(04-21-2010 09:46 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 09:22 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  When it comes to institutions of higher learning academics ALWAYS plays a role.

Well, duh. The point is that none of the legitimate candidates are so academically horrific that it would preclude them from BE membership, especially w/ the BE so desperate to add the best athletic programs they can. If you think there is a huge gap between ECU/UCF/Memphis with the existing BE football schools like Louisville, USF, and WVU... I don't really know what else to tell you, because you've been told over and over again that you are misrepresenting your interpretation of the tier rankings, but you're not listening.

There is indeed a huge institutional gap between many of the prospective schools and the current BE football schools. Louisville may not have been a Tier 1 school when they were invited but they, like Cincy and USF, had hundreds of millions in institutional endowment and research spending. They passed the BCS eye-test institutionally. There is a typical BCS public-schools profile, and those of us that take academic characteristics seriously do not want our current schools lumped with glorified regional teacher's colleges out of mere 'desperation', to put it bluntly.

Here are a few examples, with the BCS average and BCS school at the bottom of each list included for comparison. I've left out all private schools as their enrollments are lower, and endowments are higher, by their nature:

Endowment (NACUBO 2009 Source)

Public BCS Average: $1.588 Bil. (Highly skewed by the top percentile)
Houston (System): 497 Mil.
Buffalo: 408 Mil.
UAB: 332 Mil.
UConn: 254 Mil.
Miss. State: 254 Mil.
Temple: 210 Mil.
Memphis: 180 MIl.
UCF: 91 Mil.
ECU: 89 Mil.
USM: 81 Mil.
Marshall: 70 Mil.

Research Spending (NSF 2008 Source)

UAB: $404 Mil. (Helped by having Alabama's flagship Med School, one of only 2 in the state)
Public BCS Average: 358 Mil.
Buffalo: 338 Mil.
UCF: 108 Mil.
Temple: 92 Mil.
Houston: 84 Mil.
USM: 47 Mil.
Memphis: 43 Mil.
Alabama: 32 Mil.
Marshall: 22 Mil.
ECU 16 Mil.

Total Enrollment:

UCF: 53,664 (Only 3,600 'distance-learning only)
Houston (System): 37,000 (With "Over 10,000" distance learning)
Public BCS Average: 30,900
Buffalo: 28,192 (<200 'distance-learning only')
ECU: 27,667 (18% are 'distance learning only')
Memphis: 21,424
UAB: 18,047
USM: 16,050
Mississippi: 15,220
Marshall: 13,584

Hey Buck,
Would I be right in saying that the BE has accepted tier 4 schools in the past?

(04-21-2010 09:15 PM)wvucrazed Wrote:  This argument - while entertaining - is wholly irrelevant.

Academics will play an exactly 0.000% role in who the Big East selects. All of the serious candidates are within the acceptable realm academically.

Believe it or not crazed.. i've been coming to this opinion lately. Just from the various articles and stuff I"m reading, I'm not sure how much academics are going to come into play when the expansion is done. (but then again, i'm one of those people who side with the argument that the USNews listings are way too subjective to be a useful measurement).

The reason I say this, is I've seen nothing (unless I've missed it) in any of the comments regarding potential candidates in regards to the university rankings/PhDs/Endowments/etc whenever a name is mentioned.

Even the big-10 tried to quell the AAU requirement with a single statement. (Do I think the AAU factoid will come into play? Possibly, but AAU status can be voted on at any time.)

Its' only on the message boards when I've seen those arguments come into play... Now is it being discussed in conference meetings and face-to-faces? Possibly (and I'd say probably), but would it be a turn-away factor? I'm not so sure anymore.

(04-21-2010 10:32 PM)WVUeer Wrote:  

wvucrazed Wrote:You realize that some of the programs trumpeted by your pal Buck don't average much more than Temple from an attendance standpoint, right? Have you seen the attendance figures for Buffalo and Tulane?

Yes, I realize that. And that is one of the reasons why I have never listed Buffalo or Tulane as a realistic possibily. I've been very consistent with whom I think are possible front runners and my thoughts and selections are based on an overall view of several things and not just driven toward any "one" specific thing.

wvucrazed Wrote:Temple's fan support is an issue, but they are improving and they finally seem to have an administration that will support their football program. If they could follow in Rutgers' footsteps, Temple would be a huge benefit to the Big East. If they can turn it around, they will have plenty of fan support.

I think they are improving a little bit in the fan support area but they still only averaged 17K this past year with the best season they've had in over 30 years. I think the jury is still out. If they continue to improve and gain some national respectability maybe they could become an option down the road. As it stands right now, it would be to risky to take them back on without them first proving some type of upside on a consistent basis.

Let me explain something about the attendance issue last season of Temple football from a Temple perspective.
I just want to remind you that Temple started the season with an opening loss to an FCS team(even tho they were the best). This absolutely killed attendance for the rest of the season. Temple was 0-2 going into their second home game. Take a look at the remain game attendance.

Ball State- 13,420 Temple record 3-2
Army- 14,275 Temple record 4-2
Ball State- 13,827-Thursday night game killed attendance 7-2...At this point, Temple football really started to get a media following
Kent State- 21,046 Final home game

Then you factor in the bowl game which was played on a Tuesday night is freezing temps and there was a great Temple turnout...

We are talking about a team that hasn't had a winning season in 20 years and they brought in 21,000 fans on a cold Nov. day. I think that is a great # to build on.

The coming season home schedule has a chance to produce great attendance #'s. Temple starts with Villanova (30,000-40,000). Central Michigan (25,000), Uconn (30,000+)

I know I am being an optimist with those numbers but Temple is getting a lot more media attention than they have ever had in Philly.

Temple has a better shot than Marshall. Marshall just isn't happening. Neither are Buffalo or Tulsa. Neither is MTSU.

templefan1 Wrote:Then you factor in the bowl game which was played on a Tuesday night is freezing temps and there was a great Temple turnout...

You cant factor in a bowl game on a neutral site with your average home attendance. Stop trying to sugarcoat it. It is what it is.

(04-22-2010 08:40 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  Temple has a better shot than Marshall. Marshall just isn't happening. Neither are Buffalo or Tulsa. Neither is MTSU.

I respectfully disagree on Marshall VS. Temple. To many things are against Temple IMO. Otherwise I might agree.

As for Buffalo, Tulsa or MTSU. I agree. Maybe down the road Buffalo could grow into being a prospect but right now there is no way.

(04-22-2010 08:45 AM)WVUeer Wrote:  

templefan1 Wrote:Then you factor in the bowl game which was played on a Tuesday night is freezing temps and there was a great Temple turnout...

You cant factor in a bowl game on a neutral site with your average home attendance. Stop trying to sugarcoat it. It is what it is.

When did I factor it in? I didn't even list the attendance? I just said it was a great Temple turnout? Look, Temple hadn't had a winning season in 20 years...that doesn't just anger a fan base...it destoys it. You can't expect fans to just come back or all the sudden be Temple fans...Hell that is 20 years of not even have youths around Philadelphia rooting for PSU...Building a fan base takes time and if Temple can continue winning...it can be done. Temple is finally getting former players to support the program too...

I'd put Temple at maybe 100 to 1, depending on the number of schools needed. I'd put Marshall, Buffalo, Tulsa, MTSU, etc. at nil.

(04-22-2010 08:49 AM)templefan1 Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 08:45 AM)WVUeer Wrote:  

templefan1 Wrote:Then you factor in the bowl game which was played on a Tuesday night is freezing temps and there was a great Temple turnout...

You cant factor in a bowl game on a neutral site with your average home attendance. Stop trying to sugarcoat it. It is what it is.

When did I factor it in? I didn't even list the attendance? I just said it was a great Temple turnout?

I'm not saying you included it from a technical standpoint...I'm just talking about using the bowl game as a way to create an overall picture of the support for Temple. Sorry if it came off wrong. It will be interesting to see how they do on the field and in the stands this upcoming year. I hope they do well.

(04-22-2010 08:57 AM)WVUeer Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 08:49 AM)templefan1 Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 08:45 AM)WVUeer Wrote:  

templefan1 Wrote:Then you factor in the bowl game which was played on a Tuesday night is freezing temps and there was a great Temple turnout...

You cant factor in a bowl game on a neutral site with your average home attendance. Stop trying to sugarcoat it. It is what it is.

When did I factor it in? I didn't even list the attendance? I just said it was a great Temple turnout?

I'm not saying you included it from a technical standpoint...I'm just talking about using the bowl game as a way to create an overall picture of the support for Temple. Sorry if it came off wrong. It will be interesting to see how they do on the field and in the stands this upcoming year. I hope they do well.

I think you can use it for a way to judge growing interest in the program? I used to wear my Temple hat all the time and nobody would mention Temple football at all to me. All the sudden after the Kent State win, I had people stopping me in the local WAWA talking about the program...The team just needs to continue the upward trend and I think attendance will come. I am not expecting huge growth but if Temple can avg 25,000-30,000 next year...it would be amazing...

I'd say as far as adding a program to the conference goes, bowl game attendance is far more important than home game attendance. Obviously the two go hand in hand for the most part. But the Champs Sports Bowl couldn't care less about home game attendance. They want to know how many people you will bring to THEIR game.

(04-21-2010 11:08 PM)WVUeer Wrote:  I'm not taking anything away from Temple in any way or bashing them Esayem.....

Who was the one school on the Big East's short list for all-sports that was left out, that everyone highly recommended? This is in the same Big East minutes you posted. Obviously a lot more goes into expansion than winning football tradition, and you fail to realize this FACT.

(04-22-2010 09:27 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 11:08 PM)WVUeer Wrote:  I'm not taking anything away from Temple in any way or bashing them Esayem.....

Who was the one school on the Big East's short list for all-sports that was left out, that everyone highly recommended? This is in the same Big East minutes you posted. Obviously a lot more goes into expansion than winning football tradition, and you fail to realize this FACT.

Esayem, you left a few things out. Temple was still a "football only" partial member of the Big East when those meeting took place in July of 2003..... So yes, naturally they are going to be considered an option during that time frame. If not, it would have looked really bad and the Temple people would have been pissed....hold that thought for a moment......Temple did not get the official boot from the Big East until the following year in 2004. So even with them having their foot already "partially" in the door during the 2003 meetings, it didnt matter. A year later the Big East forced out Temple because the Big East had enough of the commitment they were displaying and now the "whining and moaning" coming from the Temple side as a result of not gaining "full membership" over the likes of Cincy, Louisville and USF. The Big East simply had enough of it. They cleaned their hands of Temple and decided to move on without them.

(04-22-2010 10:17 AM)WVUeer Wrote:  

(04-22-2010 09:27 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 11:08 PM)WVUeer Wrote:  I'm not taking anything away from Temple in any way or bashing them Esayem.....

Who was the one school on the Big East's short list for all-sports that was left out, that everyone highly recommended? This is in the same Big East minutes you posted. Obviously a lot more goes into expansion than winning football tradition, and you fail to realize this FACT.

Esayem, you left a few things out. Temple was still a "football only" partial member of the Big East when those meeting took place in July of 2003..... So yes, naturally they are going to be considered an option during that time frame. If not, it would have looked really bad and the Temple people would have been pissed....hold that thought for a moment......Temple did not get the official boot from the Big East until the following year in 2004. So even with them having their foot already "partially" in the door during the 2003 meetings, it didnt matter. A year later the Big East forced out Temple because the Big East had enough of the commitment they were displaying and now the "whining and moaning" coming from the Temple side as a result of not gaining "full membership" over the likes of Cincy, Louisville and USF. The Big East simply had enough of it. They cleaned their hands of Temple and decided to move on without them.

Don't you mean foot partially out the door? Temple was given the boot in the spring of 2001 not 2004...2004 is when their two years of limbo in the Big East was over...Temple was forced out long before the 2003 meetings...The big east already made their decision in 2001 and imo rightfully so. We had a president who wanted football gone and a coach who was just collecting a paycheck. The BE cleaned their hands of Temple in 2001 not 2004...

NY times

templefan1 Wrote:Don't you mean foot partially out the door?.....The BE cleaned their hands of Temple in 2001 not 2004

Yes, that is correct and I see where you are coming from. I just dont think there is a "right" or "wrong" answer so to speak. It was obviously odd timing for both sides. I think you can look at it both ways. But "technically" they were not officially gone until 2004. A year after the ACC deflections happened. During the 2003 meetings, if the Big East wanted Temple as a full member all they had to say is "Temple, you are already here and as a result of the ACC deflections we've changed our minds and have decided to endorse you as a "full member". It could have easily been reversed based on those circumstances but they didnt do it. They went on with forcing them out as planned.

.

(04-22-2010 08:45 AM)WVUeer Wrote:  

templefan1 Wrote:Then you factor in the bowl game which was played on a Tuesday night is freezing temps and there was a great Temple turnout...

You cant factor in a bowl game on a neutral site with your average home attendance. Stop trying to sugarcoat it. It is what it is.

You dont think it's important to note that we brought 15K+ fans to a Bowl Game in Washington D.C. ?

(04-22-2010 12:12 PM)WVUeer Wrote:  

templefan1 Wrote:Don't you mean foot partially out the door?.....The BE cleaned their hands of Temple in 2001 not 2004

Yes, that is correct and I see where you are coming from. I just dont think there is a "right" or "wrong" answer so to speak. It was obviously odd timing for both sides. I think you can look at it both ways. But "technically" they were not officially gone until 2004. A year after the ACC deflections happened. During the 2003 meetings, if the Big East wanted Temple as a full member all they had to say is "Temple, you are already here and as a result of the ACC deflections we've changed our minds and have decided to endorse you as a "full member". It could have easily been reversed based on those circumstances but they didnt do it. They went on with forcing them out as planned.

.

There was nothing "technical" about it. Temple no longer had standing as a conference member once they lost the right to participate on the BEFC board in 2001. In short, they were out, but were playing out the remaining games included in their expulsion agreement.

The fact that Temple was considered in 2003 has always surprised me. David Adamany, the person who tried to kill football at Temple and the one who intentionally forced the BEFC to expel Temple, was still Temple's president and the committee he formed to assess whether Temple should continue playing FBS football hadn't yet issued its recomendation to continue in FBS. Given those circumstances, it's no surprise that they opted not to invite Temple. The current leadership has a very different outlook (much more positive and supported with $$) on the role of intercollegiate athletics generally and football in particular. I don't know with any certainty whether that will influence any consideration Temple might receive from the BE, though it certainly won't hurt.

(04-21-2010 09:16 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  The facts are: There are Tier 1 Masters schools in BCS conferences, there are 0 Tier 4 national universities in the BCS. ECU, Memphis, Houston, USM are all tier 4 universities. If you don't like that, that is your problem--it will probably be easier to improve your school academically than to argue that you think you are better than this or that school. Those that make the designation believe differently.

True...but Louisville and USF were Tier 4 when the Big East accepted them. Funny, they moved up the next year.

...and the difference between Tier 3 and 4 is more about perception (insert "perception is reality" comment here) than anything else.

(04-22-2010 04:37 PM)99Tiger Wrote:  

(04-21-2010 09:16 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  The facts are: There are Tier 1 Masters schools in BCS conferences, there are 0 Tier 4 national universities in the BCS. ECU, Memphis, Houston, USM are all tier 4 universities. If you don't like that, that is your problem--it will probably be easier to improve your school academically than to argue that you think you are better than this or that school. Those that make the designation believe differently.

True...but Louisville and USF were Tier 4 when the Big East accepted them. Funny, they moved up the next year.

...and the difference between Tier 3 and 4 is more about perception (insert "perception is reality" comment here) than anything else.

Come on now, Tiger.....don't confuse the "fact master" with, um, FACTS.......