(07-12-2014 10:20 AM)MJG Wrote:  

(06-24-2014 09:31 AM)Steve1981 Wrote:  As a UMass fan look at these announcements with interest. It seems a bit interesting that the FCS game would be announced in Sept, but that could probably be worked out as URI AD is a UMass guy and was an acting AD at UMass. There is another team that I've heard about, so the independent schedule is still alive.

"After opening the 2016 season at perennial national powerhouse Florida of the Southeastern Conference, UMass will host the Huskies (UConn) on Sept. 10, travel to Boston College on Sept. 17, then host Rhode Island on Sept. 24. Kickoff times will be announced at a later date." (So 2 out of 4 are old Yankee Conference foes.)
...
"UMass’ conference affiliation with the Mid-American Conference ends after 2015. It is currently searching for a new league, but athletic director John McCutcheon acknowledged earlier this month that the Minutemen could spend time as an independent if an opening wasn’t found in time. If UMass finds a conference for 2016, its nonconference slate is complete for that season. If not, then four of the 12 games have been filled."

http://www.gazettenet.com/sports/umasssp...nd-in-2016

PS On vacation in White Mountains with poor internet so please note could not use typical URL and quote tags.

Thought you guys will get a rise out of posting our former football conference name and we have never, except for a very short time the A10 took over the Yankee Conference, had basketball and football in the same conference.

Interesting that the Rode Island game is at Gillette .
Hard to figure why UMass did not add some cheap end zone seats to get to twenty thousand. maybe it is not as important as I think but being under twenty thousands seats has a stigma. I would think Umass could draw well against some local FCS schools in Amherst. One of those games a year plus two G5 teams. Maybe one North Easter P5 at Gillette a year.

I would hope NMSU and Idaho try to schedule you guys if independent. Idaho spent 27 million adding luxury suites and new press box . Most of the money went to safety upgrades. The football operations center we already had . MSU just spent forty million upgrading athletic facilities . Removing the track and replacing stands in football.

So three schools spent a combined 100 million and did not add any seats. Idaho actually lost seats because of the premium seating. Two of the three are FBS and one wants to be confusing. Idaho can host WSU if an expansion occurs . The WSU A.D. has stated such so plenty of incentive. UMass wants to play the majority of its games on campus.
MSU has great potential because of only one current in state FBS.
From a fans perspective it makes no sense maybe they no something we don't.

Thanks MJG for the hope in scheduling. Molnar was terrible at calling plays. If this guy sub in it was a running play, if that one it was a passing play, plus getting the plays in very late. Hopefully returning to be an assistant, he will be very good for you guys. Let us know.

Regarding URI there are two things. One Thor Borjn was a UMass Football player, assistant AD and acting AD before taking the job as AD at URI. So we have a strong connection there and URI is closer to Gillette. The other thing, 2016 is the last year of the Gillette contract and requires a certain number of games to be played there.

One other AD connection is Bob (Nascar) Marcum, who I hate for what he did to the basketball program. But he was AD while Mark Whipple was our Football Head Coach and sure that is why we were able to get Blake Frohnapfel. He should be our QB for the next two years.

Good luck to you all.

(06-13-2014 11:14 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 10:49 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I don't see the benefit of adding them at this point. If a team is needed to get to a championship game? Sure.

Otherwise, though... why? They won't help raise the profile of the conference.

I hear ya but at this point I am for adding them so we can stop talking about who's next and move on.

No, we do not want to continue to take programs that are weak, and play their strong programs in other conferences. It is a shame NMSU was forced to accept partial membership, and a mistake. Let us not compound it by accepting a team like U Mass.

Your annoyance is hardly a reason to do anything in this conference.

(07-12-2014 05:59 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 11:14 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 10:49 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I don't see the benefit of adding them at this point. If a team is needed to get to a championship game? Sure.

Otherwise, though... why? They won't help raise the profile of the conference.

I hear ya but at this point I am for adding them so we can stop talking about who's next and move on.

No, we do not want to continue to take programs that are weak, and play their strong programs in other conferences. It is a shame NMSU was forced to accept partial membership, and a mistake. Let us not compound it by accepting a team like U Mass.

Your annoyance is hardly a reason to do anything in this conference.

UMASS is the 12th school for a CCG, they are FBS and they bring a good market. They had a strong football program at the FCS level, but their first two years at the FBS level have not gone well. Western Kentucky had a rough transition to FBS (26 game losing streak) but they got through it. UMASS should as well.

Speaking of strong and weak football programs, there are no strong football programs in the SBC. The two programs with recent success, Arkansas State and ULL, both have a history of many losing seasons. So any of the football programs in the SBC can turn it around.

Well I appreciate the positive comments and respect the negative ones, can we let this thread rest for 47 days. Let's enjoy opening day and comment on fresh info.

Do comment on the MAC and a few other boards. Enjoy several threads here as your tail gate specialty, teams biggest concerns, and other threads.

Construction is almost complete and these are fairly new pictures. The incorrect shadow on the UMass mid field logo has been fixed. The grey shading should be on the top right side.






Photo Gallery from the July 25-26 Football Alumni Weekend were former players were invited back for a golf outing and tour of the new Performance Center.
Facebook Photo Gallery

(07-13-2014 03:07 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Well I appreciate the positive comments and respect the negative ones, can we let this thread rest for 47 days. Let's enjoy opening day and comment on fresh info.

Do comment on the MAC and a few other boards. Enjoy several threads here as your tail gate specialty, teams biggest concerns, and other threads.

In the meantime, I like to check out facilities enhancements regardless of the program. If anyone is like I am, the links below show some of the progress made at McGuirk Alumni Stadium (Skybox and Football Performance Center).

Skybox and Performance Center Pictures.

Webcam site

(07-13-2014 05:27 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 03:07 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  Well I appreciate the positive comments and respect the negative ones, can we let this thread rest for 47 days. Let's enjoy opening day and comment on fresh info.

Do comment on the MAC and a few other boards. Enjoy several threads here as your tail gate specialty, teams biggest concerns, and other threads.

In the meantime, I like to check out facilities enhancements regardless of the program. If anyone is like I am, the links below show some of the progress made at McGuirk Alumni Stadium (Skybox and Football Performance Center).

Skybox and Performance Center Pictures.

Webcam site

Are the upgrades done for the the stadium at UMass. If James Madison doesn't reconsider and join the Sunbelt for all sports when the 2014 season is over I think the FB only offer for 4 years and a few BB games (same contract as the MAC) will get UMASS into the Sunbelt. Admitting UMass for 4 years will get the Sunbelt to 12 schools and the Championship Game that Benson and the Sunbelt Conference want. Who knows both sides might like the arrangement and re up the contract for another 4 years down the road if the AAC doesn't offer UMass an all sports invite after the first 4 year contract.

I'm kinda thinking the Sun Belt should limit itself to teams in the actual sun belt.

(07-31-2014 07:04 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  I'm kinda thinking the Sun Belt should limit itself to teams in the actual sun belt.

Idaho?
Going to be interesting to see what happens within this year.
A temporary UMass might be more acceptable than some programs mentioned previously if they do not have a lot of enthusiasm, but hard to say. Nothing we can do about it right now anyway though.

Really trying not to post to much here until after football begins. But since someone not in the Sun Belt brought this thread to the front and others have commented will post a picture. This is a picture from the lobby of the Boston Harbor Hotel at 70 Rowes Wharf.

(07-31-2014 07:04 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  I'm kinda thinking the Sun Belt should limit itself to teams in the actual sun belt.

Could be that the Sun Belt is anywhere the sun shines. OK?

Worst case you travel to umass once every two years. West division will go once every four years. You get division championships to play for and a conference championship game.

(07-13-2014 01:02 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 05:59 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 11:14 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 10:49 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I don't see the benefit of adding them at this point. If a team is needed to get to a championship game? Sure.

Otherwise, though... why? They won't help raise the profile of the conference.

I hear ya but at this point I am for adding them so we can stop talking about who's next and move on.

No, we do not want to continue to take programs that are weak, and play their strong programs in other conferences. It is a shame NMSU was forced to accept partial membership, and a mistake. Let us not compound it by accepting a team like U Mass.

Your annoyance is hardly a reason to do anything in this conference.

UMASS is the 12th school for a CCG, they are FBS and they bring a good market. They had a strong football program at the FCS level, but their first two years at the FBS level have not gone well. Western Kentucky had a rough transition to FBS (26 game losing streak) but they got through it. UMASS should as well.

Speaking of strong and weak football programs, there are no strong football programs in the SBC. The two programs with recent success, Arkansas State and ULL, both have a history of many losing seasons. So any of the football programs in the SBC can turn it around.

You'll need them to replace Idaho when they drop to FCS. UMass will help you more than Idaho will. In addition, Army will see they'll need to join a conference and then you'll have NMSU, UMass and Army as football only members and a 10 team basketball/olympic sports conference.

(08-01-2014 11:55 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 01:02 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 05:59 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 11:14 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 10:49 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I don't see the benefit of adding them at this point. If a team is needed to get to a championship game? Sure.

Otherwise, though... why? They won't help raise the profile of the conference.

I hear ya but at this point I am for adding them so we can stop talking about who's next and move on.

No, we do not want to continue to take programs that are weak, and play their strong programs in other conferences. It is a shame NMSU was forced to accept partial membership, and a mistake. Let us not compound it by accepting a team like U Mass.

Your annoyance is hardly a reason to do anything in this conference.

UMASS is the 12th school for a CCG, they are FBS and they bring a good market. They had a strong football program at the FCS level, but their first two years at the FBS level have not gone well. Western Kentucky had a rough transition to FBS (26 game losing streak) but they got through it. UMASS should as well.

Speaking of strong and weak football programs, there are no strong football programs in the SBC. The two programs with recent success, Arkansas State and ULL, both have a history of many losing seasons. So any of the football programs in the SBC can turn it around.

You'll need them to replace Idaho when they drop to FCS. UMass will help you more than Idaho will. In addition, Army will see they'll need to join a conference and then you'll have NMSU, UMass and Army as football only members and a 10 team basketball/olympic sports conference.

Not much different than CUSA where you have Marshall & ODU going to to El Paso, Texas.

(08-01-2014 11:55 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 01:02 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 05:59 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 11:14 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 10:49 PM)TheRevSWT Wrote:  I don't see the benefit of adding them at this point. If a team is needed to get to a championship game? Sure.

Otherwise, though... why? They won't help raise the profile of the conference.

I hear ya but at this point I am for adding them so we can stop talking about who's next and move on.

No, we do not want to continue to take programs that are weak, and play their strong programs in other conferences. It is a shame NMSU was forced to accept partial membership, and a mistake. Let us not compound it by accepting a team like U Mass.

Your annoyance is hardly a reason to do anything in this conference.

UMASS is the 12th school for a CCG, they are FBS and they bring a good market. They had a strong football program at the FCS level, but their first two years at the FBS level have not gone well. Western Kentucky had a rough transition to FBS (26 game losing streak) but they got through it. UMASS should as well.

Speaking of strong and weak football programs, there are no strong football programs in the SBC. The two programs with recent success, Arkansas State and ULL, both have a history of many losing seasons. So any of the football programs in the SBC can turn it around.

You'll need them to replace Idaho when they drop to FCS. UMass will help you more than Idaho will. In addition, Army will see they'll need to join a conference and then you'll have NMSU, UMass and Army as football only members and a 10 team basketball/olympic sports conference.

Why does Army need to join a conference? They have a national TV contract with CBS Sports Network and they have a very lucrative TV deal with CBS for the Army-Navy game, a contract that runs through 2018. I read that CBS pays $4-5 million annually for this game and the ratings this past season were 3.9 with 6.2 million viewers. As a comparison, Alabama last season led the country with a 3.9 rating and an average of 6.4 million viewers. Army does not need a conference.

Idaho has four years to make FBS football work in the Sun Belt. Even if they were booted out after 2017, they likely wouldn't just leave for FCS. Army will get about $300,000 from the college football playoff system in 2014 as an independent. A couple of money games can pay $2 million. That is a lot of revenue to give up for the Big Sky Conference.

OK, did not come close to the start of Football season. Wanted to wait and show the perception of us always being bad and having low attendance was wrong. Expect to be more competitive this year with better coaching and more talent. We'll still be young with 5 seniors on the roster. Attendance should average 20k this season and perhaps 35-40k with the Boston College game.

Like it or not we are all pawns. If the Sun Belt asked us to talk with some teams, sure we would have done so.

The two biggest reason against us is the Sun Belt wants to be like CUSA, all sports. However the Sun Belt has Olympic Sports only teams. Don't think they would be like CUSA, which kicked out St. Louis and Charlotte.

The other is you don't want to take up the last available slot with another football only team. Well here we can be a help as a pawn to get teams on the fence with the Sun Belt, without costing much money.

Mind you, this is my idea and not UMass. So what is the stated arguments against the Sun Belt from James Madison. Academic reputation of the league in general. We all know there are fine Universities in the Sun Belt. But say you give us a 3 year contract. With us in the Sun Belt, it might be enough to sway enough BOV votes at James Madison. So they come in on our year two, they will be transitional FBS. But like the MAC, you do not give them Bowl or BCS money until they are bowl eligible. So there will be one year the conference teams will be short about 1.2 Million or 100k each. Say you charge UMass the 300k APR money so that is 900k. Then perhaps the championship game could be worth 100k so it could all come closely to washing out. The point is you get the team you wanted for the open slot by using us as a pawn.

The same for Missouri State, but it is much weaker there since they have existing sports in the MAC and we could only help a tiny bit with a basketball game. East Kentucky is probably at least 3 years out.

Perhaps this idea of being used as a pawn is a bit out there.

(08-02-2014 05:08 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  OK, did not come close to the start of Football season to post. Wanted to wait to show the perception of us always being bad and having low attendance is wrong, by averaging 20k this season and perhaps 35-40k with the Boston College game.

Like it or not we are all pawns. If the Sun Belt asked us to talk with some teams, sure we would have done so.

The two biggest reason against us is the Sun Belt wants to be like CUSA, all sports. However the Sun Belt has Olympic Sports only teams. Don't think they would be like CUSA, which kicked out St. Louis and Charlotte.

The other is you don't want to take up the last available slot with another football only team. We'll here we can be a help as a pawn to get teams on the fence with the Sun Belt, without costing much money.

Mind you, this is my idea and not UMass. So what is the stated arguments against the Sun Belt from James Madison. Academic reputation of the league in general. We all know there are fine Universities in the Sun Belt. But say you give us a 3 year contract. With us in the Sun Belt, it might be enough to sway enough BOV votes at James Madison. So they come in on our year two, they will be transitional FBS. But like the MAC, you do not give them Bowl or BCS money until they are bowl eligible. So there will be one year the conference teams will be short about 1.2 Million or 100k each. Say you charge UMass the 300k APR money so that is 900k. Then perhaps the championship game could be worth 100k so it could all come closely to washing out. The point is you get the team you wanted for the open slot by using us as a pawn.

The same for Missouri State, but it is much weaker there since they have existing sports in the MAC and we could only help a tiny bit with a basketball game. East Kentucky is probably at least 3 years out.

Perhaps this idea of being used as a pawn is a bit out there.

The Sun Belt does not want to be like CUSA. I don't think that a football only school or olympic sports school matters. Just represent the conference well. An existing FBS school is an easier transition. So UMASS has that going for them. It would help if you had a decent season this year.

(08-02-2014 03:58 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 11:55 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 01:02 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 05:59 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 11:14 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  I hear ya but at this point I am for adding them so we can stop talking about who's next and move on.

No, we do not want to continue to take programs that are weak, and play their strong programs in other conferences. It is a shame NMSU was forced to accept partial membership, and a mistake. Let us not compound it by accepting a team like U Mass.

Your annoyance is hardly a reason to do anything in this conference.

UMASS is the 12th school for a CCG, they are FBS and they bring a good market. They had a strong football program at the FCS level, but their first two years at the FBS level have not gone well. Western Kentucky had a rough transition to FBS (26 game losing streak) but they got through it. UMASS should as well.

Speaking of strong and weak football programs, there are no strong football programs in the SBC. The two programs with recent success, Arkansas State and ULL, both have a history of many losing seasons. So any of the football programs in the SBC can turn it around.

You'll need them to replace Idaho when they drop to FCS. UMass will help you more than Idaho will. In addition, Army will see they'll need to join a conference and then you'll have NMSU, UMass and Army as football only members and a 10 team basketball/olympic sports conference.

Why does Army need to join a conference? They have a national TV contract with CBS Sports Network and they have a very lucrative TV deal with CBS for the Army-Navy game, a contract that runs through 2018. I read that CBS pays $4-5 million annually for this game and the ratings this past season were 3.9 with 6.2 million viewers. As a comparison, Alabama last season led the country with a 3.9 rating and an average of 6.4 million viewers. Army does not need a conference.

Idaho has four years to make FBS football work in the Sun Belt. Even if they were booted out after 2017, they likely wouldn't just leave for FCS. Army will get about $300,000 from the college football playoff system in 2014 as an independent. A couple of money games can pay $2 million. That is a lot of revenue to give up for the Big Sky Conference.

If Army wants to keep playing football, they are going to need to join a conference. Look at the future, Army is going to be having trouble getting a schedule just like BYU is. Conferences are now playing 9 conference games and eventually even 10 games, where does that leave Army?
Why did Navy join a conference? Because they saw where college football was heading, same goes for Notre Dame.

(08-03-2014 11:38 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 03:58 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 11:55 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 01:02 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(07-12-2014 05:59 PM)CajunExpress Wrote:  No, we do not want to continue to take programs that are weak, and play their strong programs in other conferences. It is a shame NMSU was forced to accept partial membership, and a mistake. Let us not compound it by accepting a team like U Mass.

Your annoyance is hardly a reason to do anything in this conference.

UMASS is the 12th school for a CCG, they are FBS and they bring a good market. They had a strong football program at the FCS level, but their first two years at the FBS level have not gone well. Western Kentucky had a rough transition to FBS (26 game losing streak) but they got through it. UMASS should as well.

Speaking of strong and weak football programs, there are no strong football programs in the SBC. The two programs with recent success, Arkansas State and ULL, both have a history of many losing seasons. So any of the football programs in the SBC can turn it around.

You'll need them to replace Idaho when they drop to FCS. UMass will help you more than Idaho will. In addition, Army will see they'll need to join a conference and then you'll have NMSU, UMass and Army as football only members and a 10 team basketball/olympic sports conference.

Why does Army need to join a conference? They have a national TV contract with CBS Sports Network and they have a very lucrative TV deal with CBS for the Army-Navy game, a contract that runs through 2018. I read that CBS pays $4-5 million annually for this game and the ratings this past season were 3.9 with 6.2 million viewers. As a comparison, Alabama last season led the country with a 3.9 rating and an average of 6.4 million viewers. Army does not need a conference.

Idaho has four years to make FBS football work in the Sun Belt. Even if they were booted out after 2017, they likely wouldn't just leave for FCS. Army will get about $300,000 from the college football playoff system in 2014 as an independent. A couple of money games can pay $2 million. That is a lot of revenue to give up for the Big Sky Conference.

If Army wants to keep playing football, they are going to need to join a conference. Look at the future, Army is going to be having trouble getting a schedule just like BYU is. Conferences are now playing 9 conference games and eventually even 10 games, where does that leave Army?
Why did Navy join a conference? Because they saw where college football was heading, same goes for Notre Dame.

If you look at the Army future schedule, they have 11 games scheduled for 2018. They are not having any issues filling out their schedule for future games. The G5 schools play 8 game conference schedules, so there are plenty of games available for schools like Army and BYU. Also, the PAC-12 has been playing a nine game conference schedule since 2006. The Big 12 since 2011. It is not like a nine game conference schedule is new. A ten game conference schedule is not going to happen.

Navy made a mistake. They have lost their scheduling flexibilty in the AAC. They play 8 conference games with G5 schools and are locked into non-conference games with Army, Air Force and Notre Dame. The only P5 future game scheduled for Navy is with Notre Dame. Army, on the other hand, for 2015 has P5 home games scheduled with Duke, Wake Forest and Rutgers, with a road P5 game at Boston College.

Surviving as an independent is about having a national TV contract. Notre Dame, BYU and Army all have that.

Notre Dame did their five game scheduling alliance with the ACC in return for access to ACC Bowls and a home for their olympic sports. Do you really think Notre Dame needs to join a conference for football?

(08-03-2014 02:03 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-03-2014 11:38 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 03:58 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 11:55 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(07-13-2014 01:02 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  UMASS is the 12th school for a CCG, they are FBS and they bring a good market. They had a strong football program at the FCS level, but their first two years at the FBS level have not gone well. Western Kentucky had a rough transition to FBS (26 game losing streak) but they got through it. UMASS should as well.

Speaking of strong and weak football programs, there are no strong football programs in the SBC. The two programs with recent success, Arkansas State and ULL, both have a history of many losing seasons. So any of the football programs in the SBC can turn it around.

You'll need them to replace Idaho when they drop to FCS. UMass will help you more than Idaho will. In addition, Army will see they'll need to join a conference and then you'll have NMSU, UMass and Army as football only members and a 10 team basketball/olympic sports conference.

Why does Army need to join a conference? They have a national TV contract with CBS Sports Network and they have a very lucrative TV deal with CBS for the Army-Navy game, a contract that runs through 2018. I read that CBS pays $4-5 million annually for this game and the ratings this past season were 3.9 with 6.2 million viewers. As a comparison, Alabama last season led the country with a 3.9 rating and an average of 6.4 million viewers. Army does not need a conference.

Idaho has four years to make FBS football work in the Sun Belt. Even if they were booted out after 2017, they likely wouldn't just leave for FCS. Army will get about $300,000 from the college football playoff system in 2014 as an independent. A couple of money games can pay $2 million. That is a lot of revenue to give up for the Big Sky Conference.

If Army wants to keep playing football, they are going to need to join a conference. Look at the future, Army is going to be having trouble getting a schedule just like BYU is. Conferences are now playing 9 conference games and eventually even 10 games, where does that leave Army?
Why did Navy join a conference? Because they saw where college football was heading, same goes for Notre Dame.

If you look at the Army future schedule, they have 11 games scheduled for 2018. They are not having any issues filling out their schedule for future games. The G5 schools play 8 game conference schedules, so there are plenty of games available for schools like Army and BYU. Also, the PAC-12 has been playing a nine game conference schedule since 2006. The Big 12 since 2011. It is not like a nine game conference schedule is new. A ten game conference schedule is not going to happen.

Navy made a mistake. They have lost their scheduling flexibilty in the AAC. They play 8 conference games with G5 schools and are locked into non-conference games with Army, Air Force and Notre Dame. The only P5 future game scheduled for Navy is with Notre Dame. Army, on the other hand, for 2015 has P5 home games scheduled with Duke, Wake Forest and Rutgers, with a road P5 game at Boston College.

Surviving as an independent is about having a national TV contract. Notre Dame, BYU and Army all have that.

Notre Dame did their five game scheduling alliance with the ACC in return for access to ACC Bowls and a home for their olympic sports. Do you really think Notre Dame needs to join a conference for football?

??? Army only has 7 teams scheduled for 2015, 8 for 2016 & 7 for 2017. Navy saw the writing on the wall. Army will realized it sooner than later.
No Bowls for Indys. BYU can't sign on the bowl and neither could Notre Dame because this new cycle is tie for conferences and then next cycle will further consolidate for bowls. Army is going to be stuck w/o having a bowl.....which is the purpose of playing FBS football. BYU doesn't have a bowl for 4 of the next 6 years. Army doesn't have any that I could find. Everything is now tied to conferences.

(08-03-2014 05:14 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-03-2014 02:03 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-03-2014 11:38 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 03:58 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(08-01-2014 11:55 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  You'll need them to replace Idaho when they drop to FCS. UMass will help you more than Idaho will. In addition, Army will see they'll need to join a conference and then you'll have NMSU, UMass and Army as football only members and a 10 team basketball/olympic sports conference.

Why does Army need to join a conference? They have a national TV contract with CBS Sports Network and they have a very lucrative TV deal with CBS for the Army-Navy game, a contract that runs through 2018. I read that CBS pays $4-5 million annually for this game and the ratings this past season were 3.9 with 6.2 million viewers. As a comparison, Alabama last season led the country with a 3.9 rating and an average of 6.4 million viewers. Army does not need a conference.

Idaho has four years to make FBS football work in the Sun Belt. Even if they were booted out after 2017, they likely wouldn't just leave for FCS. Army will get about $300,000 from the college football playoff system in 2014 as an independent. A couple of money games can pay $2 million. That is a lot of revenue to give up for the Big Sky Conference.

If Army wants to keep playing football, they are going to need to join a conference. Look at the future, Army is going to be having trouble getting a schedule just like BYU is. Conferences are now playing 9 conference games and eventually even 10 games, where does that leave Army?
Why did Navy join a conference? Because they saw where college football was heading, same goes for Notre Dame.

If you look at the Army future schedule, they have 11 games scheduled for 2018. They are not having any issues filling out their schedule for future games. The G5 schools play 8 game conference schedules, so there are plenty of games available for schools like Army and BYU. Also, the PAC-12 has been playing a nine game conference schedule since 2006. The Big 12 since 2011. It is not like a nine game conference schedule is new. A ten game conference schedule is not going to happen.

Navy made a mistake. They have lost their scheduling flexibilty in the AAC. They play 8 conference games with G5 schools and are locked into non-conference games with Army, Air Force and Notre Dame. The only P5 future game scheduled for Navy is with Notre Dame. Army, on the other hand, for 2015 has P5 home games scheduled with Duke, Wake Forest and Rutgers, with a road P5 game at Boston College.

Surviving as an independent is about having a national TV contract. Notre Dame, BYU and Army all have that.

Notre Dame did their five game scheduling alliance with the ACC in return for access to ACC Bowls and a home for their olympic sports. Do you really think Notre Dame needs to join a conference for football?

??? Army only has 7 teams scheduled for 2015, 8 for 2016 & 7 for 2017. Navy saw the writing on the wall. Army will realized it sooner than later.
No Bowls for Indys. BYU can't sign on the bowl and neither could Notre Dame because this new cycle is tie for conferences and then next cycle will further consolidate for bowls. Army is going to be stuck w/o having a bowl.....which is the purpose of playing FBS football. BYU doesn't have a bowl for 4 of the next 6 years. Army doesn't have any that I could find. Everything is now tied to conferences.

You need to check the schedule. Army has ten opponents set for 2015 and nine set for 2016. BYU is a committed to the Miami Beach Bowl for 2014. Army has only played in one bowl since 1996. They have to worry about being bowl eligible first.

Being in a conference does bring the advantage of a bowl tie-in. But with all of the bowl games available I just don't see being an independent as a problem. There will always be a bowl game available for Notre Dame, BYU and Army if they are bowl eligible.

FBS football is about exposure, prestige and money. The bowl game is the reward for a good or decent season. I am sure an Army win over Navy would mean more than a bowl game.