Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
are there some "stirrings" out there that seem to indicate that private universities are about to take a bigger role in the world of big time college football that is dominated by state universities? Certainly private colleges once dominated the game. That dominance will never happen again; state u's are destined to be the guiding force in the sport. but perhaps, just perhaps, on a more even playing field.
Aside from the usual subjects, USC, Miami, and Notre Dame (none, BTW, on the upswing at the moment), there certainly appears in recent years in the fortunes of college football's private institutions.
Stanford and Northwestern have proven that their programs belong in the Pac Ten and Big Ten respectively as these two have been commited to athletics and the student athlete and major college football. Both had great seasons and both were major factors in conference play. Ask USC, Oregon, Iowa, and Wisconsin if you're not sure about that.
In the ACC, Wake has become more than competitive and Duke seems to have left the dark days behind it and BC was a very good fit. The private school with the most daunting task, Vanderbilt, still has closed the gap between itself and the lower echolons of the SEC and had a good season last year. In the Big East, Syracuse gives indications of waking up after a long snooze.
BYU and TCU are highly competitive. Tulane has had good seasons. Rice is far better than it was in the old SWC days.
Private schools seem to be asserting themselves more nowadays and that's good. They enrich college football and keep a nice connection with its roots and the idea the game truly is about the campus experience and not (hopefully) for all intents and purposes a pro sport.
Private schools can be competitive. Their restrictions on academics among their athletes are often compensated by how smart those athletes are at playing the game. Private universities, with their smaller size, their tradition, their sense of "family" often build a cohesiveness in a team that the state u's cannot. Northwestern and Stanford have shown such sparks this year.
Private universities have realized they can upgrade their fascilities and their programs. They don't have to put 100,000 in the stands to attract good student athletes. Many of these schools like Northwestern in Chicagoland, Stanford in the Bay Area, BC in Boston, Vandy in Nashville, Tulane in Nola, Rice in Houston, and TCU in D/FW are in metro areas where the population is these days, perhaps an advantage over state u's which in so many cases are in small towns away from metro areas. Taping into the metro populations offer private schools opportunities.
Private schools may be small, but they carry strong name recognition and offer a differentiation from the generic big state u's that make them attractive. They are capable of building a national fanbase (a la ND, USC).
My arguments here are not to suggest that private schools will dominate, only to suggest that they seem to have become more competitive...and that's a good thing.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
