(02-25-2014 11:54 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 11:52 AM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  UC was the only one I heard making comments. I didn't hear any from UConn. Of course, I could have missed them. And I do agree, calling your program a mid major is more damaging.

UC hired a new AD who said his goal was to get UC back to a power conference. No more, no less. UConn said the same thing a year ago when the President said that the AAC is the home for now but they want to compete at the highest level. Neither is particularly damaging to the AAC, it is just a message to the fans that they are not going to sit back and just accept where they are. They will continue to invest and hopefully find a spot in the power club.

Obviously, by your logic, the best thing for the league would be for every member to be publically lobbying to exit the league to a power conference.

(02-25-2014 12:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Obviously, by your logic, the best thing for the league would be for every member to be publically lobbying to exit the league to a power conference. That's about the most moronic thing I've seen on this board in ages. Nobody begrudges Cincys wish to move to a power conference, but sit here and tell me publically saying it is not harmful. Its just stupid.

What it would tell me is that every school in the conference is fighting to compete with the big boys. That they want to be considered a power school, that they want to be the class of the league. So yes, I think that would be GREAT for this conference as it would create rivalries based on the push to be the best.

What Temple said was that they aren't interested in competing at the top of this conference. If you aren't interested in competing at the top then you might as well drop down.

You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything. The Temple President, when it comes to sports, says they don't stand for anything.

(02-25-2014 12:14 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 12:08 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 12:04 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Well sure he shouldn't have phrased it the way he did but I seriously doubt this will have any affect on recruiting at any of the schools/programs that have historically done well in basketball --- which is the only major sport the AAC schools have an opportunity to win a national championship in in any event ---

I think you are completely wrong about that.

Inner-city Philly kids are going to be hit by Nova, St. Joes, Penn State, the rest of the local Big East schools, etc., and they are going to harp on the whole "mid-major" comment. They will have their President put out some sort of promotional material stating that they are going to compete for NCAA titles. This will hit home...

Believe whatever you want but the Memphis et al experience suggests otherwise. And the nature of NCAA basketball tournament experience, with the inclusion of 64 plus teams, any one of which has the actual opportunity to travel the distance in that tournament to a national championship - suggests otherwise. This isn't football where the deck is truly stacked ---

In just the last 7 or 8 years George Mason, Memphis, Butler (twice), VCU, and Wichita State have appeared in the Final Four. ALL came from so called 'mid-major' *conferences.*

Thread fail,

Today, I made my final recommendation on this matter to our Board of Trustees. I recommended that with two exceptions, the decision to reduce the number of intercollegiate varsity teams to a size more in line with our colleagues in the American Athletic Conference should stand. That would bring the number of intercollegiate sports at Temple from 24 to 19.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/pretz...GDp76uh.99

Temple will 19 varsity sports. Nothing wrong with that.

(02-25-2014 12:25 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  In just the last 7 or 8 years George Mason, Memphis, Butler (twice), VCU, and Wichita State have appeared in the Final Four. ALL came from so called 'mid-major' *conferences.*

Did any of their school President's ever call them mid-majors?

I think we all know that Memphis has been competing, especially in basketball, at a very high level for a very long time. They were a power in a non-power conference. That being said, I don't disagree that a school can be successful in NCAA basketball without being in a power league. I also think that any school who actually calls itself mid-major is mid-major.

(02-25-2014 12:26 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Thread fail,

Quote:The decision to reduce the number of Temple’s varsity sports and bring us in line with all other mid-major athletic programs in the U.S. was not an easy one.

I'm glad you are not concerned with a conference mate, someone with whom you are locked in hand and foot, has declared itself mid-major. That stigma, at some level, will find its way attached to you as well.

Temple's pres used horrible terminology but he's right in regard to cutting sports. They had way too many for a school with their athletic revenues, which IS IN LINE with other AAC programs. The fact that they're funding mostly via student fees (which is in line with others in the AAC) should make it more clear why they did what they did.

I have no problem with Temple's decision but the choice of wording is unacceptable.

(02-25-2014 12:34 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I have no problem with Temple's decision but the choice of wording is unacceptable.

Completely agree.

I think what some people in this thread fail to recognize is that by him calling Temple mid-major, he is calling the entire AAC mid-major.

(02-25-2014 12:27 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 12:25 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  In just the last 7 or 8 years George Mason, Memphis, Butler (twice), VCU, and Wichita State have appeared in the Final Four. ALL came from so called 'mid-major' *conferences.*

Did any of their school President's ever call them mid-majors?

I think we all know that Memphis has been competing, especially in basketball, at a very high level for a very long time. They were a power in a non-power conference. That being said, I don't disagree that a school can be successful in NCAA basketball without being in a power league. I also think that any school who actually calls itself mid-major is mid-major.

No --- I said in an earlier post that he shouldn't have phrased it that way but your post that this would somehow affect Temple basketball really takes it way too far IMO. And it's that statement that I was addressing. Basketball simply isn't handicapped in the same way that football is. An AAC has just a real of a chance in basketball to win a national championship as any other school. And the numerous Final Four opportunities prove it --

(02-25-2014 11:50 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 11:47 AM)jlbphila Wrote:  Please stop it with the "UC and UConn" bull****. UConn was part of the Big East since the beginning, if they want to be upset about being left behind, then fine. Ironically, nobody from their camp is crying publicly. UC, on the other hand, is every bit the promoted CUSA school that Memphis, Houston, UCF, USF, etc... are. UC's history is right there with Memphis and others (including Louisville). UC got lucky in 2005, didn't get lucky this time. End. Of. Story.

Woah there buddy... this is related to the fact that Memphis and UCF posters (and others) have attacked UC an UConn for having said publically they want to get back to a power league. No more, no less. This just goes to show why UC and UConn have said it publically... they want to make sure that their fan bases are not thinking that the schools are happy to be associated with other schools who publically call themselves mid-majors.

The moment that UC and UConn publically state they are mid-major will be the day that 75% of the donors evaporate because they will not support a school that does not want to compete at the highest level. That simple.

Totally and completely 100% true!!!!

It is sort of funny that the old Big East was so hesitant about bringing ECU on for all sports until they were forced to do so. ECU is a school that has a HUNGER to compete at the highest level. While their hoop needs some work, they have every intention of competing with UNC, NC State, Duke, and Wake in their home state in all sports. Meanwhile, Temple doesn't even care to claim superiority to Villanova, St. Joe's, and LaSalle in their own city as they have resigned to calling themselves a mid-major! Disgusting!

When you don't have any good bowl games and make $2 million a year from your TV deal, you're a mid-major. The Temple president and myself have accepted this. The rest of you should do the same.

(02-25-2014 12:25 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 12:21 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Obviously, by your logic, the best thing for the league would be for every member to be publically lobbying to exit the league to a power conference. That's about the most moronic thing I've seen on this board in ages. Nobody begrudges Cincys wish to move to a power conference, but sit here and tell me publically saying it is not harmful. Its just stupid.

What it would tell me is that every school in the conference is fighting to compete with the big boys. That they want to be considered a power school, that they want to be the class of the league. So yes, I think that would be GREAT for this conference as it would create rivalries based on the push to be the best.

What Temple said was that they aren't interested in competing at the top of this conference. If you aren't interested in competing at the top then you might as well drop down.

You have to stand for something or you'll fall for anything. The Temple President, when it comes to sports, says they don't stand for anything.

I agree completely. If ECU's president said this I would want him fired immediately. This kind of thing really bothers me. My big issue with C-USA and a lot of the G5 in general is this type of thinking. ECU has never accepted the status quo and never just been happy with our place. The day that ever happens is the day I no longer love ECU.

(02-25-2014 12:44 PM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  When you don't have any good bowl games and make $2 million a year from your TV deal, you're a mid-major. The Temple president and myself have accepted this. The rest of you should do the same.

That's fine, but then don't complain when other programs are trying to get out of the AAC (publicly or privately) for that very same reason...

(02-25-2014 12:36 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 12:27 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 12:25 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  In just the last 7 or 8 years George Mason, Memphis, Butler (twice), VCU, and Wichita State have appeared in the Final Four. ALL came from so called 'mid-major' *conferences.*

Did any of their school President's ever call them mid-majors?

I think we all know that Memphis has been competing, especially in basketball, at a very high level for a very long time. They were a power in a non-power conference. That being said, I don't disagree that a school can be successful in NCAA basketball without being in a power league. I also think that any school who actually calls itself mid-major is mid-major.

No --- I said in an earlier post that he shouldn't have phrased it that way but your post that this would somehow affect Temple basketball really takes it way too far IMO. And it's that statement that I was addressing. Basketball simply isn't handicapped in the same way that football is. An AAC has just a real of a chance in basketball to win a national championship as any other school. And the numerous Final Four opportunities prove it --

Sure, I doubt this affects the basketball program at all. And no one, 17 year old recruits or their 'advisors,' is going to confuse AAC football with any of the P5 conferences. In fact, the reduction in programs may actually improve Temple basketball and football since it frees up limited assets. Still, it was a dumb statement by the Temple president.

(02-25-2014 12:44 PM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  When you don't have any good bowl games and make $2 million a year from your TV deal, you're a mid-major. The Temple president and myself have accepted this. The rest of you should do the same.

You can accept it about your school if you'd like. I like to think that my school is a major stuck in a bad spot and that they'll be moving up as soon as a spot opens up. That simple. UC football and men's basketball has been major for a long time. Basketball has been forever. If the President of MY school said that I'd make it clear that he should be booted.

(02-25-2014 12:48 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 12:44 PM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  When you don't have any good bowl games and make $2 million a year from your TV deal, you're a mid-major. The Temple president and myself have accepted this. The rest of you should do the same.

That's fine, but then don't complain when other programs are trying to get out of the AAC (publicly or privately) for that very same reason...

I don't complain. I just laugh at those schools that do it publicly. I have no problem with anyone doing it privately. I'm sure UCF is doing that right now.

(02-25-2014 11:26 AM)mlb Wrote:  And you guys wonder why UC and UConn want out? You are who you associate with... hit the road, Temple.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but didn't UC drop its women's rowing program back in 2006 in order to replace it with a much cheaper option (women's lax)? Didn't the Bearcats cut scholarships for three men's sports (track, cross-country and swimming) despite playing in a P5 conference? Weren't those scholarships only recently restored with help from the football coach?

While Temple's move to cut sports certainly doesn't look good, Temple was also sponsoring 22 varsity sports. The only other athletic department in the American to host that many varsity teams is UConn and the Huskies' athletic budget ($63,344,767) is substantially larger than Temple's ($41,558,322).

Temple has already said that the $3 million in savings would still be used within the athletic department. So by dropping five sports, Temple (17 sports, $41 million budget) will actually be more in line with several American schools including:
- UC (17 varsity sports, $45 million budget)
- USF (17 varsity teams, $45 million budget)
- UCF (15 varsity sports, $42 million budget)
- UH (15 varsity sports, $35.5 million budget)
- ECU (17 varsity sports, $35.5 million budget)

All budgetary figures come from Equity in Athletics website. Varsity sports total were obtains from school athletic websites. Also note, my counts didn't separate out indoor vs outdoor track and field (same roster and coaches).

(02-25-2014 12:53 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 11:26 AM)mlb Wrote:  And you guys wonder why UC and UConn want out? You are who you associate with... hit the road, Temple.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but didn't UC drop its women's rowing program back in 2006 in order to replace it with a much cheaper option (women's lax)? Didn't the Bearcats cut scholarships for three men's sports (track, cross-country and swimming) despite playing in a P5 conference? Weren't those scholarships only recently restored with help from the football coach?

While Temple's move to cut sports certainly doesn't look good, Temple was also sponsoring 22 varsity sports. The only other athletic department in the American to host that many varsity teams is UConn and the Huskies' athletic budget ($63,344,767) is substantially larger than Temple's ($41,558,322).

Temple has already said that the $3 million in savings would still be used within the athletic department. So by dropping five sports, Temple (17 sports, $41 million budget) will actually be more in line with several American schools including:
- UC (17 varsity sports, $45 million budget)
- USF (17 varsity teams, $45 million budget)
- UCF (15 varsity sports, $42 million budget)
- UH (15 varsity sports, $35.5 million budget)
- ECU (17 varsity sports, $35.5 million budget)

All budgetary figures come from Equity in Athletics website. Varsity sports total were obtains from school athletic websites.

I think the bigger issue people are having is the "mid-major" part.

(02-25-2014 12:53 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(02-25-2014 11:26 AM)mlb Wrote:  And you guys wonder why UC and UConn want out? You are who you associate with... hit the road, Temple.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but didn't UC drop its women's rowing program back in 2006 in order to replace it with a much cheaper option (women's lax)? Didn't the Bearcats cut scholarships for three men's sports (track, cross-country and swimming) despite playing in a P5 conference? Weren't those scholarships only recently restored with help from the football coach?

While Temple's move to cut sports certainly doesn't look good, Temple was also sponsoring 22 varsity sports. The only other athletic department in the American to host that many varsity teams is UConn and the Huskies' athletic budget ($63,344,767) is substantially larger than Temple's ($41,558,322).

Temple has already said that the $3 million in savings would still be used within the athletic department. So by dropping five sports, Temple (17 sports, $41 million budget) will actually be more in line with several American schools including:
- UC (17 varsity sports, $45 million budget)
- USF (17 varsity teams, $45 million budget)
- UCF (15 varsity sports, $42 million budget)
- UH (15 varsity sports, $35.5 million budget)
- ECU (17 varsity sports, $35.5 million budget)

All budgetary figures come from Equity in Athletics website. Varsity sports total were obtains from school athletic websites.

Great reality based post. The only thing the Temple pres really screwed up was the delivery. Beyond that it's on their alumni, and frankly, all of our alumni to step up if they don't want to be viewed as a "mid-major."