The Franklin Field Scrimmage

Along with the banishment, Matt Rhule added an acknowledgement: “I would not read too much into this.”

Rhule was talking about kicking the first-team offense off the field nearly two weeks ago, but he could have also been talking about the Franklin Field scrimmage. There is no more anti-Franklin Field person than me, so thoughts of reading too much into the supposedly cozy relationship Temple athletics has with Penn athletics should be put aside for now.

There has always been the thought, first floated by former President David Adamany, that Franklin Field was a perfectly acceptable home for the Temple Owls. Then the most recent President, Neil D. Theobald, said pretty much the same thing two years ago when talking about what could happen if the Owls are not able to build their own stadium.


Owl fans have been there, done this.

To me, there are only two options: Lincoln Financial Field and Temple Stadium, not necessarily in that order. There are two reasons for this. Any major conference needs to know a university has full control of its facility on game days, primarily for television scheduling purposes. That would not be the case with Franklin Field. Second, going “back” to Franklin Field would represent a backward step for the program that would be unacceptable to the fans. To go from comfortable seats to bleachers and toilets to peeing troughs is one thing if it comes with the convenience of walking from the dorms to the stadium; to do it after getting on the subway and transferring to the West Philadelphia elevated is another altogether.

“I can’t see why
playing at Franklin Field
isn’t good enough.”
David Adamany,
Temple President, November, 2001

“We’re looking possibly on campus,
possibly sharing with Penn.
We’re going to need
to answer that question.”
Neil Theobald,
Temple President,
November 23, 2013.

The only news from the scrimmage was that last year’s starter at guard, Brian Carter, was running second team, and wide receiver Marshall Ellick appeared to stand out above the rest and looks like a sure starter.

For now, though, getting away from 10th and Diamond to a stadium for a scrimmage is a perfectly acceptable move. It gave the Owls a practice in a large stadium to get prepared for the butterflies many of them will have on Sept. 2.

A word to interim President  Dick Englert: Don’t read too much into it, because Franklin Field would be an unacceptable future home for Temple football under any circumstances.

Friday: Where’s The Beef?


17 thoughts on “The Franklin Field Scrimmage

  1. To have “Franklin Field” and “Temple” in the same sentence is not a good thing for either of the P-5 leagues to see.

    Would be terrible for all. While “sightlines” are touted for FF, fact remains the wide track surrounding the playing surface puts seats well removed from the boundaries. And lights on the field for TV are of high school quality and the world-wide leader would squawk at that. You’ve accurately portrayed the creature discomforts.

    Only way to polish this one would be as a trip back in time. Put teams in leather helmets and make them play single wing. Dress fans in raccoon coats.

    • Totally agree, Larry. Beyond pissed off that the last two Presidents seemed to think Franklin Field was an option. I thought Theobald had a better understanding of TV contracts than that. We can never mention Temple football and Franklin Field in the same sentence again (I mean after this one I just wrote).

  2. Franklin Field, in its current state would be the worst place for the Owls to land. The only way it would suffice is if it was renovated and the Owls got first priority. That would never happen. As far as renovations go, they would cost almost as much as a new stadium. Finally,the only redeeming quality about the place is that I believe that there is no better seat in the city for football than a second level front row seat on the fifty.

    • I’m beginning to think the best thing to do is extend the Linc deal and work with the city and state to help the negotiations. To me, that track around FF serves to put the fans further back than they should be (on top of the action) and then I saw a preliminary markup of the Temple Stadium that showed no track but sloped the seats so far back as to remove a homefield advantage. I want something like BC has (fans on top of the action) or stay at the Linc.
      Alumni Stadium

    • As far as first priority, no amount of money would sway Penn from giving that up. School has a $6.9 billion endowment; Temple’s is (roughly) $579 million.

  3. last time at Franklin Field was the Navy game in 2001, it stunk then and is a decade worse now.., 15 years later and Temple goes back there to scrimmage? we are running around the city like gypsies selling our souls…, let’s use a rubber football and play in the street between the cars…,
    there is no place like home!

  4. Saw an updated rendition of the new stadium tonight.., very impressive.., reminds me of the Boca Bowl stadium but better.., still disappointed in our Board of Trustees and lack their lack of public commitment… every BOT member should be held accountable for where they stand on the new stadium, are they for or against? Transparency is important… IMHO the BOT is failing the university. The majority of these political appointed members have zero skin in the game and serve only to pad their personal resumes…,

    • Hopefully, what you saw looked nothing like this, which I saw on the Temple football fan facebook page in early August. There are several things wrong with this concept, chief of which that you get a better view of the sky above than you do of the field below. Move those darn seats closer to the field:


  5. This is the FAU stadium. To me, the seats on the far side are too sloped back. I’d like to see that side built straight up into the sky and move the seats right on top of the field. I’m hoping Temple makes public what you saw soon.

    • the latest is a closed stadium, running North/South, with the home side and club seats on the West facing Broad Street, suite and press boxes same concept as FAU.., the scoreboard is awesome..,

      there is a reluctance to publish anything before the BOT makes a commitment..,

      it is hard to raise money in absence of BOT commitment and public release of the concept design! why can’t the BOT make a public commitment contingent on City Council support?

      it will take two years to build so we are really looking at 2019.., my fear based on our sordid history is this will not be built if the city does not approve by the end of this year..,

      the city asked for a Transportation Study, no surprise the Study indicated a major traffic challenge on Game Days,, so there will be heavy traffic on 6 of the 365 days each year?

      • That last paragraph sounds like spending $1.5 million for a study that concludes that you will get wet on rainy days. Can’t believe City Council will block this for 6 rainy days (and 359 sunny ones) but that’s what I fear is going to happen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s