(08-22-2012 08:52 AM)pzz189 Wrote: (08-22-2012 12:10 AM)johnbragg Wrote: (08-21-2012 11:26 PM)pzz189 Wrote: Yes, historically both suck.
Historically Syracuse sucks? Jim Brown sucks? LArry Csonka sucks? Donovan McNabb sucks? Orange, Cotton, Sugar, Fiesta Bowl appearances suck?
Quote:But if you compare both programs since Temple admin started taking football performance seriously and the investments started paying dividends (starting with Al Golden), there's a little more hope for Temple IMHO...
Temple was able to be competitive in the MAC. Be competitive, not dominant. With a tougher schedule, there are going to be fewer wins, which means attendance will stay pathetic, which means that Temple won't be attractive to coaches and players.
I was surprised to see some of Syracuse's records from the 90s and earlier. But fact remains they only have 2 winning seasons in the last 10 years and I think the way FBS has evolved, they will not see the success they've had in the past (like a lot of teams).
They might not come back, or they might. When you have the facilities and the fanbase, and the major-conference TV contract (which Syracuse does) then if you hire the right coach you have a good shot, or at least as good a shot as any snowy-weather school.
I don't think Syracuse will look like they did in the 90s any time soon, with 10 winning seasons, but the 80s is certainly doable, with 6 winning seasons, or the '70s with 4 winning seasons.
Quote:I wouldn't talk down to the MAC either considering Cuse lost to the only MAC team they played last year. Yeah, they lost to a MAC team with Big East recruits at home.
No they didn't, they won in overtime. Now, going to overtime against a MAC team is bad enough, but they didn't lose. They did lose to Akron in 2008, though, which a power conference team has no business doing.
Quote:Haha, what's your agenda against Temple?
I think Temple was a bad addition. Bad for football, since you have poor fan support and you don't have the excuse that you're new, or new to Division I-A. A wash for basketball, since even though you add a strong program to the conference, you undercut Villanova (ask Seton Hall how that works out--it doesn't help).
Temple is not the only New Big East boat anchor--schools that aren't set up to attract the fanbases you need to compete at a BCS-conference level. There's also SMU, there's Navy, and I have questions about Houston and SDSU. I'm worried about having more anchors than locomotives. (Heck, I'm still a little skeptical of Cincinnati--how long can a school which can't sell out a 35,000-seat stadium regularly compete with schools which sell out 60 and 80,000 seat stadiums?)
Quote:Does St. John's even have a football team?
No, which is kind of smart, since we're a small private Catholic college which lucked into the Big East gravy train, building a citywide fanbase for basketball. That wouldn't cut it at the BCS-conference level in football.
Quote:I already acknowledged Temple was a terrible program for most of its existence. I'm hopeful because we just had the winningest 3 years of the program ever (yes, against MAC competition but with MAC recruits), and just brought in the best recruiting class ever. I think it's reasonable to see an upward trajectory for Temple FB which isn't the case for Cuse FB.
It's just as reasonable to see Temple falling flat on its face with the upgrade in competition. Temple, SDSU, SMU, Houston and Navy can't all stay good with the step up in competition--and when a low-attendance, program falls, it's really hard to get back up.
/
Calling For Backup! Arguing With "Power 5" Fans On Rivals Board
