[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by Reilly1017

Look at other state universities in the Northeast. Vermont dropped football a long time ago. UNH was flat revenue/expenses. UMass also flat. Rhode Island flat. Maine flat. At best state universities in the northeast are a flat endeavor. Why? Because no one cares. We have our Patriots, Giants and Jets which is the football people in the NE care about, period

Mostly true, but Penn State and Maryland are in the Northeast. What you're saying is more New England and NY (only state university in NY I know of that does Division I football is SUNY Buffalo and it's a situation somewhat similar to UConn.....only private university in the state of NY I can think of that is really big on Div I football is Syracuse).

[Reilly1017]

Originally Posted by 7 Wishes

Mostly true, but Penn State and Maryland are in the Northeast. What you're saying is more New England and NY (only state university in NY I know of that does Division I football is SUNY Buffalo and it's a situation somewhat similar to UConn.....only private university in the state of NY I can think of that is really big on Div I football is Syracuse).

You’re right, I really mean New England. I refer to it as northeast and DC/Maryland/Virginia as mid-Atlantic.

Anyways, really the only school in New England that makes any money in football is Boston College and that’s only because they are in the ACC and share in that revenue. Again, TV/media dollars is what drives most of college football. Fandom for college football isn’t good up here.

Texas on the other hand, had over $100MM profit…incredible.

If UConn football was a restaurant it would have closed its doors already. For perspective, UConn women are one of the most successful athletic programs on the planet and they only make $4MM profit a year.

[7 Wishes]

Originally Posted by Reilly1017

You’re right, I really mean New England. I refer to it as northeast and DC/Maryland/Virginia as mid-Atlantic.

Anyways, really the only school in New England that makes any money in football is Boston College and that’s only because they are in the ACC and share in that revenue. Again, TV/media dollars is what drives most of college football. Fandom for college football isn’t good up here.

Texas on the other hand, had over $100MM profit…incredible.

If UConn football was a restaurant it would have closed its doors already. For perspective, UConn women are one of the most successful athletic programs on the planet and they only make $4MM profit a year.

Yes, exactly. BC is to New England college football what Syracuse is to it in NY (though now that I think of it, Army is in upstate NY too). PA is a different story though as they have both Penn State and Pitt.

[Johnho771]

Originally Posted by Reilly1017

There are some really comical posts in this thread.

Please understand that college football money is all made in essentially ONE thing - TV deals. That’s it.

6 home games a year is not worthy of big investment for most programs in stadiums, coaches, etc.

As stated already, now that college players can make money off endorsements, some players making $1MM+ and this will continue to go up, the SEC won’t need the NCAA and will eventually be their own league. You can’t compare UCONN women’s hoops to UCONN football

Have you ever been to a college football game in a real college football market? The Northeast doesn’t care about college football and quite frankly the rest of the country doesn’t care about it either. Unless you have a tie to the state or program no one cares. However, I’ll gladly watch an average SEC game. You see a better product and future NFL players
. Football is also a sport where a star or two cannot carry a team. It’s not like the NCAA basketball tourney where anyone can win a few games and it’s exciting. Watching bad teams in college football is pointless.

Kind of crazy to say the Northeast does not care about college football with its documented success. Which states have the most college football national titles? Alabama and Connecticut. And the school with the most titles is also in our state, Yale with 18. More than University of Alabama's 16. And New Jersey's Princeton only has one less than Alabama. Add in the national titles from Harvard and schools in Pennsylvania, I'd say college football is kind of big deal in the northeast with the history of success.

And getting back to UConn and their program. UConn is in a tough spot in such a small state such as CT, having always been in the shadow of Yale, the most winning program in college football history.

[Reilly1017]

Originally Posted by Johnho771

Kind of crazy to say the Northeast does not care about college football with its documented success. Which states have the most college football national titles? Alabama and Connecticut. And the school with the most titles is also in our state, Yale with 18. More than University of Alabama's 16. And New Jersey's Princeton only has one less than Alabama. Add in the national titles from Harvard and schools in Pennsylvania, I'd say college football is kind of big deal in the northeast with the history of success.

And getting back to UConn and their program. UConn is in a tough spot in such a small state such as CT, having always been in the shadow of Yale, the most winning program in college football history.

I thought you were joking but your post seems serious you know that the 1800’s was a long time ago right?

[url]https://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs[/url]

Anyways, as I posted already, I was talking about New England. As many have mentioned, Penn State is a different beast, they make money and have huge fan base.

[JGBigGreen]

This made me laugh out loud. Thank you!

Originally Posted by Reilly1017

I thought you were joking but your post seems serious you know that the 1800’s was a long time ago right?

https://www.ncaa.com/history/football/fbs

Anyways, as I posted already, I was talking about New England. As many have mentioned, Penn State is a different beast, they make money and have huge fan base.

[NUHuskies01]

Originally Posted by Reilly1017

You’re right, I really mean New England. I refer to it as northeast and DC/Maryland/Virginia as mid-Atlantic.

Anyways, really the only school in New England that makes any money in football is Boston College and that’s only because they are in the ACC and share in that revenue. Again, TV/media dollars is what drives most of college football. Fandom for college football isn’t good up here.

Texas on the other hand, had over $100MM profit…incredible.

If UConn football was a restaurant it would have closed its doors already. For perspective, UConn women are one of the most successful athletic programs on the planet and they only make $4MM profit a year.

With Penn State and Pitt, University of Pittsburgh is closer to Ohio then Philadelphia and the coast. Penn State has actual RECENT history of winning, and is close to Big 10 football country. That helps both those schools.

Schools like Maryland and Rutgers much like UConn and UMass are probably going to have to fold their programs or move down a level when realignment happens again and they either get booted from the Big 10, or the top schools move along and the Big 10 folds. BC and Syracuse are going to be left out in the cold too since no one takes ACC football seriously, even with Clemson being on the national stage the past 5 or 6 years.

Really, the only schools in the Northeast that will have football survive will be the Ivy league schools since they do not rely on tv dollars to begin with, have much lower expenses (pretty sure those schools still do not do athletic scholarships), and old money alumni more then willing to foot the bill. Throw Army and Navy in too.

It is the way the wind is blowing folks. The sooner those in charge figure it out, make the proper adjustments now, the easier it will be later. Those that do not will have much harder landings.

Your restaurant anology is perfect.

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by NUHuskies01

With Penn State and Pitt, University of Pittsburgh is closer to Ohio then Philadelphia and the coast. Penn State has actual RECENT history of winning, and is close to Big 10 football country. That helps both those schools.

Schools like Maryland and Rutgers much like UConn and UMass are probably going to have to fold their programs or move down a level when realignment happens again and they either get booted from the Big 10, or the top schools move along and the Big 10 folds. BC and Syracuse are going to be left out in the cold too since no one takes ACC football seriously, even with Clemson being on the national stage the past 5 or 6 years.

Really, the only schools in the Northeast that will have football survive will be the Ivy league schools since they do not rely on tv dollars to begin with, have much lower expenses (pretty sure those schools still do not do athletic scholarships), and old money alumni more then willing to foot the bill. Throw Army and Navy in too.

It is the way the wind is blowing folks. The sooner those in charge figure it out, make the proper adjustments now, the easier it will be later. Those that do not will have much harder landings.

Your restaurant anology is perfect.

I think you're right about relegation but wrong about programs folding. There is still demand for sports content - just look at how many games ESPN+ streams on a given Saturday. The top schools will leave for their own deal and everyone else will reform into regional conferences the way it was 30 years ago. Which actually will be better in the long run, as travel is easier and less expensive and natural rivalries are there to rekindled and formed. And that's what the two most successful conferences (SEC and B1G) are at their core - regional conferences that foster meaningful rivalries and games which drive interest and viewership. That said, there will be less money for these reformed conferences, but there will still be some money there.

[Reilly1017]

Originally Posted by Mike 75

I think you're right about relegation but wrong about programs folding. There is still demand for sports content - just look at how many games ESPN+ streams on a given Saturday. The top schools will leave for their own deal and everyone else will reform into regional conferences the way it was 30 years ago. Which actually will be better in the long run, as travel is easier and less expensive and natural rivalries are there to rekindled and formed. And that's what the two most successful conferences (SEC and B1G) are at their core - regional conferences that foster meaningful rivalries and games which drive interest and viewership. That said, there will be less money for these reformed conferences, but there will still be some money there.

Not saying you are wrong, but a basis for demand being ESPN streaming a lot of games isn’t relevant. ESPN is trying a lot of things to combat the continued decline in cable subscriptions and streaming games isn’t that expensive operationally. In a perfect world they beef up their streaming numbers at any cost whether makes sense or not

[Mike 75]

Originally Posted by Reilly1017

Not saying you are wrong, but a basis for demand being ESPN streaming a lot of games isn’t relevant. ESPN is trying a lot of things to combat the continued decline in cable subscriptions and streaming games isn’t that expensive operationally. In a perfect world they beef up their streaming numbers at any cost whether makes sense or not

Fair point. But I think if these new regional conferences do form, interest will be greater as the matchups are more meaningful. UConn vs BC is more interesting that UConn vs. Tulane.