(03-01-2012 03:50 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  I’m just curious as to the feelings of the MAC fans toward Temple moving forward if they do end up in the Big East.

Kind of like asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" Can't be answered since Temple cannot move forward AND end up in the Big East.

(03-01-2012 04:04 PM)axeme Wrote:  I'd probably say most MAC fans pay very little attention to the Big East. I imagine that would continue for the most part, although some will note how Temple does in their first season. Past that, there is not that much connection.

That wasn’t really where I was going with this; I don’t expect anyone in the MAC to give Temple 5 minutes thought once they are gone. I was just more curious along the lines if you see a score flashed on Sportscenter, will the reaction be “hehehehe Temple got their ass kicked again, good riddance” …. Or “wow Temple seems to be playing well, shows the MAC is better than people give credit for”.

Trust me, I don’t expect to see many “best wishes and good luck in your new conference” cards and flowers once Temple goes (if they in fact end up moving), and that’s rightly so.

(03-01-2012 04:17 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(03-01-2012 04:04 PM)axeme Wrote:  I'd probably say most MAC fans pay very little attention to the Big East. I imagine that would continue for the most part, although some will note how Temple does in their first season. Past that, there is not that much connection.

That wasn’t really where I was going with this; I don’t expect anyone in the MAC to give Temple 5 minutes thought once they are gone. I was just more curious along the lines if you see a score flashed on Sportscenter, will the reaction be “hehehehe Temple got their ass kicked again, good riddance” …. Or “wow Temple seems to be playing well, shows the MAC is better than people give credit for”.

Trust me, I don’t expect to see many “best wishes and good luck in your new conference” cards and flowers once Temple goes (if they in fact end up moving), and that’s rightly so.

I can't speak for anybody else but, in addition to not caring that much how Temple does in the Big East, it's a mistake to think that Temple doing well in the Big East would garner any credit for the MAC. The Big East aficionados (and those from other major conferences) would just assume that Temple got better than they were when they were in the MAC.

Temple's making a sensible move, I don't have anything against them for moving on. I never agreed with adding them football-only in the first place.

(03-01-2012 03:03 PM)CMUprof Wrote:  

(03-01-2012 01:15 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(03-01-2012 01:03 PM)CMUprof Wrote:  

(03-01-2012 01:00 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(03-01-2012 10:50 AM)conaire Wrote:  Nice article. I remember that WMU win ( 1. in fact WMU owned Temple before and after their MAC entrance, winning EVERY game against them).

2. They had not one win over any MAC team that had a record over 500, in the past 3 years or ever.

1. Technically true. Temple defeated WMU 49-17 in 1986 but Temple subsequently forfeited the game because Paul Palmer was ineligble.
Of course, you're right that WMU has dominated the series.

2. Have gotten tired of seeing this written since it's not true. Don't feel like figuring out how many times Temple has beaten a MAC team that finished the season with a winning record but I was at the 1984 game where Temple beat Toledo (8-3-1 and went to the California Bowl) 35-6.

I wouldn't mind seeing Temple play WMU again, though obviously I'd like to see a different result than in the past. Also, I'm still hoping to get to a game at Waldo sometime. I've got a client in Kalamazoo and have driven past it many times. Seems like one of the nicer MAC stadiums.

While in the MAC, Temple has never beaten a MAC team that finished the season with a winning record. Temple has been good and feasted on weak MAC teams, just never able to win against the best MAC teams while here.

Way to miss the point of what I wrote. Was responding to what I bolded in the quote that Temple has never beaten a MAC team that finshed the season with a winning record. Just pointing out an error of fact. I get it. You don't like Temple. Congrats.

Was just pointing out that I think conaire misstated the stat that is thrown out there a lot, but I won't speak for him. I have no problem with Temple, just the fans than seem to think they were world beaters in the MAC when they never won anything. That's all.

The poster pointed out they were the best team in the MAC the last 3 years. I posted, or supposed it was understood, that including the 3 years and EVERY year as a MAC member they NEVER beat a team over 500. Sorry if misunderstood.

In respect to the 1986 game, Palmer played and was not eligible to play. It was not like Palmer was not a good player. The guy was a Heisman finalist. It wasn't like the 3rd string QB was the reason. If WMU played Hershel Walker I'm sure the result would've been the exact opposite. I know you realize that Temple has never beaten WMU.

Also, Arians, the coach, was one to play REAL loose with rules.

(03-01-2012 03:50 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  I’m just curious as to the feelings of the MAC fans toward Temple moving forward if they do end up in the Big East. (I say IF because I’ve been down this road before, until the contract is signed and its announced by the Big East it’s not a done deal).

Would the diehard MAC fan rather see Temple football fall on its face in the Big East, being non competitive? But risk sending a message that the recent success Temple has had record wise in the MAC over the last 3 seasons was because of a weak conference.

Or

Would the diehard MAC fan rather see Temple go into the Big East and perform well, maybe even challenging for a Big East championship their first year? Sending the message that the MAC conference is much better than people give it credit for, and even a slightly above average MAC team like Temple can walk into an AQ conference like the Big East and compete from day 1.

I’m not saying either statement is true about the conference, I’m just saying that potentially those messages could be sent depending on Temples success (or lack of success) in the Big East.

If the situation was reversed and it wasn’t Temple going, it was another MAC team heading for the Big East I’m not sure how I would vote, I’m curious about the diehard MAC fans feelings.

I will want Temple to do well in the BE this year as it would be a great indicator on how the "top 6" in the MAC stack up vs the BE...but after that I don't know.

(03-01-2012 04:17 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  

(03-01-2012 04:04 PM)axeme Wrote:  I'd probably say most MAC fans pay very little attention to the Big East. I imagine that would continue for the most part, although some will note how Temple does in their first season. Past that, there is not that much connection.

I was just more curious along the lines if you see a score flashed on Sportscenter, …. Or “wow Temple seems to be playing well, shows the MAC is better than people give credit for”.

I think many don't want Temple to leave, but will wish them luck when/if it actually happens. All the other MAC schools would take the same all-sports offer to the Big East as much as that conference is screwy and will probably see more turmoil going forward. I don't feel the same toward CUSA though. Marshall has not seen any gain thus far and CUSA has further weakened. UCF came and went so fast that many don't even realize they were a part of the MAC.

I do think the MAC needs to re-think their expansion strategy going forward though and needs to be compensated for such a late notice so that the MAC benefits from Temple had being a part of the conference and not just Temple benefiting from had being a part of it. Temple has been the main benefactor to this point. With no MAC, Temple would not have any football team right now.

Most MAC fans are just annoyed at the attitude that some Temple fans had toward the MAC even as Temple never won anything in the conference. Marshall at least was all-in in all-sports and backed their smack-talk with conference championships.

MAC fans have seen this expansion experiment 6 times in recent history with NIU, Marshall, Buffalo, Central Florida, Temple, and now UMass.

NIU and Buffalo have both worked out great, compete hard, and fit in nicely

Marshall was all-in and competed hard, then decided to move on to "perceived" greener pastures that have not worked out that great for them. No hard feelings.

Central Florida was the MAC's first football-only and was a mistake. They were too far away and never fit in the MAC. It was obvious they wouldn't be around long.

Temple is Temple and is where we are right now

UMass - I think most MAC fans are happy to have UMass on board but are tired of the football-only arrangements and what they perceive as of a one-sided relationship that doesn't help the MAC.

MAC and most fans really want UMass to work out. However I think neither the MAC or UMass view the football-only arrangement to last for the long-term. "Building Relations" is how Steinbrecher phrased it. My guess is UMass will be converted to the 2-year term and that the MAC will look for a 14th member for all-sports (likely JMU, ODU, or Delaware), but won't be in a hurry. At the end of the 2-years, UMass will either join all-sports or will part ways depending on how successful they are and how the realignment takes place. I really think CUSA or Alliance is a mistake though. Big East would be there only real upgrade.


I think the MAC will likely be a 14 or 16 all-sports league with some combination of the teams above 2 years from now with a slight change that we are back at 12.

If Temple gets an all sports offer to the Big East, it's a "no brainer" for them to accept and I wish them well. Like a lot of other posters here have already noted, Temple's stay in the MAC will soon be forgotten, and from what I've seen on the Temple message boards there isn't a lot of love for the MAC. It's not Temple's fault the MAC erred in throwing them a "lifeline" with a football only membership, but it's just a bad concept that never lasts (aka UCF and Temple). I have nothing against UMASS at all, but it's fine with me if we part ways with them as well and go back to a 12 member league, or expand in the greater midwest withint our footprint with all sports affiliations.

(03-01-2012 05:33 PM)exCincy Kid Wrote:  If Temple gets an all sports offer to the Big East, it's a "no brainer" for them to accept and I wish them well. Like a lot of other posters here have already noted, Temple's stay in the MAC will soon be forgotten, and from what I've seen on the Temple message boards there isn't a lot of love for the MAC. It's not Temple's fault the MAC erred in throwing them a "lifeline" with a football only membership, but it's just a bad concept that never lasts (aka UCF and Temple). I have nothing against UMASS at all, but it's fine with me if we part ways with them as well and go back to a 12 member league, or expand in the greater midwest withint our footprint with all sports affiliations.

I would be very surprised if the MAC ever does another football-only invite again. I think you can count on that. UCF was an experiment, but didn't work. We had already been used to that arrangement when Temple came looking to the MAC for a home after their program was on the rocks. This was the exact time UCF was bolting so the MAC went ahead and did Temple a favor. The MAC has been working to get back to all-sports ever since and ONLY brought UMass on board in the same fashion at Temple's request in what was perceived as plans to eventually bring them both over together from the A-10. That didn't happened and the MAC was burned again. This time we have UMass along for the ride accidently, but will honor the 2-year agreement for the time being and re-evaluate 2 years from now. I gotta feeling a lot more will have changed by then.