(10-15-2015 01:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

Is Fort Bliss still active? I remember when Army played Alabama in the Sun Bowl in the 1980s, basically everybody stationed at Bliss was at the game. A special one-time event at Las Cruces could have a similar effect, but I don't know how many people are at Bliss anymore.

Heck, if I know. If it is not a fort from the 1500-1800's, my interest tends to wane.

(10-15-2015 07:05 AM)theultimateaggie Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 04:43 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  ^ I was hoping we were were going to start our series with Army sooner than 2019. I honestly think it could be a good rivalry. The schools are only 3 hrs apart.

I'm fine with playing UMASS. They are a regional school and Minutemen is a great nickname.

As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

You guys came to Las Cruces in 2000. We won that one.

Congratulations, I am sure it was one of the top five moments in NMSU football history.

That being said, Army should never go back. We are on a different level when it comes to game contracts.

(10-14-2015 07:19 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 05:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 05:00 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:18 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  I did the math for UMass, going Indy costs them $1M/yr in lost earnings from conference affiliation. On top of that you've got to try to recruit players to a program that has no TV contract, no built in rivalries, no championship game, and no bowl guarantees.

If you're not a school that has national appeal as a service academy or is the preferred choice of a major religion then Indy is an absolute nightmare.

CFP media deal only pays each G5 conference $1M/year per team ... up to 12 teams.

So UMass couldn't join AAC, CUSA or MAC right now and instantly boost revenue by a million.

The CFP payout + the TV Contract = $1M/yr more for UMass as all MAC vs Indy/A10.

MAC already has 13 football members splitting up $12M from CFP.

In theory adding UMass would give a 12/14M share, but why should the MAC do that when the CFP isn't paying more? It's a false analysis.

no, its not a false analysis. It's actual math of what UMass's earnings would be as a full, 13th member of the MAC compared to what they will earn as a football Independent with the rest of their sports in the A10. The MAC actually in real life offered UMass full membership. It's not a hypothetical. It really happened. It's not a theory, its a reality.

I apologize, I was wrong. UMass would've been the 13th full member, the MAC only has 12 now.

So that means each of the 12 members agree to go down from a full million per year to a 12/13 million per year share, assuming they agreed to give UMass an equal share.

Doesn't make sense to me. Maybe they offered them a zero share, in football. Bball is where UMass adds value to the MAC, anyway.


Doesn't make sense for any G5 to have more than 12 football members, in my opinion, due to the way the CFP payout works.

(10-15-2015 09:22 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 07:19 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 05:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 05:00 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  CFP media deal only pays each G5 conference $1M/year per team ... up to 12 teams.

So UMass couldn't join AAC, CUSA or MAC right now and instantly boost revenue by a million.

The CFP payout + the TV Contract = $1M/yr more for UMass as all MAC vs Indy/A10.

MAC already has 13 football members splitting up $12M from CFP.

In theory adding UMass would give a 12/14M share, but why should the MAC do that when the CFP isn't paying more? It's a false analysis.

no, its not a false analysis. It's actual math of what UMass's earnings would be as a full, 13th member of the MAC compared to what they will earn as a football Independent with the rest of their sports in the A10. The MAC actually in real life offered UMass full membership. It's not a hypothetical. It really happened. It's not a theory, its a reality.

I apologize, I was wrong. UMass would've been the 13th full member, the MAC only has 12 now.

So that means each of the 12 members agree to go down from a full million per year to a 12/13 million per year share, assuming they agreed to give UMass an equal share.

Doesn't make sense to me. Maybe they offered them a zero share, in football. Bball is where UMass adds value to the MAC, anyway.


Doesn't make sense for any G5 to have more than 12 football members, in my opinion, due to the way the CFP payout works.

when UMass joined the MAC in April 2011 it gave Temple another travel partner in the East and it evened out the football teams at 14. It also gave the MAC some leverage to try to add both UMass and Temple for all sports.

Those plans fell apart when Temple announced it was leaving for the Big East in March 2012. The MAC had planned for this scenario by creating an all or nothing clause in its agreement with UMass- at any time the MAC could offer UMass an invite for full membership, if UMass declines the invitation then that triggers a separation process where UMass has 2 years to leave the MAC entirely. This clause was agreed upon by the MAC and UMass in the beginning.

In March 2014 UMass announced it had rejected the full invite from the MAC and would no longer be a member at midnight on the day of its final game of the 2015 season. At anytime before then UMass can change its mind and accept the invitation. When the MAC gave UMass the invite for full membership they had begun talks with ESPN for a 13yr TV deal that would be announced a few months later. If UMass had provided any significant value as a football only member the MAC would have likely not exercised the all or nothing clause.

In the end its unfortunate UMass won't be a member, in many ways UMass fits the profile of a MAC school. However many UMass fans see themselves as a P5 school or at worst an AAC school and have no desire to settle for the stability of a conference like the MAC. I wish them the best in their future endeavors.

(10-15-2015 07:44 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

Is Fort Bliss still active? I remember when Army played Alabama in the Sun Bowl in the 1980s, basically everybody stationed at Bliss was at the game. A special one-time event at Las Cruces could have a similar effect, but I don't know how many people are at Bliss anymore.

Heck, if I know. If it is not a fort from the 1500-1800's, my interest tends to wane.

(10-15-2015 07:05 AM)theultimateaggie Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 04:43 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  ^ I was hoping we were were going to start our series with Army sooner than 2019. I honestly think it could be a good rivalry. The schools are only 3 hrs apart.

I'm fine with playing UMASS. They are a regional school and Minutemen is a great nickname.

As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

You guys came to Las Cruces in 2000. We won that one.

Congratulations, I am sure it was one of the top five moments in NMSU football history.

That being said, Army should never go back. We are on a different level when it comes to game contracts.

No not really. Just pointing out that it has happened before since you said under no circumstances should Army ever play in Las Cruces.

(10-15-2015 11:04 AM)theultimateaggie Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 07:44 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

Is Fort Bliss still active? I remember when Army played Alabama in the Sun Bowl in the 1980s, basically everybody stationed at Bliss was at the game. A special one-time event at Las Cruces could have a similar effect, but I don't know how many people are at Bliss anymore.

Heck, if I know. If it is not a fort from the 1500-1800's, my interest tends to wane.

(10-15-2015 07:05 AM)theultimateaggie Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 04:43 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  ^ I was hoping we were were going to start our series with Army sooner than 2019. I honestly think it could be a good rivalry. The schools are only 3 hrs apart.

I'm fine with playing UMASS. They are a regional school and Minutemen is a great nickname.

As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

You guys came to Las Cruces in 2000. We won that one.

Congratulations, I am sure it was one of the top five moments in NMSU football history.

That being said, Army should never go back. We are on a different level when it comes to game contracts.

No not really. Just pointing out that it has happened before since you said under no circumstances should Army ever play in Las Cruces.

I apologize for my testiness.

Hopefully, NMSU can get back on track and reach a bowl game. Rest assure, I will be rooting for the Aggies when they finally do.

(10-15-2015 11:28 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:04 AM)theultimateaggie Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 07:44 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

Is Fort Bliss still active? I remember when Army played Alabama in the Sun Bowl in the 1980s, basically everybody stationed at Bliss was at the game. A special one-time event at Las Cruces could have a similar effect, but I don't know how many people are at Bliss anymore.

Heck, if I know. If it is not a fort from the 1500-1800's, my interest tends to wane.

(10-15-2015 07:05 AM)theultimateaggie Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I'm fine with playing UMASS. They are a regional school and Minutemen is a great nickname.

As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

You guys came to Las Cruces in 2000. We won that one.

Congratulations, I am sure it was one of the top five moments in NMSU football history.

That being said, Army should never go back. We are on a different level when it comes to game contracts.

No not really. Just pointing out that it has happened before since you said under no circumstances should Army ever play in Las Cruces.

I apologize for my testiness.

Hopefully, NMSU can get back on track and reach a bowl game. Rest assure, I will be rooting for the Aggies when they finally do.

No need to appoligize hard to read tone in a message board.

(10-15-2015 10:59 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 09:22 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 07:19 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 05:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 05:00 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  The CFP payout + the TV Contract = $1M/yr more for UMass as all MAC vs Indy/A10.

MAC already has 13 football members splitting up $12M from CFP.

In theory adding UMass would give a 12/14M share, but why should the MAC do that when the CFP isn't paying more? It's a false analysis.

no, its not a false analysis. It's actual math of what UMass's earnings would be as a full, 13th member of the MAC compared to what they will earn as a football Independent with the rest of their sports in the A10. The MAC actually in real life offered UMass full membership. It's not a hypothetical. It really happened. It's not a theory, its a reality.

I apologize, I was wrong. UMass would've been the 13th full member, the MAC only has 12 now.

So that means each of the 12 members agree to go down from a full million per year to a 12/13 million per year share, assuming they agreed to give UMass an equal share.

Doesn't make sense to me. Maybe they offered them a zero share, in football. Bball is where UMass adds value to the MAC, anyway.


Doesn't make sense for any G5 to have more than 12 football members, in my opinion, due to the way the CFP payout works.

when UMass joined the MAC in April 2011 it gave Temple another travel partner in the East and it evened out the football teams at 14. It also gave the MAC some leverage to try to add both UMass and Temple for all sports.

Those plans fell apart when Temple announced it was leaving for the Big East in March 2012. The MAC had planned for this scenario by creating an all or nothing clause in its agreement with UMass- at any time the MAC could offer UMass an invite for full membership, if UMass declines the invitation then that triggers a separation process where UMass has 2 years to leave the MAC entirely. This clause was agreed upon by the MAC and UMass in the beginning.

In March 2014 UMass announced it had rejected the full invite from the MAC and would no longer be a member at midnight on the day of its final game of the 2015 season. At anytime before then UMass can change its mind and accept the invitation. When the MAC gave UMass the invite for full membership they had begun talks with ESPN for a 13yr TV deal that would be announced a few months later. If UMass had provided any significant value as a football only member the MAC would have likely not exercised the all or nothing clause.

In the end its unfortunate UMass won't be a member, in many ways UMass fits the profile of a MAC school. However many UMass fans see themselves as a P5 school or at worst an AAC school and have no desire to settle for the stability of a conference like the MAC. I wish them the best in their future endeavors.

UMass is like Buffalo. The largest public, research university in a state with significant private universities and on the other side from the state's population center.

Both of those schools, institutionally, are nothing like MAC schools. MAC schools are historically teacher's colleges or second tier public colleges, save for Ohio and Miami. And none of them are major research universities.

Granted, UMass Ahmherst doesn't get to count the UMass med school research under its campus. But if it did, both are pretty high up in the rankings.


MAC would love UMass bball. I guess they figure they'd get enough of a bump from that to offset the $77k/year per school loss in the football share, from the CFP payout (again, assuming UMass was going to get a full football share).

(10-15-2015 07:44 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

Is Fort Bliss still active? I remember when Army played Alabama in the Sun Bowl in the 1980s, basically everybody stationed at Bliss was at the game. A special one-time event at Las Cruces could have a similar effect, but I don't know how many people are at Bliss anymore.

Heck, if I know. If it is not a fort from the 1500-1800's, my interest tends to wane.

(10-15-2015 07:05 AM)theultimateaggie Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 04:43 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  ^ I was hoping we were were going to start our series with Army sooner than 2019. I honestly think it could be a good rivalry. The schools are only 3 hrs apart.

I'm fine with playing UMASS. They are a regional school and Minutemen is a great nickname.

As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

You guys came to Las Cruces in 2000. We won that one.

Congratulations, I am sure it was one of the top five moments in NMSU football history.

That being said, Army should never go back. We are on a different level when it comes to game contracts.

Sorry but I cannot for a minute fathom what that is supposed to mean.
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/indep/ar...nights.php

You are playing Eastern freaking Michigan long-term home and home. Going home and home with Sun Belt cellar dweller Georgia State. Home and home with Miami (OH) who has 11 wins in the last 54 games.

Las Cruces is just down the road from 32,000 active Army service members and a huge retiree community

(10-15-2015 04:56 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 05:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  MAC already has 13 football members splitting up $12M from CFP.

In theory adding UMass would give a 12/14M share, but why should the MAC do that when the CFP isn't paying more? It's a false analysis.

You seem to be adding UMass to UMass there ... "already has 13 football playing members" includes UMass. Next year, when UMass leaves, it will be "already has 12 football playing members."

Now, the proposal was to add UMass as an all sports member plus a 14th all sports member (widely mooted to be JMU), but in that proposal, UMass was the 13th and JMU (or whomever) would have been the 14th.

Why they were willing to commit to doing that if UMass or Temple left and the other was given the all-sports or gone ultimatum would have been to boost MAC BBall. Duh. What else do you think all-sports or nothing with UMass and Temple could possibly have been about ... MAC baseball?

U. Mass. for all sports with Temple, James Madison, Delaware, VCU or Richmond and Stony Brook for an 18 all sports league. MAC wanted to boast their basketball bids from 1 to 2 at least. Stony Brook and U. Mass. could bring their basketball, and if VCU adds football? MAC could become a good basketball conference. Since Temple left? It shattered the idea of getting the teams they want.

(10-15-2015 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 10:59 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 09:22 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 07:19 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 05:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  MAC already has 13 football members splitting up $12M from CFP.

In theory adding UMass would give a 12/14M share, but why should the MAC do that when the CFP isn't paying more? It's a false analysis.

no, its not a false analysis. It's actual math of what UMass's earnings would be as a full, 13th member of the MAC compared to what they will earn as a football Independent with the rest of their sports in the A10. The MAC actually in real life offered UMass full membership. It's not a hypothetical. It really happened. It's not a theory, its a reality.

I apologize, I was wrong. UMass would've been the 13th full member, the MAC only has 12 now.

So that means each of the 12 members agree to go down from a full million per year to a 12/13 million per year share, assuming they agreed to give UMass an equal share.

Doesn't make sense to me. Maybe they offered them a zero share, in football. Bball is where UMass adds value to the MAC, anyway.


Doesn't make sense for any G5 to have more than 12 football members, in my opinion, due to the way the CFP payout works.

when UMass joined the MAC in April 2011 it gave Temple another travel partner in the East and it evened out the football teams at 14. It also gave the MAC some leverage to try to add both UMass and Temple for all sports.

Those plans fell apart when Temple announced it was leaving for the Big East in March 2012. The MAC had planned for this scenario by creating an all or nothing clause in its agreement with UMass- at any time the MAC could offer UMass an invite for full membership, if UMass declines the invitation then that triggers a separation process where UMass has 2 years to leave the MAC entirely. This clause was agreed upon by the MAC and UMass in the beginning.

In March 2014 UMass announced it had rejected the full invite from the MAC and would no longer be a member at midnight on the day of its final game of the 2015 season. At anytime before then UMass can change its mind and accept the invitation. When the MAC gave UMass the invite for full membership they had begun talks with ESPN for a 13yr TV deal that would be announced a few months later. If UMass had provided any significant value as a football only member the MAC would have likely not exercised the all or nothing clause.

In the end its unfortunate UMass won't be a member, in many ways UMass fits the profile of a MAC school. However many UMass fans see themselves as a P5 school or at worst an AAC school and have no desire to settle for the stability of a conference like the MAC. I wish them the best in their future endeavors.

UMass is like Buffalo. The largest public, research university in a state with significant private universities and on the other side from the state's population center.

Both of those schools, institutionally, are nothing like MAC schools. MAC schools are historically teacher's colleges or second tier public colleges, save for Ohio and Miami. And none of them are major research universities.

Granted, UMass Ahmherst doesn't get to count the UMass med school research under its campus. But if it did, both are pretty high up in the rankings.


MAC would love UMass bball. I guess they figure they'd get enough of a bump from that to offset the $77k/year per school loss in the football share, from the CFP payout (again, assuming UMass was going to get a full football share).

UMass is very much like other MAC schools, academically, demographically, financially, the differences are subtle and their similarities are significant.

UMass bball would be a nice addition, but they're not a game changer.

(10-15-2015 01:48 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 10:59 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 09:22 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 07:19 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  no, its not a false analysis. It's actual math of what UMass's earnings would be as a full, 13th member of the MAC compared to what they will earn as a football Independent with the rest of their sports in the A10. The MAC actually in real life offered UMass full membership. It's not a hypothetical. It really happened. It's not a theory, its a reality.

I apologize, I was wrong. UMass would've been the 13th full member, the MAC only has 12 now.

So that means each of the 12 members agree to go down from a full million per year to a 12/13 million per year share, assuming they agreed to give UMass an equal share.

Doesn't make sense to me. Maybe they offered them a zero share, in football. Bball is where UMass adds value to the MAC, anyway.


Doesn't make sense for any G5 to have more than 12 football members, in my opinion, due to the way the CFP payout works.

when UMass joined the MAC in April 2011 it gave Temple another travel partner in the East and it evened out the football teams at 14. It also gave the MAC some leverage to try to add both UMass and Temple for all sports.

Those plans fell apart when Temple announced it was leaving for the Big East in March 2012. The MAC had planned for this scenario by creating an all or nothing clause in its agreement with UMass- at any time the MAC could offer UMass an invite for full membership, if UMass declines the invitation then that triggers a separation process where UMass has 2 years to leave the MAC entirely. This clause was agreed upon by the MAC and UMass in the beginning.

In March 2014 UMass announced it had rejected the full invite from the MAC and would no longer be a member at midnight on the day of its final game of the 2015 season. At anytime before then UMass can change its mind and accept the invitation. When the MAC gave UMass the invite for full membership they had begun talks with ESPN for a 13yr TV deal that would be announced a few months later. If UMass had provided any significant value as a football only member the MAC would have likely not exercised the all or nothing clause.

In the end its unfortunate UMass won't be a member, in many ways UMass fits the profile of a MAC school. However many UMass fans see themselves as a P5 school or at worst an AAC school and have no desire to settle for the stability of a conference like the MAC. I wish them the best in their future endeavors.

UMass is like Buffalo. The largest public, research university in a state with significant private universities and on the other side from the state's population center.

Both of those schools, institutionally, are nothing like MAC schools. MAC schools are historically teacher's colleges or second tier public colleges, save for Ohio and Miami. And none of them are major research universities.

Granted, UMass Ahmherst doesn't get to count the UMass med school research under its campus. But if it did, both are pretty high up in the rankings.


MAC would love UMass bball. I guess they figure they'd get enough of a bump from that to offset the $77k/year per school loss in the football share, from the CFP payout (again, assuming UMass was going to get a full football share).

UMass is very much like other MAC schools, academically, demographically, financially, the differences are subtle and their similarities are significant.

UMass bball would be a nice addition, but they're not a game changer.

Demographics don't matter for conference affiliation. We're not talking HBU's.

You can't prove anything academically. It's just opinions and reputations. Perhaps UMass academic reputation is similar to Ohio and Miami academic reputation. But the other MAC schools (other than Buffalo)? Come on. They're teacher's colleges and second tier public schools in big states. No reputation to speak of.

How so financially? Athletic budget? Sure. You got me there (if true). Endowment? Overall school budget? The last two don't affect conference affiliations.

(10-15-2015 11:50 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 07:44 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

Is Fort Bliss still active? I remember when Army played Alabama in the Sun Bowl in the 1980s, basically everybody stationed at Bliss was at the game. A special one-time event at Las Cruces could have a similar effect, but I don't know how many people are at Bliss anymore.

Heck, if I know. If it is not a fort from the 1500-1800's, my interest tends to wane.

(10-15-2015 07:05 AM)theultimateaggie Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 04:43 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  ^ I was hoping we were were going to start our series with Army sooner than 2019. I honestly think it could be a good rivalry. The schools are only 3 hrs apart.

I'm fine with playing UMASS. They are a regional school and Minutemen is a great nickname.

As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

You guys came to Las Cruces in 2000. We won that one.

Congratulations, I am sure it was one of the top five moments in NMSU football history.

That being said, Army should never go back. We are on a different level when it comes to game contracts.

Sorry but I cannot for a minute fathom what that is supposed to mean.
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/indep/ar...nights.php

You are playing Eastern freaking Michigan long-term home and home. Going home and home with Sun Belt cellar dweller Georgia State. Home and home with Miami (OH) who has 11 wins in the last 54 games.

Las Cruces is just down the road from 32,000 active Army service members and a huge retiree community

Not to mention Army is playing @ UTEP next year which is an hour down the road from Las Cruces

(10-15-2015 02:44 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:50 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 07:44 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

Is Fort Bliss still active? I remember when Army played Alabama in the Sun Bowl in the 1980s, basically everybody stationed at Bliss was at the game. A special one-time event at Las Cruces could have a similar effect, but I don't know how many people are at Bliss anymore.

Heck, if I know. If it is not a fort from the 1500-1800's, my interest tends to wane.

(10-15-2015 07:05 AM)theultimateaggie Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I'm fine with playing UMASS. They are a regional school and Minutemen is a great nickname.

As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

You guys came to Las Cruces in 2000. We won that one.

Congratulations, I am sure it was one of the top five moments in NMSU football history.

That being said, Army should never go back. We are on a different level when it comes to game contracts.

Sorry but I cannot for a minute fathom what that is supposed to mean.
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/indep/ar...nights.php

You are playing Eastern freaking Michigan long-term home and home. Going home and home with Sun Belt cellar dweller Georgia State. Home and home with Miami (OH) who has 11 wins in the last 54 games.

Las Cruces is just down the road from 32,000 active Army service members and a huge retiree community

Not to mention Army is playing @ UTEP next year which is an hour down the road from Las Cruces

Well that would negate any reason to play NMSU the same years or very close in time, but still...

(10-15-2015 11:50 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 07:44 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

Is Fort Bliss still active? I remember when Army played Alabama in the Sun Bowl in the 1980s, basically everybody stationed at Bliss was at the game. A special one-time event at Las Cruces could have a similar effect, but I don't know how many people are at Bliss anymore.

Heck, if I know. If it is not a fort from the 1500-1800's, my interest tends to wane.

(10-15-2015 07:05 AM)theultimateaggie Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 04:43 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  ^ I was hoping we were were going to start our series with Army sooner than 2019. I honestly think it could be a good rivalry. The schools are only 3 hrs apart.

I'm fine with playing UMASS. They are a regional school and Minutemen is a great nickname.

As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

You guys came to Las Cruces in 2000. We won that one.

Congratulations, I am sure it was one of the top five moments in NMSU football history.

That being said, Army should never go back. We are on a different level when it comes to game contracts.

Sorry but I cannot for a minute fathom what that is supposed to mean.
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/indep/ar...nights.php

You are playing Eastern freaking Michigan long-term home and home. Going home and home with Sun Belt cellar dweller Georgia State. Home and home with Miami (OH) who has 11 wins in the last 54 games.

Las Cruces is just down the road from 32,000 active Army service members and a huge retiree community

Blame our AD, the same man had us go to the Yale Bowl. He has no idea of how to establish a schedule.

(10-15-2015 02:44 PM)dtd_vandal Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:50 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 07:44 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

Is Fort Bliss still active? I remember when Army played Alabama in the Sun Bowl in the 1980s, basically everybody stationed at Bliss was at the game. A special one-time event at Las Cruces could have a similar effect, but I don't know how many people are at Bliss anymore.

Heck, if I know. If it is not a fort from the 1500-1800's, my interest tends to wane.

(10-15-2015 07:05 AM)theultimateaggie Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I'm fine with playing UMASS. They are a regional school and Minutemen is a great nickname.

As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

You guys came to Las Cruces in 2000. We won that one.

Congratulations, I am sure it was one of the top five moments in NMSU football history.

That being said, Army should never go back. We are on a different level when it comes to game contracts.

Sorry but I cannot for a minute fathom what that is supposed to mean.
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/indep/ar...nights.php

You are playing Eastern freaking Michigan long-term home and home. Going home and home with Sun Belt cellar dweller Georgia State. Home and home with Miami (OH) who has 11 wins in the last 54 games.

Las Cruces is just down the road from 32,000 active Army service members and a huge retiree community

Not to mention Army is playing @ UTEP next year which is an hour down the road from Las Cruces

After the game, our players are going to patrol the border. Get some combat experience.

(10-15-2015 08:39 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:50 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 07:44 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

Is Fort Bliss still active? I remember when Army played Alabama in the Sun Bowl in the 1980s, basically everybody stationed at Bliss was at the game. A special one-time event at Las Cruces could have a similar effect, but I don't know how many people are at Bliss anymore.

Heck, if I know. If it is not a fort from the 1500-1800's, my interest tends to wane.

(10-15-2015 07:05 AM)theultimateaggie Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I'm fine with playing UMASS. They are a regional school and Minutemen is a great nickname.

As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

You guys came to Las Cruces in 2000. We won that one.

Congratulations, I am sure it was one of the top five moments in NMSU football history.

That being said, Army should never go back. We are on a different level when it comes to game contracts.

Sorry but I cannot for a minute fathom what that is supposed to mean.
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/indep/ar...nights.php

You are playing Eastern freaking Michigan long-term home and home. Going home and home with Sun Belt cellar dweller Georgia State. Home and home with Miami (OH) who has 11 wins in the last 54 games.

Las Cruces is just down the road from 32,000 active Army service members and a huge retiree community

Blame our AD, the same man had us go to the Yale Bowl. He has no idea of how to establish a schedule.

Guess I'm being dense but I still don't get how Army is on a different level in game contracts.

Two P5's, the other two academies, an FCS, and seven games against other G5 and quite a few on par with NMSU seems pretty stock on all future schedules.

Going to play a harder slate? Barring an incredible rally this will be the 18th losing season in the past 20 years.

(10-15-2015 10:28 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 08:39 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 11:50 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 07:44 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Is Fort Bliss still active? I remember when Army played Alabama in the Sun Bowl in the 1980s, basically everybody stationed at Bliss was at the game. A special one-time event at Las Cruces could have a similar effect, but I don't know how many people are at Bliss anymore.

Heck, if I know. If it is not a fort from the 1500-1800's, my interest tends to wane.

(10-15-2015 07:05 AM)theultimateaggie Wrote:  You guys came to Las Cruces in 2000. We won that one.

Congratulations, I am sure it was one of the top five moments in NMSU football history.

That being said, Army should never go back. We are on a different level when it comes to game contracts.

Sorry but I cannot for a minute fathom what that is supposed to mean.
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/indep/ar...nights.php

You are playing Eastern freaking Michigan long-term home and home. Going home and home with Sun Belt cellar dweller Georgia State. Home and home with Miami (OH) who has 11 wins in the last 54 games.

Las Cruces is just down the road from 32,000 active Army service members and a huge retiree community

Blame our AD, the same man had us go to the Yale Bowl. He has no idea of how to establish a schedule.

Guess I'm being dense but I still don't get how Army is on a different level in game contracts.

Two P5's, the other two academies, an FCS, and seven games against other G5 and quite a few on par with NMSU seems pretty stock on all future schedules.

Going to play a harder slate? Barring an incredible rally this will be the 18th losing season in the past 20 years.

I wasn't clear enough. Army should be only be signing 2 for 1 deals with lower schools.

Looking at Army's schedules for the 15 years from 2008 to 2022, they are very willing to sign H-H deals with G5-level opponents. In fact, Army travelled to FCS Yale last year. From now through 2022, they have several G5 H-H deals in upcoming years, such as Temple, UMass, Buffalo, Miami(OH), EMU, W. Kentucky, N. Texas, SJSU, Hawaii. Only P5 deals on future schedules are Duke, Wake Forest, Northwestern, and Oklahoma.

Here's Army's scheduling philosophy for the 15-year period:

2 v. Navy and Air Force (obviously)

1-2 v. Ohio/Michigan/Indiana MAC teams (24 games v. EMU, Miami(OH), Kent St., Ball St., Akron)

1-2 v. FCS (mostly at home, but Yale road game last year)

1 v. NY/NJ team (mostly Rutgers in the past, mostly Buffalo moving forward; 1 versus ND in NY)

1 v. AAC (exclusively Temple, Tulane, UConn - not counting Navy)

1 v. ACC in North Carolina (exclusively Duke or Wake Forest - 13 times from 2009 to 2022)

1 v. Texas team (16 scheduled, mostly Rice and North Texas - one Notre Dame, one Texas A&M)

1 v. California team or Hawaii (13 scheduled: SDSU, SJSU, Stanford, and 5 x Hawaii)

0.5 v. New England (9 games - BC, UConn, Yale, and 4-game series with UMass)

0.5 v. other P5 (Vanderbilt, Iowa St., Northwestern, Penn St., Oklahoma in 15 year span)

0.5 v. other G5 (8 v. LA Tech, NIU, W. Kentucky)

Army hosts Bucknell tomorrow.

(10-16-2015 03:52 PM)YNot Wrote:  Looking at Army's schedules for the 15 years from 2008 to 2022, they are very willing to sign H-H deals with G5-level opponents.

Which makes quite a lot of sense ... they want a national schedule, they don't want to play on the road exclusively between mid-October and the end of the season (or, in alternate years, until the Army-Navy game) ... so rather than try to play hardball with schools at their same level, they leverage their "better profile than your run of the mill Go5 school" to get the schedule they want rather then to maximize the number of home games, which would actually undermine some of why they want to play a national schedule.

(10-15-2015 11:50 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 07:44 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 01:23 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

Is Fort Bliss still active? I remember when Army played Alabama in the Sun Bowl in the 1980s, basically everybody stationed at Bliss was at the game. A special one-time event at Las Cruces could have a similar effect, but I don't know how many people are at Bliss anymore.

Heck, if I know. If it is not a fort from the 1500-1800's, my interest tends to wane.

(10-15-2015 07:05 AM)theultimateaggie Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 11:19 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 04:43 PM)EmeryZach Wrote:  ^ I was hoping we were were going to start our series with Army sooner than 2019. I honestly think it could be a good rivalry. The schools are only 3 hrs apart.

I'm fine with playing UMASS. They are a regional school and Minutemen is a great nickname.

As for NMSU, Army, under no circumstances, should ever be playing there. A home game against the Aggies? Yes. A road game? No.

You guys came to Las Cruces in 2000. We won that one.

Congratulations, I am sure it was one of the top five moments in NMSU football history.

That being said, Army should never go back. We are on a different level when it comes to game contracts.

Sorry but I cannot for a minute fathom what that is supposed to mean.
http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa/indep/ar...nights.php

You are playing Eastern freaking Michigan long-term home and home. Going home and home with Sun Belt cellar dweller Georgia State. Home and home with Miami (OH) who has 11 wins in the last 54 games.

Las Cruces is just down the road from 32,000 active Army service members and a huge retiree community

For the record,to answer my friend the Army fan, Ft Bliss is still going strong. I spent 3 days down there earlier this year. Cheers!