I don't see Temple football dropping to I-AA...similar to the San Jose State situation, it's either I-A football or no football at all...

Temple really needs to make a decision on its football program...C-USA should not allow them to have associate membership, nor should the MAC...I don't see any invitation coming from the MAC unless/until some its programs are reclassified as a result of new I-A standards...the real question is how long can Temple football survive at the I-A level without a conference arrangement? 2005, 2006...?

Just as Louisiana Tech needs C-USA much more than the conference needs it, a football-only Temple needs the MAC or C-USA much more than either needs it...they currently have 12 and 11 members, respectively, if Temple were a 9th member, for instance, things would be much different...

Good point! Like Temple in the BE for football only when their bb program is comparatively stronger and hanging in another conference. Like Army was in C-USA to play football only----that did not last long!

[quote author=GunnerFan link=board=1a&thread=1068734048&start=59#3 date=1076602857]


[- CUSA is slated for some serious losses in terms of TV exposure, bowls and money. Temple won't contribute much to the football equation, would feel distant from any rivals, and won't appreciate the league's new, more southwestern flavor. ]

Temple does not have a lot of choices or options before them. But the question hinges on what C-USA wants itself to look like and where they see their footprint needs to be. While the new C-USA is fundamentally southern, near half of it is not of "southwestern flavor"---UAB, East Carolina, Marshall, CFU, Southern Miss, and Tulane and Memphis on the edge (they ain't in Texas or Oklahoma). Obviously, BC cannot say it is mid/south atlantic in the ACC, nor LA Tech say it is western in the WAC, nor USF, Cincy, or L'ville claim they are northeast in the new BE. East Carolina, geographically, is continuing on the fringe of C-USA. But what options do they have? None, unless it is to go independent.
I am not necessarily advocating Temple to C-USA, my arguement is that they should not shut-off options to ponder when their choices are so narrow, and none look particularly good. As far as the BE option in the future, that does not look look for them, C-USA or not.

As far as BIG EAST relations are concerned, Temple is the antithesis of Notre Dame. The BIG EAST needed "unattractive" programs like Rutgers, Temple, and Virginia Tech to establish a football presence in the early 1990s. Rutgers, West Virginia, and later, Virginia Tech were upgraded to full BIG EAST membership; Temple was not.

Temple's fate with the BIG EAST was sealed when Rutgers and West Virginia were upgraded to full BIG EAST membership in exchange for UConn and Villanova being guaranteed football membership provided that their programs were upgraded to I-A. Post-1994, Temple knew for certain that it had no future in the BIG EAST beyond football...UConn's ultimate decision to upgrade proved the death knell, as it would replace Temple as the 8th member, and the BIG EAST would no longer have associate members in football...

D&C, MOP
I agree Temple has few options before them, and would not disavow the school a move if they felt is was in their best interest. (I'm on the record saying Marshall and Temple should be in the MAC, so I'll stick with that, I guess!) Particularly for their football program, which has now dug a hole that the BE will not pull them out of for at least 6 years, if ever. And no, I don't expect Temple football to thrive as an independent.

Nor do I think CUSA should act in anything less than it's own interest reagrding partial members. However, the partial member concept isn't by itself a bad concept. Few would argue Army and Navy could pull off football only memberships in the right league, knowing their other sports are happy, and more suited, in the Patriot (?) League. And CUSA may find the option more appealing if no other candidate adds to the revenue stream: Why pay La. Tech a full member share if the net football profit can be realized by borrowing the Owl football team for far less? The difference in scope and scale between 1-A football and other sports is what has set off this string of realignments in the first place, proving how tough it is to find a perfect match in this game.

Agan, I'm not ruling out a Temple/ CUSA marriage, just some gut feelings prevent me from openly embracing a move. I honestly expect the MAC to face some changes in the next 2-3 years due to 1-A standards and/or more realignment, and I think Temple would fit much better there (than CUSA). Temple's situation differs from some of the other schools mentioned, as well. ECU and the other remaining CUSA schools have some established relations and fewer choices right now. If they could choose, however, the sense is several schools would rather be elsewhere if invited. For those reasons, I hope Temple can make the right decisions for their athletics programs. (Insert your "That'd be a first" joke here.)

Last note regarding Temple and the BE; Yes, Temple's poor administration meant they were expendable once the BE achieved 8 full members for FB. But they were never on equal footing even as a football member because they did not have all the $ resources the other full members had, namely the extra revenue from basketball. Temple did not help themselves, but since Villanova provided the BE all the Philly presence needed, they did not get much outside help, either.

Which begs the question; Has anyone seen any articles concerning Temple's thoughts on the future of their football program? I guess since they're not a major player the opinion articles haven't appeared on our radar yet. Whither Owlfan when you need him?!

Well, that is sorta a point I was trying to convey. I have looked at the Phildelphia Inquirer and found nothing, really, speculating about a Temple move to C-USA. Of course, I could have missed it. The Chaney comments were posted via other media outlets. In Philadelphia, Temple's future in athletics is certainly not front burner news.
Compare that with Memphis' Commercial Appeal who will editorialize about C-USA membership and will be anxious to convey any new developments.

I'm not so sure it is the football program that has dug a hole that the BE won't pull them out of so much that it is really the Temple administration that has really dug the hole. BE doesn't want Temple though, for whatever reason.


Here's probably what's putting C-USA in a bind:
1. C-USA lost a ton in basketball. C-USA might have been able to survive a Cincy, Louisville, and South Florida move to the Big East, but as we all know, the BE took a lot more than that. CUSA only brought in one top basketball program, Tulsa, to offset that loss. That's the equivalent of just replacing Cincy or Louisville. Not both, and certainly doing nothing to replace the losses of UNCC, Marquette, Depaul (sure they stunk, but they still carry a marquis name in basketball and they get ESPN a lot more than Southern Miss or Houston basketball teams do. ), and St. Louis.
2. CUSA lost good football teams in Louisville and TCU. Cincy and USF really don't factor into the equation here, but UL and TCU definitely do. CUSA managed to replace Louisville with Marshall, but they have yet to replace TCU in football.
This is why I question CUSA's going after SMU, Rice, and even to certain extent, UCF. I don't see SMU adding anything to football or basketball, nor do I see Rice adding anything to football or basketball either. UCF replaces USF, but that's it. Could SMU and/or Rice, UCF eventually replace TCU, Louisville (basketball), Marquette, et. all? Maybe, but it will take time to do so. Time that CUSA may not have.


Call me crazy, but I see the MAC going after Army soon. The BE could still pick up Army, but I honestly don't see it happening. Navy actually has leg up on Army as far as BE membership is concerned because of two reasons:
1. ND still plays Navy. That gives Navy two guaranteed tv appearances (the other is vs Army.)
2. Navy plays a lot of BE teams. Army has played BE teams before too, but I believe Navy has played more BE teams than Army has.
You could add another reason which would be that Navy has been more competitive lately than Army has. That could change, but that's the way things are now.
Army and CUSA really don't work, and its obvious why it does not. But Army could really work out well in the MAC, where travel expenses wouldn't be as great.
I don't think travel costs for Temple would be as bad in CUSA as they were for Army.

Fact:

Temple signed a 15 year, 15 million dollar lease witht eh Eagles, they will not drop to 1-AA, they will not drop football, they will continue. The only reason Temple is not aggressively pursuing CUSA is because of the travel expenses they will incur as an all sport member. As soon as the current Temple President leaves the school will actively pursue becoming a full CUSA member. Don't be suprised if CUSA also drags a few other NE based teams like Army, Navy, Buffalo, and/or UMass into the mix.

Also in response to Temple not fitting in with the current CUSA members, I heavily disagree. CUSA seems to be aiming its membership towards large, urban, public universities located throughout the US. This is a notion I had spoken about before with CUSA where they create a league with its own conference which has no specific boundaries. Just think...

West: Rice, Tulane, Tulsa, Houston, SoMiss, SMU

East: Marshall, UCF, ECU, UAB, Memphis, Temple

Eventually, like the BE these divisions could split creating two new conferences farther down the road. Bottom line is that CUSA needs another team that can offer both football and basketball, needs at least one of these teams to be competetive, and needs a large TV market. I think Temple is the logical choice, and I really think the fit in with the other CUSA teams.

Rice, Tulane, SMU and Tulsa are small private colleges, and Marshall, ECU and So. Miss are not in notable metro merkets. CUSA is not without it's market appeal, but it is a far cry from it had before all this began. Yet...



An interesting poser I had not considered. To say that CUSA is as weak as the Sun Belt would be a misnomer, and there is potential they could work more proactively towards a future realignment that allows these smaller programs to build along the way. Interesting idea.

Now, OwlAlum, have you heard any definitive press reports chanting one direction or another, and what do you feel are the prospects, if any, of someday returning to the BE fold?

I would expect C-USA to reach for an "all sports" member and then stick with 12. If one looks at the membership of the current 11, it may be the decision will be to go outside the deep south. It may be that a team such as Miami of Ohio would be sought. They have a good overall athletic program and are respected academically as a public supported institution. The question is one of geography, attendance, and whether another desired MAC team wants into C-USA; Marshall did.

Although C-USA took hits in membership, their overall potential, long-term, may not suffer that much comparatively. In a way, they are less extreme geographically, and have in place some natural rivalries. While TCU leaving upset the east-west design, it is not a blow that cannot be overcome.

C-USA is going to continue to be "junior" to what is basically SEC country. That being noted, they see themselves as more lofty than a few of the SunBelt types. When C-USA brought in replacements, they took from the east flank of the WAC and two prominent MAC teams: Marshall & UCF.

C-USA did not take LA Tech when SMU, Tulsa, and Rice were added from the WAC. Whether LA Tech would have been the next choice, not sure here. Certainly, as published, LA Tech, Temple, Miami of Ohio, Toledo, UTEP, and NTSU would be the fundamental pool of candidates to ponder. I expect one of those will end up being selected within the next couple of months. However, each has negatives and positives, and one or two of them may not ultimately be interested in changing.