Last week I mentioed something about considering location in the recruiting process. This came up in discussing recruiting costs and where mney might be more wisely spent.
I think my statement was misunderstood so would like to explain further.
We all look at rosters as to position needs, but how many have noticed where the players come from.
Here are 5 schools, two from the same conference, all share very good weather for playing baseball, one having actual colder winter than the rest.
One school is from the west, one from the southeast, two from the south, and one mid atlantic school. Some of the rosters are 2006, some 2007.
southern state school: 37 rostered, 22 IS, 15 OS
mid atlantic state school: 33 rostered 16 IS, 17 OS
west state school: 39 rostered, 35 IS,3 OS
southern private school: 38 rostered, 31 IS, 7 0S
southeast private school: 38 rostered, 27 IS, 11 OS
All schools are from top ranked programs.
So when spending your money on camps and area showcases, wouldn't it be wise to conider where most of the players come from? If I lived close to a southern school, why would one pay the expense of sending son to a camp out west (for recruiting purposes) where they only recruit 3 from OS? Wouldn't we be better off considering the mid atantic school?
Of course these schools look for top talent and very selective in their process. But using these as an example, do you consider this factor (where players come from_ in any school your son is interested in?
Just examples for thought for budgeting and open for discussion.
Clemson was NOT one of the schools used as an example!
I can tell you this of all schools that I used, in each school, most of the OS players were from Florida, a few from California, very few from the northern states.
Original Post