Temple MAC Bound?

[xfactor9600]

From Andy Katz's Daily Word:

• The MAC meetings are going on in Chicago, and according to a coach in attendance, there was more talk about expanding the league to 14 teams with adding Temple (Atlantic 10 for all sports but football) and Western Kentucky (Sun Belt) as full members. Temple plays a MAC schedule in football and has added MAC nonconference games for basketball. This kind of decision would be made for football, but if they did ever join the league in hoops, it would make this league even tougher and potentially put it in position to earn multiple bids (which hasn't happened since 1999).

Not a move forward for the A-10 if we lose Temple. My biggest fear is that the A-10 will be hot to replace Temple, and won't be very choosy in their replacement.

[NashvilleBilliken]

From Andy Katz's Daily Word:

• The MAC meetings are going on in Chicago, and according to a coach in attendance, there was more talk about expanding the league to 14 teams with adding Temple (Atlantic 10 for all sports but football) and Western Kentucky (Sun Belt) as full members. Temple plays a MAC schedule in football and has added MAC nonconference games for basketball. This kind of decision would be made for football, but if they did ever join the league in hoops, it would make this league even tougher and potentially put it in position to earn multiple bids (which hasn't happened since 1999).

Not a move forward for the A-10 if we lose Temple. My biggest fear is that the A-10 will be hot to replace Temple, and won't be very choosy in their replacement.

Not sure why Temple would want to join the MAC. It doesn't seem like a geographic fit and they are leaving several conference rivals in the same city. I would imagine the fans wouldn't be too pleased with the decision. Perhaps they are looking to scale back their athletic commitment?

[xfactor9600]

Not sure why Temple would want to join the MAC. It doesn't seem like a geographic fit and they are leaving several conference rivals in the same city. I would imagine the fans wouldn't be too pleased with the decision. Perhaps they are looking to scale back their athletic commitment?

Or they may be in danger of losing their football affiliation?

[Box and Won]

They ought to go I-AA in football and stay in the A-10.

[brianstl]

It would hurt the conference if we lost Temple, but the worst thing the conference could do would be to try to replace Temple. The conference is too big now. It would be nice if a couple of teams would leave for other conferences with them. It wouldn't hurt me to see LaSalle and the Bonnies move on.

[kshoe]

Not sure why Temple would want to join the MAC. It doesn't seem like a geographic fit and they are leaving several conference rivals in the same city. I would imagine the fans wouldn't be too pleased with the decision. Perhaps they are looking to scale back their athletic commitment?

I suspect they'd still play all the local games so really they'd be replacing UMass, St. Bonny, Charlotte, SLU etc. with the teams from the MAC. Not all that bad. But football is clearly driving this possibility.

[kwyjibo]

I suspect they'd still play all the local games so really they'd be replacing UMass, St. Bonny, Charlotte, SLU etc. with the teams from the MAC. Not all that bad. But football is clearly driving this possibility.

While your general point is correct, the UMass-Temple "rivalry" still pulls some extra attendance and attention.

[Clock_Tower]

I'm shocked!! Football and the lure of money may cause a longstanding member of a stable conference to consider another conference??

Great Midwest, Conf USA, Big East, ACC ... Yeah, sure, the Big East is stable.

[Pistol]

I'm shocked!! Football and the lure of money may cause a longstanding member of a stable conference to consider another conference??

Great Midwest, Conf USA, Big East, ACC ... Yeah, sure, the Big East is stable.

It's completely football-driven. They've been consistently among the worst programs in division I-A football and have lost money with the program. I guess it's coming down to a decision of would they rather take a step down in basketball to bring football up a few steps or keep football in the gutter and basketball in the same spot.

[Clock_Tower]

It's completely football-driven. They've been consistently among the worst programs in division I-A football and have lost money with the program. I guess it's coming down to a decision of would they rather take a step down in basketball to bring football up a few steps or keep football in the gutter and basketball in the same spot.

Pistol. You're absolutely correct. I just find it funny how people continue to underestimate the power of football. Football broke up the Big East, changed the ACC, broke up Great Midwest and then Conf USA. Now, I hear people say how stable the Big East is... Nothing is stable anymore.

[Billiken Law]

I suspect they'd still play all the local games so really they'd be replacing UMass, St. Bonny, Charlotte, SLU etc. with the teams from the MAC. Not all that bad. But football is clearly driving this possibility.

why Temple continues this charade of having a I-A football program is beyond me. Drop to I-AA with the likes of Villanova and the other local CAA programs while staying in the A-14 makes complete sense.

As for the local games, since the Big 5 is alive and well they would continue playing Lasalle and St. Joe's on an annual basis.

[cheeseman]

I am not so sure that loosing Temple would be all that of a bad thing for the A10. Brian is right - the conf is too big already so how you loose 2-4 teams does not really matter. The conf. should not replace Temple if they leave - we already have too many teams in Philly. St. Joe is enough and LaSalle is one too many. Do I want Temple to leave - no, I can think of other teams I would pick ahead of them but whittling this conf. down is generally a good thing for it.

[thetorch]

Temple certainly has a rich history with the other A-10 teams. That in itself will not make me tear up if they leave.

Temple's heyday was 20 years ago. I don't think their tradition carries them anymore, and I don't think they pump enough money into their athletic programs to make them truly competitive on a national scale.

They are kind of an oddball in the A-10 with their football program. While I'd rather see other teams go I see Temple remaining competitive in the future but never contending for titles or flirting with the top 25. They will be an average program at best. Not a huge loss for the A-10.

[Taj79]

I'm in the camp with those who believe Temple should downgrade the football program and go Division 1AA. Moving to the MAC is a step down in my overall understanding of college football. The MAC is not a BCS division but whomever said Temple football is insignificant was absolutely right on. Only one college or university plays football in Pennsylvania --- and sometimes even that is debatable. JoPa should stay. JoPa should go. E-I-E-I-OH!

Of course, it seems a number of MAC teams do get to go to bowl games at the end of every year. With 34 bowl games adding up to 68 teams making post season appearance, I guess the money lure there is large enough to make the school reconsider. Maybe there is a revenue sharing gig in the conference as well. About the only team not bound by the revenue sharing is Notre Dame ---- and I believe their desire to be greedy and hold on to their deal with NBC and the allure that still exists from their storied history -- no matter how outdated --- keeps them independent in football as well.

On the basketball front, frankly I can't really see any of us having a huge play in the national power grid consistently over a multitude of years. UMass's run under Calipari was an aberation. Temple under Chaney was another. St. Joe's perfect regular season and 31 ranking. Xavier's current status could be similar. Only time will tell. Having said that, all four schools are not what I would consider the creme de la creme of the collegiate basketball landscape. They are not the perennials of the college roundball world as are Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, Kentucky, and UCLA. They are not even the second tier schools like Uconn, Indiana, Florida, Ohio State, Arizona, Georgetown and some others. Heck, they are not even third tier (maybe X is) like Gonzaga and Butler and SIU might be. No, we and they are like the Drakes and Davidsons and George Masons of the world --- looking to catch all those breaks and magic moments and make a run to at least the Sweet Sixteen once or twice in a program's immediate lifetime.

Philly basketball is not as significant as it used to be outside of the Philly world but it will always survive within SE Pennsylvania. No matter how bad a program might become (see La Salle), they will still always have the other four in the Big Five to rely on and carry the interest through. Of course, if that is it, it will eventually NOT be enough. And the money with the NCAA basketball tournament is nothing to sneeze at. Hitting that Sweet Sixteen spot might be to taht school the equivalent of you or I hitting the lottery. In my entire life, I've spent like maybe $25 total on lottery items.

If I were a college basketball program with that kind of spending record, I'd be Savannah State.

[Clock_Tower]

I'm in the camp with those who believe Temple should downgrade the football program and go Division 1AA. Moving to the MAC is a step down in my overall understanding of college football. The MAC is not a BCS division but whomever said Temple football is insignificant was absolutely right on. Only one college or university plays football in Pennsylvania --- and sometimes even that is debatable. JoPa should stay. JoPa should go. E-I-E-I-OH!

Of course, it seems a number of MAC teams do get to go to bowl games at the end of every year. With 34 bowl games adding up to 68 teams making post season appearance, I guess the money lure there is large enough to make the school reconsider. Maybe there is a revenue sharing gig in the conference as well. About the only team not bound by the revenue sharing is Notre Dame ---- and I believe their desire to be greedy and hold on to their deal with NBC and the allure that still exists from their storied history -- no matter how outdated --- keeps them independent in football as well.

On the basketball front, frankly I can't really see any of us having a huge play in the national power grid consistently over a multitude of years. UMass's run under Calipari was an aberation. Temple under Chaney was another. St. Joe's perfect regular season and 31 ranking. Xavier's current status could be similar. Only time will tell. Having said that, all four schools are not what I would consider the creme de la creme of the collegiate basketball landscape. They are not the perennials of the college roundball world as are Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, Kentucky, and UCLA. They are not even the second tier schools like Uconn, Indiana, Florida, Ohio State, Arizona, Georgetown and some others. Heck, they are not even third tier (maybe X is) like Gonzaga and Butler and SIU might be. No, we and they are like the Drakes and Davidsons and George Masons of the world --- looking to catch all those breaks and magic moments and make a run to at least the Sweet Sixteen once or twice in a program's immediate lifetime.

Philly basketball is not as significant as it used to be outside of the Philly world but it will always survive within SE Pennsylvania. No matter how bad a program might become (see La Salle), they will still always have the other four in the Big Five to rely on and carry the interest through. Of course, if that is it, it will eventually NOT be enough. And the money with the NCAA basketball tournament is nothing to sneeze at. Hitting that Sweet Sixteen spot might be to taht school the equivalent of you or I hitting the lottery. In my entire life, I've spent like maybe $25 total on lottery items.

If I were a college basketball program with that kind of spending record, I'd be Savannah State.

Taj. Agree with many of your comments but must take exception to a few:

First, X has been winning (and beating really good and highly ranked teams) since the early 1980s. X has had at least 4 coaches over this time. To compare them to the UMass (only success under Calipari) and Temple (only success under Chaney) is a bit off.

Second, SIUC has had a very nice run these past 10 years but were more of an average team in the 1980s and into the early 1990s. Even during their better years, who did SIUC ever play and beat? Because their rival (Cincy) was so good, X had the ability (unlike SIUC) to play a top 10 program each year. Nonetheless, X did play big name schools and did win.

Third, Davidson and George Mason? 2 really good teams but not sure they are good programs. Will their programs good over the years? I doubt it. While I rout for the little guy, I am more concerned that they will be more like Indiana State under Larry Bird than the other programs you list.

Finally, as to Temple and Chaney, I truly hope some mid-major schools (I am finding this term easier to take nowadays) find HCs like Dana Altman (who are comfortable and don't want to move on). We're starting to see HCs leave to coach their alma maters. If this trend continues, A10 schools may yet have another version of Chaney - a good/name HC who becomes a fixture instead of using the school as a stepping stone. Unfortunately, the days of a HC staying at the same schools his own career appear to be over. It was really nice to see guys like Chaney at Temple, Norm at Mizzou, Henson at Illinois (until his health failed). There were never any rumors that these guys would be lured away or used their schools to extort money.

Oh, well. College baskeball is still the best game around.

[Taj79]

Actually, Clock, I think you are thinking right along the lines I mention ....

I have X in my third tier of schools, but barely. Please note I did say "maybe" in adding X to that mix. X is a good program; not great as in the second tier of schools, but certainly above the fourth level, whatever that may be. You are correct in that they have been sustained at their current level for quite some time. I remember thinking we would never beat them when in the MCC. But they are not the elite, and they are not even the second tier, would you agree? I thought I separated them from the UMass/Temple ranking. I certainly believe X to be closer to the third tier than Umass, Temple or St. Joes. So maybe that takes them off my "maybe" ranking.

You are exactly right on about Mason and Davidson and make a great comparison to the Bird years at ISU. These were flashes in the pan. One-and-doners. Cinderalla at the ball and making it to midnight. These will happen almost yearly --- the proverbaila catching ligthening in a bottle. Bradley a few years ago. Bradley with Hersey Hawkins in the 80's. Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Drake. Western Kentucky. Penn, They come and go annually. But short of that miracle run (let's remember one of the modern highlights of our program is commonly referred to as "the Miracle in Memphis") can any team in the A10 aspire to reaching the third tier level? I don't know. X is there, grudginly I guess, so it can be done, but advancing any further requires a pretty enormous run and then a consistent stay at that level. Even though I agree that Xavier has been there for the most part, I'd be willing to to bet that most of today's basketball playing youth might not readily recognize it outside Cincy, Ohio, and the A10 --- until tournament time.

In today's times, rising after falling is what is interesting to me. Where has LSU gone since the Baby Davis days of a short two years ago? I am going to be quite anxious to watch what happens in Cincy for a few years to come with the Bearcats. The fall from Huggins seems quite severe right now and playing in the Big East means that there aren't many off days in conference. Has Gonzaga's run ended? Will Butler sustain? Probably, but I'm betting Drake does not. How long can Marquette and DePaul compete in the Big East? Why does Memphis stay in the CUSA/NASCAR Conference? I think they will --- Calipari will waltz through that league with his eyes half open. Of course, he'll probably choke at the usual 8 or 16 level in the NCAAs.

I am with you and love the college game. What I never really want is to be that school OJ Mayo or Mike Beasely goes to. The one-and-done experience of the Legend made me believe I want and crave sustainability of four-year players. That's just me.

[Clock_Tower]

Actually, Clock, I think you are thinking right along the lines I mention ....

I have X in my third tier of schools, but barely. Please note I did say "maybe" in adding X to that mix. X is a good program; not great as in the second tier of schools, but certainly above the fourth level, whatever that may be. You are correct in that they have been sustained at their current level for quite some time. I remember thinking we would never beat them when in the MCC. But they are not the elite, and they are not even the second tier, would you agree? I thought I separated them from the UMass/Temple ranking. I certainly believe X to be closer to the third tier than Umass, Temple or St. Joes. So maybe that takes them off my "maybe" ranking.

You are exactly right on about Mason and Davidson and make a great comparison to the Bird years at ISU. These were flashes in the pan. One-and-doners. Cinderalla at the ball and making it to midnight. These will happen almost yearly --- the proverbaila catching ligthening in a bottle. Bradley a few years ago. Bradley with Hersey Hawkins in the 80's. Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Drake. Western Kentucky. Penn, They come and go annually. But short of that miracle run (let's remember one of the modern highlights of our program is commonly referred to as "the Miracle in Memphis") can any team in the A10 aspire to reaching the third tier level? I don't know. X is there, grudginly I guess, so it can be done, but advancing any further requires a pretty enormous run and then a consistent stay at that level. Even though I agree that Xavier has been there for the most part, I'd be willing to to bet that most of today's basketball playing youth might not readily recognize it outside Cincy, Ohio, and the A10 --- until tournament time.

In today's times, rising after falling is what is interesting to me. Where has LSU gone since the Baby Davis days of a short two years ago? I am going to be quite anxious to watch what happens in Cincy for a few years to come with the Bearcats. The fall from Huggins seems quite severe right now and playing in the Big East means that there aren't many off days in conference. Has Gonzaga's run ended? Will Butler sustain? Probably, but I'm betting Drake does not. How long can Marquette and DePaul compete in the Big East? Why does Memphis stay in the CUSA/NASCAR Conference? I think they will --- Calipari will waltz through that league with his eyes half open. Of course, he'll probably choke at the usual 8 or 16 level in the NCAAs.

I am with you and love the college game. What I never really want is to be that school OJ Mayo or Mike Beasely goes to. The one-and-done experience of the Legend made me believe I want and crave sustainability of four-year players. That's just me.

Taj. OK, now I understand you better.

In essence, St. Joe (even with their undefeated team and Final Four appearance) did not creep into your tier 1 or even tier 2 - presumably b/c not sustained success. Guess I would say that X belongs solidly in tier 3 and some of their really good teams , St. Joe during their good years and some of the Temple teams, pushed them into the second tier. Remember, Temple was a perennial top 25 school playing a monster/national schedule each year. If no room for these schools in your tier 2, then your tiers 1 and 2 must be be rather small - which is not a problem - but leads me to wonder how many tiers you'd then have. If they don't fall into your third tier (or they do so marginally), then who is in your third tier and how many tiers do you have?

I think I agree in that as good as X has been, they are not on the level of Uconn, Indiana, Florida, Ohio State, Arizona, Georgetown (here recently), or GTown from the '80s but X was better than Florida, Ohio State and GTown in the 90s

[Taj79]

Realistically ----- I don't know how many tiers I have. I have never really sat down and firgured that out. I do know there is an elite level and I think the six teams I mentioned are there --- year-in and year-out. Even when Duke has that off year when I think Collins and Wojo were seniors, they came storming back with no problem the next year. Kentucky was down at the end of the Eddie Sutton era and even on probation if I recall right but didn't Tubby win a national title there after that? They are down now but I fully believe they will charge back under Gillespie. Its what makes kids like Josh Harrelson go "ohh, UK, where do I sign?"

The second tier is a group of teams that change little but still do change. Its like the lower teens of the national rankings. Someone creeps in, someone falls out. Its like having six or seven teams from the ACC or Big Ten ranked in the national football polls one week or another. UConn has had a phenominal run lately and is strongly entrenched in that tier. I see Florida in there. If Ohio State can rise to the heights this coming year only two short years after losing Oden and Conley, then they are there. Michigan State. Indiana. Pitt. Georgetown. Texas. Memphis. Maybe an Arizona. Maryland is a prime example of a school that, despite winning a national title a short six years or so ago, is teetering on the brink of dropping off my second tier. They are probably in the grey area between tiers right now and Williams is desparate. How else do you recruit and offer a kid who has a rap sheet with legal violations as long as that recent kid did (Tyree Evans or something like that). The kid moved on "at his decision" but Debbie Yow was caught in a malestorm this past weekend when she claimed not only to not know they were recruiting him, but didn't even know he had been offered a full ride.

I guess my third tier is those schools that do well enough in their own conference to become relevant for some extended period of time, definitely not the one-and-doners. They also can fluctuate between tiers and can move in and out as all teams can. Gonzaga is now in the third tier after some extended time in the second. Butler is here. Xavier is here. Creighton. Marquette. Illinois. Butler. This is all purely subjective so debates can rage on all they want.

The fourth tier is all the rest, with a way station halfway up for those one-and-done progrmas like Bradley, Mason, Davidson, IUPUI, Belmont, us in the nineties and so on. There is probably also a basement level where the Savannah States have to go and there are probably more and more tiers in there but that's for all the various schools to acknowledge as they try to advance to the level they feel most comfortable at.

Top tier schools make the final four a couple times a decade. They end up winning three or so of the ten national championships in that time frame. Second tier schools are in the NCAAs 6 to 8 times a decade --- its more suprising when they are left out than when they get in. Third tier teams are in some form of tourney almost every year --- either NCAA and if not there, NIT for sure. The CBA is immaterial right now. Cinderfellas speak for themselves and the rest, they are just hoping and praying that things go right and we get in "some time in my lifetime." That's where SLU is right now. I'd be happy in the third tier but I am afraid that if we made it there, Xavier would have to go. I find it very difficult to believe that the NCAA would accept two schools from a second tier conference as almost perennial locks for the Big Dance each year. You know someone somewhere is going to win the tourney outside of X and us. The A10 is not to the point where three teams would get immediate consideration if, say, a Temple or GeeDub won the tourney. It would be that winner and whomever the third tier guy is would have the best chance of getting an at-large.

I alos beleive there are a lot of A10 schools who see themselves the same way we do ---- aspiring to be that other team besides X. You know Dayton fans alreayd have themselves there. So too would St. Joe fans. Temple. UMass. Rhodey. Charlotte. Duquesne is on a mission, look at their last two recruiting classes. The rest are pond scum ---- and could be eliminated from this league without a second thought. La Salle, the Bonnie, Fordham, Richmond. But Richmond had a good although surprising year and I would bet most coaches would want Fordham in the league as a pipeline selling point to NYC kids going to schools away from home but with an annual chance to return home and play in front of the home crowds. Its the same reason the Big East let South Florida in --- to keep open the door to the fertile recruiting bastion that is Florida.

The debate will rage forever.

[slu72]

I'm in the camp with those who believe Temple should downgrade the football program and go Division 1AA. Moving to the MAC is a step down in my overall understanding of college football. The MAC is not a BCS division but whomever said Temple football is insignificant was absolutely right on. Only one college or university plays football in Pennsylvania --- and sometimes even that is debatable. JoPa should stay. JoPa should go. E-I-E-I-OH!

Of course, it seems a number of MAC teams do get to go to bowl games at the end of every year. With 34 bowl games adding up to 68 teams making post season appearance, I guess the money lure there is large enough to make the school reconsider. Maybe there is a revenue sharing gig in the conference as well. About the only team not bound by the revenue sharing is Notre Dame ---- and I believe their desire to be greedy and hold on to their deal with NBC and the allure that still exists from their storied history -- no matter how outdated --- keeps them independent in football as well.

On the basketball front, frankly I can't really see any of us having a huge play in the national power grid consistently over a multitude of years. UMass's run under Calipari was an aberation. Temple under Chaney was another. St. Joe's perfect regular season and 31 ranking. Xavier's current status could be similar. Only time will tell. Having said that, all four schools are not what I would consider the creme de la creme of the collegiate basketball landscape. They are not the perennials of the college roundball world as are Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, Kentucky, and UCLA. They are not even the second tier schools like Uconn, Indiana, Florida, Ohio State, Arizona, Georgetown and some others. Heck, they are not even third tier (maybe X is) like Gonzaga and Butler and SIU might be. No, we and they are like the Drakes and Davidsons and George Masons of the world --- looking to catch all those breaks and magic moments and make a run to at least the Sweet Sixteen once or twice in a program's immediate lifetime.

Philly basketball is not as significant as it used to be outside of the Philly world but it will always survive within SE Pennsylvania. No matter how bad a program might become (see La Salle), they will still always have the other four in the Big Five to rely on and carry the interest through. Of course, if that is it, it will eventually NOT be enough. And the money with the NCAA basketball tournament is nothing to sneeze at. Hitting that Sweet Sixteen spot might be to taht school the equivalent of you or I hitting the lottery. In my entire life, I've spent like maybe $25 total on lottery items.

If I were a college basketball program with that kind of spending record, I'd be Savannah State.

Taj, I'd add IU and AZ to your elite tier. They are branded basketball schools and will carry a lot of weight in the most important factor in hoops: recruiting. The only questionable one would be AZ as an elite. Will they carry on after Lute finally retires? Second tier would inlcude a host of BCS schools. Most of the ACC, BE, B-10 schools fit in here. The SEC and Pac 10 to a lesser degree. X , Zaga, and Memphis definitely are in this group as well. They have had success over a sustained period, last 15-20 years, to carry clout with recruits. It's no shame for a recruit to go to a second tier school whether it be a BCS'er or an X or Zaga. Of course what concerns us most is where do we fit. Right now I'd say we're in a fourth tier, call them serious wannabe's. We've ranked mostly in the top 100 over the last 15 years, played in decent conferences, played name schools, but we're slipping in NCAA visibility and have limited TV exposure. We can make a move now with RM, make that must make a move, the arena, and the budget. My guess is, or hope, is that RM does his full six, and in his final 3 we go dancing, with hopefully a serious run to the Sweet 16 in one of his last 2 years. Hopefully, he leaves us with a HC from his AC ranks, like X has done, who can sustain this expected success. And the runup continues. I can't see us ever being a serious competitor for elite players, ie those going first two tiers. But maybe landing the best of the local talents and pulling in solid outside the area talent. Kids are influenced more by what they see on ESPN than anything else. I think the best we can hope for is to get to the fringes of that level.