CatsClaw Wrote:

MichaelSavage Wrote:

Jackson1011 Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:Why does Villanova block Temple? Because they want to be the only Philly school in the Big East?

-- The bball only schools tried to block WVU, Va Tech, Temple and Rutgers from being full members. If memory serves, the football schools talked about leaving the league. So the famous comprimise was agreed to with WVU and Rutgers becoming full members and Temple/Va Tech becoming football onlies. Va Tech got full membership later because of its football sucess

Temple had a much better bball program then Rutgers at the time this call was made. Frankly, at that point the Owls had a great bball program that was probably equal to Nova in terms of talent produced. So yes, the only reason I can see that Temple wasn't brought in as a full member during the mid 90s is objection from Nova and its allies

Jackson

Yep. This is the reason why I never blamed Virginia Tech for bolting to the ACC.

That's ridiculous logic, you don't blame Virginia Tech for running away because of a vote that happened a decade earlier? Using your logic, you wouldn't blame Virginia Tech for running away from the ACC if they ever do because the ACC blocked Virginia Tech from getting in. The only reason Virginia Tech got into the ACC was a compromise with Virginia and Swofford. What the ACC did was no different then what the Big East did so, yes, I blame Virginia Tech for stabbing the conference in the back and running off to the ACC. I can't believe there are people actually still defending Virginia Tech. You're basically saying you support Virginia Tech stabbing West Virginia in the back considering WVU got them into the Big East much the same way Virginia got VT into the ACC when the ACC wanted NOTHING to do with Virginia Tech.

You have to do what's best for your institution, and VT did just that. They were treated like step children by the Big East for awhile. If a conference wants to treat institutions in that manner, then they'll reap what they sow.

Cubanbull Wrote:and here we are 14 years later in the same boat back to the same problem. Sorry but if those that went thru it the firt time around, WV,Pitt,Syracuse,UConn and Rutgers can see that this deal of keeping this league even with even numbers of football playing schools and those that do not play football is NOT going to work because you have TWO different camps with TWO different outlooks on how to improve themselves.
If there is no split then obviously those schools dint learn anything from the first go around.

Which is exactly why there is going to be a split when the time is right.
On Temple's "losing record." Honestly, outisde of Miami and VT, in the old days what BE team had any kind of FB success. Syr, Pitt, WVU had moments but this was a league riding on the backs of Miami. Which is why when Miami left the BCS was in question. Temple certainly could not have been worse then Rutgers when Temple was kicked out.
FB has only recently caught on in the north east- if it has even caught on yet. But it's nothing compared to the south. Temple was riding the BE, Miami was paying the bills, who cared until the ACC stepped in and upturned everything.
The fact is the when we do split we're not going to walk away from the fourth largest market in the U.S. and Temple is the best BB/FB school available in that market.
In the new Era of the BE, Cincy and USF certainly have improved since joining. UCONN football has stepped up. Syr has yet to step up so why believe Temple can't improve. We'll expect UCF and Memphis to improve.
To say Temple hurt Rutgers recruiting??? Let's think about this for a minute. Both teams sucked so who were they recruiting that the other team got? You must mean Temple took the scrubs Rutgers was looking at.
Don't get me wrong, we need some winning schools but we also need large markets to feed TV deals in the league. Just about every school is going to be a work in progress. Look how fast UofL fell off. Syr's last big win was taking out Boston College just before the split.
I can see why Mike T is not pulling the trigger, with the situation at WVU- we don't know what we got. Miami is reloaded and got a couple games scheduled with USF-. We have to see how things flush out. Is the BTN looking at Rutgers?
In light of all this, we can't afford to lose any large market we now have- if we split and that means Philadelphia. Good teams alone may build the conference but we have no guarantee we'll have any really good teams no matter who we add. We can guarantee what markets we control. Temple is just at the right place at the right time.


P.S. who cares that VT left. Lawsuit on, lawsuit off. They embarassed themselves in the process and the ACC still has yet to win a BCS game this century.

Just a follow up from the era of Temple basketball we were talking about....there players included Mark Macon (who was a great college bball player and top 10 nba pick), Aaron Mckee and Eddie Jones

Temple made 10 straight NCAA tourney appearances from 1988-89-98-99

This kind of stuff is what made the old league so frustrating...we had Notre Dame but not Notre Dame football, had Miami but not Miami baseball, and had Temple football which was horrible but not Temple bball which was very good

Jackson

MichaelSavage Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:

MichaelSavage Wrote:

Jackson1011 Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:Why does Villanova block Temple? Because they want to be the only Philly school in the Big East?

-- The bball only schools tried to block WVU, Va Tech, Temple and Rutgers from being full members. If memory serves, the football schools talked about leaving the league. So the famous comprimise was agreed to with WVU and Rutgers becoming full members and Temple/Va Tech becoming football onlies. Va Tech got full membership later because of its football sucess

Temple had a much better bball program then Rutgers at the time this call was made. Frankly, at that point the Owls had a great bball program that was probably equal to Nova in terms of talent produced. So yes, the only reason I can see that Temple wasn't brought in as a full member during the mid 90s is objection from Nova and its allies

Jackson

Yep. This is the reason why I never blamed Virginia Tech for bolting to the ACC.

That's ridiculous logic, you don't blame Virginia Tech for running away because of a vote that happened a decade earlier? Using your logic, you wouldn't blame Virginia Tech for running away from the ACC if they ever do because the ACC blocked Virginia Tech from getting in. The only reason Virginia Tech got into the ACC was a compromise with Virginia and Swofford. What the ACC did was no different then what the Big East did so, yes, I blame Virginia Tech for stabbing the conference in the back and running off to the ACC. I can't believe there are people actually still defending Virginia Tech. You're basically saying you support Virginia Tech stabbing West Virginia in the back considering WVU got them into the Big East much the same way Virginia got VT into the ACC when the ACC wanted NOTHING to do with Virginia Tech.

You have to do what's best for your institution, and VT did just that. They were treated like step children by the Big East for awhile. If a conference wants to treat institutions in that manner, then they'll reap what they sow.

Then I guess you're be complaining about the ACC because they treated Virginia Tech the same way. VT had to blackmail their way into the ACC via Virginia so your "reap what you so" logic make zero sense. Sorry.

omnicarrier Wrote:

esayem Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:That's ridiculous logic, you don't blame Virginia Tech for running away because of a vote that happened a decade earlier? Using your logic, you wouldn't blame Virginia Tech for running away from the ACC if they ever do because the ACC blocked Virginia Tech from getting in. The only reason Virginia Tech got into the ACC was a compromise with Virginia and Swofford. What the ACC did was no different then what the Big East did so, yes, I blame Virginia Tech for stabbing the conference in the back and running off to the ACC. I can't believe there are people actually still defending Virginia Tech. You're basically saying you support Virginia Tech stabbing West Virginia in the back considering WVU got them into the Big East much the same way Virginia got VT into the ACC when the ACC wanted NOTHING to do with Virginia Tech.

Actually, Swofford didn't want VaTech. Most of the ACC schools wanted VaTech over Cuse and BC, in the long run the ACC got VaTech in.

Revisionist history. After voting 7-2 to explore expansion to 12 (actually 6 for, 1 provisional, and 2 against), the votes to visit the following campuses were as follows:

Miami - 8-1
BC - 8-1
Syracuse - 8-1
VT - 4-5

In May 2003, VT didn't even have enough votes from ACC institutions to garner a site visit.

VT eventually got the invite because Duke and UNC went back to their original "No" vote against expansion to 12 which meant expansion to 12 wasn't happening without Virginia's provisional "Yes" hinging on VT being one of the three invited.

If Duke and UNC had just accepted the inevitable, VT wouldn't even be in the ACC right now.

It's all water under the bridge now, but let's be factually accurate about it.

Cheers,
Neil

Exactly. It's amusing seeing esayem and Michael Savage in their own world of what happened. Omni pretty much gave the facts, most of the ACC DID NOT want Virginia Tech. Also, Michael Savage's logic of Virginia Tech being treated like a redheaded stepchild by the Big East thus they "deserved" it to have Virginia Tech leave is so stupid. It was actually harder for Virginia Tech to get into the ACC then it was to get into the Big East. Even then many of the fans and institutions treated Virginia Tech like crap because they wanted Syracuse to help basketball. Coach K essentially said that, ripping the acquisition of a school like Virginia Tech because it hurt basketball. You want to talk about being treated like a red-headed stepchild, check out Virginia Tech fans being treated to coaches ripping their basketball program while being called thugs in football. At least the Big East accepted VT's sucking in basketball quietly.

MichaelSavage Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:

MichaelSavage Wrote:

Jackson1011 Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:Why does Villanova block Temple? Because they want to be the only Philly school in the Big East?

-- The bball only schools tried to block WVU, Va Tech, Temple and Rutgers from being full members. If memory serves, the football schools talked about leaving the league. So the famous comprimise was agreed to with WVU and Rutgers becoming full members and Temple/Va Tech becoming football onlies. Va Tech got full membership later because of its football sucess

Temple had a much better bball program then Rutgers at the time this call was made. Frankly, at that point the Owls had a great bball program that was probably equal to Nova in terms of talent produced. So yes, the only reason I can see that Temple wasn't brought in as a full member during the mid 90s is objection from Nova and its allies

Jackson

Yep. This is the reason why I never blamed Virginia Tech for bolting to the ACC.

That's ridiculous logic, you don't blame Virginia Tech for running away because of a vote that happened a decade earlier? Using your logic, you wouldn't blame Virginia Tech for running away from the ACC if they ever do because the ACC blocked Virginia Tech from getting in. The only reason Virginia Tech got into the ACC was a compromise with Virginia and Swofford. What the ACC did was no different then what the Big East did so, yes, I blame Virginia Tech for stabbing the conference in the back and running off to the ACC. I can't believe there are people actually still defending Virginia Tech. You're basically saying you support Virginia Tech stabbing West Virginia in the back considering WVU got them into the Big East much the same way Virginia got VT into the ACC when the ACC wanted NOTHING to do with Virginia Tech.

You have to do what's best for your institution, and VT did just that. They were treated like step children by the Big East for awhile. If a conference wants to treat institutions in that manner, then they'll reap what they sow.

Big East can't win. If they treat someone like a step-child (VT) they reap what they sow. And when they bend over backwards to provide preferential treatment to someone (Miami) they are told they would rather go to a conference where everything is shared equally.



Cheers,
Neil

The ACC accepted Virginia Tech in all sports right away, something the Big East never did. Plus, there were other issues they had with the conference, such as Tranghese (then BCS chairman) not working to get them an at-large BCS spot at the end of the 2000 season.

MichaelSavage Wrote:The ACC accepted Virginia Tech in all sports right away, something the Big East never did. Plus, there were other issues they had with the conference, such as Tranghese (then BCS chairman) not working to get them an at-large BCS spot at the end of the 2000 season.

Nonsense on the latter. Tranghese did lobby very hard for VT and the second BCS slot, but the problem there was the Fiesta which wanted Notre Dame and Oregon State more than they wanted VT (for obvious reasons) and the image of the Big East as being Miami and the seven dwarves. The same image problem the ACC had of being FSU and the eight dwarves.

There are a lot of things Tranghese can be blamed for, but that isn't one of them.

Cheers,
Neil

I had no idea VaTech was even in the original consideration for a 4-5 vote. Where did you dig that up from?

UNC wanted VaTech. Looks like we were right in getting the perfect fit.

PS: Nobody cares what Coach K thinks.

esayem Wrote:I had no idea VaTech was even in the original consideration for a 4-5 vote. Where did you dig that up from?

As a Syracuse fan, I lived it, so I didn't have to "dig" it up.

However, in quick googling, I found the following link that shows that VT did not receive the required seven votes. This particular article doesn't say what the vote was, but trust me, it was 4 in favor of exploring VT as a potential candidate and 5 against.

VT not considered an expansion candidate

Quote:UNC wanted VaTech. Looks like we were right in getting the perfect fit.

While who votes for who rarely makes published articles, it is pretty much assumed that the 4 who voted to consider VT were Virginia, FSU, Clemson and Georgia Tech and the 5 who did not were UNC, Duke, Wake, NC State, and Maryland.

In their public announcements after the May vote, both UNC's president James Moeser and Duke's president Nan Keohane made it patently clear that though they had voted against expansion to 12, since it had passed they definitely wanted input on who was invited.

Since VT was the only candidate not to receive enough votes to get a site visit, it is clear to me that they, at that time, did not want VT.

Cheers,
Neil

Hmmm, I suppose it is no big deal. I remember UNC fans being excited VaTech was in the league. I know I was too. I remember people saying we used to play them in football way back so it makes sense to have them on the schedule again. Fans and admins are dif though.

Interesting Temple Football anecdote:

Temple Football Recruit arrested on felony concealed weapons charge and a misdemeanor for pretending to ROB and scare white people at 4 AM.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/p...3014.story

KnightLight Wrote:Interesting Temple Football anecdote:

Temple Football Recruit arrested on felony concealed weapons charge and a misdemeanor for pretending to ROB and scare white people at 4 AM.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/p...3014.story

See- Looks like Temple's already on its way to becoming the next Miami.

To get back to the original point of this thread - if Temple had not been expelled from the Big East would they have been invited for all sports following the raid in 2003 - the answer is no.

Villanova does not want another Philadelphia school in the Big East - regardless of how some might try to ignore that fact - and there is nothing wrong with admitting such a simple truth.

The most likely scenario is that Temple would have been retained as a football-only ninth member and no one would have complained about scheduling difficulties over the last few years.

As for the Owls future, they finally have a competent administration and are making improvements that should have taken place years ago, so forget the past and just see what happens.

Who gives a sh!t what Villanova wants? They don't play football with the big boys, except for a payday.

Obviously the Big East cares what Villanova wants considering that they have been the only Philadelphia school ever admitted to the league. As pointed out by Jackson, the Big East had Temple football when Temple basketball was actually their good sport, and you can bet, based on the 1994 article posted by CatsClaw, that Villanova was a major factor in that madness.

Temple and Virginia Tech should have been taken in by the Big East as full members at the same time that Rutgers and West Virginia were finally allowed into the league. You can be sure that Seton Hall opposed Rutgers just as much as Villanova opposed Temple but, ultimately, the Scarlet Knights and Mountaineers were considered the two least of four evils by those folks.

Seton Hall/ Rutgers is a bit different. BOth schools share the same state. Villanova and Temple share the same city. That's a bit too close.
I don't knw why schools want to be the only school in the state in a conference. FSU and UM get along just fine. As a Syrcuse fan, I couldn't care less if Buffalo were invited but they are way, way out there and they get 18 feet of snow. Albany would be a better rival if they played div. 1 and they are closer to NYC. BUt NY is big enough for more than one BE school. I wouldn't object there's just no one else here playing div one. Imagine, NYU, Rutgers and Syr meeting in the garden for BB and somewhere else for FB.

frogman Wrote:Seton Hall/ Rutgers is a bit different. BOth schools share the same state. Villanova and Temple share the same city. That's a bit too close.
I don't knw why schools want to be the only school in the state in a conference. FSU and UM get along just fine. As a Syrcuse fan, I couldn't care less if Buffalo were invited but they are way, way out there and they get 18 feet of snow. Albany would be a better rival if they played div. 1 and they are closer to NYC. BUt NY is big enough for more than one BE school. I wouldn't object there's just no one else here playing div one. Imagine, NYU, Rutgers and Syr meeting in the garden for BB and somewhere else for FB.

FSU and UM get along fine because they're probably 8 hours away from eachother (just guessing on distance). Rutgers and Seton Hall both share the NYC metro area. Big difference. There can be more than one team from the state in one league but more than one team from the city can be redundant unless both schools have large and separate fan bases (think UCLA and USC). When Seton Hall was in the BE and Rutgers wasn't that was the only advantage Seton Hall had over Rutgers, of course they'd want to maintain that.

KnightLight Wrote:

frogman Wrote:Temple has had success in both FB and BB and is in a market a split BE will need.

Temple has only enjoyed 2 winning seasons since 1980!!

2...total...period...that's it since 1980...which sounds impossible...as just by CHANCE a team would go on a roll for 3-4 years every now and then.


While Temple enjoyed success in the 70's when college football wasn't nearly as popular as it is today...BUT HS football players/RECRUITS today have no clue about that "ancient" success (which it is...especially for kids who weren't even born yet).

Worst scenario for Temple past/present was being stuck at the old VET and now the Eagles' Linc...as Temple doesn't need 65,000 plus seats stadiums to play in...and even if an ok crowd of 20,000 or so shows up...it still looks minscule.

Too bad Temple couldn't partner with the new Philly soccer team that was awarded an MSL soccer franchise and has already secured about half the funding needed for their new $100 Million stadium in near-by Chester, PA. (see rendering below).



Maybe if Temple became a partner...and could offer some $$$$ and expand it from 20,000 to say 25,000-28,000 max to start...have it built closer to the school...this new stadium for Temple Football would put fans in great seats...and Temple would play in a mostly "full" stadium on gameday...help create a real home field advantage...help generate advanced tix sales...encourage higher priced tix...which would all bring in more $$$$ to the program...vs being stuck at the monstrous Linc.

It's just hard for some teams to recruit that play in stadiums TOO BIG for their programs (i.e. Temple, UAB, Rice, & Tulane, etc...) when most potential HS recruits just see "tons of empty seats" on gameday.

If Temple can land in a "right size" stadium...I think that would put them on the road for success. (i.e. I think playing like minded teams in the MAC will help the team overall build up some confidence and add a few more W's...vs what Temple had to go through while a member of the Big East).

DFW HOYA Wrote:

KnightLight Wrote:Too bad Temple couldn't partner with the new Philly soccer team that was awarded an MSL soccer franchise and has already secured about half the funding needed for their new $100 Million stadium in near-by Chester, PA.

MLS teams are notoroious for not wanting football teams playing on their "pitch". Chances are good that the Chester stadium would be built soccer-only.

Funding has already been approved and set since February and MLS wants their teams to have full ownership of their stadiums and a modest size. There was/is no way Temple is part of this.

Orange Eagles Wrote:

KnightLight Wrote:

frogman Wrote:Temple has had success in both FB and BB and is in a market a split BE will need.

Temple has only enjoyed 2 winning seasons since 1980!!

2...total...period...that's it since 1980...which sounds impossible...as just by CHANCE a team would go on a roll for 3-4 years every now and then.


While Temple enjoyed success in the 70's when college football wasn't nearly as popular as it is today...BUT HS football players/RECRUITS today have no clue about that "ancient" success (which it is...especially for kids who weren't even born yet).

Worst scenario for Temple past/present was being stuck at the old VET and now the Eagles' Linc...as Temple doesn't need 65,000 plus seats stadiums to play in...and even if an ok crowd of 20,000 or so shows up...it still looks minscule.

Too bad Temple couldn't partner with the new Philly soccer team that was awarded an MSL soccer franchise and has already secured about half the funding needed for their new $100 Million stadium in near-by Chester, PA. (see rendering below).



Maybe if Temple became a partner...and could offer some $$$$ and expand it from 20,000 to say 25,000-28,000 max to start...have it built closer to the school...this new stadium for Temple Football would put fans in great seats...and Temple would play in a mostly "full" stadium on gameday...help create a real home field advantage...help generate advanced tix sales...encourage higher priced tix...which would all bring in more $$$$ to the program...vs being stuck at the monstrous Linc.

It's just hard for some teams to recruit that play in stadiums TOO BIG for their programs (i.e. Temple, UAB, Rice, & Tulane, etc...) when most potential HS recruits just see "tons of empty seats" on gameday.

If Temple can land in a "right size" stadium...I think that would put them on the road for success. (i.e. I think playing like minded teams in the MAC will help the team overall build up some confidence and add a few more W's...vs what Temple had to go through while a member of the Big East).

DFW HOYA Wrote:

KnightLight Wrote:Too bad Temple couldn't partner with the new Philly soccer team that was awarded an MSL soccer franchise and has already secured about half the funding needed for their new $100 Million stadium in near-by Chester, PA.

MLS teams are notoroious for not wanting football teams playing on their "pitch". Chances are good that the Chester stadium would be built soccer-only.

Funding has already been approved and set since February and MLS wants their teams to have full ownership of their stadiums and a modest size. There was/is no way Temple is part of this.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. If the stadium is built with STATE FUNDS Temple which is a STATE SCHOOL wil be playing there if they want especially since the GOVERNOR is an EX-PHILEDELPHIA MAYOR.
Rendell forced the issue when the Eagles did not want Temple as a tenant when the Linc was built with state money was mixed into the funding package.