(06-17-2013 08:37 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 08:11 PM)PhiladelphiaVT Wrote:  

(06-17-2013 02:06 AM)ArQ Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 11:19 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The midwest isn't declining in population. It's growth rate is just much slower than the south's. Ohio, Pennsylvania (not technically midwestern), Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Minnesota all saw population INCREASES. I didn't look but I'm sure Kansas and Missouri (if the Big Ten had decided to expand that way at the time) likely increased, too. I imagine the only state to lose population from 2000 to 2010 was Michigan and they only saw a decline of ~50,000 (somewhat negligible) and honestly much better than I expected given how they were hit by the recession.

Recently Wall Street Journal had a featured story on population decline in Rust Belt. Of all major cities, Pittsburgh lost the least because Pittsburgh transformed itself to high tech and banking center, so only declined 8% in population. Detroit is the worst, losing 23% in the past ten years. All other cities in Rust Belt declined between 10% to 20%. By comparison, Texas and Florida increased more than 20% in population. B1G is totally wrong on expansion. They need to go south not east if they want to save themselves.

I didn't read the WSJ article, but Philadelphia is one "Rust Belt" city that actually gained population between 2000 and 2010 (from 1,517,500 to 1,526,000, and since 2010, the growth has accelerated (it's close to 1,550,000 now). Most of this growth is young professionals moving into neighborhoods adjacent to Center City. I live in CC and it is amazing to see the amount of residential rehab/new construction now taking place here.

While it's true that growth rates in the "Rust Belt" states are small compared to the "Sun Belt" states, the fact remains that half of the ten most populous states in the U.S. are located in the North (NY #3; IL #5; PA #6; OH #7 and MI #8).

Philly did grow in single digit in the past 10 years. But Phillip is neither in Rust Belt nor Midwest. What do you think "Rust" come from?

In general, Pittsburgh is considered in borderline Rust Belt. WSJ listed cities in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, all in old B1G territory. The other PA city listed is Erie which is in Western PA like Pittsburgh.

I think the only cities north of Charlotte that can escape from the slow death are the biggest ones, including NYC, DC, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and maybe Pittsburgh. All others will die slowly like Detroit.

Well, at one time, Philadelphia was the biggest industrial city in the Western Hemisphere--it was known as the "Workshop of the World" Over the last 50-years we've lost most of our heavy industry including the Baldwin Locomotive Works (the world's largest) and the Cramp Shipbuilding Yards-each of which hired 30,000 workers. So yeah I'd say Philly has some "rust"--a lot of it actually.

(06-16-2013 11:26 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 11:19 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The midwest isn't declining in population. It's growth rate is just much slower than the south's. Ohio, Pennsylvania (not technically midwestern), Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Minnesota all saw population INCREASES. I didn't look but I'm sure Kansas and Missouri (if the Big Ten had decided to expand that way at the time) likely increased, too. I imagine the only state to lose population from 2000 to 2010 was Michigan and they only saw a decline of ~50,000 (somewhat negligible) and honestly much better than I expected given how they were hit by the recession.

100% true. My question is, what are those states doing wrong in developing talent compared to the south? It has to be more than just the south has warmer weather. States in the north can still make football a year round sport. Is it coaching? At one time PA was a top 3 state in the nation and now its barely top 15.

I think the reasons why the northern states do not develop as many good football players at the southern states are as follows:
1. weather - winter brings football season to a halt
2. coaching - there is a lack of good coaching in the northern states
3. football culture - the football culture is not as big in the northern states as the southern states thus kids may not be concentrating on football as their number one sport.

I think some states such as Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey are still pretty good at developing football prospects. They seem to have better coaching at the high school level than their counterparts in say New York. I think the northern states are still fine in developing lineman its just the skill positions tend to need more playing time which is possible in the south.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census...County.svg

(06-18-2013 09:54 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 11:26 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 11:19 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The midwest isn't declining in population. It's growth rate is just much slower than the south's. Ohio, Pennsylvania (not technically midwestern), Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Minnesota all saw population INCREASES. I didn't look but I'm sure Kansas and Missouri (if the Big Ten had decided to expand that way at the time) likely increased, too. I imagine the only state to lose population from 2000 to 2010 was Michigan and they only saw a decline of ~50,000 (somewhat negligible) and honestly much better than I expected given how they were hit by the recession.

100% true. My question is, what are those states doing wrong in developing talent compared to the south? It has to be more than just the south has warmer weather. States in the north can still make football a year round sport. Is it coaching? At one time PA was a top 3 state in the nation and now its barely top 15.

I think the reasons why the northern states do not develop as many good football players at the southern states are as follows:
1. weather - winter brings football season to a halt
2. coaching - there is a lack of good coaching in the northern states
3. football culture - the football culture is not as big in the northern states as the southern states thus kids may not be concentrating on football as their number one sport.

I think some states such as Ohio, Michigan and New Jersey are still pretty good at developing football prospects. They seem to have better coaching at the high school level than their counterparts in say New York. I think the northern states are still fine in developing lineman its just the skill positions tend to need more playing time which is possible in the south.

I don't agree with any of those things - at least as it relates to Western PA. Perhaps in New York it's different but in Western PA, pretty much everyone I know is busy all fall with their local HS game on Friday night, the college game on Saturday and the NFL game on Sunday. That is about as much football-centric as you can get.

As someone who lived in Ohio for more than a decade, I think the "football culture" here is identical and perhaps even more passionate than it was there.

Also, the coaching here is very good. Now, there are not a lot of spread teams here but spread offenses are usually simple, not complex.

(06-17-2013 08:37 PM)ArQ Wrote:  Philly did grow in single digit in the past 10 years. But Phillip is neither in Rust Belt nor Midwest. What do you think "Rust" come from?

In general, Pittsburgh is considered in borderline Rust Belt. WSJ listed cities in Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, all in old B1G territory. The other PA city listed is Erie which is in Western PA like Pittsburgh.

I think the only cities north of Charlotte that can escape from the slow death are the biggest ones, including NYC, DC, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and maybe Pittsburgh. All others will die slowly like Detroit.

No one is going the way of Detroit, that is a special circumstance. And Detroit's implosion hasn't really affected Ann Arbor, has it?

But the South is going to continue to grow both demographically and in political power. It's not really a coincidence that most football talent comes from the most populated states, with a few exceptions like NY and IL, which traditionally dominate for basketball talent. States with relatively large populations outside high density urban centers, which don't seem to have the same football-centric culture, tend to produce more football players.

(06-16-2013 05:17 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Plenty of good points ArQ. I've often wondered why NYC couldn't be both a basketball and football hotbed. I'm sure there are a stockpile of talent in NYC that lacks the discipline/fundamentals to play at the next level. I'm unsure how many coaching clinics there are between NYC coaches and Syracuse, and even Rutgers and UConn. I don't have the numbers in front of me but Connecticut is slowly improving for recruiting. That state will probably never be a hotbed, but a state that may be worth recruiting a kid or 2 in the future.

For PA, it has been tough seeing how the talent pool has dropped significantly the past 5+ years. The Pittsburgh City League is another area that needs better coaching. Schools like Perry, University Prep, and Brashear always have a plethora of athletes at every position. Those kids just lack the fundamentals to compete against schools outside of the City League.

As for the PSU situation, Pitt hasn't been able to fully capitalize on it yet. Schools from outside PA been grabbing some of the kids that would've went to PSU otherwise. Pitt has been able to pick up Tyler Boyd, and Dorian Johnson because of the sanctions though.

Metro NYC does have a lot of football talent. The key is that almost all of it is in Bergen, Passaic, Hudson, Essex, Union, Middlesex counties in NJ. A few other northern and central NJ counties plus Rockland, Westchester and Nassau Counties in NY produce some talent too.

I agree that CT and seemingly MA as well are improving places to find some players. With the rise of the Patriots since the turn of the century football has become much much bigger in Southern New England.

(06-16-2013 11:19 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The midwest isn't declining in population. It's growth rate is just much slower than the south's. Ohio, Pennsylvania (not technically midwestern), Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Minnesota all saw population INCREASES. I didn't look but I'm sure Kansas and Missouri (if the Big Ten had decided to expand that way at the time) likely increased, too. I imagine the only state to lose population from 2000 to 2010 was Michigan and they only saw a decline of ~50,000 (somewhat negligible) and honestly much better than I expected given how they were hit by the recession.

This. Minnesota and Maryland are actually two of the faster growing states in the country. Only Michigan saw population decreases in the Midwest.

(06-19-2013 10:10 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(06-16-2013 11:19 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  The midwest isn't declining in population. It's growth rate is just much slower than the south's. Ohio, Pennsylvania (not technically midwestern), Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin and Minnesota all saw population INCREASES. I didn't look but I'm sure Kansas and Missouri (if the Big Ten had decided to expand that way at the time) likely increased, too. I imagine the only state to lose population from 2000 to 2010 was Michigan and they only saw a decline of ~50,000 (somewhat negligible) and honestly much better than I expected given how they were hit by the recession.

This. Minnesota and Maryland are actually two of the faster growing states in the country. Only Michigan saw population decreases in the Midwest.

By 2012 estimates from the 2010 census, only one state saw a negative growth rate: Rhode Island; while Michigan was flat at 0%. It isn't necessarily that it has to be negative growth to be in comparative decline, but rather not keeping up with competing states, so to speak.

So, you have, in the B10/ACC footprint, 5 ACC/SEC states with over 2% growth (or in the top 18 fastest growing states)....

Florida +2.75%
Virginia +2.51%
Georgia +2.40%
North Carolina +2.27%
South Carolina +2.13%

Maryland +1.92%
Nebraska +1.60%
New York +1.50%
Minnesota +1.42%

Massachusetts +0.99%
Kentucky +0.95%
Iowa +0.91%
New Jersey +0.83%
Indiana +0.83%
Wisconsin +0.69%
Pennsylvania +0.48%
Illinois +0.35%

Ohio +0.07%
Michigan 0.0%


That isn't necessarily meaningful without knowing the starting point (does it matter how fast Nebraska is growing when it has essentially the same population as West Virginia?) Not that demographic trends are necessarily a concern in the short term, but long-term strategic thinking (for example, Florida is poised to surpass New York and Georgia and North Carolina are on track to surpass Michigan and Ohio). Demographics is something Delaney himself mentioned as a concern. Regardless many of those midwestern states are still highly populated, but the future shift South is quite evident.

New York 19,570,261
Florida 19,317,568

Illinois 12,875,255
Pennsylvania 12,763,536
Ohio 11,544,225

Georgia 9,919,945
Michigan 9,883,360
North Carolina 9,752,073
New Jersey 8,864,590
Virginia 8,185,867
Massachusetts 6,646,144
Indiana 6,537,334
Maryland 5,884,563
Wisconsin 5,726,398
Minnesota 5,379,139

South Carolina 4,723,723
Kentucky 4,380,415
Iowa 3,074,186
Nebraska 1,855,525

Found this interesting...

Pittsburgh 9% growth between between Jan & Dec of 12

http://www.uhaul.com/Articles/About/1366...rowth-City

(06-19-2013 02:43 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Found this interesting...

Pittsburgh 9% growth between between Jan & Dec of 12

http://www.uhaul.com/Articles/About/1366...rowth-City

Well, that's just based on UHaul data and that is circumstantial. But by traditional estimation techniques, there is small growth now in both Pittsburgh metro (+0.08%, or +0.19% for MSA, or +0.02% CSA) and the city (+0.8%) in the last two years, but that growth isn't as significant as the simple fact that Pittsburgh has finally halted the large decline in population that began in the steel collapse of the 70s.

For those that don't know, Pittsburgh, geographically, has a very small city limits of only 58 square miles (compared to 469 square miles for NYC) with a population of about 308K. However, the Pittsburgh metro area is more like 2.7 million people. The city's population is down 54% from its 1950 peak when it was the nation's 12th biggest city, when even with its small land size, it fell right behind San Francisco. So stemming a 50 year downward trend is big news for Pittsburgh.

(06-19-2013 03:13 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:43 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Found this interesting...

Pittsburgh 9% growth between between Jan & Dec of 12

http://www.uhaul.com/Articles/About/1366...rowth-City

Well, that's just based on UHaul data and that is circumstantial. But by traditional estimation techniques, there is small growth now in both Pittsburgh metro (+0.08%, or +0.19% for MSA, or +0.02% CSA) and the city (+0.8%) in the last two years, but that growth isn't as significant as the simple fact that Pittsburgh has finally halted the large decline in population that began in the steel collapse of the 70s.

For those that don't know, Pittsburgh, geographically, has a very small city limits of only 58 square miles (compared to 469 square miles for NYC) with a population of about 308K. However, the Pittsburgh metro area is more like 2.7 million people. The city's population is down 54% from its 1950 peak when it was the nation's 12th biggest city, when even with its small land size, it fell right behind San Francisco. So stemming a 50 year downward trend is big news for Pittsburgh.

I'm curious to see if there is anymore growth these next few years. Read that a lot of people that moved out of the years wants to me back.

(06-19-2013 03:25 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 03:13 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(06-19-2013 02:43 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Found this interesting...

Pittsburgh 9% growth between between Jan & Dec of 12

http://www.uhaul.com/Articles/About/1366...rowth-City

Well, that's just based on UHaul data and that is circumstantial. But by traditional estimation techniques, there is small growth now in both Pittsburgh metro (+0.08%, or +0.19% for MSA, or +0.02% CSA) and the city (+0.8%) in the last two years, but that growth isn't as significant as the simple fact that Pittsburgh has finally halted the large decline in population that began in the steel collapse of the 70s.

For those that don't know, Pittsburgh, geographically, has a very small city limits of only 58 square miles (compared to 469 square miles for NYC) with a population of about 308K. However, the Pittsburgh metro area is more like 2.7 million people. The city's population is down 54% from its 1950 peak when it was the nation's 12th biggest city, when even with its small land size, it fell right behind San Francisco. So stemming a 50 year downward trend is big news for Pittsburgh.

I'm curious to see if there is anymore growth these next few years. Read that a lot of people that moved out of the years wants to me back.

I think you'll continue to see some moderate growth due to the energy sector taking off and more downtown residential development. Some of it may come at the expense of the suburbs to a degree. But growth in the city is good for the whole region long-term though. You aren't going to see something like is going on in Austin or Houston. Pittsburgh is much too regressive for that. In any case, the loss has stopped, and that is very important, and Pittsburgh is well positioned compared to a lot of former industrial cities.