1. 1A Football and a unified image for "Temple"

Temple's success in 1A football would clearly help its image. Immediate positive public identification with Temple as a whole is what we're talking about. Despite its excellent academic and related parts, the University's message is fragmented and its overall image ("Temple University") is dragged down by deafening public perceptions rooted in location and obsolescent stereotyping.

Positive public images were developed for the University of Oklahoma, Penn State University, Nebraska University -- to name just three other public research universities - - by success in 1A football. The "why" is for social scientists. The objective indicia and market studies of giving by alumni, student enrollment, self-image, government support, research support, self-confidence and the like, however, demonstrate a clear linkage.

Temple's overall image has been boosted by the success of men's basketball led by Coach Chaney. Success in 1A football would have a far greater impact nationally than basketball (or virtually anything else) in developing the University's overall image. This may be a reflection of distorted societal values. But it's fact. Becoming a consistent repository of Nobel Laureates is the more appealing route towards institutional identification of "excellence," but football reaches more audiences, more consistently, and more often.

Universities with 1A football programs must invest to succeed, or drop the sport altogether.

While the Big East Football Conference was created to promote charitable and educational purposes through its supervision of intercollegiate football contests, its internal operations appear to be motivated entirely by maximization of television and bowl game revenues and other economic considerations.

Continued membership and revenue-sharing in the Big East Football Conference is critical to maintaining 1A football at Temple. It is also critical in qualifying for a share that universities with 1A football programs will probably receive from the proposed National Football 1A Championship Series an amount that could reach $2 million additionally and annually for each 1A school.

2. Big East Football Conference Requirements for Temple

During the past year, Director of Athletics Dave O'Brien has spearheaded an all-out effort to restore confidence and improvement in Temple's 1A football program, its membership in the Big East Football Conference, and in meeting all criteria for continued membership.

Two critical components for meeting the Big East criteria are: (1) averaging 25,000 spectators for "home" football games, and (2) playing in an adequate football stadium that Temple controls on Saturdays during football season.

Temple cannot expect the Big East Football Conference to wait indefinitely for these criteria to be met. Temple needs to have realizable plans in place within the next year.

"Competitiveness" is the other criterion.

3. A new stadium, 25,000 attendance, and "competitiveness" issues
 

In August, following six months of study and discussion, AD O'Brien presented a proposal to President Liacouras for an on-campus football stadium.

While noting that such a facility would further the University's Strategic Initiatives by expanding activities and Temple's presence on the Main Campus in Temple Town, the President rejected the proposal for two reasons: (1) the project was $40 million short in identifiable funding, and (2) as he reiterated, no tuition revenues, none of the State's annual appropriation and none of the State's $100,000,000 five-year commitment for capital projects could be used for the project.

Simply put, the University's academic priorities and Strategic Initiatives leave no financial room for the use of limited tuition or state revenues or state bonds for an on-campus football stadium. Funding for that kind of athletic facility, the President reiterated, would have to come from external sources, such as "Friends of 1A Football" and appropriate business arrangements or partnerships.

He noted that the preferred way to achieve the requirement of a "home" football stadium controlled by Temple on Saturdays would be for Temple to become the exclusive tenant on Saturdays during the football season (except for Army-Navy game day) in the proposed new stadium contemplated for the Philadelphia Eagles. This arrangement makes financial and football sense, even though it would not further Temple Town.

The average "home" attendance in 1998 was 15,138, a 60% increase over 9,200 in 1997.

The present arrangement for home games at Veterans Stadium does not meet Big East conditions. That's because the Phillies control the Veteran's Stadium on Saturdays during September and early October. Penn controls Franklin Field, the only other alternative, at all times.

As to the requirement of an average of 25,000 fans at "home" games:

There are 80,000 Temple alumni who live in the Greater Philadelphia Region. There are 27,000 students and 10,000 Temple-related staff, and 5,500 Temple students and staff who will be residing on campus and in Temple Town by the year 2001.

There's every reason to believe, President Liacouras has stated, that aggressive marketing can produce 15,000 season tickets (compared with 1,500 season tickets in 1998). Otherwise, the hard reality is that there is insufficient support to justify a major University investment in facilities for 1A football.

As a bottom line, consistently competing against the best teams and winning football games in the Big East will solve all 1A requirements. "Winning cures all ills." It boosts the institution's overall image. It even improves academic reputations with a public that glorifies and exaggerates winning in sports.

4. A football practice facility, including a grass field

There is an undisputed need for an adequate grass practice field for a 1A football program.

This requirement can be met in two ways: (1) getting appropriate access for Temple to the practice fields and lockers in the proposed new Eagles stadium complex, or (2) having an adequate practice field on the Main Campus.

Temple presently has a good grass field. One, not two. It's used for five programs and services, and by hundreds of students and community residents. It's adjacent to Temple's excellent astro-turf field. It's also adjacent to McGonigle Hall where the football coaches' offices (9 years old), football locker-room (5 years old), and intercollegiate weight room (4 years old) are located. It's a good location.

These facilities were, at one time, adequate for 1A football even though not comparable to those at Virginia Tech, West Virginia and most other Big East football-only facilities that, it is presumed, help in recruiting and training good football players.

But, as was pointed out, the present grass field is used by several teams, several recreational programs, several groups and thousands of individuals in addition to its use by the football team as a practice field.

It is clear to all concerned that the present "shared use" of the grass practice field leaves all users dissatisfied. It is grossly inadequate. Continuous and multiple use leaves it in poor shape and with unpredictable availability for safe football practices. No other 1A football program can make that statement!

Why has this occurred? Student recreational demands for the use of the existing grass field have sharply increased this year. Contributing to the demand was the closure earlier this year of the adjoining grass field - - the site for the new Student Fieldhouse opening in the Spring of 1999. The demand will continue to increase as more students live on campus. Student soccer games, "touch football" practice, and "Little League" youth are among three groups of users of the grass field. Recreation Services is a "co-owner" of the field. So is the Department of Physical Education which uses the facilities for classes. And so is Intercollegiate Athletics which counts not only football but the Marching Band as its users.

Earlier this month, AD O'Brien requested that the University build a new grass practice field. The location selected is the University-owned under-utilized parking lot at 11th and Diamond, adjacent to the Norris Homes, SEPTA train tracks, and People's Village. Whether that's the best location is open to question; it demonstrates Temple's land shortage.

On November 20, 1998, L.F. Driscoll Company estimated the cost of the full project to be $6.1 million, of which $2.1 million is for the site work and a grass field.

Under AD O'Brien's proposal, the entire football operation would move from the present McGonigle-15th Street complex to this new site, 6 blocks east and north. All football activities would be relocated to that site. This means that all present football coaches' offices, training and weight rooms in Pearson and McGonigle, football lockers, showers, and storage would be abandoned by football. Everything related to football would move to the building and grass practice field at the new site.

This move, in turn, would free up the vacated space and facilities for others. Women's and other men's intercollegiate athletic programs presently housed on the Main Campus, and those that will move from the Temple Stadium Complex in Mt. Airy to the Main Campus, could be upgraded with expanded facilities. The present grass field and track would also be liberated for greater student recreational use.

5. Requirements and timely steps to meet University needs

President Liacouras has set three conditions and procedural requirements for a decision on AD O'Brien's proposal. All can be achieved by the University by January 15, 1999, if the "Friends of 1A Football" are both sincere and resolute in their commitment to 1A football at Temple.

(1) The cost of relocating football must be borne by "Friends of 1A Football."

No University tuition, state appropriation, or State capital construction funds may be used to pay for the project as a football-only facility.

This formal requirement can not be met by a "commitment" by the Department of Intercollegiate Athletics to repay the University over time from new Intercollegiate Athletics revenues or from its annual operating budget. The Department's track record including $1.78 million in a budget overrun last year leaves no room for negotiation on this point.

What's needed is the irrevocable, binding commitment from responsible sources for $4 million over a period of years to move football to the new site. It can come from one or many "Friends of 1A Football." For example: 20 persons or corporations could agree to pay $50,000 a year for 4 years (which would be 20 commitments of $200,000 each). "Naming rights" would count as part of the $4 million.

(2) The project must be consistent with, and not add duplicative costs to, the University's development of the Art Campus approved in June by the Board of Trustees and the Recreation Field at 11th and Montgomery.

This is important because softball, baseball and soccer, if moved from Mt. Airy to the Recreation Field area, will also require lockers, storage space for equipment, etc. It could be wasteful to build two facilities rather than one.

Additionally, the ongoing operating expenses (including security costs) become more onerous if multiple buildings at different locations are also involved.

(3) The project must satisfy all Title IX requirements, and beyond that result in a convincing upgrade of women's athletic facilities on Main.

This is a major hurdle. It's one that AD O'Brien has been working to achieve for the past two years. The University's Plant Fund would bear $2 million in upgrades to womens athletic facilities on the Main Campus.

After this condition is satisfied, it would also be appropriate for the University's Plant Fund to bear the $2.1 million attributable to constructing the new grass field as part of an overall improvement of the University's recreational facilities on the Main Campus.

With these requirements - - Title IX and "convincing upgrade of women's athletic facilities" - - the cost of the overall project would rise to $8.2 million.
 

• "Friends of 1A Football" would bear $4 million.
• Women's intercollegiate upgrades of $2.1 million would be borne by the University's Plant Fund.
• The new grass field of $2.1 million would be borne by the University's Plant Fund.

Whether Intercollegiate Athletics should be obliged to pay back the latter two investments (i.e., $2.1 million and $2.1 million, respectively) over a period of years, is a question for discussion.

Once all three conditions are met to the President's satisfaction, the project would undergo University-wide review and consultation in mid-January.

Recommendations from the University's Advisory Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics, the University Cabinet, the Board's Committee on Athletics, and the Campus Planning and Plant Management Committee would precede the President's recommendation to the full Board of Trustees in late January.