I read this article early today (Thursday) but didn't have an opportunity to post it. Sorry if it was shared earlier: http://www.philly.com/philly/sports...e_Temple_less_attractive_to_ACC_suitors_.html
OT - TU Stadium & ACC
- Thread starter JED_72
- Start date
Yeah, that is a really weird article full of crazy assumptions and baseless hypotheses.
Here's the cold, hard truth for our Philadelphia friends: Temple would only get into the ACC after about 10–12 schools have been raided by other leagues.
To say that they're not on the radar is a major understatement. In all seriousness, they are probably seventh or eighth in line - maybe lower than that.
Mind you, I actually like Temple. I think it is much safer than people give it credit for, it is a good school, and Philadelphia it is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. I have no problem whatsoever with the Temple Owls or their supporters.
However, they're not getting into the ACC anytime soon – well, that is unless something catastrophic happens first.
Here's the cold, hard truth for our Philadelphia friends: Temple would only get into the ACC after about 10–12 schools have been raided by other leagues.
To say that they're not on the radar is a major understatement. In all seriousness, they are probably seventh or eighth in line - maybe lower than that.
Mind you, I actually like Temple. I think it is much safer than people give it credit for, it is a good school, and Philadelphia it is not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. I have no problem whatsoever with the Temple Owls or their supporters.
However, they're not getting into the ACC anytime soon – well, that is unless something catastrophic happens first.
When I forwarded it (the article) via email to a TU supporter who lives far out of the Phila area, I characterized it as a "speculative" piece. There was a companion article in the Inquirer yesterday dealing with the TU AD. Perhaps ACC (or other P5) conference membership is a long term goal of his or the TU adm/board. Just my speculation.
The Big Ten added Rutgers because they thought they brought the NYC market. It is at least a possibility that the ACC could add Temple if they get an on-campus stadium because they add the Philly market. I mean BC and Rutgers got P5 invites. To say that Temple cant is being naive. They have a stronger basketball program than those 2 did and their football history is roughly on par with Rutgers's.
Of course, having a strong basketball program didn't mean a damn thing when it came to the supposedly basketball-centric Big East. Let's limit their membership to the sport they're weakest in, keep their best asset OUT, and bitch about what a dead weight they are to the conference. Envision Indiana having been a football-only member of the Big Ten. Or Duke having been a football-only member of the ACC.
Fordham probably brings more of the NYC market than Rutgers.
I agree Temple sports are barely on the radar in Philly but they are 10 times more popular in Philly as Rutgers is in Manhattan and Brooklyn.
Given the size of Philly and the Philly metro area, one would think that they should draw better crowds than they do.
Some people criticize Pitt for not drawing better despite being in a populated region; Temple has many of the same issues as Pitt (pro teams, more activities competing for the entertainment dollar, etc), but a much larger population to draw from. Yet their football team remains a tougher sell than Pitt.
Admittedly, until recently, the quality of the on-fleld product has been a MUCH tougher sell. I just hope that the resurgence of Temple football isn't too little, too late.
Temple doesn't draw because they dont have "glory days" fans. Pitt reaps some benefits of their success in the 70s and 80s. Young kids grew up with nationally dominant teams and are still fans, now in their 40s, 50s, 60s.
If Temple was in the Top 5 for the next 10 years, you'd see their attendance numbers grow 20 years from now as all those new young kids that became Temple football fans got older.
Given the rising age of Pitt fans, there are less and less "glory days fans" attending games.
A lot of the younger people are who are going to Pitt games now simply can't relate to the Dorsett years - and unfortunately, even the Marino years. They think of the great individual players - Revis, Fitzgerald, Donald - but the idea of a "great Pitt football team" just doesn't resonate.
I'd bet that when our recruiters are out there talking to current high school players (especially those from out-of-Western PA), most have no clue who Hugh Green, Jimbo Covert, or Rickey Jackson are. And while they might know Mark May from ESPN, or Danny Marino from NFL highlight films or weigh-loss commercials, they don't connect either player to Pitt.
For these reasons, it's imperative for the Pitt football team to start having some national success.
Well, that's Pitt's biggest problem isnt it? Glory Days fans are getting older and attending less and nobody under 40 has personally witnessed a "great" Pitt season (defined as 2 or fewer losses). I mean think about that. Pitt lost an entire generation through the combination of their mediocrity combined with the Steelers' return to greatness and Mario/Jagr/Sid.
Well stated.
And similar, but different: we've got a generation of fans who've never been to a Pitt-UPS game. And that includes a lot of Pitt's current roster.
I've wondered if your growing international student body is working against your programs. That and the fact you're drawing heavily from STEM students, who just don't seem to be interested.
The typical Pitt student isn't the same student from decades ago.
For example, WVU attracts students who "get it", with sports...going to tailgates, ect.
I was one of the kids who "got it", I got it too darn well, as a matter a fact.
Big 10 took Rutgers for the NYC market, it's not farfetched that someone would take Temple just for the Philly market. It doesn't matter that they don't have a great football history. Market alone might get them in. Besides, they really have been the very best college football program in the Philly metro area forever. It's never been a college football town. And they have had good basketball at times. Fans might come out to see ACC football, they would for sure support ACC hoop.
A lot of what ends up on Philly.com is weird and hard to read. This thing looks like a long rambling message board post.
But I view Philly as something of a CFB wasteland now. Landlocked. B1G is already on the TV sets and surrounded on three sides by the B1G. How much real value would Villanova or Temple bring? The Tobacco Road schools don't want Villanova.
Philly is a huge market but I don't know who it belongs to in terms of collegiate sports.
But I view Philly as something of a CFB wasteland now. Landlocked. B1G is already on the TV sets and surrounded on three sides by the B1G. How much real value would Villanova or Temple bring? The Tobacco Road schools don't want Villanova.
Philly is a huge market but I don't know who it belongs to in terms of collegiate sports.
Reading about B12 expansion, I'd take Temple over Memphis and a few other candidates that have been mentioned.
That plays a part though a small one. The type of student who is attracted to a school like Pitt is a little different that is attracted to a land grant diploma mill or a safety school like WVU.
Totally disagree. It's much more complex than that.
The whole reason why Pitt had no chance to ever get in to the Big Ten was because of cable television considerations.
Once the Big Ten had a team in Pennsylvania, there was no need for a second team. The same is true of the ACC and it's upcoming conference television network.
Once that happens, and that announcement is coming soon, the ACC will rely on legal precedent to guarantee carriage among the cable companies, and will only need one Pennsylvania team in that league.
I rarely say never but Temple will never be a member of the ACC - or at least of the ACC as we know it. They are way, way down the list.
Just off the top of my head, they're definitely behind both of the AAC's Florida schools, Cincinnati and Connecticut. They may even be behind Navy and Tulane. They are also probably behind Houston. Temple is probably ahead of East Carolina, Tulsa and SMU.
The Owls are probably also behind BYU if the the league was looking to expand or replace teams and the Cougars were interested in joining the ACC.
It's just never going to happen regardless of where they play their home football games.
Last edited:
Actually, I've had similar thoughts. But then I thought about the West Coast schools - Stanford, SoCal, UCLA, to name several - and I'm fairly sure that they, too, attract plenty of foreign students, yet they have seem to have active, vibrant student bodies.
But who knows - maybe you're on to something?
There is no such thing as a legal precedent that forces cable companies to pay for a channel that they and their subscribers do not want. Look at the troubles that the PAC12 network is having with carriage. Heck, look at the problems that the Big Ten Network had with getting carriage at the beginning. Many cable systems in western PA did not carry the BTN for a long time after it started.
If/when the ACC starts a network, if the ACC or ESPN go to the cable companies in Philly and tell them that they have to sign on to the ACC network because they are in PA and Pitt is in PA so there is some sort of legal precedent that they carry the channel they are going to get laughed at.
You're right, I phrased that very poorly. That's not what I meant.
What I'm saying is it is not in the ACC's best interest to have two teams from Pennsylvania. They are not going to need two teams from Pennsylvania.
If the ACC chooses to expand, or is forced to replace teams, there are many other options that are much better than Temple on multiple levels.
I should have also noted that I agreed with your underlying premise. Temple would be well down on any list of potential ACC members. Whether they play at the Linc or on campus or in Ed Rendell's back yard won't make any difference.
While I agree, Temple looks like an ACC school more than a lot of others that get discussed. The athletic history isn't there but academically, geographically, size wise, it's very much on par.
Athletic history (overall) compares rather favorably with such ACC members as Virginia, Boston College, and Wake Forest.
Fcck them, it's a new world in college sports. Does each ACC school have equal voting rights? Or do they have some special veto power? Schools like Pitt, Syracuse, BC, VT, Louisville, Miami etc. need to create a voting block to piss on UNC and Duke and vote things away from Tobacco Road's favor.
Did I read that Villanova would consider paying millions of dollars per season to play football at the Eagles Stadium? LOL. They can't even get that stadium to 50% capacity playing against Temple.
Just pointing it out. But you're right. The ole Big East schools should vote together.
No, theirs was the proposal to play at the 20K seat pro soccer stadium in Chester. Now, if you know anything about Evillainova and Chester, you'd know that Chester is about the last place their fan base would want to go for anything.
Well, that isn't a good idea either. Their best bet is to just upgrade their current stadium and fill it up, rather than play in a 20% full Eagles stadium of the soccer facility in Chester.
My high school played its home games there. 13K, no amenities. Not worth the effort....and Nova said so.
Talk about one of the greatest decisions of all-time: Instead of being in the American Athletic right now with a crappy D1 football team, Nova is King Dogs of watered-down Big East basketball. The league, though a shadow of itself is a head-scratchingly good RPI league which bolsters Nova win totals, seeds, and confidence level which lead to a National Freaking Championship.
Listen, I think Nova was very very good. They proved that. But I dont think they have the resume playing out of the American to make that run as a little bit lower of a seed.
Similar threads
