Not sure SportsKC, myself, or another said Temple was in the mix to the point of being formally visited by the ACC and placed strategically on the table for discussion and a vote. They were certainly part of the scheduling scrambling, and that related to the efforts of the ACC attempting to sanction a championship game as quickly as feasible. Someone is asked to prove or justify a point that another alters and extends beyond the original intent or meaning? Go look at Temple's early scheduling yourself for 2005.

It is all hypothetical and speculative. Nothing more. Had the BC transition deal fell apart, none of us know the back-burner plan, if there was one. And if their was, and considering the ACC mindset at the time, matters could have taken a surprising route quickly.

However, to show what I was referring to, from Syracuse no less, concerning Temple having had scheduled five games with the ACC:


http://www.dailyorange.com/media/paper52....-743373.shtml?

norewrite&sourcedomain+dailyorange.com

D&C,

Yes, MD-WV is a rivalry, but one which is going to be suspended in 2008-2009 (I believe) so that MD can play California home and home.

Okay, I'll take my "youngest child" offer off the table. Sorry for being so thick, but I really thought that you guys were saying that there was serious consideration being given to Temple. Your speculation is fine with me.

Among other reasons, the most obvious to me showing that Temple would never have been seriously considered is the enormous blow to ACC prestige it would have meant to take a school that had just been booted by the Big East.

True Friarfan, Temple had this stigma of a losing, unsupported fb program just expelled from BE fb. The ACC would not seek such baggage.

But had Temple even been moderately successful in football during recent years, and demonstrated internal support and a commitment for improvement, they could have brought to the ACC a contiguous school, with respectable bb, and an urban, northeast presence close to Maryland. Geography-wise and bb tradition-wise, Temple could have offered the ACC some merits, but these merits could not overcome the dismal fb program.

It would have been curious what the ACC would have done had all other BE teams been shut off from ACC expansion as the ACC was grasping for #12. The ACC scheduling Temple was probably two-fold (a) Temple needed lucrative games following BE games being dropped, and (b) the ACC would use them as a convenient scheduling mechanism with regards to their own re-alignment and expectations to position itself for a conference championship game.

Though not legal and defies the concept of free association, I wished the ACC had to have taken Temple (not BC) as their #12 (having taken Miami and VPI earlier). Seems like that would have made justice for all involved, and a amusing lawsuit outcome.

D&C,

While we agree on many stances, please understand that the ACC would have taken Bryn Mawr over Temple.

For those of you who are ACC basketball fans, check out this website; not just Duke:

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/acc/all.html