28 October 2009, 12:46 am
Everyone's saying that the conference needs a 12th team so that there can be a championship game (sure doesn't make the ACC relavent, but whatever). However, I would like to see another team added to the Big Ten. Before scoffing, laughing, and guffawing at my idea, please think it over, and think about the team I'm thinking of. That team is Temple. I know your knee-jerk reaction is to laugh that off with a "Temple? Are you serious? They suck". But the point is, no, they do not suck. They USED TO suck. Look at how much Al Golden has transformed this long moribound program who had been irrelavent since the 1950s, despite a short resurgance in the late 70s/early 80s. Let's compare Al Golden's Owls teams. 2006: 1-11, absolutely dreadful team. They show up in Happy Valley just hoping not to be humiliated and lose 47-0 (and it wasn't that close), despite Penn State's offensive weaknesses that year. Would have been a below-par I-AA team that year, believe it or not. 2007: 4-8, marked improvement but still awful. Penn State comes to their house but Temple still rolls over for Penn State pretty much, losing 31-0 despite Penn State's struggles that year. Won three MAC games, but lost 42-7 to Buffalo. However, shows signs of life this year. 2008: 5-7, much better than their record, huge improvement, lost many close games, Temple puts up a fight but still loses 45-3 to one of the best Penn State teams in recent memory. Lost on a last second Hail Mary to Buffalo, but did paste Army 35-7. Biggest change is that Temple plays like a program that can win, not as a program trying not to lose. 2009: 5-2 right now, way better than last year. Finally able to finish off opponents (except Villanova), loses 31-6 to a good Penn State team but for the first time, plays like they want to pull an upset, not just avoid humiliation. Notable wins include a 37-13 pasting of Buffalo, a not as close as the score 24-19 win over Ball State where BSU scored on the game's final play, a 40-24 win over a decent Toledo team, and Temple right now is 4-0 and undefeated in the MAC. Also, before you laugh off the idea, think about this. Cincinatti, the top team in the Big East right now, joined the conference in 2005 after years of being a low level team, and had just emerged from Conference USA. UConn was actually a I-AA team before joining the Big East. Temple is still a Pennsylvania school, retaining the original geography of the conference, but a team from Eastern Pennsylvania, while Penn State is from west-central PA, and to be honest, western PA, including State College, is culturally midwestern. Temple is the truest east coast team that could be added (they even call their offense the East Coast Offense, which is a variation on the West Coast Offense), increasing the Big Ten market to New England, New York, and New Jersey. And don't forget that with a Big Ten budget, Temple could recruit more blue chip players. You see what Al Golden is doing with what he has. Imagine if he had a team of mostly three and four star recruits, with a few blue chippers and a few two-star recruits. Villanova wouldn't work because even though I forsee them becoming an FBS team soon enough, they'll probably join the MAC or Big East, and they already are a Big East basketball team. Why would they switch to the Big Ten when they can enjoy being in an all basketball conference? Temple doesn't have that problem, being in the MAC in football and in the Atlantic Ten in basketball and all other sports (Penn State was also in the Atlantic Ten in most sports for much of their run as a football independant. Contrary to popular belief, Penn State was NEVER in the Big East, although they did try to join and were denied). Geography-wise, a game to Temple wouldn't be much more travel overall than if Nebraska, Missouri, or some other Big XII team joined, and would be better than adding Syracuse or Pitt, teams who are content with being in the Big East (especially Syracuse, a basketball school). Temple wouldn't have much problem moving into the Big Ten, although the first couple years may be bumpy. But then again, Cincinatti, UConn, and South Florida has a great early start in the conference. Cincy and USF went 7-5 each in their inagural year in 2005, and would have done even better if not for playing Penn State. But really, I doubt a trip to Philly to play a game in the Linc would be much worse for Iowa and Minnesota than a game at Beaver Stadium. Before you post a knee-jerk mocking response, actually think about the logic behind this. Also, we can't deny Penn State's history with the Owls, the two teams have played each other on and off since 1931, mostly on since 1975. Although Penn State hasn't lost to Temple since 1941, both teams still love this series. Explain to me why this is a bad idea rather than writing a snarky remark, otherwise this constitutes a non-answer. Bah! If there isn't a decent answer by 8 AM, I'm deleting this. The Buckeyes have become the USC of the Big Ten? Why is it that they've only won the conference outright two of the past four years, and both years they shared they had lost the head to head? I'd say Penn State is more the USC in the Big Ten in that they usually lose to inferior teams. Daniel: That's the problem with you kids today, the attention span of a goldfish. If it isn't bright flashy pictures, you don't want to read more than twenty words. Sorry that I like to have information to back up my opinion and I don't type out five word questions in all lowercase letters like seems to be in vogue today.... Read More »
Share on del.icio.us
Share on digg
Share on Technorati
Share on reddit
Share on Yahoo!
Share on Furl
