Rutger's IMO was not needed.
"You start a conversation you can't even finish it
You're talkin' a lot, but you're not sayin' anything
When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed
Say something once, why say it again?"
- David Byrne
Neither Temple nor Villanova bring enough. Philly is an Eagles town and in terms of college football teams, Penn State is decidedly above both of them. If I had to pick between the two, I'd take Villanova. But there are several schools (including UConn and Cincy) that I'd take before either of them.
And with respect to UCF and USF, I'd stay away from them too. I'm not really into adding teams in states we are already in unless they bring big time football cache within that state or nationally.
I think the ACC piecemeal, incremental expansion has caused the conference to be less than it could have been. It would have been great to have Rutgers and have held on to Maryland. They should have just did it all at once and gotten into PA, NJ, NY, CT, and MA. And if you want to throw KY, OH, and/or WV there, then fine. It's a shame the conference didn't have a unified vision back in 2003 to do it right.
Private school protectionism got the ACC into this situation and that's why Rutgers isn't an ACC member. Thank you Wake and Duke for shortsighted thinking.
UConn is not AAU, but Kansas is AAU. So that will be a turnoff to the Big Ten regarding UConn, but I still worry. I'm somewhat in favor of taking them and locking down that quadrant of the geography for the ACC. Temple and Cincinnati aren't vulnerable to be lost as options because of other Big Ten presence in their states, but Connecticut is.