Well I am sure it will be skewed a little but even with the population decreasing (which I heard on the radio it wasn't a whole lot the other day) but per capita is per population. So even with a smaller population if we are still producing NFL players it should still be pretty good.
I don't remember which sports show I was watching this passed winter, but those guys said it was Pennsylvania. Sorry.
I found these from another site for the 2005 season. Katrina wouldn't lower LA in the standings, it would increase their lead. The number of LA NFL players didn't change because of Katrina, just the population decreased. So, that would give them more players per capita, not less. Louisiana had a huge per capita lead in 2005. I doubt that would have changed much in 2006, and like you guys said a lot more LA kids went into the NFL this year. I don't know how that sports show I watched this winter could have been right about Penn considering the 4 to 1 lead LA had a year earlier. Maybe they were talking about starters. :dunno:
I really don't know how. Louisiana and Mississippi have had a per capita edge on other states for quite some time now and it really wasn't close the last time that I looked. I seem to recall greater numbers of Louisiana and Mississippi athletes being drafted the last three years, so that number has got to go even higher with the lower population numbers of southern Louisiana and Mississippi.