Interesting article on the history of Northeast football

[ShakyTheMohel]

Not really new information...but interesting to read...

What happened to college football in the Northeast?

The story of college football can't be told without the Northeast, but it's been less than impressive in recent memory. Can it find a way to succeed again?

www.espn.com

 

[LoyalFanCT]

One thing David Hale forgets is that long before many of the schools once known as Power Five were even created, schools like Yale, Harvard, Princeton and Rutgers were playing intercollegiate football. Where would the sport be without the likes of Walter Camp at Yale. The northeast was key for the sport for many decades. Also, the more people underestimate UConn, the better for the new coach and team.

 

[DFW HOYA]

Three points:

1. The writer obscures the fact that the Northeast has a preponderance of private schools, all but two of which has been legislated out of major college football. The state-school football culture in the Northeast is decades behind what it is elsewhere, while the days of Princeton or Penn getting 40,000 for a game (as late as 1984) are long gone.

2. There is no college football presence in New York, and to a lesser extent, no consistent presence in Philadelphia or Washington. (Maryland may be near DC, but it is not of DC). The better athletes from this area aren't driven to football and even for those that are elite, no reason to stay in the area.

3. ESPN will never publicly admit it, but the ACC has strangled Eastern football. BC, Pitt, and Syracuse have withered in the past decade Watching BC football on the ACC Network is like seeing Washington State on the Pac-12 game of the week--no one cares. With no natural rivalries, fans drift away and do not come back.

 

[gopher2]

Northeast football would likely be much better off today had the Big East not turned down Penn State's application for membership in 1982. We can thank Georgetown, St. John's and Villanova for that.

 

[UCFBfan]

Three points:

1. The writer obscures the fact that the Northeast has a preponderance of private schools, all but two of which has been legislated out of major college football. The state-school football culture in the Northeast is decades behind what it is elsewhere, while the days of Princeton or Penn getting 40,000 for a game (as late as 1984) are long gone.

2. There is no college football presence in New York, and to a lesser extent, no consistent presence in Philadelphia or Washington. (Maryland may be near DC, but it is not of DC). The better athletes from this area aren't driven to football and even for those that are elite, no reason to stay in the area.

3. ESPN will never publicly admit it, but the ACC has strangled Eastern football. BC, Pitt, and Syracuse have withered in the past decade Watching BC football on the ACC Network is like seeing Washington State on the Pac-12 game of the week--no one cares. With no natural rivalries, fans drift away and do not come back.

This is spot on. The lack of state universities in the NE that play major FBS football, hampers any major interest. New England has two state universities that play FBS football. Add in NY and NJ and you have three. Toss in PA and you have 4. It's hard to count PA because Penn State is so far detached from New England.

It's a shame but as you said, any momentum for football in the NE was ended by ESPN when they destroyed the Big East.

 

[ZooCougar]

It’s just not in our culture. The northeast is NFL country.

 

[Jimdish255]

Don't forget the golden years of Fordham, even Wesleyan.

 

[freescooter]

In the 1950s Holy Cross was a major program as well. Went to the Orange Bowl one year

 

[freescooter]

The other thing that this piece ignores is the impact of the Ivy League’s decision to de-emphasize football in the Fifties. In the Northeast they were the bell cow. And the Northeast public schools, UConn, UMass, Rhodesia Island, were Unwilling to buck that trend. Why would UConn play big time football when Yale was pulling back was a small p political problem and it was repeated throughout the region. That was also a time when the major state flagships were transitioning to significant academic institutions, so they wanted to be taken seriously on that score. BC and Holy Cross tried to play with the big boys in part because they resented being pushed around by the Ivies as much as anything else while the Yankee Conference schools preferred to copy the Ivies.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

Scooter's comment on the Ivies is accurate but the follow-up on the state schools misses a point.

Post WWII the Ivies (who were dominant from the start of college football until the mid 1920's and still very strong until WWII) realized they could no longer be competitive with the better teams in the south as an midwest. They did de-emphasize football and spun it as any school putting more effort into football than what they were doing would be diminishing their academics. They also (as they had substantial political clout throughout the bulk of the northeast) ensured that the state schools in their common geography would be less competitive than the Ivies.

They basically ensured that they would still be dominant within their domain and spun what existed outside of their domain as schools sacrificing their academic souls for athletics.