Filed under:

# Women's BB under-recruiting Part II : a formula adjusted, foreign players and more

We look back at the formula from our previous article, where we re-examine the contribution of state population (and a map of South Carolina), which schools have the fewest in-state players, and which foreign countries are most represented in D-I.

When working on an update to my previous article about the demographics of the current D-I basketball players - to look at which schools had the most in-state players on the roster and which schools had the least in-state players - I discovered an error. An error can be a little error or a big error, and I had no idea which one it was.

Oh boy, I thought. This is going to blow up big and make a bigger fool out of me than I already am. What had happened was that during the data preparation the players from Santa Clara in California were attributed to South Carolina - the Gamecocks all of a sudden had their roster size doubled with a lot of non-South Carolina players added to their team. I corrected that error, but braced myself when I recreated the regression. What would the new results be?

Old formula

Total Projected Players = 3.20*Number of D-I High Major Players + 4.43*Number of D-I Schools in State + (1/23,676,596)*(2012 Population of State) - 4.25

New formula

Total Projected Players = 3.10*Number of D-I High Major Players + 4.09*Number of D-I Schools in State + (1/1,219,967)*(2012 Population of State) - 4.25

Commenter bukuma in my previous post commented that:

"Also, why would state population not matter? That is counter to logic, more players, more competition to shine those diamonds."

He is referring to the low state coefficient in the old formula, where you need a state population of 23,676,596 to add one more projected D-I player. The coefficient in the newer formula implies you need a population of 1,219,967 to add one more projected D-I player. The corrected regression makes state population much, much more significant. It's not as significant as the coefficient that Drew Cannon had in the original article, but it means that the corrected formula shows a real contribution now between a state's population and the number of projected D-I players.

Did the new formula change the states in the Top 5 Over-recruited and Top 5 Under-recruited states? Except for one state, no. All the new regression did was change their order:

Top 5 Under-recruited

1. New York
2. Alabama
3. Texas
4. Iowa
5. South Carolina

The former list was Alabama, then New York, Iowa, South Carolina and Texas.

Top 5 Over-recruited

1. Maryland
2. Ohio
3. California
4. Tennessee
5. Indiana

Virginia falls to #6 with the new formula - over-recruiting is still a problem there according to the model. California switches from #6 to #3 in our corrected list.

California's appearance wouldn't surprise Drew Cannon, the man who came up with the idea for this regression. According to Cannon, when recruiters think of the West Coast, they usually just think of California and forget about Washington and Oregon.

There was some interest expressed in seeing the entire list of schools, their total players, high major players, projected D-I players, etc. I don't know if our template at Swish Appeal will hold it all, but here it is.

 State StateName Total Players High-Major Players D-I schools State Population Predicted_Updt Difference % in-state NY New York 152 30 22 19,570,261 199.1 -47.1 35.5% AL Alabama 67 22 9 4,822,023 109.0 -42.0 52.2% TX Texas 370 95 21 26,059,203 401.9 -31.9 46.8% IA Iowa 46 19 4 3,074,186 77.8 -31.8 37.0% SC South Carolina 50 10 11 4,723,723 79.9 -29.9 46.0% MO Missouri 65 21 5 6,021,988 90.5 -25.5 32.3% KS Kansas 41 15 3 2,855,905 61.1 -20.1 17.1% FL Florida 149 32 13 19,317,568 168.3 -19.3 36.2% OK Oklahoma 55 17 4 3,814,820 72.2 -17.2 38.2% OR Oregon 43 13 4 3,899,353 59.9 -16.9 25.6% RI Rhode Island 5 1 4 1,050,292 20.3 -15.3 20.0% NE Nebraska 24 8 3 1,855,525 38.6 -14.6 54.2% DC District of Columbia 13 3 4 632,323 26.2 -13.2 0.0% WA Washington 86 23 5 6,897,012 97.4 -11.4 33.7% PA Pennsylvania 134 25 14 12,763,536 145.3 -11.3 30.6% AR Arkansas 47 11 5 2,949,131 57.0 -10.0 42.6% CT Connecticut 50 9 7 3,590,347 59.5 -9.5 20.0% AZ Arizona 43 11 3 6,553,255 51.8 -8.8 23.3% NV Nevada 22 6 2 2,758,931 29.1 -7.1 13.6% KY Kentucky 69 14 7 4,380,415 75.7 -6.7 43.5% NM New Mexico 13 3 2 2,085,538 19.2 -6.2 38.5% MN Minnesota 79 24 1 5,739,139 83.2 -4.2 8.9% WV West Virginia 15 3 2 1,855,413 19.0 -4.0 6.7% HI Hawaii 14 4 1 1,392,313 17.6 -3.6 35.7% MA Massachusetts 42 5 6 6,646,144 45.5 -3.5 23.8% DE Delaware 15 3 2 917,092 18.2 -3.2 26.7% IL Illinois 191 42 13 12,875,255 194.0 -3.0 38.2% ND North Dakota 6 0 2 699,628 8.8 -2.8 83.3% NH New Hampshire 13 2 2 1,320,718 15.5 -2.5 7.7% ME Maine 6 1 1 1,329,192 8.3 -2.3 16.7% VT Vermont 3 0 1 626,011 4.6 -1.6 66.7% MS Mississippi 61 11 6 2,984,926 61.1 -0.1 52.5% UT Utah 33 2 6 2,855,287 33.1 -0.1 69.7% WY Wyoming 5 0 1 576,412 4.6 0.4 40.0% CO Colorado 57 10 5 5,187,582 55.7 1.3 35.1% MI Michigan 122 27 7 9,883,360 120.5 1.5 40.2% ID Idaho 22 2 3 1,595,728 19.8 2.2 18.2% AK Alaska 3 0 0 731,449 0.6 2.4 0.0% NC North Carolina 165 26 18 9,752,073 162.3 2.7 57.6% SD South Dakota 16 1 2 833,354 12.0 4.0 62.5% LA Louisiana 87 9 12 4,601,893 80.8 6.2 71.3% NJ New Jersey 146 32 8 8,864,590 139.2 6.8 18.5% GA Georgia 211 54 7 9,919,945 204.2 6.8 18.0% WI Wisconsin 59 10 4 5,726,398 52.1 6.9 27.1% MT Montana 23 1 2 1,005,141 12.1 10.9 78.3% VA Virginia 156 26 13 8,185,867 140.5 15.5 30.1% IN Indiana 131 21 10 6,537,334 111.4 19.6 44.3% TN Tennessee 140 21 12 6,456,243 119.5 20.5 42.1% CA California 389 77 24 38,041,430 368.2 20.8 53.5% OH Ohio 213 36 13 11,544,225 174.3 38.7 33.8% MD Maryland 152 22 9 5,884,563 109.9 42.1 20.4%

Percentage of state players on local rosters

Looking at all this demographic data, we can now look at individual schools and see how much in-state recruiting they do. There are 345 D-I schools in the data provided by wbbstate.com.

There are 22 Division I schools that did not have a single in-state player on their roster according to wbbstate.com. (We count the District of Columbia as a state.)

American
Brown
Bryant
Columbia
Dartmouth
Drake
Florida Gulf Coast
Georgetown
George Washington
Harvard
Howard
Marshall
Navy
Portland
Quinnipiac
Rider
Sacred Heart
Rhode Island
Vanderbilt
Winthrop
Yale

Note that all four DC schools - American, George Washington, Georgetown and Howard - are on the list. This could be an anomaly - DC has about 43,000 public school students of all ages. It could be that there are students who go to a DC high school but are technically counted as being from Maryland or Virginia.

Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, Harvard, and Yale are all Ivy League schools with their own recruiting challenges. Likewise, recruiting for Navy means that a player has to do more than just dribble a ball to play for the Naval Academy.

There are three schools that have all of their students as in-state students:

Cal State Fullerton
North Texas
California-Riverside

These three schools are in California and Texas, which might as well count as countries. Even though about 50 percent of California (or Texas) D-I players end up in-state, a Top 10 list of the most in-state centric schools would have six California schools:

North Carolina Central
California
Texas State
Oakland
San Diego State
California-Davis
Cal Poly
Cal State Fullerton
North Texas
California-Riverside

Seeing the Golden Bears on the list leads me to think that you could very easily get a national championship contender just by assembling an All-Star team of D-I Californians.

Outside the US

If you're looking for a foreign pipeline, the best place to look would be at America's neighbor to the North, Canada. There are 44 D-I players from Ontario alone, a greater number of D-I players than those provided by 22 individual American states! Combine the D-I players from Vermont, Alaska, Rhode Island, Wyoming, North Dakota, Maine, and Hawaii and you still wouldn't equal the combination made from Canada's most populous province. (A trip to Toronto might be worth taking to see some basketball.)

Is Ontario over-recruited or under-recruited? I really can't say. The regression isn't stretched to include foreign countries. That would require an expert on Canadian girl's basketball, which is a niche market just waiting to be filled.