Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 51
  1. #11
    Old Line Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    3659′36″N 7813′30″W
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    Would you put the MWC on par with the ACC or C-USA? I ask that because a lot people seem to think that Army and Navy should remain Independent in football because of their "military requirements." However, I have noticed that Air Force is seldom included in the discussion (maybe even forgotten) and they have the same "military requirements." If Army and Navy should remain Independent, then why should or shouldn't Air Force become an Independent too?
    I think Air Force is in the MWC because it is geographically convenient for them. Being an Independent could be expensive and time consuming as far as travel is concerned. As for their standings in the 9 sponsored MWC sports, they finished last is 3, near or next to last in 3, and below or middle of the pack in 3 others. They aren't that competitive even in the MWC. Air Force has the same ranking academically as Richmond (#25) while Navy is #12 and Army #17 in the ranking of national liberal arts colleges. IMHO, I think all 3 military academies should be Independents in football and remain in their current athletic conferences for all other sports. I also think the 3 academies would be more competitive as lower FBS schools than being members of the Power 5 conferences. All 3 military academies could be football powers at the FCS level. Only Navy would have a legitimate chance of winning a lower FBS conference at this time. Army should be playing in the FCS based on their talent level. AFA was very competitive when Fisher DeBerry was their head coach.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Line Hokie View Post
    I think Air Force is in the MWC because it is geographically convenient for them. Being an Independent could be expensive and time consuming as far as travel is concerned. As for their standings in the 9 sponsored MWC sports, they finished last is 3, near or next to last in 3, and below or middle of the pack in 3 others. They aren't that competitive even in the MWC. Air Force has the same ranking academically as Richmond (#25) while Navy is #12 and Army #17 in the ranking of national liberal arts colleges. IMHO, I think all 3 military academies should be Independents in football and remain in their current athletic conferences for all other sports. I also think the 3 academies would be more competitive as lower FBS schools than being members of the Power 5 conferences. All 3 military academies could be football powers at the FCS level. Only Navy would have a legitimate chance of winning a lower FBS conference at this time. Army should be playing in the FCS based on their talent level. AFA was very competitive when Fisher DeBerry was their head coach.
    If Air Force is looking for a home for their other sports, then there is the WAC, Big SKy, or Summit League as a possible home. I don't have a problem if the academies remain in the lower FBS subdivision, but I am not sure DoD will see it that way. FCS is out of the question because the Army-Navy Game would conflict with the FCS playoff schedule (quarterfinals this past weekend). If they want to participate in the playoffs, then their final regular season game would have to be played on the week of November 23. If they don't want to participate in the FCS Playoffs (a la SWAC), then they could keep the game on its current date. Something else to consider is that a FBS Power 5 school may not schedule games against them and definitely not play "away" game against them. If that happens, then it would have an impact on the Navy-Notre Dame rivalry (FYI Notre Dame has already said that is a must OOC game). The Air Force-Colorado St rivalry and Air Force-Hawaii rivalry would also be impacted if the schools dropped to FCS.

  3. #13
    Old Line Hokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 05, 2001
    Location
    3659′36″N 7813′30″W
    Posts
    3,481
    Quote Originally Posted by VTHokie2000 View Post
    If Air Force is looking for a home for their other sports, then there is the WAC, Big SKy, or Summit League as a possible home. I don't have a problem if the academies remain in the lower FBS subdivision, but I am not sure DoD will see it that way. FCS is out of the question because the Army-Navy Game would conflict with the FCS playoff schedule (quarterfinals this past weekend). If they want to participate in the playoffs, then their final regular season game would have to be played on the week of November 23. If they don't want to participate in the FCS Playoffs (a la SWAC), then they could keep the game on its current date. Something else to consider is that a FBS Power 5 school may not schedule games against them and definitely not play "away" game against them. If that happens, then it would have an impact on the Navy-Notre Dame rivalry (FYI Notre Dame has already said that is a must OOC game). The Air Force-Colorado St rivalry and Air Force-Hawaii rivalry would also be impacted if the schools dropped to FCS.
    Some good points made. The only way the academies can compete with the Power 5 teams and top lower FBS conference teams (Boise State, UCF, BYU, ....) is to allow larger athletes and drop the 5 year military commitment after graduation. That would help recruiting. Let's be honest, most top tier high school football and basketball players don't want the added responsibilities (early morning drills, weekend drills, strict disciplined living, and summer military obligations) and the possibility of going to battle after graduation. Maybe the military academies can allow football and basketball players to spend their 5 years as civilian recruitment officers or as recruitment officers in the NFL/NBA (if they make it to the pros---would be good PR for the armed forces)? That, however, wouldn't be fair to the non-athletes who attend the academies. Army (USMA) has a tougher job recruiting than both the USNA and USAFA because their players have a better chance of seeing combat. Marines from the USNA also face the same situation as the Army players. That's why Navy has had their way with Army for over a decade now (since 9/11). In short, it takes a special young man or woman to sign up 9 years of their lives with the military academies and armed forces. I just don't see anything changing anytime soon.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Old Line Hokie View Post
    Some good points made. The only way the academies can compete with the Power 5 teams and top lower FBS conference teams (Boise State, UCF, BYU, ....) is to allow larger athletes and drop the 5 year military commitment after graduation. That would help recruiting. Let's be honest, most top tier high school football and basketball players don't want the added responsibilities (early morning drills, weekend drills, strict disciplined living, and summer military obligations) and the possibility of going to battle after graduation. Maybe the military academies can allow football and basketball players to spend their 5 years as civilian recruitment officers or as recruitment officers in the NFL/NBA (if they make it to the pros---would be good PR for the armed forces)? That, however, wouldn't be fair to the non-athletes who attend the academies. Army (USMA) has a tougher job recruiting than both the USNA and USAFA because their players have a better chance of seeing combat. Marines from the USNA also face the same situation as the Army players. That's why Navy has had their way with Army for over a decade now (since 9/11). In short, it takes a special young man or woman to sign up 9 years of their lives with the military academies and armed forces. I just don't see anything changing anytime soon.
    I don't disagree that the academies can compete against the Power 5 in terms of recruiting unless they happen to find a diamond in the rough (i.e. David Robinson). Also, I agree it is probably not "fair" to the non-athlete cadets if the athletic cadets, who end up in a professional league after graduation, are given special treatment. Also, it would open up the door for any cadet to just say he/she is turning pro (i.e. Poker or pick your favorite sport) just to get out of the 5 year commitment. Although I have no problem if the military makes exceptions in a few special cases because it is a good PR move. Something that could end up shaping the future of the academies is how the military uses drone/unmanned technology going forward. I have seen multiple discussion groups on TV say that if the technology continues to progress, then it could come a day where machines replace human soldiers. While the machines are off fighting in some conflict on foreign soil, the humans would be controling them from some military base on US soil (similar to how the Air Force currently controls its drones from a base in Nevada). I am not suggesting it will happen overnight or during my lifetime. If it did ever become a reality, then that would force the military to rethink the purpose of the various academies and their roles in the military structure. It may even open up the door for more top athletes to consider attending an academy and fulfill their commitment (either during their professional days or post professional days).

  5. #15

    Join Date
    February 16, 2001
    Posts
    14,845
    Quote Originally Posted by laphroaig View Post
    It's not just you. Me too!
    First Army would struggle in the ACC. I get it, but I still think if Army can get the right coach they can win more than they lose and got to bowl games. Only a few teams in the SEC, B1G 10 or PAC have the ability to win the conference every year. That doesn't mean you don't want them in the conference. The natural rivalries these teams created makes for fun football. In addition, the rumors are Jim Grobe might be their next coach. Jim coached at the Air Force Academy and was quite an under dog at Wake. There aren't many that could do what he did at Wake,,,even if the Wake Boosters/Administration thinks so. I think he can turn Army into a bowl team and I hope he gets the job.

    Second of all Navy could compete in football with most of the ACC. They are 8-4 again and going to a bowl again and have been playing toe to toe with ND for years now. So this stuff about Navy not being able to compete in the ACC is just not accurate. Will they win the conference a lot no, but they will create some entertaining games like GT does. Add all the other things these two institutions bring and I think the positives far out weigh the negatives if we go to 20 teams and 4 divisions.

    Did I convince anybody?

  6. #16
    PadrosWindup's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 16, 2003
    Posts
    5,013
    Stech, as a regular on this board, you know that conference realignment has been about increasing revenue. Explain how adding Army and Navy will increase revenue for ACC schools, or would provide a larger revenue increase than the usual 2nd tier Big XII and AAC suspects - Kansas, Kstate, WVU, UCinn, UConn, USF, UCF, Temple or anyone else. Army and Navy aren't on the level of 'get' that ND, Ok, Texas are on, so I think we can agree that they aren't primary expansion targets. But as filler to get to 20, how are they the best option to maximize revenue?


    Quote Originally Posted by Stech View Post
    First Army would struggle in the ACC. I get it, but I still think if Army can get the right coach they can win more than they lose and got to bowl games. Only a few teams in the SEC, B1G 10 or PAC have the ability to win the conference every year. That doesn't mean you don't want them in the conference. The natural rivalries these teams created makes for fun football. In addition, the rumors are Jim Grobe might be their next coach. Jim coached at the Air Force Academy and was quite an under dog at Wake. There aren't many that could do what he did at Wake,,,even if the Wake Boosters/Administration thinks so. I think he can turn Army into a bowl team and I hope he gets the job.

    Second of all Navy could compete in football with most of the ACC. They are 8-4 again and going to a bowl again and have been playing toe to toe with ND for years now. So this stuff about Navy not being able to compete in the ACC is just not accurate. Will they win the conference a lot no, but they will create some entertaining games like GT does. Add all the other things these two institutions bring and I think the positives far out weigh the negatives if we go to 20 teams and 4 divisions.

    Did I convince anybody?
    BCS level college football is a resource war, not a morality play.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    February 16, 2001
    Posts
    14,845
    Quote Originally Posted by PadrosWindup View Post
    Stech, as a regular on this board, you know that conference realignment has been about increasing revenue. Explain how adding Army and Navy will increase revenue for ACC schools, or would provide a larger revenue increase than the usual 2nd tier Big XII and AAC suspects - Kansas, Kstate, WVU, UCinn, UConn, USF, UCF, Temple or anyone else. Army and Navy aren't on the level of 'get' that ND, Ok, Texas are on, so I think we can agree that they aren't primary expansion targets. But as filler to get to 20, how are they the best option to maximize revenue?
    Great question. The Army Navy game Saturday pulled a 4.29 TV rating which is roughly 7 million viewers. Compare that to LSU/Arkansas drew a 3.1 and 5.0 million viewers, Nebraska/Iowa game drew a 2.5 and 4.0 million, Georgia/Georgia Tech game drew a 2.2 and 3.5 million viewers, UCLA/USC “Saturday Night Football” game drew a 2.1 and 3.5 million. That game alone is double some of the best rivalry games in college football.

    I really think that people forget how many people who served in the Army and Navy who not only watch that game, but follow them all year. They have a following that is similar in nature to Notre Dame and their Catholic following. It is also not just state side either, the Armed Forces channels over seas carry them and get a draw too. Don't get me wrong I want Texas and Oklahoma too, but I think they would bring an incredible value to the image of the ACC in many different ways.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    January 01, 2005
    Location
    Blacksburg
    Posts
    4,404
    Quote Originally Posted by Stech View Post
    Great question. The Army Navy game Saturday pulled a 4.29 TV rating which is roughly 7 million viewers. Compare that to LSU/Arkansas drew a 3.1 and 5.0 million viewers, Nebraska/Iowa game drew a 2.5 and 4.0 million, Georgia/Georgia Tech game drew a 2.2 and 3.5 million viewers, UCLA/USC “Saturday Night Football” game drew a 2.1 and 3.5 million. That game alone is double some of the best rivalry games in college football.

    I really think that people forget how many people who served in the Army and Navy who not only watch that game, but follow them all year. They have a following that is similar in nature to Notre Dame and their Catholic following. It is also not just state side either, the Armed Forces channels over seas carry them and get a draw too. Don't get me wrong I want Texas and Oklahoma too, but I think they would bring an incredible value to the image of the ACC in many different ways.
    You convinced me with your previous post.
    Both academies fit geographically. Pretty easy (cheap) travel for visiting teams. I believe there would be plenty of visitor fans who would take the opportunity to visit the academies when their team plays there. I don't know if other ACC members have ties to the military like VT but how great would it be to see Navy & Army in Lane. If quality of football is a reason to keep them out of the ACC, then UVa, Wake, and Duke (even with their 2013 once-in-a-blue-moon record) should be expelled.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    February 16, 2001
    Posts
    14,845
    Quote Originally Posted by laphroaig View Post
    You convinced me with your previous post.
    Both academies fit geographically. Pretty easy (cheap) travel for visiting teams. I believe there would be plenty of visitor fans who would take the opportunity to visit the academies when their team plays there. I don't know if other ACC members have ties to the military like VT but how great would it be to see Navy & Army in Lane. If quality of football is a reason to keep them out of the ACC, then UVa, Wake, and Duke (even with their 2013 once-in-a-blue-moon record) should be expelled.
    Thanks, I know you did, but we seem to be in the minority so far on this board. Some things I heard over 10 years ago when the ACC was expanding. Notre Dame would end up in the ACC, but probably the last one to enter it due to boosters. The military academies would be included due to their long history of being in the top tier of college football. Also at this time VT was not chosen to be going into the ACC, we were left out, but that we would eventually be in the ACC. In addition, expansion would be around 16 per conference, but could go bigger due to politics.

    Since then, VT joined the ACC. ND joined the ACC in all other sports and signed a 5 game agreement with the ACC and has been dropping B1G 10 football games. The ACC is at 14 plus 1. Army and Navy have been spending more and more money on football. I personally think the expansion has to be more inclusive than when this started. IMHO they have to go to 20 to keep the number (not all) of the politicians they need to pull this off.

    I will just throw you one other curve ball. I could see Navy to the ACC, Army to the BiG 10 and Air Force to the PAC. If the Army Navy game is OOC it might make it easier to have the Army Navy game after the conference championships like it is now. The only problem of course is that they would have a game after the conference championship if either ever got there...I know highly unlikely and at a minimum highly infrequent.
    Last edited by Stech; Thu Dec 19 2013 at 06:57 AM.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Stech View Post
    Thanks, I know you did, but we seem to be in the minority so far on this board. Some things I heard over 10 years ago when the ACC was expanding. Notre Dame would end up in the ACC, but probably the last one to enter it due to boosters. The military academies would be included due to their long history of being in the top tier of college football. Also at this time VT was not chosen to be going into the ACC, we were left out, but that we would eventually be in the ACC. In addition, expansion would be around 16 per conference, but could go bigger due to politics.

    Since then, VT joined the ACC. ND joined the ACC in all other sports and signed a 5 game agreement with the ACC and has been dropping B1G 10 football games. The ACC is at 14 plus 1. Army and Navy have been spending more and more money on football. I personally think the expansion has to be more inclusive than when this started. IMHO they have to go to 20 to keep the number (not all) of the politicians they need to pull this off.

    I will just throw you one other curve ball. I could see Navy to the ACC, Army to the BiG 10 and Air Force to the PAC. If the Army Navy game is OOC it might make it easier to have the Army Navy game after the conference championships like it is now. The only problem of course is that they would have a game after the conference championship if either ever got there...I know highly unlikely and at a minimum highly infrequent.
    One time I accidentially found in the NCAA bylaws (searching for something else at the time) that the NCAA does not allow a regular season game to be played after a CCG. So most likely that will force the Army-Navy game to be moved back to Thanksgiving weekend.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •