30 for 30. For real?

[All4SU]

As I noted in the other thread, I have always wondered what might have happened if the eastern football schools had formed one conference and the basketball schools another and they had an agreement to play a certain number of non-conference games or even an annual "challenge" with the other.

FOOTBALL

Boston College, Syracuse, Army, Navy, Rutgers, Temple, Penn State, Pittsburgh, West Virginia. Possibly could expanded later to include Virginia Tech, Cincinnati, Lousiville, etc. in a 12 team league.

BASKETBALL

East: Holy Cross, Providence, Massachusetts, Connecticut, St. John's, Seton Hall
West: Georgetown, Villanova, St. Joseph's, LaSalle, Duquense, St. Bonaventure

At the internal division between the football and basketball schools wouldn't be there.

That would have been the best way to go for all concerned.

- I have mentioned before that SU lobbied for an all sports conference in the 70s. - prior to the BE - but it needed PSU. And they would not allow their football program to be included. That opened the door for Gavitt.

- People always talk about how the northeast doesn't embrace college football like the south does. I have always maintained that it's not as simple as that. Certainly there was a time when the northeast did. PSU, SU. Pitt, Army, Holy across, these were all big time. And I believe that lots of factors led to CFB sliding in the NE. Certainly, the fractured nature of these independent programs played a huge role. But another influence was pro football which became huge at just the right time. The northeast had big time football. The Giants, the Pats, the redskins, the eagles, the jets... There was no pro football in Alabama, or in Georgia, Mississippi, or South Carolina, Oklahoma, etc. CFB got big there. Pro football got big elsewhere. In the NE, CFB became less popular as a result.

- none of this means that CFB cannot become big in the NE again.

 

[Lou_C]

- People always talk about how the northeast doesn't embrace college football like the south does. I have always maintained that it's not as simple as that. Certainly there was a time when the northeast did. PSU, SU. Pitt, Army, Holy across, these were all big time. And I believe that lots of factors led to CFB sliding in the NE. Certainly, the fractured nature of these independent programs played a huge role. But another influence was pro football which became huge at just the right time. The northeast had big time football. The Giants, the Pats, the redskins, the eagles, the jets... There was no pro football in Alabama, or in Georgia, Mississippi, or South Carolina, Oklahoma, etc. CFB got big there. Pro football got big elsewhere. In the NE, CFB became less popular as a result.

That's interesting. There's something to that, but it's not quite enough to explain it. Look at high school football...high school football is nothing in the Northeast compared to the South. And so the pro/college aspect doesn't fully explain it. I do think it's part of it, even strictly from an attendance perspective, but the quality and enthusiasm of high school football is a gigantic difference, and one the Northeast struggles to overcome to this day.

My guess it that it goes back to bigger sociological and cultural factors to the shift in football power. Such as the late and slow integration of the Southern schools. It's possible that the South always had more and better players, but many had to go north/midwest. Even after officially "integrated" I guarantee for a number of years there were unofficial "quotas" at some Southern schools.

I also wonder if scholarship limits affected it. Obviously an Alabama or Texas, etc were always powers, but when they were taking 200 kids, it kept the talent from spreading around to other Southern schools. Were there coaches in the Northeast that were infamous for hoarding athletes like that? Maybe it happened less in the Northeast?

I think it's also clear that the schools in the South/Southwest culturally were less concerned with breaking/bending NCAA rules, which certainly helped shift the power as well.

I also wonder if the old-style television agreements that limited it to a game or two a week on TV perpetuated a bias toward traditional powers in the major population centers. Everybody being able to be on TV certainly goes a long way to evening the playing field between a Boston College and Ole Miss.

It's an interesting question without probably any single answer.

 

[cuseinchina]

That's interesting. There's something to that, but it's not quite enough to explain it. Look at high school football...high school football is nothing in the Northeast compared to the South. And so the pro/college aspect doesn't fully explain it. I do think it's part of it, even strictly from an attendance perspective, but the quality and enthusiasm of high school football is a gigantic difference, and one the Northeast struggles to overcome to this day.

My guess it that it goes back to bigger sociological and cultural factors to the shift in football power. Such as the late and slow integration of the Southern schools. It's possible that the South always had more and better players, but many had to go north/midwest. Even after officially "integrated" I guarantee for a number of years there were unofficial "quotas" at some Southern schools.

I also wonder if scholarship limits affected it. Obviously an Alabama or Texas, etc were always powers, but when they were taking 200 kids, it kept the talent from spreading around to other Southern schools. Were there coaches in the Northeast that were infamous for hoarding athletes like that? Maybe it happened less in the Northeast?

I think it's also clear that the schools in the South/Southwest culturally were less concerned with breaking/bending NCAA rules, which certainly helped shift the power as well.

I also wonder if the old-style television agreements that limited it to a game or two a week on TV perpetuated a bias toward traditional powers in the major population centers. Everybody being able to be on TV certainly goes a long way to evening the playing field between a Boston College and Ole Miss.

It's an interesting question without probably any single answer.

Yeah, and weather.

 

[SWC75]

That's interesting. There's something to that, but it's not quite enough to explain it. Look at high school football...high school football is nothing in the Northeast compared to the South. And so the pro/college aspect doesn't fully explain it. I do think it's part of it, even strictly from an attendance perspective, but the quality and enthusiasm of high school football is a gigantic difference, and one the Northeast struggles to overcome to this day.

My guess it that it goes back to bigger sociological and cultural factors to the shift in football power. Such as the late and slow integration of the Southern schools. It's possible that the South always had more and better players, but many had to go north/midwest. Even after officially "integrated" I guarantee for a number of years there were unofficial "quotas" at some Southern schools.

I also wonder if scholarship limits affected it. Obviously an Alabama or Texas, etc were always powers, but when they were taking 200 kids, it kept the talent from spreading around to other Southern schools. Were there coaches in the Northeast that were infamous for hoarding athletes like that? Maybe it happened less in the Northeast?

I think it's also clear that the schools in the South/Southwest culturally were less concerned with breaking/bending NCAA rules, which certainly helped shift the power as well.

I also wonder if the old-style television agreements that limited it to a game or two a week on TV perpetuated a bias toward traditional powers in the major population centers. Everybody being able to be on TV certainly goes a long way to evening the playing field between a Boston College and Ole Miss.

It's an interesting question without probably any single answer.

This has little to do with conferences but I've always felt that that the shift in power to southern and western teams had a lot to do with weight programs. It used to be said that you recruit size and strength in the north and speed and agility in the south because the northern kids are indoors half the year and they lift weights while the southern kids are outdoors, running around all year. A team from Syracuse or Ohio State or Nebraska would be known for big linemen and straight-ahead football while southern or western teams would be known for smaller, quicker linemen and more passing attacks. Schools like Notre Dame, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Syracuse, Minnesota, Nebraska, Pittsburgh and Penn State won national championships. Since the BCS started, only one team north of the Mason-Dixon line has won a title and that was Ohio State in a big upset , (and dubious call) in 2002. Weight programs have made everybody big and strong. It's like giving everyone a million dollars. Being a millionaire doesn't make you rich. What differentiates teams today are the "southern" advantages of speed and quickness. Northern teams try to compensate by recruiting southern players but they get the B-listers and schools like Florida State get the "A" listers. The result is 3-59 games.

Regarding conferences, pro ball makes college ball secondary in Boston, new York, Washington, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, etc. Syracuse is one of the few "college towns" with big-time football and basketball in the northeast. But the markets the northeastern schools represent still make them attractive to leagues based in other areas who want national attentions. So one by one, the northern schools get coaxed to join leagues based elsewhere and the northeast, still the most populous area of the country, winds up unrepresented by a major college athletic conference.

As I said in the other thread, while the ACC is the better place to be than the Big East right now, it's not "us" to northerners. The old Big East was.