When I say we lost football, I do mean that each and every one of us has lost something. This isn’t because football has a special place on college campuses or because it’s necessary for an adequate college experience. Sports, like student groups, on-campus programming and recreation, enhance the quality of one’s academic experience at Northeastern. The history of Northeastern and its alumni can attest to the significance of academic experience for the value of an NU degree. As the opportunities for students, such as attending a football game, disappear it would seem there are ramifications on each and every one of our degrees. So, I say, even the most self-interested members of the Northeastern community have reason to recognize that they have lost something with the loss of the football program.
My concern, however, is why football was lost. I’ve heard all too often that the problem with our football program was the quality of it. From those same people, the loss of the football is of no consequence to them. This mindset towards football, I believe, is at the heart of any sufficient explanation of the loss of football. The reason being it is unreasonable to expect a football program to succeed in the environment our football program found itself in.
Our football team, whom I urge you not to forget is composed entirely of your peers, played every week in front of minuscule home crowds. It was not unusual for there to be more fans for the away team, who often cheered louder than ours. Independent of how that affected the play of our football student-athletes, they were required to play on an off-campus field in Brookline. I’ve heard the field called a ‘high-school field’ in a non-metaphoric sense. It will be said that this is indicative of a failing of the university and Athletic Department to invest in the football program. But, with no student interest in football, no university or Athletic Department in the country would invest to the extent required.
The results of having a quality facility have already benefited Northeastern hockey. Recruits who would not have otherwise looked at the school are interested in attending. But our football program was faced with the exact opposite situation. This is not to slight the Northeastern student-athletes who have attended, or do attend. However, I do think there is a connection between the quality of the football program and the quality of the facilities. But if these are in part dependent on student involvement, it appears the lack of student participation in football had a detrimental effect on the quality of the program. So, when your friends from other institutions ask ‘Why doesn’t Northeastern have a football program?’, ask yourself first how you supported football.

‘- Peter C. Roby is a middler philosophy major and son of Athletic Director Peter Roby.