You would think they would be good at basketball at least. There a lot of good players that come out of NYC.
Some one always steals all the equipment?
Football on pavement sucks?
Stickball and kick-the-can are not NCAA sanctioned sports?
Short answer: New York colleges WERE great at basketball once upon a time. In the late Forties and early Fifties, New York City schools were the best in college basketball. In fact, the City College of New York was the only college ever to win the NIT and the NCAA tournaments in the same season.
What killed that was the big point shaving scandals of the early Fifties.
In the aftermath of the point shaving scandals, the City University of New York stopped competing in intercollegiate sports (the colleges of the City University system still play basketball, but only against each other). So did NYU. Other New York colleges scaled their programs way back, to the point where only St. John’s maintained a program good enough to compete with the big boys.
After that, the best high school players in New York City started getting recruited by the Southern and Atlantic coast schools. To this day, New York produces numerous basketball stars, who invariably go to play college ball far from home.
San Diego State has the same problem in baseball and football.
Why just look at New York?
There are very few city colleges that are any good at sports anywhere. I think it can mostly be attributed to cost. Maintaining a large athletic facility is simply cost prohibitive in most large urban centers. Most of the premiere programs in the country exist in small college towns where the University essentially has the resources and leverage in order to get the land required to build a big program and all the requirements that entails.
Additionally, city schools are notorious for being commuter schools and stepping stone schools. Large proportions of their student base are part-time students and graduate students who live and work outside of the stereotypical “college” environment. A huge part of modern college athletics is the rabid fandom and alumni support that can only be engendered by indoctrinating 18 year old students who are away from home and immersed in the college lifestyle. Sports take on a huge social role in a small town where in cities there are simply too many other interests.
Chicago hasn’t had a quality sports team for decades, and no schools even field football teams. San Fransisco, Dallas, Houston, Cleveland, St Louis, Philadelphia, Detroit, Seattle…all of them lack a really competitive sports team.
Some of the examples of winning city schools, Miami and Boston College are two, aren’t located in the city that bears their name. Each moved out to the suburbs in order to have the land to expand.
Certainly there are a couple exceptions, USC and UCLA are the most pronounced, but LA is a large sprawling city that was relatively small and under developed when those Universities were founded and the land acquired. Eastern and Midwestern cities are much more compact and land was much more scarce at the turn of the 20th century.
You know, there are some kids who actually LIKE sports?
Other than Northwestern, you mean, which won the Rose Bowl, what, just over 10 years ago? And don’t tell me Evanston ain’t Chicago.
Ok, I can’t answer your immediate question, but will give you a book suggestion that gives some background into some of the issues surrounding maintaining a team which is good at basketball.
John Feinstein’s The Last Amateurs. It focuses on one season of basketball in the Patriot League–which is a league consisting of small schools, where a high quality education comes before athletics. Some of the teams in the league have no athletic scholarships, and some have a few. But almost all the athletes intend to be doctors, lawyers, engineers, businessmen, etc. rather than pro-athletes. Those who intend to turn pro, generally go for schools with greater repuations in the NCAA Tournement–not to mention, schools who can offer more scholarships to students who do not have significant financial need.
Still, much as I enjoyed the book (just finished reading it), it’s not a direct answer to this question. (The fact that the Patriot League team which goes to the NCAA tournament the year the book was written happened to be my alma mater has nothing to do with my fondness for the book, really).
But I didn’t just about the colleges in NYC, but the whole state. In other cities you named talented players will end up at in state schools. For basketball:
San Fransisco (UCLA)
Dallas, Houston (Texas, Texas Tech)
Cleveland (Ohio State)
St Louis (Missouri)
Philadelphia (Penn State - OK they suck)
Detroit (Michigan State)
Seattle (Washington)
The State University of New York system–henceforth “SUNY”–works a little differently than the state university system does in many other states. There isn’t one massive university, and one massive state university as there is in Iowa or Kansas. There are a bunch of smaller schools, with respectible if not stellar academic reputations, reasonable prices and student/professor ratios and sport teams which play for love rather than for glory. It’s just a different system, different priorities.
Whether it’s for the love of the game or not, it’s Division III. Tom Golisano has been trying to get various schools around here to go Division I, in order to raise the local profile, but hasn’t met with much success.
Tom Golisano will not rest until he has at least one building named after him at every college in the state.
And a hospital…
And a sports stadium…
And the governer’s mansion…
saoirse,
Right–while one may play Division I sports for love or glory, one certainly doesn’t play Division III sports for glory. And I kinda wonder whether increasing the number of low profile Division I teams accomplishes anything-- but really, I’d be speculating where I know nothing. 90% of my detailed knowledge of NCAA Basketball comes from reading Feinstein, and the remaining 10% comes from living in the shadows of various major universities, including basketball powerhouses.
I agree it’s because there are a ton of small schools, and no “main campus”.
They do tend to compete in a lot of “minor” sports, like gymnastics and volleyball.
Partly in response to the de-New-Yorkification of college hoop, the game itself (or at least the players) changed. The game that had been defined by streetballers with fast hands and sharp elbows changed to favor taller and taller players and more “air.”
The shot clock also came in in the 50s, basically as a way to up the score, but that too changed the game - less keepaway and more goal-oriented.
Doesn’t Syracuse have good sports programs? They are a NY school (not sure if it’s private, though), but not in the compact locale that is NYC.
IIRC, Donovan McNabb was QB at the school, and their basketball program is Division 1.
Sorry to nitpick, but the shot clock was not adopted in college ball until the mid 80s.
Syracuse is private, unlike the SUNYs, and upstate, unlike Fordham and St. John’s, and has an excellent D.I sports program.
Then why have there been so many quality teams from California state schools?
The four SUNY “university centers” (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, and Stony Brook) compete (albeit without significant success) at the Division I level in basketball, the college sport with which I am most familiar. However, the University Colleges are indeed D-III institutions.
Two and a Half Inches of Fun: The University of Washington is in Seattle and has a 14-12 record in men’s basketball this season. Washington State (20-5 and ranked #17) is in Pullman.
The CUNY schools play about half of their regular-season games against non-league competition, and the league tournament champion gets an automatic bid to the NCAA Division III’s “Big Dance”.
NYU has competed at the Division III level since the 1983-84 campaign.