College Football Programs in NFL Cities

[PITTsburghFAN]

A recent post here focuses on Miami now being Pitt... that "we were the U before the U was the U... and now they've become Pitt".

Nasty, snarky, self-loathing... the infantile attitude-of-entitlement so common to so many Pitt message board posters. But it raises a point worth making: can universities that field big-time football programs in close proximity to NFL teams do so successfully?

Just a couple of points:

* Not many try. Many large US cities don't even have college football programs: New York, Detroit, Baltimore, Cleveland, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Portland, etc.

* A number of large cities that DO have college football are STATE-WIDE universities that happen to host those institutions: Minneapolis, Seattle, Tallahassee, Columbus, San Francisco (Cal Berkeley is the "flagship" of the the U of Cal franchise), Colorado (in Boulder/Denver), etc.

* Programs that DO try to field big-time programs in large metro areas appear to be struggling increasingly to field Top 10 teams: Miami, Ga Tech, UCLA, Louisville, BC, Houston, Cincinnati, Northwestern (Chicago/Bears), Vandy (Nashville/Titans). And, yes, PITTsburgh.

* Some that have tried and had temporary successes (SMU/Dallas, Louisville, Miami) have been found to flaunt the rules.

* Even state schools from SMALL states (WVU, UConn, Rutger/NJ)

It would appear that in the ESPN-ized climate of college sports (now further balkanized by conference television packages) that the attention (arses in seats and eyeballs on TV sets) and the ticket revs (attendance and conference TV rights) skew against any but the big state-wide schools located in non-metro - especially non-NFL - areas.

Has the recent re-entry of the NFL into LA been a factor in USC/UCLA's competitive woes??

The demise of the Big East was essentially the death of the concept that eastern, metropolitan football could still be relevant.

I propose that the NCAA needs to make some significant changes (probably in # of scholarships allowed, but also in the oversight of predatory conference alignments) to insure a more balanced and viable long-term collegiate football landscape.

 

[pittdan77]

I propose that the NCAA needs to make some significant changes (probably in # of scholarships allowed, but also in the oversight of predatory conference alignments) to insure a more balanced and viable long-term collegiate football landscape.

When did a balanced "collegiate football landscape" ever exist?

 

[NTOP]

When did a balanced "collegiate football landscape" ever exist?

And why does it matter? A school that COMMITS to winning can do so.

 

[pittdan77]

And why does it matter? A school that COMMITS to winning can do so.

You'll never convince most of these guys it's possible.

 

[NTOP]

You'll never convince most of these guys it's possible.

Well, Pitt hasn't really committed since 1982.

 

[OriginalEther]

And why does it matter? A school that COMMITS to winning can do so.

Gee, if it were only that simple, then every school would be winning
There’s a reason why critics of college ball decry it as being the same 10 teams every year

 

[Las Panteras]

Tallahassee.....

In the same sentence with Seattle and Minneapolis

Ok......

 

[PITTsburghFAN]

Okay, Tallahassee is not a Tier 1 city. But Jacksonville is in some proximity to UF and FSU... so I was noting that both of those schools are state-wide institutions.

And... to NTOP's contention that Pitt's administration hasn't "committed" to a winning football program: I thought I saw recently where Miami and Pitt are #'s 3 and 4 (after FSU and Clemson) in spending on their football programs? If true, that shows they're far from neglecting Panther football. If we wanna bitch that not building an on-campus stadium is proof of lack of commitment, we can argue all day. Yes, it would be optimal. But as a city school with a very fine stadium only 3-4 miles away, and a campus that has trouble self-distinguishing itself from the Oakland surroundings as it is, Pitt should focus as much a possible on forcing a campus from its surroundings first.

 

[NTOP]

Okay, Tallahassee is not a Tier 1 city. But Jacksonville is in some proximity to UF and FSU... so I was noting that both of those schools are state-wide institutions.

And... to NTOP's contention that Pitt's administration hasn't "committed" to a winning football program: I thought I saw recently where Miami and Pitt are #'s 3 and 4 (after FSU and Clemson) in spending on their football programs? If true, that shows they're far from neglecting Panther football. If we wanna bitch that not building an on-campus stadium is proof of lack of commitment, we can argue all day. Yes, it would be optimal. But as a city school with a very fine stadium only 3-4 miles away, and a campus that has trouble self-distinguishing itself from the Oakland surroundings as it is, Pitt should focus as much a possible on forcing a campus from its surroundings first.

Spending money BADLY doesn't show commitment....it shows incomptence. How do we stack up vs. the big winners in other conferences. And Pitt & Miami have been pretty close behind the 2 powerhouses that have won national championships.
The stadium problems started long before they tore it down. Pitt went small-ball in the BE, how much did we spend, then? We've ramped it up with the ACC deal, but went cheap with Chryst & Duzz. So we've gotten little return on our spending.
Tallahassee is 2 1/2 hours from J-ville. Not very close...that's Pgh to Harrisburg/Buffalo/Cleveland/Columbus. Not proximity.

 

[pafootballguy]

TCU has a pretty good run

Do you understand that NCAA has no real power and gets what power it has from the schools themselves and you are going to struggle to get the P5 schools to vote for a reduction in scholarships.

 

[pittdan77]

And... to NTOP's contention that Pitt's administration hasn't "committed" to a winning football program: I thought I saw recently where Miami and Pitt are #'s 3 and 4 (after FSU and Clemson) in spending on their football programs? If true, that shows they're far from neglecting Panther football. If we wanna bitch that not building an on-campus stadium is proof of lack of commitment, we can argue all day. Yes, it would be optimal. But as a city school with a very fine stadium only 3-4 miles away, and a campus that has trouble self-distinguishing itself from the Oakland surroundings as it is, Pitt should focus as much a possible on forcing a campus from its surroundings first.

Your basic hypothesis is that fixing Pitt isn't a workable option so you're proposing to realign conferences and cut scholarships. Might I suggest you brush up on your geography and come on back when you think this through.

 

[ameoba defense]

Fans in those big cities don't really care. Sure, they'll jump on the bandwagon when the team is winning, but it's nothing like the kind of support ($$$$$$$) the big state schools get. Schools that draw 30-40,000, will never consistently compete with schools that draw 90-100,000 rabid fans who live and die with the program.

 

[pittdan77]

Fans in those big cities don't really care. Sure, they'll jump on the bandwagon when the team is winning, but it's nothing like the kind of support ($$$$$$$) the big state schools get. Schools that draw 30-40,000, will never consistently compete with schools that draw 90-100,000 rabid fans who live and die with the program.

I wonder how Tennessee fans feel about this theory.

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

And why does it matter? A school that COMMITS to winning can do so.

How does one "commit" to winning? It is much more than that. You have to have the whole community committing to the program, and we know in pro cities, that is not happening. Just like what happened in baseball, when you get into this type of money and resources, it narrows the field.