(02-27-2014 01:50 PM)mlb Wrote:  Temple sucks.

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div...teamid=698

(02-25-2014 11:26 AM)mlb Wrote:  And you guys wonder why UC and UConn want out?

Actually, nobody "wonders why" you (or anyone) wants to be in a P5 conference. There's never been any mystery about that at all.

Just WOW.

(02-27-2014 02:58 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(02-27-2014 01:50 PM)mlb Wrote:  Temple sucks.

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div...teamid=698

UC is 14-6 in basketball against Temple, has won the last 4 meetings in football, and has certainly become a respectable program while Temple has continued to show their ineptness. UC decided in the late 1990's that they were going to get serious about building a football program and they've done that. Temple had years of the backing of the Big East and did nothing and got kicked out due to it. The moment UC walked into the Big East the football program took off thanks to the institutional support.

So, yes... all things considered, my original statement still stands.

(02-27-2014 04:34 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-27-2014 02:58 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(02-27-2014 01:50 PM)mlb Wrote:  Temple sucks.

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div...teamid=698

UC is 14-6 in basketball against Temple, has won the last 4 meetings in football, and has certainly become a respectable program while Temple has continued to show their ineptness. UC decided in the late 1990's that they were going to get serious about building a football program and they've done that. Temple had years of the backing of the Big East and did nothing and got kicked out due to it. The moment UC walked into the Big East the football program took off thanks to the institutional support.

So, yes... all things considered, my original statement still stands.

You were a full member of the BE. We were not. Congratulations. UC decided in the late 90s to get serious about football. Temple got serious about football in like 2005. We're not exactly working on the same timeline.

(02-27-2014 05:12 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(02-27-2014 04:34 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-27-2014 02:58 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(02-27-2014 01:50 PM)mlb Wrote:  Temple sucks.

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div...teamid=698

UC is 14-6 in basketball against Temple, has won the last 4 meetings in football, and has certainly become a respectable program while Temple has continued to show their ineptness. UC decided in the late 1990's that they were going to get serious about building a football program and they've done that. Temple had years of the backing of the Big East and did nothing and got kicked out due to it. The moment UC walked into the Big East the football program took off thanks to the institutional support.

So, yes... all things considered, my original statement still stands.

You were a full member of the BE. We were not. Congratulations. UC decided in the late 90s to get serious about football. Temple got serious about football in like 2005. We're not exactly working on the same timeline.

Temple was pretty solid back in the 70s when a number of these wins occurred. The Owls had a couple years during that time where they only had 1-2 loss seasons. The 70s and 80s were the lowpoint in UC football history. The university didn't take the program seriously. UC actually was pretty strong in the 40s and 50s and had a couple decent tean in the sixties but by the 70s there were discussions about moving down to I-AA (now FCS) status. By the 80s UC wouldn't have beaten Cincinnati Moeller High School. Our squads were so bad your meidocre 80's teams still took us to the woodshed.

In 2006 UC football was reborn. We are a different club now. Those past numbers are not indicative of anything.

(02-27-2014 05:50 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-27-2014 05:12 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(02-27-2014 04:34 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(02-27-2014 02:58 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(02-27-2014 01:50 PM)mlb Wrote:  Temple sucks.

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div...teamid=698

UC is 14-6 in basketball against Temple, has won the last 4 meetings in football, and has certainly become a respectable program while Temple has continued to show their ineptness. UC decided in the late 1990's that they were going to get serious about building a football program and they've done that. Temple had years of the backing of the Big East and did nothing and got kicked out due to it. The moment UC walked into the Big East the football program took off thanks to the institutional support.

So, yes... all things considered, my original statement still stands.

You were a full member of the BE. We were not. Congratulations. UC decided in the late 90s to get serious about football. Temple got serious about football in like 2005. We're not exactly working on the same timeline.

Temple was pretty solid back in the 70s when a number of these wins occurred. The Owls had a couple years during that time where they only had 1-2 loss seasons. The 70s and 80s were the lowpoint in UC football history. The university didn't take the program seriously. UC actually was pretty strong in the 40s and 50s and had a couple decent tean in the sixties but by the 70s there were discussions about moving down to I-AA (now FCS) status. By the 80s UC wouldn't have beaten Cincinnati Moeller High School. Our squads were so bad your meidocre 80's teams still took us to the woodshed.

In 2006 UC football was reborn. We are a different club now. Those past numbers are not indicative of anything.

That's the point I was making is that we were good and bad at different points.