(10-26-2015 11:22 PM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 10:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 10:03 PM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 08:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  What does the ACC need with another basketball focused, football weak, small fanbased college in a pro town who rents a pro stadium they can't fill without bringing in a more popular local team? What does Temple bring to the table and how does it benefit the ACC to add them?

How about Newberry to the ACC?

We'll discuss that when somebody besides a butthurt Temple fan brings it up.


One plus Newberry does have that Temple doesn't is they have never been kicked out of a conference for non-performance. Well that and the fact they haven't recently dumped multiple athletics programs in a money saving move.

Keep telling yourself Temple won't be a candidate for the ACC (especially if the ACC creates a network). Maybe you should check with your so called "strong family connections at Clemson" to confirm if I know what I am talking about or not.

And as a proud graduate of Newberry, make sure to get your new Clemson t-shirt this weekend at Walmart.

Temple doesn't add anything to the ACC for a Network. Pitt brings the whole state in at the in-state rate. UConn would be a better choice if we had a network.

No more expansion for the ACC.
You guy's have enough teams good lord.

(10-26-2015 10:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Temple has potential but is a long way from being an ACC team. IMO this is what they would need to do:
- maintain 40K+ avg home football attendance for a few years.
- demonstrate some quality in at least one other sport, preferably men's basketball
- Ideally they would also improve their academic ranking, but it's not bad as-is

For now I'd have to classify Temple as "not ready for P5"

1. Maintain 40k attendance? How many G5 do that? Seriously. UC doesn't and they're the preferred choice for many on the board. The only G5 school I think does that is ECU and they have zero chance of admission due to NC oversaturation. The ACC is full of weak-attendance schools: Miami, GT, BC, Cuse, Pitt, Wake, Duke, UVA, but Temple takes the hit? Temple would be right there with those 8 if they were in the ACC.

2. Demonstrate basketball quality? Um, they've done that. They're arguably already better than half the ACC in basketball.

3. Temple is #115 in the US News. Wasn't NC State around there just a few years ago? And that's substantially higher than Louisville's #168.

Temple is one of the best G5 options out there. They're not on the level of ND, Texas, OU or Penn State, but none of those schools are ever going to join the ACC*. But I'm not advocating expansion.

(10-27-2015 12:45 AM)grapes Wrote:  No more expansion for the ACC.
You guy's have enough teams good lord.

Well You Blew that.......I was going to recommend Memphis !

(10-27-2015 12:25 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 11:22 PM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 10:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 10:03 PM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 08:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  What does the ACC need with another basketball focused, football weak, small fanbased college in a pro town who rents a pro stadium they can't fill without bringing in a more popular local team? What does Temple bring to the table and how does it benefit the ACC to add them?

How about Newberry to the ACC?

We'll discuss that when somebody besides a butthurt Temple fan brings it up.


One plus Newberry does have that Temple doesn't is they have never been kicked out of a conference for non-performance. Well that and the fact they haven't recently dumped multiple athletics programs in a money saving move.

Keep telling yourself Temple won't be a candidate for the ACC (especially if the ACC creates a network). Maybe you should check with your so called "strong family connections at Clemson" to confirm if I know what I am talking about or not.

And as a proud graduate of Newberry, make sure to get your new Clemson t-shirt this weekend at Walmart.

Temple doesn't add anything to the ACC for a Network. Pitt brings the whole state in at the in-state rate. UConn would be a better choice if we had a network.

Pitt does not bring the ACC network to the Philadelphia market.

Adding Temple at this point would be like adding a Wake Forest. ACC needs stronger football. Now if we had 6 teams consistently in the top 25 every week, a Temple add might make sense for TV purposes.

(10-27-2015 08:33 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Adding Temple at this point would be like adding a Wake Forest. ACC needs stronger football. Now if we had 6 teams consistently in the top 25 every week, a Temple add might make sense for TV purposes.

That is funny coming from a UNC fan. Again, be thankful you have maybe the greatest basketball program in history.

I was just thinking....let's add more schools that don't add revenue to the pot....the ACC doesn't have enough of those.

This board kills me. I honestly can't tell when it is serious or joking sometimes.

(10-27-2015 08:36 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 08:33 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Adding Temple at this point would be like adding a Wake Forest. ACC needs stronger football. Now if we had 6 teams consistently in the top 25 every week, a Temple add might make sense for TV purposes.

That is funny coming from a UNC fan. Again, be thankful you have maybe the greatest basketball program in history.

50,000 Kentucky Fans just messed their drawers !

(10-27-2015 08:36 AM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 08:33 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Adding Temple at this point would be like adding a Wake Forest. ACC needs stronger football. Now if we had 6 teams consistently in the top 25 every week, a Temple add might make sense for TV purposes.

That is funny coming from a UNC fan. Again, be thankful you have maybe the greatest basketball program in history.

Our football and basketball and pretty much everything else is better than yours. You have one good year and act like you're the best thing since sliced bread. Please.

There is one thing Wake Forest brings to the ACC. Their fans don't embarrass us.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. Some schools help the conference by being consistent winners. Others help by being consistent losers. There isn't any P5 conference, with the possible exception of the PAC, that doesn't have a consistent loser in football.

As for the ACC having six teams in the top 25 every year, who does that now besides the SEC? Four is a much more realistic expectation, with an occasional five teams. Until they figure out a way to have 30 teams in the top 25, six is a fantasy.

I realize that some folks here think of being the fifth best P5 conference as meaning we are at the bottom of the heap. I prefer to think of it that we are the fifth best conference out of ten, not out of five (and some years we move up a notch). If that's not good enough for some of our members, that's their problem, not the ACC's. They know where the door is.

(10-26-2015 11:22 PM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 10:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 10:03 PM)malenko2 Wrote:  

(10-26-2015 08:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  What does the ACC need with another basketball focused, football weak, small fanbased college in a pro town who rents a pro stadium they can't fill without bringing in a more popular local team? What does Temple bring to the table and how does it benefit the ACC to add them?

How about Newberry to the ACC?

We'll discuss that when somebody besides a butthurt Temple fan brings it up.


One plus Newberry does have that Temple doesn't is they have never been kicked out of a conference for non-performance. Well that and the fact they haven't recently dumped multiple athletics programs in a money saving move.

Keep telling yourself Temple won't be a candidate for the ACC (especially if the ACC creates a network). Maybe you should check with your so called "strong family connections at Clemson" to confirm if I know what I am talking about or not.

And as a proud graduate of Newberry, make sure to get your new Clemson t-shirt this weekend at Walmart.

Please read the link below:

AAC Fans

(10-27-2015 09:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  There is one thing Wake Forest brings to the ACC. Their fans don't embarrass us.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again. Some schools help the conference by being consistent winners. Others help by being consistent losers. There isn't any P5 conference, with the possible exception of the PAC, that doesn't have a consistent loser in football.

As for the ACC having six teams in the top 25 every year, who does that now besides the SEC? Four is a much more realistic expectation, with an occasional five teams. Until they figure out a way to have 30 teams in the top 25, six is a fantasy.

I realize that some folks here think of being the fifth best P5 conference as meaning we are at the bottom of the heap. I prefer to think of it that we are the fifth best conference out of ten, not out of five (and some years we move up a notch). If that's not good enough for some of our members, that's their problem, not the ACC's. They know where the door is.

I think 6 is very realistic. Look at right now. 4 are ranked. UNC is right on the outside looking in. The only reason why we are not ranked is because there are 4 ranked G5 teams that haven't lost yet. That would make 5 ACC teams. Consider that none of those teams are Miami, VT, GT, or Louisville. Now you might not be able to keep 6 in at all times but there should be 6 always in or hovering around the top 25.

I just looked at the AP Top 25 and others receiving votes. Big 10, Pac 12, and SEC have at least 6 teams in the mix. ACC has 5. Big 12 has 4.

(10-27-2015 09:33 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 09:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  As for the ACC having six teams in the top 25 every year, who does that now besides the SEC? Four is a much more realistic expectation, with an occasional five teams. Until they figure out a way to have 30 teams in the top 25, six is a fantasy.

I think 6 is very realistic. Look at right now. 4 are ranked. UNC is right on the outside looking in. The only reason why we are not ranked is because there are 4 ranked G5 teams that haven't lost yet. That would make 5 ACC teams. Consider that none of those teams are Miami, VT, GT, or Louisville. Now you might not be able to keep 6 in at all times but there should be 6 always in or hovering around the top 25.

There are 5 "P5" conferences (duh!), so a realistic goal for top 25 teams is
25 / 5 conferences = 5 teams

If you want to weight it for the size of the conferences, then
25 * 14/65 = 5.4 teams

same for the SEC and Big Ten; Pac-12 goal would be 4.6 teams; Big XII goal would be 3.8 teams.
(NOTE: I'm counting Notre Dame as a P5 team, hence 65)

(10-27-2015 10:00 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 09:33 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 09:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  As for the ACC having six teams in the top 25 every year, who does that now besides the SEC? Four is a much more realistic expectation, with an occasional five teams. Until they figure out a way to have 30 teams in the top 25, six is a fantasy.

I think 6 is very realistic. Look at right now. 4 are ranked. UNC is right on the outside looking in. The only reason why we are not ranked is because there are 4 ranked G5 teams that haven't lost yet. That would make 5 ACC teams. Consider that none of those teams are Miami, VT, GT, or Louisville. Now you might not be able to keep 6 in at all times but there should be 6 always in or hovering around the top 25.

There are 5 "P5" conferences (duh!), so a realistic goal for top 25 teams is
25 / 5 = 5

Not all P5 conferences are equal in numbers. SEC, BIG, and ACC have 14 teams. Big 12 only has 10. I wouldn't expect the Big 12 to consistently have 5 teams. That's half the conference. So I thought it was reasonable for the Big 12 to have 4, the Pac 12 -5, and the others - 6.

And I was also including...others receiving votes.

(10-27-2015 09:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  I realize that some folks here think of being the fifth best P5 conference as meaning we are at the bottom of the heap. I prefer to think of it that we are the fifth best conference out of ten, not out of five (and some years we move up a notch). If that's not good enough for some of our members, that's their problem, not the ACC's. They know where the door is.

There are five conferences that matter and we are fifth out of those five.

(10-27-2015 11:08 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 09:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  I realize that some folks here think of being the fifth best P5 conference as meaning we are at the bottom of the heap. I prefer to think of it that we are the fifth best conference out of ten, not out of five (and some years we move up a notch). If that's not good enough for some of our members, that's their problem, not the ACC's. They know where the door is.

There are five conferences that matter and we are fifth out of those five.

For now, That could change with every recruiting class and Coach. Better times are ahead. Go Clemson !!!!!!!

(10-26-2015 08:50 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  Temple anyone?

No.

Temple doesn't add anything significant.

(10-27-2015 11:25 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 11:08 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(10-27-2015 09:27 AM)ken d Wrote:  I realize that some folks here think of being the fifth best P5 conference as meaning we are at the bottom of the heap. I prefer to think of it that we are the fifth best conference out of ten, not out of five (and some years we move up a notch). If that's not good enough for some of our members, that's their problem, not the ACC's. They know where the door is.

There are five conferences that matter and we are fifth out of those five.

For now, That could change with every recruiting class and Coach. Better times are ahead. Go Clemson !!!!!!!

Been hearing that as much as I've been hearing "The ACC Network is coming!!!!" and both have yet to materialize.

But it makes for a nice picture