Oh. Ok then...

Temple 2013 average attendance: 22,473
Wake Forest 2013 average attendance: 28,414

(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

(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?

(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?

Temple's got significant issues that go beyond just attendance.

(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.

(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.

You are not wrong, but what fans, even those who were in our conference, fail to understand, is that we're making up for like 100 years of negligence with regards to our football program. It's essentially like we started our program when Al Golden was hired. Can you blame alums and people in Philly for not supporting a program that has been neglected by Temple administration basically since existence? I certainly dont.

Since Golden was hired, it kickstarted everything, and we're very serious about football. We just spent $10M renovating and upgrading our football practice facility, we moved our rec sports into a new building and spent some money turning it into an indoor football practice facility, we just bought a closed school, which when knocked down will be the site of our olympic sports, which opens up space to use that current land for an on-campus stadium.

The on-campus stadium is key, and something our administration wants to happen in the next 10 years. A 36K seat on-campus stadium that is expandable would change things here drastically.

People on the outside might not see it because we were bad last year and our attendance isn't great, but big things are happening here and we'll be good sooner than later. At that point, I think people will jump on the bandwagon. Until then, they'll continue to support a school that harbored a pedophile.

We're positioning ourselves to get into the ACC as much as we can. Just remember, it wasn't that long ago that Louisville was average. It's not something that will happen overnight, but what's important is that we're dedicated to improving our program significantly.

(08-25-2014 10:46 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  You are not wrong, but what fans, even those who were in our conference, fail to understand, is that we're making up for like 100 years of negligence with regards to our football program. It's essentially like we started our program when Al Golden was hired. Can you blame alums and people in Philly for not supporting a program that has been neglected by Temple administration basically since existence? I certainly dont.

Since Golden was hired, it kickstarted everything, and we're very serious about football. We just spent $10M renovating and upgrading our football practice facility, we moved our rec sports into a new building and spent some money turning it into an indoor football practice facility, we just bought a closed school, which when knocked down will be the site of our olympic sports, which opens up space to use that current land for an on-campus stadium.

The on-campus stadium is key, and something our administration wants to happen in the next 10 years. A 36K seat on-campus stadium that is expandable would change things here drastically.

People on the outside might not see it because we were bad last year and our attendance isn't great, but big things are happening here and we'll be good sooner than later. At that point, I think people will jump on the bandwagon. Until then, they'll continue to support a school that harbored a pedophile.

We're positioning ourselves to get into the ACC as much as we can. Just remember, it wasn't that long ago that Louisville was average. It's not something that will happen overnight, but what's important is that we're dedicated to improving our program significantly.

This is your solution for an indoor facility?



Look, I don't want to pick on Temple, but you realize how little $10M is considering the starting point? I know you are getting bullied out of the Linc, but I'll believe the noise about an on-campus stadium when I see it, because I know how thing get done in Philly. More importantly, it would be more than a questionable prioritization of precious land and at least $100M in resources, at least for a low-ball stadium, that isn't likely to attract many outside events (you'd be better off building an indoor track which is desperately needed in the city). Temple, the actual university, would be much better served by coming to some sort of utilization and upgrade agreement for Franklin Field. Alternatively, it needs to think about finding on alternative chunk of land off campus to base the football program at because it simple doesn't have the room to house the needed facilities in Templetown. This football master plan is all contingent on a major, major expenditure of resources and major considerations in the forthcoming campus master plan all for the pipe dream of moving up to a P5 conference, all without any history of success, support, or local interest? I don't see how that is actually responsible leadership at the school. Louisville is a rare exception across the general landscape of college football over the past 50 years, and the situations with the universities aren't remotely similar in the first place. You don't have to sacrifice the dream, but the university shouldn't be comprised at its expense either. Temple needs to build the program in a way that makes sense, not plunge $100s of millions into a half-arsed effort that won't impress anyone in the end anyway.

(08-22-2014 10:50 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That is the problem whenever you are a "minor-league team" competing in a major-league market. You have an enormous bandwagon contingent because they have a lot of other options on which to use their discretionary income. They will come out in droves if PITT is good or if the Panthers are playing a name opponent (especially if that opponent is the number one team in the country). However getting them to come out for a 3-3 PITT team vs. a 2-4 NC State squad is always going to be a struggle. I'm more than certain that Miami, Georgia Tech and Boston College face these exact same issues - as does every other major university that is located in a city that has professional sports teams.

Yeah GT doesn't get alot of local support from Atlanta. We have to compete against the Falcons, Braves, Hawks, and now a MLS team. Doesn't help that Atlanta is full of transplants and don't get many sidewalk fans. Most people I know in Atlanta didn't even grow up in Georgia let alone Atlanta metro. The biggest problem is there are more alums from UGA, Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, and FSU than GT alums in ATL (probably other schools too).

Even, I grew up a Georgia fan till I went to GT. My brothers are dwags.

Our AD made an interesting comment last week. He said that about 1/2 of GT's living alumni graduated in 2000 or later. Since 2000, ~40k students have graduated from GT. If the AD is correct (which I'm sure he is), then that would mean there are only around 80k living GT alumni. By comparison UGA reports 280k+ and Ohio St is 500k+.

So, we're never going to have the big numbers like the big state schools, but I think GT does fairly well with attendance given our small base.

(08-26-2014 01:50 AM)gpburdell Wrote:  

(08-22-2014 10:50 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That is the problem whenever you are a "minor-league team" competing in a major-league market. You have an enormous bandwagon contingent because they have a lot of other options on which to use their discretionary income. They will come out in droves if PITT is good or if the Panthers are playing a name opponent (especially if that opponent is the number one team in the country). However getting them to come out for a 3-3 PITT team vs. a 2-4 NC State squad is always going to be a struggle. I'm more than certain that Miami, Georgia Tech and Boston College face these exact same issues - as does every other major university that is located in a city that has professional sports teams.

Yeah GT doesn't get alot of local support from Atlanta. We have to compete against the Falcons, Braves, Hawks, and now a MLS team. Doesn't help that Atlanta is full of transplants and don't get many sidewalk fans. Most people I know in Atlanta didn't even grow up in Georgia let alone Atlanta metro. The biggest problem is there are more alums from UGA, Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, and FSU than GT alums in ATL (probably other schools too).

Even, I grew up a Georgia fan till I went to GT. My brothers are dwags.

Our AD made an interesting comment last week. He said that about 1/2 of GT's living alumni graduated in 2000 or later. Since 2000, ~40k students have graduated from GT. If the AD is correct (which I'm sure he is), then that would mean there are only around 80k living GT alumni. By comparison UGA reports 280k+ and Ohio St is 500k+.

So, we're never going to have the big numbers like the big state schools, but I think GT does fairly well with attendance given our small base.

If there was a way for Ga Tech and Ga State to somehow merge... then you'd have one school in Atlanta with a student population of over 56k! All of a sudden, GT would dominate the state (IMO).

(08-26-2014 08:21 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 01:50 AM)gpburdell Wrote:  

(08-22-2014 10:50 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  That is the problem whenever you are a "minor-league team" competing in a major-league market. You have an enormous bandwagon contingent because they have a lot of other options on which to use their discretionary income. They will come out in droves if PITT is good or if the Panthers are playing a name opponent (especially if that opponent is the number one team in the country). However getting them to come out for a 3-3 PITT team vs. a 2-4 NC State squad is always going to be a struggle. I'm more than certain that Miami, Georgia Tech and Boston College face these exact same issues - as does every other major university that is located in a city that has professional sports teams.

Yeah GT doesn't get alot of local support from Atlanta. We have to compete against the Falcons, Braves, Hawks, and now a MLS team. Doesn't help that Atlanta is full of transplants and don't get many sidewalk fans. Most people I know in Atlanta didn't even grow up in Georgia let alone Atlanta metro. The biggest problem is there are more alums from UGA, Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Florida, and FSU than GT alums in ATL (probably other schools too).

Even, I grew up a Georgia fan till I went to GT. My brothers are dwags.

Our AD made an interesting comment last week. He said that about 1/2 of GT's living alumni graduated in 2000 or later. Since 2000, ~40k students have graduated from GT. If the AD is correct (which I'm sure he is), then that would mean there are only around 80k living GT alumni. By comparison UGA reports 280k+ and Ohio St is 500k+.

So, we're never going to have the big numbers like the big state schools, but I think GT does fairly well with attendance given our small base.

If there was a way for Ga Tech and Ga State to somehow merge... then you'd have one school in Atlanta with a student population of over 56k! All of a sudden, GT would dominate the state (IMO).

I think that would be like asking UVA to merge with George Mason.

FYI historical tidbit...in the early 20th Century a merger was promoted by the leaderships of Pitt (then private), Carnegie Tech, and the Carnegie Institute (which runs the major museums in Pittsburgh). It didn't happen because they couldn't raise the funds to undertake it. At the time, students at Carnegie Tech had to get their bachelors (liberal arts components if they wanted it) through Pitt. Also at that time, the Mellon Institute (the Mellon part of today's Carnegie Mellon) was still part of Pitt. On the other hand, Pitt's School of Information Sciences used to be part of Carnegie Tech. Even today, you'll not see two more intertwined schools in the country than Pitt and CMU with multiple joint intra and extramural projects, institutes, and degree programs, not to mention campuses that physically overlap.

(08-26-2014 01:46 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(08-25-2014 10:46 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  You are not wrong, but what fans, even those who were in our conference, fail to understand, is that we're making up for like 100 years of negligence with regards to our football program. It's essentially like we started our program when Al Golden was hired. Can you blame alums and people in Philly for not supporting a program that has been neglected by Temple administration basically since existence? I certainly dont.

Since Golden was hired, it kickstarted everything, and we're very serious about football. We just spent $10M renovating and upgrading our football practice facility, we moved our rec sports into a new building and spent some money turning it into an indoor football practice facility, we just bought a closed school, which when knocked down will be the site of our olympic sports, which opens up space to use that current land for an on-campus stadium.

The on-campus stadium is key, and something our administration wants to happen in the next 10 years. A 36K seat on-campus stadium that is expandable would change things here drastically.

People on the outside might not see it because we were bad last year and our attendance isn't great, but big things are happening here and we'll be good sooner than later. At that point, I think people will jump on the bandwagon. Until then, they'll continue to support a school that harbored a pedophile.

We're positioning ourselves to get into the ACC as much as we can. Just remember, it wasn't that long ago that Louisville was average. It's not something that will happen overnight, but what's important is that we're dedicated to improving our program significantly.

This is your solution for an indoor facility?



Look, I don't want to pick on Temple, but you realize how little $10M is considering the starting point? I know you are getting bullied out of the Linc, but I'll believe the noise about an on-campus stadium when I see it, because I know how thing get done in Philly. More importantly, it would be more than a questionable prioritization of precious land and at least $100M in resources, at least for a low-ball stadium, that isn't likely to attract many outside events (you'd be better off building an indoor track which is desperately needed in the city). Temple, the actual university, would be much better served by coming to some sort of utilization and upgrade agreement for Franklin Field. Alternatively, it needs to think about finding on alternative chunk of land off campus to base the football program at because it simple doesn't have the room to house the needed facilities in Templetown. This football master plan is all contingent on a major, major expenditure of resources and major considerations in the forthcoming campus master plan all for the pipe dream of moving up to a P5 conference, all without any history of success, support, or local interest? I don't see how that is actually responsible leadership at the school. Louisville is a rare exception across the general landscape of college football over the past 50 years, and the situations with the universities aren't remotely similar in the first place. You don't have to sacrifice the dream, but the university shouldn't be comprised at its expense either. Temple needs to build the program in a way that makes sense, not plunge $100s of millions into a half-arsed effort that won't impress anyone in the end anyway.

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.

(08-26-2014 06:07 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I'm fact it is more analogous to Duquesne's place in Pittsburgh - basically a non-factor.

That is patently hilarious.

Come on, man. Get real. Temple is not getting into the ACC. Not now, not ever. You have to know that. That cannot be revelatory to you. I simply refuse to believe that you honestly believe that your school, which has never spent a red cent on its football program, is now amping up for ACC membership. That's just beyond preposterous.

When people talk about Temple going "all in", what does that even mean in practical terms? That you were going to build an expandable 36K seat/$300 million on campus stadium? Umm, okay. Where do I send my check for that project because I support that idea 100%? While were at it, what are we going to call the project, "The Unicorn Fund"?

Let's suspend disbelief for a second and go along with the ridiculous notion that this is real and that Temple really is going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars improving its facilities and athletic programs – because that is what it would take - hundreds of millions of dollars. Let's just pretend for one second that is real. How in the world would that put you ahead of schools like UConn and UCF, which really have spent that kind of money? Or Tulane, which is spending that type of money right now?

You're going to need to increase your expenditures to compete but you're going to be doing it just to stay competitive in the AAC, not to get into the ACC. That ship has long since sailed. If you wanted to position yourself for ACC membership, you needed to start doing that when Bruce Arians was your coach. It is WAY too late now.

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.

Is Temple ramping up for ACC readiness by dropping all those Olympic sports? Ahh who cares, no one plays baseball in the ACC anyway.

(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.

(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.

(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.

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about with regard to the PITT/Steelers relationship. Not that I expect that little fact to stop you, but I would be remiss if I failed to educate you on it.

First let me tell you it is nice to have such a close relationship with the Steelers. We are incredibly fortunate to have such a unique relationship and it has long served both parties very well.

However, it is important to note that our "sweetheart deal" didn't just fall out of the sky one day and into our laps. It was forged over decades. It was solidified when, for years, PITT allowed the Steelers to play their home games at PITT Stadium free of charge.

Also, anybody who followed the stadium saga at the end of the last century knows that the Steelers were not getting a new stadium without PITT as a co-tenant. It was DOA and anyone who actually lived through that era will agree with that characterization.

However, when PITT decided to partner with the Steelers, the plan went from renovating Three Rivers Stadium to building a new stadium for both the local major college and professional football team. That is why all of the gates and seat fixtures are permanently adorned with both teams' logos. Again, that is very different than the relationship Temple has with the Philadelphia Eagles. In fact, it is different than every other college team's situation the shares its stadium with an NFL team. We are very proud of that fact. It is so very Pittsburgh.

Also, do you happen to know the name of the practice facility that PITT shares with the Steelers? It is called the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) Sports Performance Complex. In other words, I think the relationship is a little bit more symbiotic than you are willing to concede.

That's cool, I don't expect a fair shake from you. Frankly, nor do I care. Mine is just to make the point that we didn't wake up one day and decide to play major college football. It was something that happened over decades and that is why we got the nod over Connecticut for the ACC and why we are not remotely comparable to Temple.

We started playing major college football in the early 20th century and here we are 100 years later and you are predicting that within 10 years, Temple will join us in that pursuit and when you do, look out Loretta. I guess but I must admit that I remain somewhat skeptical as it belies almost every single thing I have seen from your institution in my lifetime.

I certainly wish you no ill will but as far as the ACC is concerned, that's a pipe dream. There is no room for you at the inn now and there most likely never will be. At the very least, you are solidly behind Central Florida, South Florida, Connecticut, Cincinnati, and likely several others as well. If Temple ever gets into the ACC, it will not be the ACC we all currently know and love. Something will have gone terribly, terribly wrong.

I don't mean to be too harsh but you have missed the boat and it is just that simple. At this late stage in the game, your best bet is to focus on helping to make the American a legitimate, hands down No. 6 league in the way the old Big East used to be. That is your best and really your only realistic play at this point.