Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Btstimpy, post: 1062086, member: 2043"]
Temple would re-establish the ACC in the DC to NYC corridor where the Big Ten thinks they have blocked the ACC.  Temple would also help the ACC secure statewide presence in Pennsylvania by having both sides (Pittsburgh and Philadelphia) similar to how the ACC covers Florida with Miami and FSU.  We would want to see Temple make a strong commitment to football.  Something like building their own on campus stadium, which they have talked about, would go a long way.  The basketball is there already, and there are no concerns about Temple's commitment to basketball. 
 
Cincinnati would do something similar in Southern Ohio that Temple would do in South Eastern Pennsylvania and South Jersey.  I view the two choices, Cincinnati and Temple, as similar.  I personally would prefer Temple since we are the Atlantic seaboard conference and not the midwestern conference.  Cincinnati seems to be in the casual conversation about this more than Temple among ACC fans.  I don't quite know why people roll their eyes when I mention Temple. Being in Philly wouldn't be all that bad for the ACC IMO.  Now that Temple is in the AAC maybe they can work to improve their football visibility.
 
Then there is UConn.  UConn has the athletics department of sufficient size to hit the ground running in the ACC.  They have 22 sports that would fit right into the 25 sports that the ACC sponsors, and they would be very competitive in basketball right away.  UConn helps further make New York City ACC country by adding another tri-state school, and UConn would secure New England as ACC country. 
 
None of these choices are football powers.  They each offer market presence in their respective regions.  I'd probably go for UConn first because they secure a State and New England.   The other two though offer presence in good football recruiting areas.   I'd go Temple first, then Cincinnati.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?