Started By
Message
re: Has College Football Become Regional Sport? (From Colin Cowherd)
Posted on 1/4/19 at 8:06 am to SummerOfGeorge
Posted on 1/4/19 at 8:06 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
The West and the Northeast have never cared, as a whole, about college football.
I think it's that way now, but I wouldn't say they never cared, especially in the West. In the 60's and 70's USC with both McKay and Robinson was great, Stanford had Jim Plunkett and a couple of Rose Bowl upsets, Washington had Warren Moon with another Rose Bowl upset (and were good through the early 90's under Don James), and UCLA was still pretty prominent. Even Cal was competitive at times, especially when they had Chuck Muncie. Arizona State and Frank Kush had some good seasons before they joined the PAC-10 as well. And in '90, Washington got a share of the national title. I recall watching many of those Rose Bowls in the 70's and Bama's big games out west...looked like they cared pretty deeply back then...
In the northeast, they just about have to hang their hats solely on Penn State. Pitt had some dominant years in the 70's and 80's but haven't sustained it. Same with BC in the 80's when they had Flutie. Syracuse seems to rise up every decade or so and then decline for long periods...
Think it all depends on if a region has a champion to pull for...and the west and northeast haven't really had that for more than a decade now. With the deep south dominating college football since 2006, with the exception of Ohio State in '14, it's no wonder college football appears to be a regional sport. If a strong team emerges in the west or northeast, kinda like Pete Carroll's USC teams or JoePa's Penn State teams from years back, then interest in those regions will rise...
1
Posted on 1/4/19 at 6:04 pm to OldPete
Somehow I think college football and the NCAA have done this to themselves. Maybe unintended consequences of the 85/25 limit? It’s strange that a lot of the powers in college football at the time of the change have since collapsed and never recovered. Some of it is natural evolution but some of it seems self-inflicted.
The Ivy Powers and Army and Navy were THE powers in college football up until World War II. That was in the northeast. When they withered away, so did real football interest in that region.
In the Midwest, Ohio State and Michigan and Notre Dame have been the constants in the region. Others have popped up from time to time but none consistent like those three.
In the West, it was USC and UCLA. Washington to some extent but your two perennials were the SoCal schools.
In the Plains it was Nebraska and Oklahoma. In the Southwest, it was Texas, Arkansas and A&M. In the Deep South, it’s been Alabama, Tennessee and maybe Clemson and Auburn.
This is over decades, not just a few years of success.
Now look at the regional powers on that list. All but a few like Oklahoma, Ohio State and the Southern schools have had fallen into long periods of mediocrity, and all are ongoing at the moment. So who do people outside the South root for? No wonder interest has waned.
The Ivy Powers and Army and Navy were THE powers in college football up until World War II. That was in the northeast. When they withered away, so did real football interest in that region.
In the Midwest, Ohio State and Michigan and Notre Dame have been the constants in the region. Others have popped up from time to time but none consistent like those three.
In the West, it was USC and UCLA. Washington to some extent but your two perennials were the SoCal schools.
In the Plains it was Nebraska and Oklahoma. In the Southwest, it was Texas, Arkansas and A&M. In the Deep South, it’s been Alabama, Tennessee and maybe Clemson and Auburn.
This is over decades, not just a few years of success.
Now look at the regional powers on that list. All but a few like Oklahoma, Ohio State and the Southern schools have had fallen into long periods of mediocrity, and all are ongoing at the moment. So who do people outside the South root for? No wonder interest has waned.
This post was edited on 1/4/19 at 6:05 pm
Posted on 1/4/19 at 6:19 pm to InGAButLoveBama
quote:
One way to help the non Southern regions would be for the NCAA to increase the minimum admissions standard schools must apply to recruits. While SEC schools often enroll "student" athletes with ACT scores of only 18, schools like Notre Dame simply do not or can not. But if elite non Southern schools raised this issue, it would lead to perceptions of racism, so not likely to happen!
How would that change anything for anyone outside of giving one program, Notre Dame, an advantage. The other schools in other regions have the same borderline academic qualifiers the SEC does. Raising the grade requirements waters down the sport as a whole and the bottom falls out of the level of talent.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 6:22 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
I've been saying this for years. Look at the Top 10 television markets for the New Years 6 games:
I think it’s relevant from to note that there weren’t many teams playing in them outside the SEC footprint, Oklahoma, and OH. Only ones outside the SEC footprint were Michigan, OSU, Washington, and Notre Dame.
If the SEC footprint wasn’t well represented, I’d venture to say those numbers don’t look like that.
Posted on 1/4/19 at 6:26 pm to CU_Tigers4life
How can anything written or said by Colin Cowherd be taken seriously? 
Posted on 1/4/19 at 6:54 pm to SummerOfGeorge
What’s summer of George says is the truth.
Although i will say the Midwest/rust belt area cares about college and the nfl.
The south east does not care about the NFL
Although i will say the Midwest/rust belt area cares about college and the nfl.
The south east does not care about the NFL
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News