At last Temple is finally exposed for what it is: the product of a weak schedule. They played the bottom seven teams in the MAC along with Army and Navy. And now they finally play a decent team with the division title on the line and they're getting beaten like a red-haired stepchild.

Same old Temple.

Anyone who thinks for even a nanosecond that Temple is a viable candidate for the Big East is an idiot.

Ohio U is a good team. They were 8-3 (with only one MAC loss) coming into the game. There's no shame in Temple losing to the Bobcats in Athens. If the game was in Philly, the outcome may have been exactly opposite...

LOL...so a team loses a game and now they're a fraud. Classic. I guess the Pitt-UC loser next weak will be a fraud as well.

Kind've lame to attack Temple for a loss here. If you don't see Temple improving every year then your an idiot. They're still bowl eligible and could still win 10 games this year. Who would've seen this 3 years ago?

Scheduling in the MAC is ridiculous. Temple played the bottom three teams in the MAC West and didn't play Bowling Green, the third best team in the East. Only one of the teams Temple beat has a winning *conference* record and that's Kent State, which is 4-3 and is playing right now. It might end up that Temple didn't beat a team with a winning conference record all year.

Meanwhile Buffalo had to play Central Michigan and Western Michigan two years in a row. Those two teams finished in the Top 3 in the West each year.

Didn't Buffalo lose to Temple? Sounds like your bitter.

I imagine he is a little bitter at that loss. They lost the game in Buffalo...

Temple had a good season so far. They are not a bad team. Ohio U is a good team. They got couple of really good QBs that can start for many BCS teams. It is not a shame losing to Ohio U at Athens. Ohio almost beat Tenn at Tenn. The game came down to the final secs.

That being said, Temple certainly benefited from the weak MAC competition. Like I said in the other thread, if Temple playing in the BE today they would be looking at a record not any better than UL right now. When UCONN beat Ohio, UCONN was just plain more physical than Ohio U on both sides of the ball when we played them despite giving away ball multiple times in the red zone and not playing very well. I said Ohio was a pretty good team and no one believed me back then.

If Zibby is a Buffalo fan it explains some of his anger towards Temple. I just thought he needed a hug.

Buffalo could be a possible candidate for expansion somewhere down the road. If we decided to go to a PAC 10 like scenario with travel partners a future BE could look like this:

Pitt-WVU
UL-Cinci
Cuse-Buffalo
UConn-BC
USF-UCF
Temple-Rutgers

(11-27-2009 03:11 PM)KnightChris Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 03:08 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Buffalo could be a possible candidate for expansion somewhere down the road.

Syracuse wouldn't want Buffalo in the Big East, and we still wield enough power in this conference that we could easily get the votes to block it.

Although I agree with you at present, the raid has convinced me to never say never. I didn't think we would ever see UL, Cinci, or USF in the BE, but here they are.

I would imagine WVU would back Syracuse in blocking Buffalo...

Chris, you were right. The Buffalo-Temple game was in Philly. Boy does my memory suck...

Kent State lost so that leaves Temple with ZERO wins against MAC teams with winning records.

Here's what I'm bitter about: The way the MAC schedules conference games makes no farking sense whatsoever.

Temple and Buffalo only played four common opponents. They each went 3-1 against those teams. The other three teams UB played had a combined record of 19-5 and UB lost all three. The other three teams Temple played had a combined record of 5-19 and Temple won all three. If you switch those, UB goes 3-0 easily and Temple goes 1-2 at best. With that switch, UB finishes 8-4 and goes to a bowl. Temple finishes 7-5 and fourth place in the East and nobody on here wastes any time talking about them.

And as I said, the way the MAC schedules conference games makes no farking sense whatsoever. UB played a tough conference schedule last year and should have played an easier schedule this year. UB played Central Michigan (10-2 this year) two years in a row while Temple played Eastern Michigan (0-12 this year) two years in a row.

(11-27-2009 04:39 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I would imagine WVU would back Syracuse in blocking Buffalo...

Chris, you were right. The Buffalo-Temple game was in Philly. Boy does my memory suck...

have you ever been to Buffalo. I have. Syracuse snow is bad. Buffalo snow is legendary with all that moisture coming off the lakes. Any recruit who want to play in Buff can go. Syr would not block Buff. If you can live in Buff, you're too tuff for Syr. ow

BUff does support a major TV market but Philly is better.

Buff is in Canada. Syr wouldn't block them for recruiting reasons. But I think we would lean towards Philly if the conference split.

What the Hell are you talking about? Everyone who lives in Upstate NY knows Syracuse gets more snow than Buffalo.

(11-27-2009 06:12 PM)zibby Wrote:  What the Hell are you talking about? Everyone who lives in Upstate NY knows Syracuse gets more snow than Buffalo.

Yes, absolutely. Its not even close.

(11-27-2009 02:35 PM)animus Wrote:  Kind've lame to attack Temple for a loss here. If you don't see Temple improving every year then your an idiot. They're still bowl eligible and could still win 10 games this year. Who would've seen this 3 years ago?

Exactly, no one is saying Temple is ready to make the jump tomorrow, not even Temple fans. What those of us who want to see the Owls succeed and rejoin their old rivals, which includes Cincy, are saying is that in a few years they can very likely be ready to rejoin us where they belong. Its no secret that many of us would like to stop the bleeding in Eastern Football, bringing Temple and BC back into the fold would be a nice start.

(11-27-2009 04:39 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I would imagine WVU would back Syracuse in blocking Buffalo...

Chris, you were right. The Buffalo-Temple game was in Philly. Boy does my memory suck...

Considering the way Buffalo screwed us with backing out of our series for more payday games, I'd be shocked if Rutgers also didn't back Syracuse on that. In fact one of the reasons we had a second 1-AA game was because of Buffalo, not the primary reason surely, but one of them.

(11-27-2009 07:36 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 06:12 PM)zibby Wrote:  What the Hell are you talking about? Everyone who lives in Upstate NY knows Syracuse gets more snow than Buffalo.

Yes, absolutely. Its not even close.

Which side of syracuse? The northern or southern suburbs?

(11-27-2009 09:56 PM)brista21 Wrote:  Considering the way Buffalo screwed us with backing out of our series for more payday games

What are you talking about? UB did not back out of a game with Rutgers. A game was pushed back one year so UB could play a payday game, but no games were canceled.