Could I get a little bit of the history behind Temple's removal from the football conference? I understand that it was due to Temple's lack of being competitive.

- Who first brought up the subject of booting them out?
- Was the vote a majority, supermajority or unanimous?
- Was the vote done to appease Miami?
- Were any stipulations put on Temple to get them to a competitive point?
- Was there any thought given to bringing them back once Miami (FL) & Virginia Tech left? Once BC left?
- Did Temple ever admit, while members of the Big East, that they were considering dropping to I-AA or dropping football completely?

Obviously Big East fans would know, but I heard from fans back in 2003 that someone in Temple's administration (now gone), apparently, ticked off someone in the Big East front office, so they already had a lot going against them. The Big East also put an ultimatum on Temple to improve their facilities and that administration put absolutely nothing at all into the facilities, I guess assuming that no one would ever kick the program out of the conference. And, the rumor originally was that Temple was considered as an All-Sports member once Miami left, even above Cincinnati, but that Bob Goin stepped in quickly and cleared up all of the misconceptions about Cincinnati. I could be wrong, but Temple was never seriously considered as a football-only, the only rumored schools I heard for football-only in 2003 was UCF and ECU. The rumor was Villanova played a role in Temple getting booted and then in keeping Temple out, but that was a rumor, and apparently Villanova denies it. There was a rumor that the Big East administration offered Miami their pick of a new look Big East conference that included Louisville and Temple and possibly South Florida (I think Gavitt had a role in it), but that was unconfirmed. Again, that's just me. I was a news hound back in 2003 and dug up a bunch of expansion info for the CUSA message board so I'm full of possibly useless information. :)

mattsarz Wrote:Could I get a little bit of the history behind Temple's removal from the football conference? I understand that it was due to Temple's lack of being competitive.

- Who first brought up the subject of booting them out?
- Was the vote a majority, supermajority or unanimous?
- Was the vote done to appease Miami?
- Were any stipulations put on Temple to get them to a competitive point?
- Was there any thought given to bringing them back once Miami (FL) & Virginia Tech left? Once BC left?
- Did Temple ever admit, while members of the Big East, that they were considering dropping to I-AA or dropping football completely?

From what I remember, the major issues where attendance and lack of an on campus staduim. I think the Eagles did not want to share their new field with Temple, and there were questions about where the Owls were going to play there home games.

I could be way off, but I thought Va Tech voted to keep Temple in. I remember reading an article where a some Temple officials were hoping to get some support from Pitt because they were both urban schools in PA, but that didn't happen

Jackson

My recollection is pretty similar to CatsClaw's. Also, I believe the vote was 5-1-1 for voting out Temple, with VT dissenting and Pittsburgh abstaining.

Read omnicarrier's post in this thread regarding the removal of Temple. I tried to link directly to it. He and others also refute some old Temple arguments that it was just meeting the BE criteria when it was cut loose.
http://ncaabbs.com/showthread.php?tid=30...pid3384396

BullsFanatic Wrote:My recollection is pretty similar to CatsClaw's. Also, I believe the vote was 5-1-1 for voting out Temple, with VT dissenting and Pittsburgh abstaining.

That's what I've heard as well, Pitt abstaining because it was an in-state school. I don't know VT's motivation but I imagine them and Temple being in the Atlantic 10 together was probably a factor.

bk1714 Wrote:

BullsFanatic Wrote:My recollection is pretty similar to CatsClaw's. Also, I believe the vote was 5-1-1 for voting out Temple, with VT dissenting and Pittsburgh abstaining.

That's what I've heard as well, Pitt abstaining because it was an in-state school. I don't know VT's motivation but I imagine them and Temple being in the Atlantic 10 together was probably a factor.

Pitt abstained for the same reason USF will never openly oppose UCF. As a public university, you can't diss another or attempt to place them in a position of disadvantage.

Put the rumors and Villanova conspiracy theories aside.

Temple was on the plank for attendance issues (less than a 5,000 per game average one season), facility issues (the Big East expects teams to have control over home dates, and Temple did not have that at the Vet)and other internal commitments as directed by the league.

I-AA was not and will not be an option. Since Temple sold old Temple Stadium back in the 1980's, it has no other field at its disposal other than Lincoln Financial and they certainly could not afford games there in the CAA (the successor to A-10 football).

And for those who wonder, "what was Temple Stadium?" a link below.

http://home.comcast.net/~ghostsofthegrid...adiums.htm

Yeah, Temple was its own worst enemy and they would probably still be in the Big East if they had taken care of business, on and off the field.

I'll expand a little from my memory.

I don't think Temple's exit from the Big East was all about athletics. I think the academic administration absolutely crippled the football team internally. It was a series of bad university commitments that just did not let football compete. (If I remember correctly, Bill Cosby said something about this.)

It really never made sense. Temple has a "national brand" with basketball. It seems so easy to speculate if they would have committed to football in the late 1980's, they would still be in the Big East.

Face it, Rutgers was as bad as Temple was for a number of years and they were not considered from expulsion.

chess Wrote:I'll expand a little from my memory.

I don't think Temple's exit from the Big East was all about athletics. I think the academic administration absolutely crippled the football team internally. It was a series of bad university commitments that just did not let football compete. (If I remember correctly, Bill Cosby said something about this.)

It really never made sense. Temple has a "national brand" with basketball. It seems so easy to speculate if they would have committed to football in the late 1980's, they would still be in the Big East.

Face it, Rutgers was as bad as Temple was for a number of years and they were not considered from expulsion.

Actually, I remember ereading somewhere that Rutgers and Temple both had been giving warnings from the league to improve in deficient areas. They both had been given a date to improve and By the time that the warning period was over, Rutgers had made noticeable improvement, and Temple had made no improvement.

chess Wrote:It really never made sense. Temple has a "national brand" with basketball. It seems so easy to speculate if they would have committed to football in the late 1980's, they would still be in the Big East.

Face it, Rutgers was as bad as Temple was for a number of years and they were not considered from expulsion.

Rutgers situation was different in that they built a 40,000 seat on campus stadium in 1994. They already had the facilities in place.

And I think a lot of Rutgers problem, and Temple's for that matter is that the Big East wasn't as good back in the 90's as it was by the 2002-2003 time period.

It was really the inclusion of the Big East in the BCS that made recruiting explode across the conference and eventually was enough to surprass the ACC on the East Coast. WVU, Pitt, Miami, VT were all ranked in the top 25, half the conference.

Rutgers now being in a BCS conference for 15 years has an alumni base that has grown accustomed to Big Time football.

I know some of you guys won't like this but I think Temple is in a better position post hypothetical split than any other school. Philly will always be a hotbed for hoops and they actually are putting effort into their football program now. The location/market is ideal for the hypothetical all-sports conference.

Doesn't look like there will be any split though.

I'm sick of hearing about Temple. They had their chance and wasted it. Let somebody who actually wants to compete have the chance.

DFW HOYA Wrote:Put the rumors and Villanova conspiracy theories aside.

Temple was on the plank for attendance issues (less than a 5,000 per game average one season), facility issues (the Big East expects teams to have control over home dates, and Temple did not have that at the Vet)and other internal commitments as directed by the league.

I-AA was not and will not be an option. Since Temple sold old Temple Stadium back in the 1980's, it has no other field at its disposal other than Lincoln Financial and they certainly could not afford games there in the CAA (the successor to A-10 football).

And for those who wonder, "what was Temple Stadium?" a link below.

http://home.comcast.net/~ghostsofthegrid...adiums.htm

-- That is interesting, any idea when the last time Temple played a home game at Temple field?

Quote:I'm sick of hearing about Temple. They had their chance and wasted it. Let somebody who actually wants to compete have the chance.

-- To be fair, the anti-football administration at Temple is gone. The Owls are getting better. The only question is how much better will they get? If they win the MAC in football, IMO we have to give them a look

Jackson

I think all the AD's went fishing... and the temple AD wouldnt hold his mouth right.

mattsarz Wrote:Could I get a little bit of the history behind Temple's removal from the football conference? I understand that it was due to Temple's lack of being competitive.

- Who first brought up the subject of booting them out?
- Was the vote a majority, supermajority or unanimous?
- Was the vote done to appease Miami?
- Were any stipulations put on Temple to get them to a competitive point?
- Was there any thought given to bringing them back once Miami (FL) & Virginia Tech left? Once BC left?
- Did Temple ever admit, while members of the Big East, that they were considering dropping to I-AA or dropping football completely?

Most of you know the major details, so I’ll just answer the questions that were posed at the risk of making this yet another bash Temple thread:

Virginia Tech supported Temple. Always did. Temple helped get VT into the BE, so they voted no to the removal. Pitt’s abstention basically was the nail that buried Temple.

Shalala and Jake C. led the charge. Miami realized they were drawing the money for the Conference, and wanted more.

Temple was given deadlines to improve the team’s performance, attendance, and get a single team home field figured out (they used both Franklin Field and the Vet). When the ouster was made, attendance was on the rise, they beat Rutgers 4 straight times, and secured the brand new Lincoln Financial Field. The league argued too little too late. The pro Temple Football people said look at the results.

No consideration to them being brought back from what I understand. I’ve heard rumors that they were told they would be looked at down the line, but I’m not holding my breath.

Temple would have never dropped football while in the Big East. The money was too much to let go.

Was the ouster justified? Probably. I am a Temple fan and I know the flat out incompetence the Administration showed. They made two colossal failures of coaching hires that decimated the team. They had a president that openly tried the kill the program. Temple made the concession to leave quietly after the vote was made, in return for being allowed to stay for a few more years. I do know with this new Administration, a hot young coach, and the market itself, Temple will be fine, whether in the NBE or not. If Rutgers fans would rather travel to Greenville or Memphis every other year, so be it.

Jackson1011 Wrote:

Quote:I'm sick of hearing about Temple. They had their chance and wasted it. Let somebody who actually wants to compete have the chance.

-- To be fair, the anti-football administration at Temple is gone. The Owls are getting better. The only question is how much better will they get? If they win the MAC in football, IMO we have to give them a look

Only IF they win the MAC. Not until then...

It's too bad the Temple administration couldn't pull off a little political arm bending Pitt's way (the way VaTech did to UVA) to sort of force Pitt to vote in favor of Temple instead of just abstaining.

[quote=Jackson1011][quote]The Owls are getting better.[/quote]

Than what?

[quote=Jackson1011][quote] The only question is how much better will they get? If they win the MAC in football, IMO we have to give them a look[/quote]

Don't hold your breath: Linky

Funny story about Temple. They're only 22-43 (Linky) against current MAC members and six of those wins are over Akron before they joined I-A
(Linky). And a lot of those games were with Temple playing with major conference money and talent.

Any discussion of Temple solving the scheduling problem is just a waste of time.