Note: I can account for Army's weakness -- being a military academy makes for stringent admission standards which make it difficult to recruit an elite football team. But the question is why New York doesn't have elite state university system football programs like other high-population states do. —Lowellian (reply) 18:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is the wrong answer, but the reason could have been that somebody had a thought about what the main purpose of having a

state university ought to be./Coffeeshivers (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I believe there are two contributing factors: First, there is not a large public state college in one location in New York equivalent to the University of Texas, University of Florida, University of Michigan, University of Georgia, etc. etc.; SUNY is spread out over many small campuses without a central collection of alumni and support. The aforementioned state schools all have graduate schools of law, medicine and business that generally create a pool of well heeled alumni to support the expensive nature of a big time college program. Second, and this is more observation than provable fact, is cultural. New York high school athletes are spread across numerous minor sports (swimming, wrestling, lacrosse, etc.) and not concentrated in football. There is no "Friday Night Lights" equivalent in New York to compare with places like Texas and the Southeastern states where football is a semi-religious experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtrp050 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia University used to have a major football program, but it has collapsed recently, along with most of the Ivy League. Woogee (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That just backs up my original point, though. Like the rest of the

WWII) era. —Lowellian (reply) 02:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 01:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd argue that weather plays a role. A kid in Florida, Texas, or California can do sports outside year round. The same can't be said for New York. Look at the major football powerhouses, and in high school they're all southern states. In college they're usually southern states, although there are exceptions. On the other hand, many superb basketball schools at both levels are found in the northeast. Basketball, surprise surprise, can be played inside just as well as outside. 218.25.32.210 (talk) 02:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I have a hard time buying the "cold weather" argument against New York because Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are all cold weather states, too, which isn't stopping them from fielding elite college football teams. —Lowellian (reply) 02:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Division I college football long abandoned the northeastern U.S., despite being essentially formed there. Today, there are only 5

SUNY system which lacks the sort of "flagship" school that other states of a similar size have. --Jayron32 02:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I remember reading a piece by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who suggested that if there isn't much else to do, you devote your energy to rooting for, and supporting, the State University's football team. Where there are more entertainment venues, both indoors and out, there is less thrust to build major college football programs, most of which are actually profession teams with unpaid labor. New Yorkers apparantly support pros teams who call themselves pros. Such was Moynihan's thesis. B00P (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me of the canard "The best pro football in Michigan is played in Ann Arbor"... But it does not explain how Pennsylvania can support the Steelers & Eagles AND the Nittany Lions, or how Texas ends up with the Cowboys AND the Long Horns. Its an interesting idea, that the prevalence of pro teams ends up hurting nearby college programs, except it doesn't really hold up. Heck, Florida has 3 pro football teams, and still has 3 top-tier college programs. --Jayron32 03:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the

NFL teams around doesn't weaken college football programs (if anything, as I wrote in my original post, I suspect they are correlated: nearby NFL teams increase the popularity of football and lead to more high school students playing football). Besides the examples User:Jayron32 has mentioned, there's also California, which also has both strong college programs and three NFL teams (Oakland Raiders, San Diego Chargers, San Francisco 49ers). —Lowellian (reply) 01:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It should also be mentioned that Fordham had a major football program before WWII -- see Seven Blocks of Granite -- as well as Cornell, Colgate and the above-mentioned Columbia. Army was the dominant program of the 40s, even after the war ended. And don't discount Syracuse, the alma mater of Jim Brown, Ernie Davis, Floyd Little, Larry Csonka and Jim Nance. New York state was once an absolute hotbed of college football. The question is why that changed. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with everything that's been said above about the
  WWII, but very expensive afterward, because of (1) major advances in safety and medicine, making it simply unethical to field a team if you couldn't afford to prevent and treat injuries, (2) major advances in transportation and radio/TV that made long-distance rivalries possible. When the Bowl games started, they were a once-in-a-year chance to play a team from far away; now, few major programs think twice about piling 100 people on a charter plane to travel 1,000 miles for an October game. At a certain point, the university has to think long and hard about where to invest its money. The midwestern/southern tradition of having a single flagship school with a huge student body and the ability to attract non-alumni to their fan base makes it much easier for a U. Texas or Ohio State to field a team, and much harder for a SUNY-Buffalo/Oswego/Long Island/Binghampton/Etc. to compete. --M@rēino 14:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miscarriage (talk • contribs) 21:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try one of the following:

• Cubase
• Fruity Loops
• Orion Platinum
• Reason

—Lowellian (reply) 21:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article lists the musical score for Rock of Ages and omits "Keep on Lovin You" written by Kevin Cronin. The song is listed in the musical credits in the Broadway Playbill. Do you know if it is performed in the show and, if so, at what point in the show?

Was John Lennon ever charged for assaulting that Radio Personality guy at Paul's birthday party back in 65 or 66? What had happened is that, the Radio Personality made a comment on John Lennon's vacation with Brian Epstein and commented "Did you enjoy your honeymoon?" (and Epstein was known for being gay, and the Radio Personality known for his humor) So, did the man drop charges on Lennon? I read Lennon actually broke some of the man's ribs. Yikes. Moptopstyle1 22:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moptopstyle1 (talk • contribs)

An alternative way to say "Give Peace a Chance". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Ha ha! Nice one! But he kind of changed as he got older! With the whole "Lost Weekend" with May Pang! Ha, ha. Yeah, I do like him more as a musician. And I forgot to add (sorry about that)

HE WAS DRUNK WHEN HE ASSAULTED THE MAN. Sorry for not clarifying that. Moptopstyle1 05:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moptopstyle1 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure that being 'drunk' is ever an acceptable excuse for assaulting someone. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, John Lennon later did apologize for assaulting the man. Hm, look what I've started! Okay, since the Anniversary of Lennon's Murder is tomorrow, I'll ask a more positive Question in Respect of him. Moptopstyle1 22:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]