(08-18-2012 09:35 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(08-16-2012 06:31 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I'm glad UConn is no longer blamed for Temple getting booted. UConn wasn't in Big East FB (and had no vote) in kicking Temple out. It was just a coincidence that we came in when Temple left.

My brother-in-law is a Temple grad. I'm glad you're back.

It wasn't purely coincidence that Temple was booted out as UConn was coming in, but UConn had nothing to do with it happening. UConn moving up was the final straw for daU and its threats to jump to a different conference. daU wanted the BE to expand to the South to help ease the travel costs for olympic sports and give it a southern football rival. The BE would not hear it and thought that daU was bluffing.
Once it became apparent that UConn was moving up, daU started serious talks with the ACC. During all the emergency meetings over the ACC raid, The Temple prez demanded an all or nothing vote on Temple. He got his vote and Temple was shown the door.
Although devastating for TU at the time, in the long run this became the push that Temple needed to get its act together. The Temple of to day is nothing like the old school that was in the OBE. These guys have excellent facilities, good coaches and a desire to compete on our level. This TU is going to be a player in this version of the BE.

This is flat out wrong. In 1998 the league offered UConn and Nova a chance to upgrade and become full members. UConn accepted, Nova did not. UConn then implemented a seven year plan to get up to Big East speed. Miami was well aware of UConn coming aboard. They ended up joining a season early because of the defections of the first ACC raid.

Temple was voted out prior to the ACC raid. They asked for a few years grace so not to be killed by the lack of a schedule. They didn't have a conference to fall back on and were going independent so the league gave them 2 more years to get a schedule set up. They were supposed to be gone much sooner.

You need to go back and learn the true history of the league son.

Temple didn't exactly "ask" to stay for a few more years. This was the most unprecedented move in College athletics history. To avoid a lengthy legal battle at a detrament to both parties, Temple and the Big East came to an agreement that was more then just flipping the switch off. Temple could have sued and most likely won, with the innaccuracies of allowing Rutgers to stay when they were dead on equals, as well as Uconn coming who Temple was beating 70-7.

(08-18-2012 11:47 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(08-18-2012 11:09 AM)panite Wrote:  I thought I read somewhere that Miami was actually blocking Florida schools from the BE to maintain the southern region as their own recruiting domain for BE conference purposes. Also I believe they kept their baseball team out of the conference as an independent. No links but maybe someone else can confirm this.

You are correct about the baseball team not participating in the BE. Not sure about them blocking other FL schools.

Miami wanted Florida State to be added. They were likely blocking USF and UCF however.

And yes they kept their baseball independent and basically would only play Rutgers and if I'm not mistaken Virginia Tech every year. (Two things that continue to the present.)

(08-20-2012 08:07 AM)victory engineer Wrote:  Temple didn't exactly "ask" to stay for a few more years. This was the most unprecedented move in College athletics history. To avoid a lengthy legal battle at a detrament to both parties, Temple and the Big East came to an agreement that was more then just flipping the switch off. Temple could have sued and most likely won, with the innaccuracies of allowing Rutgers to stay when they were dead on equals, as well as Uconn coming who Temple was beating 70-7.

As it was told by Temple they asked for the extra time. Also you couldn't really sue since anyone can be voted out of an organization. They weren't putting the money they were making back into the program and it was showing. They had no desire to improve and they were asked to leave. Rutgers was putting money into the program. That was the big difference between the two. It's one thing to lose a lot of games and lose them big and losing those games and NOT trying to improve.

(08-20-2012 08:07 AM)victory engineer Wrote:  Temple didn't exactly "ask" to stay for a few more years. This was the most unprecedented move in College athletics history. To avoid a lengthy legal battle at a detrament to both parties, Temple and the Big East came to an agreement that was more then just flipping the switch off. Temple could have sued and most likely won, with the innaccuracies of allowing Rutgers to stay when they were dead on equals, as well as Uconn coming who Temple was beating 70-7.

Technically they did. They thought of suing but decided against it because of the cost of legal fees. They negotiated the three year period so their freshman class could finish in the BE - the conference they were recruited for, and for time to set up an independent schedule while they decided to keep the program running and check out other options if they did. Your blowing smoke on the Rutgers and UConn issues. UConn had already accepted the offer to move up years earlier and only moved into the BE one year ahead off the seven year time line that had been established previously. Rutgers had control of their own stadium a requirement put to Temple to stay and could exceed the the minimum 25k attendance requirement that Temple could not come close too. Temple's home attendance had dropped to 5-6000 and could not surpass even a 15k average on that 25k attendance requirement to stay. Temple had a 20k seat stadium that was expandable to 34k near their campus in a complex that also included baseball and softball fields. They played there as late as 1977 before they chose to tear it down. They didn't want to put the money into it then. They used the property for its soccer field, football practice field, and for their baseball and softball until 2001 when they sold the property for $4.5 million dollars. Temple's history of bad decisions for its FB team and facilities goes all the way back to the seventies when they abandoned control over their own stadium rather then keep it up to jump to third fiddle in the Vet behind the Phillies and the Eagles, and began begging Penn for access to Franklin Field when they were shut out of the VET on occasions. Temple administrators made their own problems for the FB program and the program suffered severely for it. Rutgers and UConn had nothing to do with the Temple administrators stupid decisions. They and they alone are responsible for the demise of Temple FB and the fact that they were kicked out of the BE. I am glad they have made it back to the BE but the problems they had are their own sole responsibility.

(08-20-2012 09:27 AM)panite Wrote:  Technically they did. They thought of suing but decided against it because of the cost of legal fees. They negotiated the three year period so their freshman class could finish in the BE - the conference they were recruited for, and for time to set up an independent schedule while they decided to keep the program running and check out other options if they did. Your blowing smoke on the Rutgers and UConn issues. UConn had already accepted the offer to move up years earlier and only moved into the BE one year ahead off the seven year time line that had been established previously. Rutgers had control of their own stadium a requirement put to Temple to stay and could exceed the the minimum 25k attendance requirement that Temple could not come close too. Temple's home attendance had dropped to 5-6000 and could not surpass even a 15k average on that 25k attendance requirement to stay. Temple had a 20k seat stadium that was expandable to 34k near their campus in a complex that also included baseball and softball fields. They played there as late as 1977 before they chose to tear it down. They didn't want to put the money into it then. They used the property for its soccer field, football practice field, and for their baseball and softball until 2001 when they sold the property for $4.5 million dollars. Temple's history of bad decisions for its FB team and facilities goes all the way back to the seventies when they abandoned control over their own stadium rather then keep it up to jump to third fiddle in the Vet behind the Phillies and the Eagles, and began begging Penn for access to Franklin Field when they were shut out of the VET on occasions. Temple administrators made their own problems for the FB program and the program suffered severely for it. Rutgers and UConn had nothing to do with the Temple administrators stupid decisions. They and they alone are responsible for the demise of Temple FB and the fact that they were kicked out of the BE. I am glad they have made it back to the BE but the problems they had are their own sole responsibility.

I grew up near Temple stadium and your interpretation of its history and why Temple abandoned it is a bit off. Temple made multiple unsuccessful attempts in the 1940s to buy a large tract of land adjacent to the stadium complex. Had Temple succeeded in acquiring the land the university would have most likely moved the main campus there and the stadium would have had a different history. By the 1970s when Temple returned to the highest D1 classification, it made no sense for Temple to put money into the stadium because it was then in the middle of a fully developed neighborhood with no room for adequate parking for 20k let alone 34k. It had lousy transit access courtesy of a never built subway extension and it had lousy highway access because of a never built expressway through the area. Also, the Vet / Linc and Franklin Field are closer to Temple's campus and much more accessible than Temple stadium was. The last Temple game played there was in 1973. Temple has made plenty of bad decisions regarding football. Abandoning Temple Stadium wasn't one of them.

Rutgers and Uconn has nothing to do with Temple except give a perfect example to contradict all reason for Temples expulsion.

All Programs were nonexistent with no fan support or no consistent wins... period. The construction of the Linc began in 2001 and required the state access for more than 7 games a year. While Temple did not have the lease in hand it was obvious they we're an intended tenant.

Temple was in poor shape but let’s not pretend that what the Big East did was acceptable or precedent. Temple as a full sports member could have helped the Big East, it was reidculous to expect Temple to compete as a football only member... what happened was an embarrasment for both Temple and the Big EAST leadership.

(08-20-2012 11:04 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 09:27 AM)panite Wrote:  Technically they did. They thought of suing but decided against it because of the cost of legal fees. They negotiated the three year period so their freshman class could finish in the BE - the conference they were recruited for, and for time to set up an independent schedule while they decided to keep the program running and check out other options if they did. Your blowing smoke on the Rutgers and UConn issues. UConn had already accepted the offer to move up years earlier and only moved into the BE one year ahead off the seven year time line that had been established previously. Rutgers had control of their own stadium a requirement put to Temple to stay and could exceed the the minimum 25k attendance requirement that Temple could not come close too. Temple's home attendance had dropped to 5-6000 and could not surpass even a 15k average on that 25k attendance requirement to stay. Temple had a 20k seat stadium that was expandable to 34k near their campus in a complex that also included baseball and softball fields. They played there as late as 1977 before they chose to tear it down. They didn't want to put the money into it then. They used the property for its soccer field, football practice field, and for their baseball and softball until 2001 when they sold the property for $4.5 million dollars. Temple's history of bad decisions for its FB team and facilities goes all the way back to the seventies when they abandoned control over their own stadium rather then keep it up to jump to third fiddle in the Vet behind the Phillies and the Eagles, and began begging Penn for access to Franklin Field when they were shut out of the VET on occasions. Temple administrators made their own problems for the FB program and the program suffered severely for it. Rutgers and UConn had nothing to do with the Temple administrators stupid decisions. They and they alone are responsible for the demise of Temple FB and the fact that they were kicked out of the BE. I am glad they have made it back to the BE but the problems they had are their own sole responsibility.

I grew up near Temple stadium and your interpretation of its history and why Temple abandoned it is a bit off. Temple made multiple unsuccessful attempts in the 1940s to buy a large tract of land adjacent to the stadium complex. Had Temple succeeded in acquiring the land the university would have most likely moved the main campus there and the stadium would have had a different history. By the 1970s when Temple returned to the highest D1 classification, it made no sense for Temple to put money into the stadium because it was then in the middle of a fully developed neighborhood with no room for adequate parking for 20k let alone 34k. It had lousy transit access courtesy of a never built subway extension and it had lousy highway access because of a never built expressway through the area. Also, the Vet / Linc and Franklin Field are closer to Temple's campus and much more accessible than Temple stadium was. The last Temple game played there was in 1973. Temple has made plenty of bad decisions regarding football. Abandoning Temple Stadium wasn't one of them.

It was when they sold the property off and then the FB team had no place to practice. Not having a practice facility was another one of the reasons among many that were given for their expulsion. Needless to say my point was that it was years of decline and poor decisions by combined Temple administrations that caused Temple's demise and expulsion from the BE. Their problems have nothing to do with Rutgers, UConn, and a lawsuit they thought about filing but one that they came to their senses and did not. As stated before I am glad they overcame their problems and deficiencies, and have a favorable administration that brought them back to the BE. I have relatives who have graduated from Temple, friends that played for Temple, and my son has friends that played for Temple. As a matter of fact I am looking forward to the Temple / Rutgers FB game at the Linc this year and a family tailgate in the parking lot this fall with graduates from both schools. The original poster that I answered to pulled Rutgers and UConn into this conversation with out admitting to Temple's own deficiencies and poor decisions. I merely pointed them out. Quite simply Rutgers and UConn took the steps and made the improvements that were necessary to BE members and Temple did not and therefore were justifiable kicked out. Welcome back Temple.

(08-20-2012 01:35 PM)panite Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 11:04 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  [quote='panite' pid='8167730' dateline='1345472828']

Technically they did. They thought of suing but decided against it because of the cost of legal fees. They negotiated the three year period so their freshman class could finish in the BE - the conference they were recruited for, and for time to set up an independent schedule while they decided to keep the program running and check out other options if they did. Your blowing smoke on the Rutgers and UConn issues. UConn had already accepted the offer to move up years earlier and only moved into the BE one year ahead off the seven year time line that had been established previously. Rutgers had control of their own stadium a requirement put to Temple to stay and could exceed the the minimum 25k attendance requirement that Temple could not come close too. Temple's home attendance had dropped to 5-6000 and could not surpass even a 15k average on that 25k attendance requirement to stay. Temple had a 20k seat stadium that was expandable to 34k near their campus in a complex that also included baseball and softball fields. They played there as late as 1977 before they chose to tear it down. They didn't want to put the money into it then. They used the property for its soccer field, football practice field, and for their baseball and softball until 2001 when they sold the property for $4.5 million dollars. Temple's history of bad decisions for its FB team and facilities goes all the way back to the seventies when they abandoned control over their own stadium rather then keep it up to jump to third fiddle in the Vet behind the Phillies and the Eagles, and began begging Penn for access to Franklin Field when they were shut out of the VET on occasions. Temple administrators made their own problems for the FB program and the program suffered severely for it. Rutgers and UConn had nothing to do with the Temple administrators stupid decisions. They and they alone are responsible for the demise of Temple FB and the fact that they were kicked out of the BE. I am glad they have made it back to the BE but the problems they had are their own sole responsibility.

I grew up near Temple stadium and your interpretation of its history and why Temple abandoned it is a bit off. Temple made multiple unsuccessful attempts in the 1940s to buy a large tract of land adjacent to the stadium complex. Had Temple succeeded in acquiring the land the university would have most likely moved the main campus there and the stadium would have had a different history. By the 1970s when Temple returned to the highest D1 classification, it made no sense for Temple to put money into the stadium because it was then in the middle of a fully developed neighborhood with no room for adequate parking for 20k let alone 34k. It had lousy transit access courtesy of a never built subway extension and it had lousy highway access because of a never built expressway through the area. Also, the Vet / Linc and Franklin Field are closer to Temple's campus and much more accessible than Temple stadium was. The last Temple game played there was in 1973. Temple has made plenty of bad decisions regarding football. Abandoning Temple Stadium wasn't one of them.

It was when they sold the property off and then the FB team had no place to practice. Not having a practice facility was another one of the reasons among many that were given for their expulsion. Needless to say my point was that it was years of decline and poor decisions by combined Temple administrations that caused Temple's demise and expulsion from the BE. Their problems have nothing to do with Rutgers, UConn, and a lawsuit they thought about filing but one that they came to their senses and did not. As stated before I am glad they overcame their problems and deficiencies, and have a favorable administration that brought them back to the BE. I have relatives who have graduated from Temple, friends that played for Temple, and my son has friends that played for Temple. As a matter of fact I am looking forward to the Temple / Rutgers FB game at the Linc this year and a family tailgate in the parking lot this fall with graduates from both schools. The original poster that I answered to pulled Rutgers and UConn into this conversation with out admitting to Temple's own deficiencies and poor decisions. I merely pointed them out. Quite simply Rutgers and UConn took the steps and made the improvements that were necessary to BE members and Temple did not and therefore were justifiable kicked out. Welcome back Temple.

[/quotThanks, glad to be back, see you at the Linc on 10/20.

(08-20-2012 01:35 PM)panite Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 11:04 AM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 09:27 AM)panite Wrote:  Technically they did. They thought of suing but decided against it because of the cost of legal fees. They negotiated the three year period so their freshman class could finish in the BE - the conference they were recruited for, and for time to set up an independent schedule while they decided to keep the program running and check out other options if they did. Your blowing smoke on the Rutgers and UConn issues. UConn had already accepted the offer to move up years earlier and only moved into the BE one year ahead off the seven year time line that had been established previously. Rutgers had control of their own stadium a requirement put to Temple to stay and could exceed the the minimum 25k attendance requirement that Temple could not come close too. Temple's home attendance had dropped to 5-6000 and could not surpass even a 15k average on that 25k attendance requirement to stay. Temple had a 20k seat stadium that was expandable to 34k near their campus in a complex that also included baseball and softball fields. They played there as late as 1977 before they chose to tear it down. They didn't want to put the money into it then. They used the property for its soccer field, football practice field, and for their baseball and softball until 2001 when they sold the property for $4.5 million dollars. Temple's history of bad decisions for its FB team and facilities goes all the way back to the seventies when they abandoned control over their own stadium rather then keep it up to jump to third fiddle in the Vet behind the Phillies and the Eagles, and began begging Penn for access to Franklin Field when they were shut out of the VET on occasions. Temple administrators made their own problems for the FB program and the program suffered severely for it. Rutgers and UConn had nothing to do with the Temple administrators stupid decisions. They and they alone are responsible for the demise of Temple FB and the fact that they were kicked out of the BE. I am glad they have made it back to the BE but the problems they had are their own sole responsibility.

I grew up near Temple stadium and your interpretation of its history and why Temple abandoned it is a bit off. Temple made multiple unsuccessful attempts in the 1940s to buy a large tract of land adjacent to the stadium complex. Had Temple succeeded in acquiring the land the university would have most likely moved the main campus there and the stadium would have had a different history. By the 1970s when Temple returned to the highest D1 classification, it made no sense for Temple to put money into the stadium because it was then in the middle of a fully developed neighborhood with no room for adequate parking for 20k let alone 34k. It had lousy transit access courtesy of a never built subway extension and it had lousy highway access because of a never built expressway through the area. Also, the Vet / Linc and Franklin Field are closer to Temple's campus and much more accessible than Temple stadium was. The last Temple game played there was in 1973. Temple has made plenty of bad decisions regarding football. Abandoning Temple Stadium wasn't one of them.

It was when they sold the property off and then the FB team had no place to practice. Not having a practice facility was another one of the reasons among many that were given for their expulsion. Needless to say my point was that it was years of decline and poor decisions by combined Temple administrations that caused Temple's demise and expulsion from the BE. Their problems have nothing to do with Rutgers, UConn, and a lawsuit they thought about filing but one that they came to their senses and did not. As stated before I am glad they overcame their problems and deficiencies, and have a favorable administration that brought them back to the BE. I have relatives who have graduated from Temple, friends that played for Temple, and my son has friends that played for Temple. As a matter of fact I am looking forward to the Temple / Rutgers FB game at the Linc this year and a family tailgate in the parking lot this fall with graduates from both schools. The original poster that I answered to pulled Rutgers and UConn into this conversation with out admitting to Temple's own deficiencies and poor decisions. I merely pointed them out. Quite simply Rutgers and UConn took the steps and made the improvements that were necessary to BE members and Temple did not and therefore were justifiable kicked out. Welcome back Temple.

Thats incorrect... As a player for the Owls from '99-'02, we moved into our brand new practice facility which included a full grass field, 60 yard turf, and Edberg Olsen Hall which housed our football weight room, offices, locker rooms and meeting rooms. We also had two large turf fields located 8 blocks away on the other side of campus. AND an additional (although far from nice) grass field next to the large turf. While these practice fields (other than the Edberg Olsen Hall) were not the best in the country, we did have ample practice space. I've never heard anyone use this as an excuse for the Owls being kicked out of the conference.
With that said, I'm happy to be back and looking forward to our match-up with Rutgers. I'm fortunate to say that I never lost to the Scarlet Knights!

GO Owls!

Cap

(08-20-2012 02:00 PM)vick-mike Wrote:  It was when they sold the property off and then the FB team had no place to practice. Not having a practice facility was another one of the reasons among many that were given for their expulsion. Needless to say my point was that it was years of decline and poor decisions by combined Temple administrations that caused Temple's demise and expulsion from the BE. Their problems have nothing to do with Rutgers, UConn, and a lawsuit they thought about filing but one that they came to their senses and did not. As stated before I am glad they overcame their problems and deficiencies, and have a favorable administration that brought them back to the BE. I have relatives who have graduated from Temple, friends that played for Temple, and my son has friends that played for Temple. As a matter of fact I am looking forward to the Temple / Rutgers FB game at the Linc this year and a family tailgate in the parking lot this fall with graduates from both schools. The original poster that I answered to pulled Rutgers and UConn into this conversation with out admitting to Temple's own deficiencies and poor decisions. I merely pointed them out. Quite simply Rutgers and UConn took the steps and made the improvements that were necessary to BE members and Temple did not and therefore were justifiable kicked out. Welcome back Temple.

[/quotThanks, glad to be back, see you at the Linc on 10/20.

I never wrote anything about Temple's expulsion being Rutgers or UConn's fault. In fact I wrote that Temple deserved the blame for its football problems. My only point was that it wasn't cost-effective or feasible to keep Temple stadium as their home field given Temple's decision to move to what is now FBS football. Even if it had been physically or financially possible, the surrounding neighbors would never have permitted expansion to FBS standards anyway.

The statement about the practice facility is simply wrong. Temple opened their current practice facility in 2000 before they were expelled from the Big East and one year before they sold the land to Enon. I too am glad the Temple is finally a full member of the Big East and am looking forward to the game against Rutgers. I'd very much like to see Temple contribute to the success of strengthened Big East going forward.

(08-20-2012 04:21 PM)LostInSpace Wrote:  

(08-20-2012 02:00 PM)vick-mike Wrote:  It was when they sold the property off and then the FB team had no place to practice. Not having a practice facility was another one of the reasons among many that were given for their expulsion. Needless to say my point was that it was years of decline and poor decisions by combined Temple administrations that caused Temple's demise and expulsion from the BE. Their problems have nothing to do with Rutgers, UConn, and a lawsuit they thought about filing but one that they came to their senses and did not. As stated before I am glad they overcame their problems and deficiencies, and have a favorable administration that brought them back to the BE. I have relatives who have graduated from Temple, friends that played for Temple, and my son has friends that played for Temple. As a matter of fact I am looking forward to the Temple / Rutgers FB game at the Linc this year and a family tailgate in the parking lot this fall with graduates from both schools. The original poster that I answered to pulled Rutgers and UConn into this conversation with out admitting to Temple's own deficiencies and poor decisions. I merely pointed them out. Quite simply Rutgers and UConn took the steps and made the improvements that were necessary to BE members and Temple did not and therefore were justifiable kicked out. Welcome back Temple.

[/quotThanks, glad to be back, see you at the Linc on 10/20.

I never wrote anything about Temple's expulsion being Rutgers or UConn's fault. In fact I wrote that Temple deserved the blame for its football problems. My only point was that it wasn't cost-effective or feasible to keep Temple stadium as their home field given Temple's decision to move to what is now FBS football. Even if it had been physically or financially possible, the surrounding neighbors would never have permitted expansion to FBS standards anyway.

The statement about the practice facility is simply wrong. Temple opened their current practice facility in 2000 before they were expelled from the Big East and one year before they sold the land to Enon. I too am glad the Temple is finally a full member of the Big East and am looking forward to the game against Rutgers. I'd very much like to see Temple contribute to the success of strengthened Big East going forward.

I was not referring to you. It is good to get some information on why Temple Stadium was torn down though.