Somebody on another board I frequent had this to say, and I gotta agree with it:
It's pretty much the whole northeast. Syracuse, BC, UConn, UMass, Rutgers, Buffalo, Army (I give them a pass), etc. And the worst part is all of them seem to have a hard on for old-school football and ex-defensive coordinators and won't hire a new coach who'll try something different. There are always going to be the inherent facility and recruiting disadvantages, and yet plenty of FCS schools make noise with high-octane attacks, but guys like Chip Kelly, Brian Kelly, Mark Whipple, Bobby Wilder all had to leave the area to get head coaching gigs. Even a guy like Paul Johnson would be a good hire because he would bring something unique and different, which is your best chance of beating teams with more money, fans, and better recruiting areas than you.
Bingo. On the plus side, the field is wide open for any Northeastern team to be THE team in the region. And that could be an ACC school with it's unique ability to have both exposure and the opportunity to play in the South.
But I think you are right on. I think Northeastern schools want in their hearts to all do what Stanford does. But Stanford is the extreme exception when it comes to these "haven't been good, shouldn't be all that good, but damn they're good" schools. Frankly, I don't know how they do it, but I guess it probably has something to do with being able to offer QBs and O Linemen a Stanford education, Palo Alto setting, and an unparalleled alumni network.
But the reality is that schools that overcome big disadvantages of tradition or talent have done so by utilizing non-standard schemes. I don't care whether you are Baylor or Duke or Vandy or Texas Tech or Boston College or Syracuse, it's just a losing battle to try to win with a system that requires a 6'4" rocket armed QB or 6'1" CBs and 300 lb DTs that run a 4.6.
There is just simply too much ground to make up for Northeastern teams to strive to play purely physically dominating football to long term success. Despite the stellar histories of Syracuse and Pitt, unfortunately being in an area that is very disadvantaged as far as talent, and very lukewarm in terms of fan support and therefore facilities, those schools are definitely in the "disadvantaged" category. And I mean no disrespect. There just aren't enough legit D1 athletes in these areas, and it's not getting any better. It's just getting worse, and will continue to do so.
Baylor and Texas Tech KNOW they are never going to get first (or second, third or fourth) pick of kids in Texas. GT KNOWS it will never be able to recruit the kinds of kids that Georgia, Florida State and Clemson can admit.
Schools that have been able to somewhat overcome severe disadvantages are ones that have figured out how to utilize a 5'10 receiver, or a quarterback with a quick release but a weak arm. Are they winning national titles, no. But they have put themselves on a different competitive level, and someday will...Oregon may this year.
The first step I think is for Northeastern schools to admit to themselves that they really are at a huge disadvantage due to local talent and support. I just don't think people want to appreciate just how far away they are from being able to match up physically with the top teams and utilize that. They can go into Georgia or Florida and get a kid who has played against the best of the best in high school competition, but isn't getting looks from UGA, Bama or FSU.
I think the Northeastern school that breaks out is one that rolls the dice with innovative coaching minds that can at least somewhat level the playing field. They need to put in a system that will be a selling point for a certain kind of talented kid. And with success, and being the most successful program in the region, they will slowly be able to get the attention of more traditional athletes I think, like what happened at Oregon, where they now have legit big boy athletes running that system.
I just don't see anyone being able to channel '86 Penn State to national prominence.