Philadelphia just doesn't care much for college football

Rutgers football is like UMass basketball. Fifteen years ago, when Calipari got hot with a few recruits and made a few tournaments, the Boston papers were covering them home and away -- even though Amherst (on a good day) is a 2-hour drive from Boston. Their radio network even had a Boston affiliate for a while. They got a few recruits from the city. The papers covered them for a couple years after Calipari left, until the program was run into the ground.

Now that the program is back to standard mid-major level, ruined by Bruiser Flint and Steve Lappas, they're back to zero coverage in the city. If they had kept that level of success going for another 10 years or so, maybe they would have been able to continue to enjoy that sort of coverage. Same thing will happen to Rutgers once Schiano leaves for Penn State (if that move happens).

 

Bingo.

All anyone ever talks about in Philadelphia is how the city has gone 24 years - since the 76ers in 1983 - without winning a major championship. But lately, Philadelphia is arguably king of the minor leagues. And it only helps to strengthen the fact that if it's not big-time [enter sport here], no one in that town is going to give a damn.

Case in point:

* The Philadelphia Phantoms of the American Hockey League won the Calder Cup two years ago ... while they were the only hockey in town since the NHL season was locked out. Nobody gives a damn.

* The Philadelphia Kixx won the Major Indoor Soccer League championship this past year. Nobody gives a damn.

* The Philadelphia Barrage won three of the last four Major League Lacrosse titles. Nobody gives a damn.

... and now LaSalle is folding it's football program. Guess what?

 

Heck, about the only thing WIP talks about year-round is the Eagles. The Phillies got a little bit of air time when they made the playoffs.

 

My point remains: Penn State doesn't get all that much coverage in the Philly market. You can't say Temple football is a failure because people adopt Penn State as their own.

If you wanna say Temple is a failure because the Eagles are king, that is different.

 

Temple is a failure because they suck.

 

It's tough for a school like La Salle, even if it is non-scholarship. The NCAA requires they remain I-AA, so they can't play all the local/area Division III schools which might actually draw a little interest.

Football in the MAAC has died, with Canisius, Siena, Fairfield and St. Peter's all dropping their programs. It's an expensive sport, and dropping it altogether is an easy alternative. Xavier, Detroit, Marquette, St. Louis, St. Bona, Portland, Gonzaga, St. Mary's, USF, Seattle U, Santa Clara, Loyola Marymount, almost all of the Catholic private schools that once played football have dropped the sport. Maybe they could have survived as non-scholarship DIII, but the rules don't alow it.

College football is popular in some area, not so much in others. So it goes. But between Vilanova, Temple, West Chester and Delaware there's plenty of colege football in the area if Phily fans care to watch it.

 

To me, that's a dumb rule. Shouldn't the NCAA's job be to promote student participation, not quash it?

I kind of understand a potential reason for the rule: A school playing mostly Division I sports may have an upper hand when it comes to facilities, access to resources, etc. But there should be some rethinking of this, especially when it comes to football, and maybe the NCAA should think about issuing a waiver here or there.

 

The rule was forced by the BCS schools that wanted to keep the numbers in D-1 basketball down so they didn't have to split the NCAA tournament revenue pie into even more shares, or lose their shares when the Gonzagas started winning tournament games.

I used to know all the rules, but you can only play D-1 basketball if you sponsor a certain amount of SCHOLARSHIP DI men's and women's sports, and sponsor a certain amount of full scholarships. The big boys don't want schools like La Salle spending $3 million on basketball and then scrimping in the other sports at a subsistance level.

The spending/scholarship requirements make it very hard for schools La Salle's size to sponsor football. That's one reason why so many mid-majors no longer have programs.

 

One's got nothing to do with the other. As Mayfly said best, Temple is a failure because they suck. If in some bizzaro college football world Temple were a force, there would be a following.

As it is, their own alumni don't even give a rat's ass, and they're far outnumbered by Penn Staters in the Philadelphia market. Most Philadelphians who root for the Nittany Lions don't "adopt" Penn State as their own - they are AFFILIATED with Penn State because they went to school there, or their family members went to school there.

And another thing - don't say that Penn State doesn't get much coverage and point at WIP as your proof. That's crap. Penn State is covered up and down by the big papers. The Inky also throws a beat writer at Temple, you just won't see those stories on the front page, cause no one cares. Temple football is small potatoes. (And crappy, too.)

The fan base drives the coverage. Not the other way around.