(08-02-2011 11:21 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I agree with Hokie. Had Paterno's all sports conference taken hold it would not have mattered because at some point the B1G or the ACC would have snatched them up by the end of the decade anyway.

People forget that Paterno's plan called for the following schools to form a conference: Penn State, Pitt, West Virginia, Boston College, Rutgers, Syracuse, Temple, Army, Navy and perhaps Maryland (depending on who you believe).

There was no talk whatsoever of schools like Miami, Florida State, Virginia Tech, South Carolina (who was an indie at the time), etc. None. And there was CERTAINLY no talk about UConn any more than we talk about schools like Maine, New Hampshire or Vermont today.

How would a league comprised of schools like Rutgers (of 1980, not today), Temple, Navy, Army, etc., have possibly held off the B1G once it decided to expand? Even the pre-Florida State ACC would have had too much might for the league to stick together.

Also, Paterno's plan was that the schools would share virtually none of its football proceeds but would equally share the hoops revs. Well, that works fine for a football centric school like Penn State which was averaging 75-80K for football and who is on television all the time (remember, teams would have kept their TV rights separate from the rest of the league) and 3-5K for basketball but Syracuse was averaging 40-45K for football and 30-32K for basketball. Why on earth would they ever agree to that? Further, how on earth would that type of league have ever survived? I suppose everyone else could have capitualted to Paterno's terms and simply given them the keys to the farm but I think we're seeing right now with the whole B12 saga just how well it works when one partner has so much more power and wealth than everyone else in the league.

Personally, I think college football is a lot more popular in the Northeast than a lot of Southerners would like to admit. It is not as popular here as it is in the South but I think that is due more to the respective schools' proximity to urban centers than it is any other sort of geography.

Unfortunately for the Big East, many of its schools are located in NFL cities where they are forced to compete as the football equivalent of AAA baseball in major league towns. That's the mentality here and you will never defeat that mindset.

Who in Cincinnati is going to spend their discretionary income on the Bearcats over the Bengals? Who in Pittsburgh is going to save up for a possible trip to the Champs Sports Bowl or even a Sugar Bowl when they could spend that money on a Super Bowl trip? It's just not going to happen.

Also, the Northeastern teams in the NFL tend to have some of its largest and most passionate fan bases. I mean when you start lining up fan bases like the Steelers, Eagles, Patriots, Giants, Jets, Redskins, etc., those are all HUGE, passionate fan bases. Who else in the NFL has fan bases like any of those teams? I would say Chicago, Green Bay and Dallas and that's about it.

Then you throw in other pro sports options and there is only so much money to go around. I know where I live (Pittsburgh), Pitt (and everyone else) comes after the Steelers. That is followed (after a huge gulf) by the Penguins and then Pirates - in that order. Then comes Penn State, Notre Dame, West Virginia and Ohio State - in that order.

When you look at it, it's pretty amazing that Pitt averaged 52K fans a game last year. That is pretty popular, IMHO. Pitt's greatest problem is that is surrounded on all sides by HUGE fan bases (PSU to the East and North, OSU to the West, and WVU to the South) that do not compete directly with NFL/MLB/NHL competition. That and the fact that Pitt plays in a HUGE off campus NFL stadium with bright yellow seats. Pitt can draw 52K for a game and it looks like there are 20K fans there. Schools like Rutgers and UConn draw 40K for a game and it looks like 100K fans are there.

I agree Paterno's plan was to have a Texas deal for PSU in the Eastern conference. I don't think that will work for the long term. PSU would have left for the B11 anyway at some point.

I think all the Eastern schools realize today football will be the driving force going forward. Many schools already made massive investments into our infrastructures. Things will change once we have a NE school that can challenge for the national championship yearly. We just need to all grow our fan base collectively. Schools like RU and UCONN have the potential to draw 70K+ someday.

One minor point to add to the good points above: There are literally hundreds of colleges in the northeast and many, many teams. Yes, most don't play BCS football, but the students are often legacies and loyal to their college team, nonetheless. I remember when we played Cornell and Colgate, now neither will appear on the schedule with any regularity, due to the 1970's divide.

As to Syracuse becoming a private, this is not likely going to happen. Most grads are proud to keep it private and Syracuse has an excellent relationship with the SUNY (State University of New York system. Kids attend SU classes with SU Professors and SU students and get a SUNY ESF (Enivironment, Science and Forestry) Degree at state prices. NOTE: A lot of these kids are pre-med, kudos to my niece!

A couple of thoughts:

(1) The relative lack of influence of the public flagships in the Northeast compared to everywhere else in the country cannot be overstated. Penn State is obviously an exception, but UConn only moved up to FBS during the past decade, UMass is only moving up to FBS (and even then, only to the MAC) during the next decade, Rutgers has about a century of Cubs-like ineptitude on the field, the state of New York doesn't have a true flagship, and the other Northeastern states' flagships are FCS schools. The fact that all of the individual flagships in the region (outside of Penn State) don't have much in the way of historical success (or any history at all) means that New York and Boston, where most people who graduate from those schools end up living, don't end up with a critical mass of college football fans and make them extremely weak markets for the sport. In contrast, the Big Ten and SEC schools are pumping out more grads on an absolute basis and then grab larger market shares in places where their grads migrate to (like Chicago and Atlanta) on a relative basis.

(2) I believe the NFL influence is very overstated compared to point #1. The Big Ten footprint is home to the Bears, Packers, Steelers, Vikings and Browns, all of whom have huge loyal fan bases but still manage to support their college teams very heavily, as well. The Cowboys are the most valuable franchise in the NFL, yet that hasn't dampened any enthusiasm for Texas, Texas A&M and college football in general in the Dallas market. Any market that is worth having is a pro team market already. Every region in the country outside of the Northeast is able to have pro teams coexist with large college fan bases, so I don't buy the presence of the NFL as a valid excuse for tepid college football support.

(08-02-2011 08:19 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 12:29 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  Another problem is that many Universities in the NE did all they could to stamp out big time athletics. When the University at Buffalo was turned public and handed over to SUNY they killed a bowl worthy program (it was offered a bowl and they turned it down) and until the 90s they did not allow them back due to their emphasis on education (go figure right?). I think this hurts desire for these programs since they did not play major sports despite being major schools. Syracuse is private and I think that hurts their overall appeal despite being the only major program that stuck around (not counting Army which of course has its own constituency and is not a "NY" team). Who knows how things would have turned out if SUNY made each of its satellites have level appropriate sports at the start? If Buffalo kept their team (and other schools did as well) and they played Syracuse and other NE schools often then college football may have had a better chance.

Seriously how does the state of NY have no major public football programs for so long? That is why.

Can't believe you don't know why Buffalo turned down the invite, but knightlight already pointed that out.

Buffalo's major problem is its name. Why not the University of New York? It sounds much more prestigious than University of New York at Buffalo. Its mascot the Bulls is pretty generic too. They should change the school name the the "University of New York" and the mascot to the "Roaring Lions".

The "University of New York, Roaring Lions" sounds like one badass school. Plus gives you a unique mascot. This would start some bad blood between UNY and PSU too.

They are too far gone now though they really shouldn't even bother. Syracuse should become a public school, this would help us quite a bit in building athletic and academic structures. We would easily become "New York's College Team" then...

Actually I do know the story as it was mentioned right where I found out they turned down an offer to go to the bowl game. I did not mention it since it did not do anything for my point of SUNY killed off a decent team.

As for University of NY I doubt you could convince the State University of New York to give any one of its schools the name The University of New York.

Though if you did I think you should change the name to the NY University Empire.



Mascots



Cheerleader outfits



Quarterback



Defense





FIGHT SONG


Also would given NY an automatic rival with the Ole Miss Rebels if they had gone with their possible new mascot...

(08-02-2011 12:29 AM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  Seriously how does the state of NY have no major public football programs for so long? That is why.

Well, partly. UB killed UB's major-college program in '71 due to funding issues and the campus strife with war protests overshadowing everything. On athletics, yes, SUNY's issue was they did not allow athletic scholarships, even as UB athletics stayed D-1 intil '77. We dropped to D3 just to get our football going again, fought through the 80's against SUNY until the scholarship ban was lifted in '86. Even if UB never lost football we would have been in the same boat as the Ivy's and Patriot's for many years, not angling for a invite to BE football in '91.

(08-02-2011 08:19 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  Buffalo's major problem is its name. Why not the University of New York? It sounds much more prestigious than University of New York at Buffalo. Its mascot the Bulls is pretty generic too. They should change the school name the the "University of New York" and the mascot to the "Roaring Lions".

Because the politics of placing one public above all others is a nightmare, yet another case of Upstate vs Downstate. No "U. of NY" was created because interests didn't want to step on NYU's toes. NY is different than other large states since we have more large, powerfull private schools. OH, MI, PA could grow their land-grants to create state-wide interest. NY gave its to Cornell then caved to private interests (including SU and then-private UB) to stop a state system from forming and keeping all schools as teachers colleges. And today, any time UB or SBU try to set ourselves apart from the rest with our resources and political clout, the other SUNY's all scream bloody murder.

10 years ago, Tom Golisano offered UB football a multi-million $ donation if we changed our name to 'NY State University'. UB knew better to even go for it since SUNY would never approve a change of legal name. Buffalo's been Buffalo since 1846 anyway, and we've never had interest to alter it as our private school history remains important to us. People in Albany or Downstate wouldn't care about a 'NY State' team in WNY, anyway.

(08-02-2011 08:19 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  They are too far gone now though they really shouldn't even bother. Syracuse should become a public school, this would help us quite a bit in building athletic and academic structures. We would easily become "New York's College Team" then...

A SUNY Chancellor once thought buying SU was a good idea. He was gone not so long after. You don't wanna be public, anyway. Downstate politicos don't understand the value of public research U's, and prefer quantity of students going to quality of 'elite' programs (some thinking schools should be tuition-free). The U. Centers receive hundreds of millions a year for improving our physical plants for education and research buildings, but getting state funded, big-time athletc improvements is like pulling teeth, even before the Recession. It's not like TX or FL where they dole out state money for athletics.

(08-02-2011 09:43 AM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  

(08-02-2011 08:07 AM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  The Ivy would have fallen apart either way, like 2% of D1 athletes today are qualified to play in the Ivy League.

Northeastern football would be much different today if Joe Paterno's proposed conference of Boston College, Maryland, Penn State, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, Temple, and West Virginia had come to fruition. If that timeline had played out it is safe to assume that UConn moves football up to join the conference too. The Academies could have joined to bolster TV revenue, and it wouldn't dilute the on the field product much. Notre Dame would be much more tempted to join that conference than the B1G or today's Big East. If Notre Dame didn't bite Marshall would just to get too 12 (can't think of anyone else in the footprint) and their you go the "Northeastern Conference". That is what it would have taken to save Northeast football. Although I think most teams in the Northeast are on the right track now.

From the day he arrived as PSU president in 1983, Bryce Jordan was committed to taking them to the Big Ten where he believed they were a better fit than with their historic rivals in the East. Had they become a member of the Big East in 1981, they simply would have left within the decade.

Perhaps. But its also very possible that had PSU helped create an Eastern football league, they would not have hired Bryce Jordan. I'm not sure he would have been able to place PSU in the Big 10 if Paterno had his wish of an Eastern football conference.

Off by 10+ years on Army and Navy - note that Army finished in the top 5 in 1958 and had a Heisman Trophy winner that year and Navy went to bowls and had two Heisman winners in the 1960s -- and it wasn't scholarships or bigger players that did it.

It's more correct to blame
a very unpopular war
the increase in pay for professional athletes

The 1950s and early 1960s were a different time, BeatNavy. Your better athletes aren't going to want to commit a good part of their productive years, that could possibly be spent in the NFL making millions, to serve out a military obligation. The times have changed considerably, especially the monies involved...

He made the same point, Bit.

Very interesting topic. Here are some random thoughts.

First, please recall that Harvard, Yale and Princeton WERE college football for many years. The B1G, SEC and others took years to catch up to them. In the 40's and 50's (and even early 60's) Army and Navy were major national powers. Army played many games to sold out crowds at Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds. In the early 50's, Penn was a national power. The decline of the Ivies, Army and Navy as compared to other schools around the country, coincided with the rise of the NFL. Few other schools stepped in to fill the void.

BCS AQ level football is dominated by state flagships and land grants. Of 68 BCS AQ schools (including ND and TCU), 34 are state flagships, and 13 are non-flagship land grants. A number of others are quasi-second flagships in states where the flagship and land grant are the same school. (I would include UCLA, FSU, ASU, UL and some others here). This makes sense. Such schools have statewide alumni bases. Almost everyone in a state has a family member or friend who attended ole State U. These schools are the pride of their states, attracting many of the best students and athletes, and graduating many of the leaders of business and politics within their states.

Because of the dominance of the Ivies in the northeast, states in the northeast were slow to develop state universities with strong identities. New York state literally had no state flagship until the 50's, and even then split the flagship among 4 campuses. New York state's land grant is Cornell, which joined the Ivies. New Jersey's flagship, Rutgers, essentially stuck with the Ivies until it decided to upgrade in the late 70's. Massachusetts' flagship has still not upgraded to FBS level, let alone BCS AQ. UConn only upgraded to this level within the past 10 years. Of major states in the northeast, really only Pennsylvania had its major state university committed to playing the highest level of football when the Ivies and service academies entered their steep decline. Among private schools, BC and Syracuse committed to playing at this level. However, private schools as a group simply cannot generate fan bases as broad as flagship state U's (ND, USC, and possibly BYU being the only exceptions I can think of. Miami, for instance has had a national brand, but not broad statewide support in FL).

RU and UConn have demonstrated that "dormant" flagships can step up to BCS AQ level. UMass has potential to do the same. In NYS, the split of the flagship among 4 campuses continues to present a barrier. The upstate schools would all tread on SU's territory and fan base. In my view Stony Brook may actually have the best shot of stepping up to BCS AQ level over the long term.

(08-03-2011 09:32 AM)orangefan Wrote:  RU and UConn have demonstrated that "dormant" flagships can step up to BCS AQ level. UMass has potential to do the same. In NYS, the split of the flagship among 4 campuses continues to present a barrier. The upstate schools would all tread on SU's territory and fan base. In my view Stony Brook may actually have the best shot of stepping up to BCS AQ level over the long term.

The SUNY's have an equal advantage as UMass because our state has 3 times the population and 3 times the GDP as MA. Boston will also be tougher due to the glut of large private schools and alums, while Buffalo has no local large, powerful privates to contend with. The same for SBU on LI.

And, SU's territory and fan base essentially fades past Rochester. The presense of the Bills buffered the need for interest in SU football. SU has less than 1000 students from here and 1500 alums, compared to 65K UB alums alone. The ratings bare this market reality. SU's influence in Bingo and Albany certainly affect those SUNY's, while SBU can develop a nice niche market in Eastern LI.

In a fun article from a week ago, it mentions one major invention that might be solely responsible for the rise in particularly college football in the South, especially Florida.

That one major invention?

AIR CONDITIONING!

Air Conditioning and the State of Florida's Rise to Sports Dominance

http://outkickthecoverage.com/air-condit...weapon.php

From link above:

In 1950, the sleep and sun-drenched state of Florida had a population of 2.7 million. To put that in context, that was less than the population of most other Southern states. Tennessee, 3.29 million, Alabama 3.0 million, Georgia, 3.4 million, and Kentucky, 2.9 million, all had more population than Florida. While Louisiana, 2.7 million, South Carolina, 2.1 million, and Mississippi, 2.3 million, all had similar or equal populations.

All Southern states have benefited from air conditioning, but none have benefited like Florida.

My two cents:

Don't underestimate the impact of professional teams on college sports, especially small private schools. Pro teams didn't hurt Texas or A&M, but they crushed the attendance and support for schools like Rice, SMU, and Stanford, not to mention schools like Villanova, Fordham, and St. Johns years earlier. Schools with small alumni bases require more fans from the general community, and pro teams usually take those away.

Without large Big Ten style state schools, the smaller schools were swept away by professional football.

(08-03-2011 09:32 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Very interesting topic. Here are some random thoughts.

First, please recall that Harvard, Yale and Princeton WERE college football for many years. The B1G, SEC and others took years to catch up to them. In the 40's and 50's (and even early 60's) Army and Navy were major national powers. Army played many games to sold out crowds at Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds. In the early 50's, Penn was a national power. The decline of the Ivies, Army and Navy as compared to other schools around the country, coincided with the rise of the NFL. Few other schools stepped in to fill the void.

This one of the best explainations I have read. It makes perfect sense.

NE was dominated by the Ivy League. NFL blossomed stealing away local interest. The Ivy's then made the decision to move down to FCS and completely take themselves out of the game.

Penn State ended up in the situation that UConn is in today, a dominant state flagship with no competition. They sucked up all the instate recruits and automatically had for themselves a highly rated team. Ditto WVU.

It has just taken Rutgers and UConn a lot longer to get the support behind them then Penn State and West Virginia. Syracuse and Boston College benefited from the lack of flagships playing in NY and MA. They were just ahead of the game. They co-mingled with WVU, Penn State, and PITT on the schedule as an Eastern Independent building major college identity in the process.

Another issue preventing the public schools of NY and MA rising up in football is the lack of overall football talent in the area. There are no Appalachian State FCS programs all over the place like you find in the South. Poorer performance takes programs longer to get going. They'll need to first move to a MAC level conference and build a winning traditiion (not easy to do look at Buffalo).

UConn got its basketball program into the Big East. That was absolutely huge as the success and money poured in because of TV. With the athletic donors in tow, it made the move up to BE football a breeze.

Rutgers moved its football program into the Big East before it was ready. For years it struggled to draw any support. The right coach came in and all of the sudden Rutgers football became serious business.

The problem is there is only a limited number of NE recruits to go around for PITT, WV, PSU, UMD, Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse, Boston College (8 BCS programs). At the MAC level you have Temple, UMass, and Buffalo. Temple has taken off with PA recruiting while Buffalo has languished. I can't imagine Stony Brook performing any better than Buffalo. At the FCS level it is Delaware and JMU taking all the best recruits. UMass at the MAC level might be able to take the guys going to Delaware and JMU to build a strong non-AQ team.

I guess there is room for 1-2 more successful BCS programs in the northeast but due to the overall low talent level not many more. Buffalo has a record of 30-109 (.275) since joining the MAC East in 1999. Stony Brook is 61-64 in the sametime frame playing NEC/Big South football. Albany is 80-52 in the NEC. There is not enough talent in the region to support all of those SUNY schools at BCS level. Then beyond that URI, UMaine, New Hamphshire, Vermont ect...

Talent is the biggest issue with 13 FBS schools (UConn, Buffalo, UMass all new) now in the Northeast. There is probably only enough talent for 3-4 strong BCS programs with the remainder having to hit Florida and Texas for recruits HEAVY to stay afloat.

FBS football programs by NE State

New York (Syracuse, Buffalo, Army)
Pennsylvania (PITT, Penn State, Temple)
West Virginia (Marshall, West Virginia)
Maryland (Navy, Maryland)
New Jersey (Rutgers)
Connecticut (UConn)
Massachusetts (Boston College, UMass)

Vermont/New Hampshire/Maine/Delaware unrepresented.

8 BCS programs/6 non-AQ

If you subtracted the academies and placed all of the schools in the same conference...

I: Marshall, West Virginia, PITT, Buffalo, Syracuse, Penn State
II: Maryland, Temple, Rutgers, UConn, UMass, Boston College

-4 of those schools are upgrades since 1995 (Marshall, Buffalo, UMass, UConn)

-3 more were not really not considered major prior to the 1978 FBS/FCS split (Rutgers, Boston College, Temple).

You only really had 5 schools in this group that would have been truely major in college footballs formative years in the 60's and 70's (Maryland, Penn State, PITT, WVU, Syracuse). Maryland was always in the ACC. The Big East wasn't strong enough to keep Penn State out of the Big Ten.

Big East conference football was then a last ditch effort to make eastern major football finally happen.

Good history and discussion in this thread. And yes, the peculiar history of Northeastern football--wherein the schools that invented and dominated the sport ended up abandoning it--has set us back relative to the rest of the country. Orangefan description of our flagship public schools as "dormant" is really apt.

And I didn't realize the proposed JoePa Conference--which is usually mentioned with people saying something like "BOY the Big East was dumb to reject PSU back then"--never got started because he wanted a Texas deal for PSU. Even if it had gotten started, it wouldn't have lasted under those conditions.

(08-02-2011 11:21 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  Personally, I think college football is a lot more popular in the Northeast than a lot of Southerners would like to admit. It is not as popular here as it is in the South but I think that is due more to the respective schools' proximity to urban centers than it is any other sort of geography.

Unfortunately for the Big East, many of its schools are located in NFL cities where they are forced to compete as the football equivalent of AAA baseball in major league towns. That's the mentality here and you will never defeat that mindset.

Who in Cincinnati is going to spend their discretionary income on the Bearcats over the Bengals? Who in Pittsburgh is going to save up for a possible trip to the Champs Sports Bowl or even a Sugar Bowl when they could spend that money on a Super Bowl trip? It's just not going to happen.

Also, the Northeastern teams in the NFL tend to have some of its largest and most passionate fan bases. I mean when you start lining up fan bases like the Steelers, Eagles, Patriots, Giants, Jets, Redskins, etc., those are all HUGE, passionate fan bases. Who else in the NFL has fan bases like any of those teams? I would say Chicago, Green Bay and Dallas and that's about it.

Actually, there is one exception to this: the late, great state of California. In California, it is the 49ers, the Raiders, and the Chargers who dominate, not Cal, Stanford, or UCLA. Southern Cal is the lone exception to this, and is the only SEC-like team in the state of California, IMO. Other than that, college sports still lag behind the pros in California.

IMO, the NFL makes the majority of its $$ in the Northeast, California, and parts of the Midwest.

Well, there hasn't been any pro football in LA for over 15 years. I wouldn't really consider the NFL dominant there. Compared to other large cities like NYC, SF, and Chicago, LA is way more into college football.

And I don't see what about USC makes them SEC-like except they've done well in the past decade and have a ton more t-shirt fans than other Pac-10 schools.

(08-04-2011 10:28 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Another issue preventing the public schools of NY and MA rising up in football is the lack of overall football talent in the area. There are no Appalachian State FCS programs all over the place like you find in the South. Poorer performance takes programs longer to get going. They'll need to first move to a MAC level conference and build a winning traditiion (not easy to do look at Buffalo).

The problem is there is only a limited number of NE recruits to go around for PITT, WV, PSU, UMD, Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse, Boston College (8 BCS programs). At the MAC level you have Temple, UMass, and Buffalo. Temple has taken off with PA recruiting while Buffalo has languished. I can't imagine Stony Brook performing any better than Buffalo. At the FCS level it is Delaware and JMU taking all the best recruits. UMass at the MAC level might be able to take the guys going to Delaware and JMU to build a strong non-AQ team.

I guess there is room for 1-2 more successful BCS programs in the northeast but due to the overall low talent level not many more. Buffalo has a record of 30-109 (.275) since joining the MAC East in 1999. Stony Brook is 61-64 in the sametime frame playing NEC/Big South football. Albany is 80-52 in the NEC. There is not enough talent in the region to support all of those SUNY schools at BCS level. Then beyond that URI, UMaine, New Hamphshire, Vermont ect...

Talent is the biggest issue with 13 FBS schools (UConn, Buffalo, UMass all new) now in the Northeast. There is probably only enough talent for 3-4 strong BCS programs with the remainder having to hit Florida and Texas for recruits HEAVY to stay afloat.

Talent has always been imported to certain areas. States like WV, Nebraska, Idaho, and Oregon produce very few FBS signees, yet they contain programs with attributes that draw athletes. How do the MTZ schools in the WAC and MWC survive with so few players from all those sparcely populated areas? They get what they can, then look to TX and CA.

NY and MA produce about the same amount of FBS players as KY, MN, and Kansas. There are talented athletes here. But, the lack of drive to just concentrate on FB 24/7/365 like other states means they have to be developed further after they sign. Did you forget UMass won 2 FCS titles and have made the playoffs many times, in the last 13 years? They are right there with UD, JMU, and App St in Eastern FCS clout. There are 10 grads of Buffalo-area HS's who were on NFL rosters last season. UB won the MAC with a roster with 1 out of 3 players from NY. UB's main issues were underfunding and 2 crap coaches at the start of our return to 1-A, not a lack of players who are willing to come here. Gill proved that.

(08-05-2011 04:29 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(08-04-2011 10:28 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  Another issue preventing the public schools of NY and MA rising up in football is the lack of overall football talent in the area. There are no Appalachian State FCS programs all over the place like you find in the South. Poorer performance takes programs longer to get going. They'll need to first move to a MAC level conference and build a winning traditiion (not easy to do look at Buffalo).

The problem is there is only a limited number of NE recruits to go around for PITT, WV, PSU, UMD, Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse, Boston College (8 BCS programs). At the MAC level you have Temple, UMass, and Buffalo. Temple has taken off with PA recruiting while Buffalo has languished. I can't imagine Stony Brook performing any better than Buffalo. At the FCS level it is Delaware and JMU taking all the best recruits. UMass at the MAC level might be able to take the guys going to Delaware and JMU to build a strong non-AQ team.

I guess there is room for 1-2 more successful BCS programs in the northeast but due to the overall low talent level not many more. Buffalo has a record of 30-109 (.275) since joining the MAC East in 1999. Stony Brook is 61-64 in the sametime frame playing NEC/Big South football. Albany is 80-52 in the NEC. There is not enough talent in the region to support all of those SUNY schools at BCS level. Then beyond that URI, UMaine, New Hamphshire, Vermont ect...

Talent is the biggest issue with 13 FBS schools (UConn, Buffalo, UMass all new) now in the Northeast. There is probably only enough talent for 3-4 strong BCS programs with the remainder having to hit Florida and Texas for recruits HEAVY to stay afloat.

Talent has always been imported to certain areas. States like WV, Nebraska, Idaho, and Oregon produce very few FBS signees, yet they contain programs with attributes that draw athletes. How do the MTZ schools in the WAC and MWC survive with so few players from all those sparcely populated areas? They get what they can, then look to TX and CA.

NY and MA produce about the same amount of FBS players as KY, MN, and Kansas. There are talented athletes here. But, the lack of drive to just concentrate on FB 24/7/365 like other states means they have to be developed further after they sign. Did you forget UMass won 2 FCS titles and have made the playoffs many times, in the last 13 years? They are right there with UD, JMU, and App St in Eastern FCS clout. There are 10 grads of Buffalo-area HS's who were on NFL rosters last season. UB won the MAC with a roster with 1 out of 3 players from NY. UB's main issues were underfunding and 2 crap coaches at the start of our return to 1-A, not a lack of players who are willing to come here. Gill proved that.

I agree with everything you are saying above but if your roster has more than 1/3 out-of-state players there isn't an abundance of talent.

Take a look at TCU's roster, almost every single player is from the state of Texas and most within the metro area. There is no secret to their success, they play in a football hotbed.

Eastern college football has recovered to the point that if Penn State rejoined the group and Rutgers expanded to 80k while UConn moved to 70k you could pretty much have a SEC/B1G level conference in the East. Its just wasn't possible in the 70's out East.

Penn State 107,000 (57,000)
Rutgers 80,000 (31,000)
UConn 70,000 (16,200)
PITT 66,000 (56,500)
WVU 60,000 (38,000)
Maryland 54,000 (35,000)
Syracuse 50,000 (26,000)
Boston College 45,000 (26,000)
Marshall 38,000 (18,000)

I have the 1976 capacities listed above for the schools in parenthesis.

From what you see above, an Eastern conference back in the mid 70's would have been pretty much a Mountian West led by PSU/PITT which would have been the BYU/UTAH of the conference and WVU at a TCU level attendance. Marshall and UConn had Idaho like stadium capacities at the time.

Now its possible to at least have an Big XII level all-sport conference in the Northeast with Penn State the Texas, PITT the TAMU, and WVU the Oklahoma. Rutgers could play the role of Missouri and UConn of Kansas. The issue is superconferences have already picked of PSU (B1G) and ACC (Maryland, Boston College) before it could materialize.

What is left is the marginal BCS conference we have today called the Big East.