(07-30-2016 07:04 PM)panama Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 06:52 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 06:33 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 06:19 PM)panama Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 05:01 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  Different times.

Army has never been in a conference with Navy. That's a huge difference.

Also the academies are now going to allow players to pursue professional ambitions.

Its a different reality.

Riiiight....sorry but they still will not have the linemen needed to compete in a power conference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's the problem. Exceptions aren't made for the height weight requirements. O line man can't beef up during the season and then shed the weight after the season. APFT isn't just about PT, it's passing the height/weight requirement. If I remember correctly, I failed it myself for weighing over 189 lbs. I'm 71 inches and used to pump a lot of iron. Never a fat boy. I passed the tape, but I don't think a RB at Nebraska or Ohio St would pass those stringent requirements let alone an offensive lineman. Different realities.
Cheers!

There is no reason that Army can't compete like Navy and Air Force have.

Then why haven't they?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Army viewed football differently than Navy and Air Force did. Navy gets additional supplemental funding from alumni directly injected into the program. That helps them a lot. Both have taken a very lenient stance on requirements while playing. Navy players can and do exceed regulation sizes for the duration of their playing time at the yacht club...but then have to get back into standards before graduation. That is exceptionally difficult, as linemen were mentioned I can assume you understand the difficulty someone who is 6'3" and pushing 300+ lbs has getting back down close to 220 ish. The new standards will help a bit, but what Navy and Air Force did was to overlook those who didn't meet these standards between arrival and departure.

Army needs to address some issues, but they would have a chance to succeed if they tempered their expectations.

(07-30-2016 06:33 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 06:19 PM)panama Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 05:01 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 04:56 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 04:37 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Yeah but Army isn't Navy. Different reasons for that, but CUSA & Army linked up for a few years and that was the worst disaster ever for Army.
Cheers!

That's true. It wasn't good for Army at all.

Different times.

Army has never been in a conference with Navy. That's a huge difference.

Also the academies are now going to allow players to pursue professional ambitions.

Its a different reality.

Riiiight....sorry but they still will not have the linemen needed to compete in a power conference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's the problem. Exceptions aren't made for the height weight requirements. O line man can't beef up during the season and then shed the weight after the season. APFT isn't just about PT, it's passing the height/weight requirement. If I remember correctly, I failed it myself for weighing over 189 lbs. I'm 71 inches and used to pump a lot of iron. Never a fat boy. I passed the tape, but I don't think a RB at Nebraska or Ohio St would pass those stringent requirements let alone an offensive lineman. Different realities.
Cheers!

It doesn't matter! Competitiveness has nothing to do with it!!!! If that's all that mattered most of our teams would be in a P5 conference.

Army gets the invite bc of their brand! Their history, their prestige, and what they add from a TV perspective. Follow the $$$$$$

None of the other schools has this. No one is paying us anything for ODU or any of the other names ppl throw up. Understand it's not a shot at your school---- this is business.

Aresco knows this. He worked in TV forever. This mentality is why CUSA got crap from their last contract. If schools like ODU, Charlotte, So Miss, La Tech, etc were worth so much why did they get nothing from their TV contract????

If it were about who can compete out of CUSA So Miss would be in already. They've earned it.

Actually, there are 4 guarenteed in life, bigeasthomer will argue almost anything, but he is always good for grins gor everyone

(07-30-2016 08:01 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  Actually, there are 4 guarenteed in life, bigeasthomer will argue almost anything, but he is always good for grins gor everyone

Really? An ECU fan is suggesting that service academies can't compete? Hahahahahaha...
(deep breath)
Hahahahahaha

Can't wait to go back to G-Vegas and improve on Navy's 66ppg average on DowdyFicklen.
Hahahahahaha...still laughing

(07-30-2016 08:01 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  Actually, there are 4 guarenteed in life, bigeasthomer will argue almost anything, but he is always good for grins gor everyone

He's been in a good mood lately...Coogs must be leaving us! But he's a Temple fan so we can argue over that at least...I wish you all good fortune in the (realignment) wars to come.
Cheers!

(07-30-2016 08:46 PM)slhNavy91 Wrote:  Really? An ECU fan is suggesting that service academies can't compete? Hahahahahaha...
(deep breath)
Hahahahahaha

Can't wait to go back to G-Vegas and improve on Navy's 66ppg average on DowdyFicklen.
Hahahahahaha...still laughing

Was they directed at me? I respect Navy. Heck, I've always said I hate when ECU played Navy because we couldn't stop your option. I was there with my brother and nieces at said blow out...
Cheers!

You are right - poor form on my part, but irresistible.
In serious talk on the subject, though...Army absolutely has to be on the top of Aresco's list to get back to 10/12 football members. None of the other names are in the same universe for national brand and TV value.
As an outsider, I think Army should make the jump (as a Navy fan, the only reason I support it is to free up some scheduling - as long as they don't drop to FCS I want to be in a better conference than they are so Navy maintains recruiting advantage)
Will they, even if it is on their best long-term interests? I don't know.
1. Lot of scar tissue there from CUSA experience.
2. They are probably not yet feeling the scheduling difficulties. A pack or bottom of the pack P5 AD will take a call from West Point that he/she stopped taking from Annapolis over the last decade+ of Navy beating P5 teams more than anyone else in the country.

(07-30-2016 07:47 PM)Puckhead48E Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 07:04 PM)panama Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 06:52 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 06:33 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-30-2016 06:19 PM)panama Wrote:  Riiiight....sorry but they still will not have the linemen needed to compete in a power conference.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's the problem. Exceptions aren't made for the height weight requirements. O line man can't beef up during the season and then shed the weight after the season. APFT isn't just about PT, it's passing the height/weight requirement. If I remember correctly, I failed it myself for weighing over 189 lbs. I'm 71 inches and used to pump a lot of iron. Never a fat boy. I passed the tape, but I don't think a RB at Nebraska or Ohio St would pass those stringent requirements let alone an offensive lineman. Different realities.
Cheers!

There is no reason that Army can't compete like Navy and Air Force have.

Then why haven't they?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Army viewed football differently than Navy and Air Force did. Navy gets additional supplemental funding from alumni directly injected into the program. That helps them a lot. Both have taken a very lenient stance on requirements while playing. Navy players can and do exceed regulation sizes for the duration of their playing time at the yacht club...but then have to get back into standards before graduation. That is exceptionally difficult, as linemen were mentioned I can assume you understand the difficulty someone who is 6'3" and pushing 300+ lbs has getting back down close to 220 ish. The new standards will help a bit, but what Navy and Air Force did was to overlook those who didn't meet these standards between arrival and departure.

Army needs to address some issues, but they would have a chance to succeed if they tempered their expectations.

Army has the same exceptions for linemen and others to be heavy for four years and drop the weight before commissioning. Have for decades - see Feinstein's "Civil War" where one of his focus points was Army's Fat Boys 20 years ago. Guess how many of Navy's linemen have NOT done it - zero. National press coverage of them this year.
Army is already making other changes, from rearranging summer training schedules to trying to catch up to NAAA in 501c3 funding.
Coach Monken (with the support of very football friendly guys in top positions) will make a difference.

No offense to the mission of the academies or to the football history, but I am continually amazed/perplexed by the interest in adding academy football. Maybe it's a Norteast and Mid Atlantic thing. But living in Georgia for 35 years I just have not witnessed the mad rush to get home to watch Army or Navy or even Army vs. Navy. Navy I get that they have 2 OOC games that may be of interest every year in Army and Notre Dame. Army and Air Force don't even have that much internet in their OOC games. We play Air Force there this year and most people frankly are more interested in our Wisconsin away game. I had to look at our future schedules to remember that we have a 1:1 vs. Army in 2021/2022. Most fans are more interested in our other 1:1s. So it's a little perplexing to see people write "if we get all the academies we're good" especially in the face of the fact that Army does not want to be in a conference nor do they need to be and Air Force has zero reason to leave the MWC.

(07-31-2016 07:42 AM)panama Wrote:  No offense to the mission of the academies or to the football history, but I am continually amazed/perplexed by the interest in adding academy football. Maybe it's a Norteast and Mid Atlantic thing. But living in Georgia for 35 years I just have not witnessed the mad rush to get home to watch Army or Navy or even Army vs. Navy. Navy I get that they have 2 OOC games that may be of interest every year in Army and Notre Dame. Army and Air Force don't even have that much internet in their OOC games. We play Air Force there this year and most people frankly are more interested in our Wisconsin away game. I had to look at our future schedules to remember that we have a 1:1 vs. Army in 2021/2022. Most fans are more interested in our other 1:1s. So it's a little perplexing to see people write "if we get all the academies we're good" especially in the face of the fact that Army does not want to be in a conference nor do they need to be and Air Force has zero reason to leave the MWC.

Every program has "zero reason to leave" until they actually leave.

The AAC has already established itself as the top non-autonomy conference. The conference has given the programs here zero reason to leave... except more money awaits on the other side of that autonomy rainbow.
The MWC has not been doing so well as of late. When a spot opens up in the AAC, I'm sure Air Force will consider whether or not it would be more prestigious to align itself with its natural rival (Navy) and all the added exposure that would come with it.
That's how realignment works. It's a compare/contrast issue, and the tipping point lies in money/prestige/exposure/relationships.
You add those up and it tips one way or the other. It's never right down the middle.

By the way, the academies are comparable to the BYUs and NDs... National fanbases... Pageantry... Tradition...

(07-30-2016 04:09 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  *Taxes are not certain. The very poor don't pay them. The very rich don't pay them.

They don't pay income taxes, but sales taxes they pay like everyone else.

They get that game (Navy) regardless. Why would they travel across country? Will the conference games in the AAC be more of interest to people in Colorado?

(07-31-2016 07:52 AM)panama Wrote:  They get that game (Navy) regardless. Why would they travel across country? Will the conference games in the AAC be more of interest to people in Colorado?

A conference race is about more than just a game. In the AAC, Air Force would compete all year with Navy in the conference race.
In the West Division, they would have a very select group of regional, recognized academic schools to align with. Navy, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, etc. That's a good division for them, and the fanbase in Colorado would enjoy the conference race, I'm sure.

Conditions would have to be right for Army to join.

First of all, I think 'Navy to the AAC' would have to be seen as a success. It's early, but so far, so good.

Secondly, Army would need to be having some sort of problem with scheduling. Looking at their future schedules, there seems to be no problem with this at all. In fact, they've got so many games scheduled that it would be years before they could join even if they were able to postpone the bulk of their games.

Finally, a reasonable solution for the Army-Navy game would need to be found. Either keeping it as a non-conference game or moving it to Veterans Day would be my top choices, not that my opinion matters at all.

So, I don't see Army in the AAC in the near future, even though they'd be a great pickup.

(07-31-2016 07:57 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 07:52 AM)panama Wrote:  They get that game (Navy) regardless. Why would they travel across country? Will the conference games in the AAC be more of interest to people in Colorado?

A conference race is about more than just a game. In the AAC, Air Force would compete all year with Navy in the conference race.
In the West Division, they would have a very select group of regional, recognized academic schools to align with. Navy, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, etc. That's a good division for them, and the fanbase in Colorado would enjoy the conference race, I'm sure.

Their current division includes Wyoming, Boise, New Mexico, Colorado State and Utah State. Going to guess those schools may have alumni in Colorado and may be more familiar to people Denver and Boulder.

(07-31-2016 08:01 AM)Chappy Wrote:  Conditions would have to be right for Army to join.

First of all, I think 'Navy to the AAC' would have to be seen as a success. It's early, but so far, so good.

Secondly, Army would need to be having some sort of problem with scheduling. Looking at their future schedules, there seems to be no problem with this at all. In fact, they've got so many games scheduled that it would be years before they could join even if they were able to postpone the bulk of their games.

Finally, a reasonable solution for the Army-Navy game would need to be found. Either keeping it as a non-conference game or moving it to Veterans Day would be my top choices, not that my opinion matters at all.

So, I don't see Army in the AAC in the near future, even though they'd be a great pickup.

Navy doesn't have any more of a difficult time schedule than Army.. Don't kid yourself... but Gladchuk saw the writing on the wall...

The world of college sports is changing rapidly. Staying an indy will have different ramifications a few years down the road. If Army decides to join the AAC, it will be for stability in that environment. Scheduling is just a part of that.

(07-31-2016 08:03 AM)panama Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 07:57 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 07:52 AM)panama Wrote:  They get that game (Navy) regardless. Why would they travel across country? Will the conference games in the AAC be more of interest to people in Colorado?

A conference race is about more than just a game. In the AAC, Air Force would compete all year with Navy in the conference race.
In the West Division, they would have a very select group of regional, recognized academic schools to align with. Navy, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, etc. That's a good division for them, and the fanbase in Colorado would enjoy the conference race, I'm sure.

Their current division includes Wyoming, Boise, New Mexico, Colorado State and Utah State. Going to guess those schools may have alumni in Colorado and may be more familiar to people Denver and Boulder.

If you want to hold on to 'traveling fans' filling up part of their stadium as a reason to stay, feel free. It's just not how schools make their decisions on conference affiliation. The visiting section is way down that list.

(07-31-2016 08:09 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 08:03 AM)panama Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 07:57 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 07:52 AM)panama Wrote:  They get that game (Navy) regardless. Why would they travel across country? Will the conference games in the AAC be more of interest to people in Colorado?

A conference race is about more than just a game. In the AAC, Air Force would compete all year with Navy in the conference race.
In the West Division, they would have a very select group of regional, recognized academic schools to align with. Navy, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, etc. That's a good division for them, and the fanbase in Colorado would enjoy the conference race, I'm sure.

Their current division includes Wyoming, Boise, New Mexico, Colorado State and Utah State. Going to guess those schools may have alumni in Colorado and may be more familiar to people Denver and Boulder.

If you want to hold on to 'traveling fans' filling up part of their stadium as a reason to stay, feel free. It's just not how schools make their decisions on conference affiliation. The visiting section is way down that list.

If i can't sell tickets to my fan base what is the point. The games must be of interest. And there is interest when I as a fan recognize regional schools and work daily with their alumni. It's one of the reasons always given for the eventual CUSA split. It's also why the MAC has been together for eons. Failing a $10M plus payout annually most schools are not making that switch. You're working this from the how do I fix this angle and ignoring the who actually wants in angle.

(07-31-2016 08:15 AM)panama Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 08:09 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 08:03 AM)panama Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 07:57 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  

(07-31-2016 07:52 AM)panama Wrote:  They get that game (Navy) regardless. Why would they travel across country? Will the conference games in the AAC be more of interest to people in Colorado?

A conference race is about more than just a game. In the AAC, Air Force would compete all year with Navy in the conference race.
In the West Division, they would have a very select group of regional, recognized academic schools to align with. Navy, SMU, Tulane, Tulsa, Memphis, etc. That's a good division for them, and the fanbase in Colorado would enjoy the conference race, I'm sure.

Their current division includes Wyoming, Boise, New Mexico, Colorado State and Utah State. Going to guess those schools may have alumni in Colorado and may be more familiar to people Denver and Boulder.

If you want to hold on to 'traveling fans' filling up part of their stadium as a reason to stay, feel free. It's just not how schools make their decisions on conference affiliation. The visiting section is way down that list.

If i can't sell tickets to my fan base what is the point. The games must be of interest. And there is interest when I as a fan recognize regional schools and work daily with their alumni. It's one of the reasons always given for the eventual CUSA split. It's also why the MAC has been together for eons. Failing a $10M plus payout annually most schools are not making that switch. You're working this from the how do I fix this angle and ignoring the who actually wants in angle.

Air Force fans want to see Air Force play.

Utah State, New Mexico, etc, etc.. don't instill fire in the bellies of Falcons fans... smh.. I've heard it all now. The AAC West are better teams, and a divisional race with Navy would actually fuel the fans fire.