(08-26-2014 09:29 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 07:08 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 07:06 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  Is Temple ramping up for ACC readiness by dropping all those Olympic sports? Ahh who cares, no one plays baseball in the ACC anyway.

We sponsored 3 more sports than Louisville does now.

Louisville competed in 23 sports in 2013-14 that were scored for purposes of the Director's Cup and finished 30th.

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on Temple sports, but TU's own university sports page lists 19 current sports (counting women's indoor/outdoor track as two). You cut 5 for an old total of 24 it would appear. Perhaps I'm off 1 or so.

The main point is that Temple now has 19 sports that on the whole are woefully underperforming, compared to 24 sports woefully underperforming. That #221 finish in the '13-'14 Director's Cup is embarrassing. #221 means Temple had a weaker athletic program this past year compared to stalwarts such as Bethune-Cookman, Binghamton, Tennessee St, Maine, Charleston-Southern, Mass-Lowell, and SIU-Edwardsville.

#221 makes sense though when the school president says the university needs to cut sports so that remaining sports have the funds to pay team doctors and trainers and fund all NCAA-permitted coaching positions. With poor facilities and a lack of coaches and trainers recruiting suffers.

I have nothing personal against the Owls but they should try and gain success in the AAC to start. With the changes in compensation between P5 & G5 schools, it will be an uphill climb to say the least from the bottom of the G5 ladder to hoping for a P5 invite.

It also means Temple had a stronger season than UL fan-favorites Cincinnati in 2013-14.

(08-25-2014 10:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 06:20 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 10:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 08:09 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 05:59 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Temple 2013 average attendance: 22,473
Wake Forest 2013 average attendance: 28,414

Temple's attendance is fuffed up...also takes a jump whenver PSU, Rutgers or Nova plays them

OK, how's this:

School: 2013Att-Students = Other
Temple: 22,473 - 37,619 = -15,146 students who didn't support their own team
W.F.U.: 28,414 - 4,815 = 23,599 non-student supporters of Deacon football

Does THAT put it into better perspective?

Actually, our student attendance is very good. It's the alumni and non-affiliated fans that are an issue. We've had as many as 12K students at games. Also, we have multiple campuses. Our undergraduate enrollment on main campus is a little over 20K.

EDIT: Nice job using undergrad and grad for Temple and only undergrad for Wake, by the way.

Thanks for clarifying that, JHG722. Sorry for the confusion - I harbor no ill will toward Temple (in fact, if things work out that way I'd welcome the Owls into the ACC). Your points are certainly valid. I was simply pointing out that Wake has excellent support for such a small school. Really, if you're honest you have to admit - with over 4X the number of students just on the main campus, Temple should get more fannies in the seats than Wake Forest does.

I agree the geography of having an ACC team in SE PA is very good...not sure Temple is the answer...but I was jaded watching games versus Temple in the 1990s.

(08-26-2014 09:29 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 07:08 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 07:06 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  Is Temple ramping up for ACC readiness by dropping all those Olympic sports? Ahh who cares, no one plays baseball in the ACC anyway.

We sponsored 3 more sports than Louisville does now.

Louisville competed in 23 sports in 2013-14 that were scored for purposes of the Director's Cup and finished 30th.

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on Temple sports, but TU's own university sports page lists 19 current sports (counting women's indoor/outdoor track as two). You cut 5 for an old total of 24 it would appear. Perhaps I'm off 1 or so.

The main point is that Temple now has 19 sports that on the whole are woefully underperforming, compared to 24 sports woefully underperforming. That #221 finish in the '13-'14 Director's Cup is embarrassing. #221 means Temple had a weaker athletic program this past year compared to stalwarts such as Bethune-Cookman, Binghamton, Tennessee St, Maine, Charleston-Southern, Mass-Lowell, and SIU-Edwardsville.

#221 makes sense though when the school president says the university needs to cut sports so that remaining sports have the funds to pay team doctors and trainers and fund all NCAA-permitted coaching positions. With poor facilities and a lack of coaches and trainers recruiting suffers.

I have nothing personal against the Owls but they should try and gain success in the AAC to start. With the changes in compensation between P5 & G5 schools, it will be an uphill climb to say the least from the bottom of the G5 ladder to hoping for a P5 invite.

It was not meant to be a critique of UL's programs, just pointing out that we offered a lot. As illustrated by our lack of success with so many sponsored sports, dropping them because we did poorly was exactly the point. So thank you for that.

(08-26-2014 10:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It also means Temple had a stronger season than UL fan-favorites Cincinnati in 2013-14.

I had not looked up UC's finish but I am not surprised if they finished around Temple. The Bearcats' programs are horrific outside of the two revenue sports. They have nice facilities at UC but they have not had good coaching and until a recent announcement they were not fully funding all possible scholarships in sports like baseball to save money.

(08-26-2014 11:46 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  It was not meant to be a critique of UL's programs, just pointing out that we offered a lot. As illustrated by our lack of success with so many sponsored sports, dropping them because we did poorly was exactly the point. So thank you for that.

I sure hope the plan is not that simply cutting men's track, baseball, and softball alone is going to turn the surviving programs around by itself. In the grand scheme of overall athletic budgets, sports like softball are not the problem, that's trimming fat around the edges. Larger structural changes and/or more revenue will be needed to turn around a failing athletic dept.

(08-27-2014 12:18 AM)CollegeCard Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 10:20 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  It also means Temple had a stronger season than UL fan-favorites Cincinnati in 2013-14.

I had not looked up UC's finish but I am not surprised if they finished around Temple. The Bearcats' programs are horrific outside of the two revenue sports. They have nice facilities at UC but they have not had good coaching and until a recent announcement they were not fully funding all possible scholarships in sports like baseball to save money.

(08-26-2014 11:46 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  It was not meant to be a critique of UL's programs, just pointing out that we offered a lot. As illustrated by our lack of success with so many sponsored sports, dropping them because we did poorly was exactly the point. So thank you for that.

I sure hope the plan is not that simply cutting men's track, baseball, and softball alone is going to turn the surviving programs around by itself. In the grand scheme of overall athletic budgets, sports like softball are not the problem, that's trimming fat around the edges. Larger structural changes and/or more revenue will be needed to turn around a failing athletic dept.

Well revenue isn't going to happen for non-revenue sports. The whole point is now we won't be easily last in funding each sports and we can fund each sports to at least the average in the conference. In addition, we are going to build an entirely new olympic sports complex on campus.

We have sports like men's soccer that are recruiting at a national level, and are on the cusp of being contenders nationally.

We were never going to have the facilities to compete in a sport like baseball, which is why it was smart to cut it.

(08-26-2014 05:29 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  No, the stadium would be $200M-$300M. We're spending $200M on a library, you think we would build a cheaper football stadium

We're all in, whether you and the rest of Pitt fans want to believe it or not.

Well then, your leadership is even worse than I imagined. You have over a billion in debt and your med center is bleeding you, but you want to sink $300 million into a football stadium because the Eagles are upping your rent to $2M per year (or less depending on who is giving the quote)? You think the costs of operating and maintaining a stadium stop with construction? Temple would be much better off staying at the Linc and putting the difference into a coaching staff, recruiting budget, and better amenities for the program...not to mention, reduce the AD subsidization coming from the actual university so you can to something about staving off another credit downgrade. People that think football should be subservient to the needs and mission of a university really should start wondering what the hell is going on there.

Whatever you say.

Here's another one posted today. The music is horrible but the video is well shot.

(08-26-2014 10:57 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 10:32 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 06:20 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 10:09 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 08:09 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Temple's attendance is fuffed up...also takes a jump whenver PSU, Rutgers or Nova plays them

OK, how's this:

School: 2013Att-Students = Other
Temple: 22,473 - 37,619 = -15,146 students who didn't support their own team
W.F.U.: 28,414 - 4,815 = 23,599 non-student supporters of Deacon football

Does THAT put it into better perspective?

Actually, our student attendance is very good. It's the alumni and non-affiliated fans that are an issue. We've had as many as 12K students at games. Also, we have multiple campuses. Our undergraduate enrollment on main campus is a little over 20K.

EDIT: Nice job using undergrad and grad for Temple and only undergrad for Wake, by the way.

Thanks for clarifying that, JHG722. Sorry for the confusion - I harbor no ill will toward Temple (in fact, if things work out that way I'd welcome the Owls into the ACC). Your points are certainly valid. I was simply pointing out that Wake has excellent support for such a small school. Really, if you're honest you have to admit - with over 4X the number of students just on the main campus, Temple should get more fannies in the seats than Wake Forest does.

I agree the geography of having an ACC team in SE PA is very good...not sure Temple is the answer...but I was jaded watching games versus Temple in the 1990s.

I would expand that region to include DC/MD.

Temple should have a goal/plan to improve their conference affiliation. If they don't, they should turn the lights off and go home. I have no problem with them stating the ACC is their goal. However, if the decision were being made today, there are stronger candidates.

Of course we do. We spent a ton on basketball, and have one of the best practice facilities in the country. We also upgraded the electronics in our basketball arena. We spent $10M upgrading our football practice facility and word is that an on campus stadium is a done deal. Along with Maryland, we have the best basketball facilities in the mid-atlantic, and football will be up there after the stadium is done. We also bought a closed school that is inches off campus, and will be the new home for our olympic sports, which we are moving from our suburban campus to main campus. We won't have Louisville-level facilities, but after everything is done, we should definitely have facilities that are attractive to the ACC. Everyone realizes that this isn't something that will happen overnight. We're working towards the next expansion in college athletics. We're trying to fix something here that should've been fixed decades ago.

I wish Temple well but frankly, I'll believe it when I see it. To me, there are a solid 8-10 options out there that are head and shoulders above Temple as ACC expansion candidates. That is a tough place to win, which is why almost nobody ever has.

I look forward to you believing. Plenty of people said it about Pitt and the yellow seats too.

Good point. What again was your point? I sincerely don't understand what you are trying to say?

That you could one day feasibly become a poor man's PITT? I suppose that's possible but I sincerely doubt it. Personally, I think you probably have an outside chance of one day blossoming into a poor man's Cincinnati but you will never be PITT. You know it, I know it, the whole world knows it. Which is why we are already safe and sound in the ACC and you had to scratch and claw just to get into the AAC. I know reality can be harsh.

Now you are reduced to promising that you're going to defy your history and make a half billion dollar investment into your facilities to one day have a chance to leapfrog Tulane or East Carolina as the No. 7 option for the ACC's next expansion.

Just stop it, it is embarrassing. If we were going to go for an unrealistic market grab just to get into a big city, would be just as well off investing in Fordham or Columbia.

And the weird part is I actually like Temple and root for them. However the similarities between TU and PITT are superficial at best.

For a school that hasn't accomplished **** in quite a long time, you are awfully arrogant and condescending.

(08-26-2014 06:41 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  So now that we're investing in our football program, you discredit it? Must be nice to have a sweetheart deal with the Stillers and not have to worry about your facilities like we do...

EDIT: UCF and Tulane? UCF's tin can of a stadium was just under $65M in 2014 dollars. Tulane's new stadium is $75M. Our rec center/basketball practice facility alone was $60M.

We have such a sweetheart deal with the Steelers that they pay us for their practice facilities. Oh wait! Because Pitt built the facility and owns the facility. We do have a great relationship with the Steelers. But it is a mutually beneficial relationship. Guess whose doctors treat the Steelers? The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's doctors. We do not sublease Heinz Field from the Steelers the way you do with the Eagles. We are a co-anchor tenant with Steelers and have a 30 year lease with the Stadium authority. This lease runs through 2030. So we won't be building an on campus stadium for quite a while. Parking and concessions from Pitt games go to Pitt, not the Steelers. The Steelers get first choice of dates for their games. After they choose their dates, Pitt gets to choose their dates.

I do not think that Temple to the ACC is out of the question. With Rutgers off the table, Temple could help secure that part of the East coast. I also don't see it happening soon.



Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App