NFL team, while 3 in the top 10 per capita (Birmingham, Oklahoma City, Virginia Beach – Norfolk – Newport News) are without one.

Here is how the 30 metros with NFL teams rank (New York City and San Francisco-Oakland both have two). The top 10 mirrors the overall top 10, with Detroit taking LA’s place.

Pittsburgh and the two Ohio teams show up here, amongst another grouping of predominantly southern and Californian metros.

The midwest, often thought of as a player-rich area, occupies most of the bottom 10 spots, with none boasting notable per capita scores either. Green Bay is an outlier due to its small size, but Milwaukee (the biggest city in Wisconsin) would be 25th if it was included.

We also see many metros without NFL teams producing players. Here they are grouped by metro size:

California shows its might here. In addition to overall leader Los Angeles, the neighboring Inland Empire (Riverside – San Bernardino – Ontario) produces a large number of players, as does the state capitol region of Sacramento in the north. This is another list where the south dominates, with the recognized football hotbeds of Austin, Birmingham, Oklahoma City, Orlando, and the Richmond and Hampton Roads areas of Virginia making the top 10. The only city from the north to crack the top 10 is Columbus, home of the Ohio State University.

Of the metros between 500,000 and 999,000 (below), we see that its once again only Ohio cities – Akron and Dayton – cracking the top 10, in addition to Honolulu, Hawaii.

Finally, the handful of metros below 500,000 produced 5 or more NFLers are again all from the Sun Belt and South.

Conclusions
Football’s Base Has Shifted South and West.
The major metros, both in raw numbers and per capita, are primarily from California, Florida, and the south. A handful of Ohio cities perform well per capita, and the large metros of NYC, Chicago, Philly, and DC produce their share, but if the day existed when the Rust Belt of Ohio and Western Pennsylvania was an NFL pipeline, it’s by and large passed.

Football’s Base is Slightly Less Urban than the Country.
Most calculations list the percentage of Americans living in an urban/metro area as being between 80-85%. Of the 1892 American players on this list, 1412 are from a metro area, which works out to 75%.

The next post will look at the player breakdown by state and mega region.

I plan to do this for the rest of the big four North American leagues (plus the American and Canadian professional soccer pools) to see what trends emerge regarding the metros, states, and regions that produce the most professional players.

(Update: somehow I missed Richard Florida’s post on this topic from April 2012, which used 2010 numbers, and birth place instead of high school location/hometown).

America’s State and Regional College Football Factories

The Band

This is part 2 of a 2 part post. The first part focused on where the (successful) colleges are.

One of the major attractions of college football – for players, schools, and fans alike – is that it serves a launching pad to the pros, particularly the wildly popular National Football League.

Using the list of ESPN’s list of players sorted by college, I examined which states’ colleges are producing the most players overall and per capita, and where the most successful ones are coming from.

States Whose Colleges Produced Most Current NFL Players
Unsurprisingly, many of the largest states show up atop the list, with only the football-mad southern states of Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolina noticeably outperforming their size. The leading large states all have multiple programs feeding the NFL, while Ohio only has one (Ohio State). In California, Cal, USC, and Stanford all produce NFL players, while UT, TCU, A&M, and Tech boost Texas’ numbers. Florida places third in large part on the strength of Miami. I was surprised to find out that The U has provided the most players to the NFL this year (59), while no other school even reaches 50.

On a per capita basis, you see smaller states with successful programs rise to the top, with Nebraska, Idaho (Boise State), Utah (Utah and BYU), West Virginia (WVU and Marshall), and Iowa joining the southern schools. Lower down in the top 10, Oregon (Oregon and Oregon State) and Oklahoma (OU and State) are in the middle in terms of state size, but are boosted by two successful programs each, plus smaller schools such as Portland State and Tulsa, respectively.

Mega-Regions Where Colleges Produce NFL Players

Using the 11 Mega-Regions once again, we see the Atlantic and interior south (Piedmont Atlantic) and midwest-north (Great Lakes) leading the way. The Northeast, not known as a college football hotbed, falls into the middle of the pack despite its large population.

The Piedmont, 4th in population, holds its lead on a per capita basis, while Cascadia stands out as well. The Northeast falls back, along with Southern California – a surprise, given how successful USC has been over the past decade.

Where Do The Best Players Come From?
Colleges don’t just look to turn out players who go pro. A big selling feature is being able to produce future stars. I looked at players who have received accolades – Pro Bowl invitations, All-Pro Team recognition, and major awards such as Offensive and Defensive Player of the Year and Rookie of the Year. Awarding points for each accolade, here are how states and region’s colleges fare.

Star-Powered States
Florida leads the way, behind former ‘Canes such as Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Devin Hester, and Andre Johnson. The state of California has produced stars such as Troy Polamalu (USC), Tony Gonzales (Cal), and Maurice Jones-Drew (UCLA).

Alabama shows up high on the strength of many ‘Bama and Auburn stars, while Tennessee boasts some guy named Peyton Manning, who starred for the Vols.

On a per capita basis, Idaho jumps out in front on the strength of Jared Allen (Idaho State), and Boise State stars Ryan Clady (All-Pro LT) and defensive back Quintin Mikkel New Mexico’s showing is entirely from standout LB Brian Urlacher. Oklahoma boasts a number of Sooners and Cowboys who have made the pros, while stars like Steve Smith (Carolina) and Eric Weddle (San Diego) launched their careers at the University of Utah. Oregon boasts Ducks like Haloti Ngata, and Beavers like Steven Jackson and Chad Johnson. Meanwhile, West Virginia can thank former Marshall player Randy Moss for their showing.

Mega-Regions and Star Players
On a regional level, the same trend plays out as when looking at the entire list of players. The Great Lakes and Piedmont lead the way, with Florida following suit.

The Front Range jumps out just ahead of the Piedmont on a per capita basis, thanks to stars like Vincent Jackson (Northern Colorado), and the aforementioned Utah and New Mexico players. Florida and Cascadia (Idaho, Oregon, Washington) follow closely.

What stars the Northeast does produce (Ray Rice of Rutgers, Matt Ryan and Matt Hasselbeck of Boston College) don’t perform nearly enough to pull up the region’s ranking. I was surprised by the per capita scores of both the Great Lakes and the Gulf Coast too. The former region, while the most populous of the 11, has many small schools that have churned out stars (Antonio Gates and James Harrison went to Kent State, Michael Turner to Northern Illinois, Ben Roethlisberger at Miami-Ohio) in adding to stars who went to big schools like Michigan (Tom Brady and Charles Woodson), Ohio State (Nick Mangold and AJ Hawk), and Pittsburgh (Larry Fitzgerald and Darrelle Revis). The Gulf Coast’s score is boasted by perennial Pro Bowler and All-Pro punter Shane Lechler (Texas Tech). Aside from him, none of the other active A&M stars, or players from schools such as LSU, have fostered many accolades. Without him, they would have ranked far worse.

Conclusions
The results here align in large part with those in yesterday’s post. Many of the suspected big players (Ohio, Florida, Texas) do well, with the schools of smaller interior west states like Utah and Idaho showing well on a per capita basis. If there is a single winner, it appears to be the Piedmont Atlantic area, whose success in both raw numbers and per capita shows that the south is king in college football.

I plan to repeat this analysis using the hometowns of NFL players instead, to look at which metros, states, and regions are producing the most players who eventually make the big league.

Where College Football is King

Marching Band

This is part 1 of a 2 part post. The second part will focus on which states, regions, and metros are sending the most players to the NFL.

College Football returns tonight, thus beginning a Saturday ritual through the fall for millions of people. The sport is big business, and commands incredible loyalty from alumni and fans of dozens of schools. It is also a big part of cities and regions, both in terms of attracting visitors, and drawing in economic activity, but more so in terms of providing a school or city or area with a big part of its identity.

With the season kicking off, I looked at where the big college programs – the 127 schools in the top division – are located, and which locations are home to the most successful ones on the field.

Which States Have the Most Programs?

Several large states, and football-mad southern states, show up on this list:

On a per capita basis, you see those southern states stand out again, along with midwest and interior west states.

What About the Big States?
Unlike most pro sports, College Football isn’t the domain of the biggest markets. Looking at the 10 largest states by population, you see a discrepancy in terms of how many major football programs are found, both overall and per capita.

It’s no secret that (college) football is big in Texas, and the numbers back it up here. Southern and midwest states like North Carolina and Ohio show well, while northern states like New York and Illinois much less so.

Which Metros Stand Out?

Only a handful of large metros are home to more than one FBS program, and none have more than three:

You can also see how the bulk of schools are found outside of the 50 largest metro areas, compared to its share of the population, with 40% of schools while being home to 53% of the country’s population:

Many of the biggest schools are found in traditional college towns or other small metros, rather than the biggest markets where you’d find the top level of professional teams.

What About the Mega-Regions?
College Football is very much a regional activity (if not national) as far as supporters and attendees go. I decided to look at the 11 Mega-Regions of the United States to see which parts of the country have the biggest presence:

And per capita sees the southern and interior states stand out, while the Northeast and Southern California lag:

Which States Are the Most Successful?
So far, I’ve looked at the number of programs in the top division. Now, I want to see where the successful programs are located.

I looked at the final AP Top 25 of each season since 2000, assigning an inverse valued point to each ranking (ie. 25 for 1st, down to 1 for 25th). Grouping the schools by state, you can see which ones have earned the most points overall and per capita.

And per capita:

Which Mega Regions Are The Most Successful?
Using the same metrics on performance:

And per capita:

Cascadia, behind Boise State and the Oregon schools, shows best per capita, ahead of Piedmont Atlantic – the overall points leader – and the Utah-driven Front Range.

Another thing I found interesting from this breakdown is that the most successful Texas schools are primarily in the Triangle, not the Gulf Coast. Texas, TCU, and Texas Tech lead the way for the former region. The populous Northeast region does the worst per capita, demonstrating that its wanting in both numbers and success.

Conclusions

Big Metros Don’t Necessarily Have Big Programs. The balance of top programs are found all over the country, but primarily in the south, midwest, and interior west. Many major northern metros do not have significant college football teams.

Smaller Places Perform Well Per-Capita Based On One Successful School. Idaho, for one, stands out based entirely on Boise State’s run of success. Similarly, small states with one strong program (West Virginia, Kansas, Iowa) stand out for their per capita success. Most states or smaller regions, though, seem to have one big program, and a few that see occasional successful years. It’s rare to find a state outside the big football states (Florida, Texas, Alabama) that have more than one perennial Top 25 team.

Power Mapped Would Form a Horseshoe Through the South. If you were to map the most successful states and regions, it would extend from the Piedmont (Virginia south), down the coast, then west across the Gulf, south of the Applalachians, through Texas and Oklahoma, and into the interior west. There are, of course, scattered successful programs and areas outside of that (USC, the state of Ohio), but the power base in terms of number of top programs and the success they’re realizing, can be found there.

College football reigns in the south, west, and pockets throughout the midwest. The next post will focus on which ones are producing the players you like to watch on Sundays.

Jasper Ave Blues: What Does $5 Billion Get You These Days?

In Edmonton, the Downtown Business Association released a new report about potential downtown investment. It outlines 36 projects that are approved, proposed, or rumoured to be occurring downtown or in the adjacent Quarters area. Most readers will recognize that not all of these will go ahead – some will be shelved indefinitely, if not permanently and some will be scaled back. Yet, it paints a picture of what downtown might become, maybe not in 5 years (as the report suggests), but perhaps in 15-20.

I’ve grouped the probable, proposed, and rumoured projects into five categories: Commercial (office, retail, service), Residential, Major Facilities, Infrastructure, Public Space:

Commercial
This is the most problematic section. It proposes nearly 3.9 million square feet in commercial space (office, retail, and service), which seems…really high. For example, a City-commissioned report from 2009 anticipated that downtown would need an additional 3 million square feet in 2044, using baseline growth projections. In an alternative, and more positive, scenario, it projects demand to be about 4.5 million by 2044. All these projects going ahead would mean more than 85% of that would be available 5 years from now. This doesn’t add up, especially when – as our Mayor correctly points out – many businesses still don’t want to locate downtown.

(Update: DECL President Chris Buyze is more bullish on the commercial real estate market than I am. At this point, we have to agree to disagree, but he provided this Colliers report in support of greater growth).

Residential
In total, it proposes 2284 units, in addition to however many the Warehouse Incentive Program would contribute towards. Using the $10,000 per unit number from the Capital City Downtown Plan, that would mean an additional 1200 units for a total of 3484, which could translate to more than 5000 additional residents in five years (assuming roughly 1.5 residents per unit). Given that downtown grew roughly 130% in 15 years, growth of close to 40% in 5 years isn’t completely implausible. Note too that the region’s population grew by 124,924 residents from 2006 to 2011, and you can see demand for housing continuing to grow so long as the economy performs well.

Yet, the biggest threat to residential development downtown probably comes from its neighbours. Projects in Oliver continue to move ahead, drawing from much of the same pool of potential residents. Development on the City Centre Airport lands is also likely to start, providing further competition. For development in all three areas to go ahead as planned in the short term, Edmonton likely needs a huge economic boom, or a meaningful reversal of growth in the suburbs.

(Update: Buyze says the 10K grant isn’t happening. Not sure what the money will be spent on, but I can’t see this positively impacting my unit projections).

Major Facilities
The arena will go ahead, as will the Royal Alberta Museum. Based on estimated attendance, let’s say the arena will bring roughly 1,800,000 visitors; based on data from the early 2000s and accounting for growth, let’s give RAM 260,000 (if you think those are impressive, downtown Edmonton’s workforce would account for between 14,000,000 and 15,000,000 just by going to work regularly). In any case, all sorts of caveats apply when considering impact, such as that many attendees will go straight from the train or bus or their car to the venue and back, and many who do go out before or after an event already do so in the downtown area. The rest of the venues are still too much in the project phase to project well.

Infrastructure
The changes to Jasper Ave and completion of Capital Boulevard will help with beautification. The proposed enhancements are all welcome, though dependent on CRL revenue, which wouldn’t begin to be collected until at least 2015 – assuming the arena goes ahead that year and ancillary taxable development is build at the same time.

Public Space
What I said about the proposed infrastructure projects applies here as well.

What It Means for Downtown
All these projects added up provide a window into a possible future for downtown. Yet, it’s by no means assured, and not the only possibility. Many of these plans are just that – plans, with no money attached. Others are just ideas at this point. It’s likely that civic plans will once again be updated before all of these projects (or replacements) go ahead, meaning priorities may shift, if the market hasn’t led a shift already.

Citizens have to think about what kind of downtown they want, and whether what’s being proposed meets that vision. In particular, because it’s estimated that at least $2 billion of this investment (including $1.5 billion of what’s probable) will come from public funds.

For me, I see many projects I like in the report (additional residences, parks, cycling and walking infrastructure). But I also see things that are missing, such as no mention of the LRT (the downtown portion connecting the West and Southeast legs of the unfunded new line).

I will continue to hammer the point about opportunity cost, and it needs to be said again here. In particular when dealing with the public investment side, we need to consider what the money can best be spent on in order to achieve the social, financial, and development returns we hope for. I hope citizens keep that in mind when reading this report and others like it.

The Inclusive City: On Language and Culture

Last week, I wrote about the importance of urban design in promoting inclusiveness, and helping people change their circumstances for the better. This concept can be expanded to other characteristics as well, in terms of putting forward a message of cultural – and linguistic inclusion.

On one of my first visits to Portland, I was struck by the fact that MAX Rail announcements are made in both English and Spanish. Don’t believe me? You can hear an example here (at Pioneer Square, a flagship stop and destination downtown)

Portland, unlike cities in the southwest, isn’t known for a large hispanic community, and sure enough, the census data confirms that, with 9.4% of residents of Hispanic or Latino origin. MAX Rail is regional, so if any suburbs contain significantly higher numbers, that may boost the regional share to the state level of 11.4%, but it’s unlikely. Nonetheless, the metro average does appear to be significantly lower than the national share of 16.7%.

The point, however, is not about at what share of the population does a linguistic group command service in its native language. I’m on the accommodation side (yes, I do support official bilingualism in Canada), and see a broader point behind the language issue. It speaks to how welcoming and open to diversity a city (or, at least, its decision makers) is.

Contrast this to the proposed approach of Quebec’s government in waiting. In a province where only one major city – Montreal – is really multingual, nevermind bilingual, it proposes to further restrict the use of English and other languages. Some stats on Montreal – 66% of Montrealais identify their mother tongue as French, 13% as English. Any arguments that other languages need restriction for French to thrive ought to be debunked as mere rhetoric. I covered the long-term threat this approach poses to Quebec’s cities in last week’s post.

Now, to end on a positive note. Edmonton has the fastest growing urban Aboriginal population in Canada, and may soon have the highest in total numbers (though not proportion). Zoe Todd has previously written about the Aboriginal marks on Edmonton’s urban landscape, how other cities like Winnipeg do, and how much more can be done to honour the area’s history.

I thought about this with the unveiling of Aboriginal art panels that will line the city’s South LRT line. It’s a small gesture, perhaps, but one that takes the city another step towards putting forward a more inclusive message. In today’s world, I think that matters a lot.


A photo of the panels, via Don Iveson on Twitter.