I know a ton of you guys want Army in the AAC, but they would be terrible most years and eventually leave. A more realistic conference for them is the MAC. I think they would quickly make noise and could win the championship every few years.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Even in the MAC, I think they may find it hard to have consistent winning seasons. They also wouldn't be invited. The MAC also has a rule in place that all members must be full members and not football only. Army isn't gonna do that.
Then theres money. Army makes more as an independent than the MAC makes. In fact, I am pretty certain they make more for the Army/Navy game than the MAC does for the entire year.
(11-04-2015 10:21 AM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote: [ -> ]I know a ton of you guys want Army in the AAC, but they would be terrible most years and eventually leave. A more realistic conference for them is the MAC. I think they would quickly make noise and could win the championship every few years.
I would caution predicting where any program will be X years into the future.
A while back SI published an article that Army & Navy should drop football to DI-AA. The article was written in 1994 but the same points could have been made through 2002 at Navy.
Now Navy has gone bowling 12 of the past 13 years & getting votes for top 25 with a QB tied for the most rushing TDs in all of NCAA history.
Boise State was DI-AA and in less than 10 years beat Oklahoma in the BCS Fiesta Bowl.
Programs can and do change.
The value Army would bring to the AAC is not about the competitive product they would put on the field as much as it would be the value they would bring to the next TV contract. The national appeal of Army and the ability to leverage the whole “American Conference” angle, along with the exposure of the Army Navy game as a conference game, and the NYC / Westchester County NY media market is more value than any program not named BYU could bring.
Army would get a predictable football schedule and a recruiting presence and exposure (not football recruiting Cadet recruiting) in Florida, NC, TN, OK and Texas. Support for West Point football is as strong as any program in this conference. They averaged over 34,000 last season (capacity 38,000) in 5 home games against Buffalo, Ball State, Rice, Air Force and UConn.
The divide between the P5 and G5 has more to do with TV revenue than on the field performance, fans need to look past Army in terms of what they do on the field, their value goes much deeper.
I don't think Army is interested in moving anytime soon right now.
(11-04-2015 10:47 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote: [ -> ]The value Army would bring to the AAC is not about the competitive product they would put on the field as much as it would be the value they would bring to the next TV contract. The national appeal of Army and the ability to leverage the whole “American Conference” angle, along with the exposure of the Army Navy game as a conference game, and the NYC / Westchester County NY media market is more value than any program not named BYU could bring.
Army would get a predictable football schedule and a recruiting presence and exposure (not football recruiting Cadet recruiting) in Florida, NC, TN, OK and Texas. Support for West Point football is as strong as any program in this conference. They averaged over 34,000 last season (capacity 38,000) in 5 home games against Buffalo, Ball State, Rice, Air Force and UConn.
The divide between the P5 and G5 has more to do with TV revenue than on the field performance, fans need to look past Army in terms of what they do on the field, their value goes much deeper.
I couldnt agree more. I know Army wouldnt be competitive at the beginning but Id invite them over anybody else, except BYU.
Army has value... lots. What our conference lacks is an identity. We have no pageantry, history or strong tradition... except for that excellent UConn/UCF rivalry.
Adding Army give the AAC one of the most premier games of the entire year. Army/Navy has great ratings everytime. I watch each year.
Where their extra added value comes from is that Air Force has said consistantly that if Army and Navy were in the same conference that they would be more inclined to go. With all the Boise St drama in the MWC, adding Army would all but ensure Air Force would make the move.
Having those two makes the AAC, even more of the "American" conference. Its adds to identity, brand and prestige. Id take those two in a heartbeat.... and if CSU wants to come along then fantastic.
(11-04-2015 10:47 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote: [ -> ]The value Army would bring to the AAC is not about the competitive product they would put on the field as much as it would be the value they would bring to the next TV contract. The national appeal of Army and the ability to leverage the whole “American Conference” angle, along with the exposure of the Army Navy game as a conference game, and the NYC / Westchester County NY media market is more value than any program not named BYU could bring.
Army would get a predictable football schedule and a recruiting presence and exposure (not football recruiting Cadet recruiting) in Florida, NC, TN, OK and Texas. Support for West Point football is as strong as any program in this conference. They averaged over 34,000 last season (capacity 38,000) in 5 home games against Buffalo, Ball State, Rice, Air Force and UConn.
The divide between the P5 and G5 has more to do with TV revenue than on the field performance, fans need to look past Army in terms of what they do on the field, their value goes much deeper.
Good post
IDK how Army will do now but all I know is they weren't quite successful in CUSA.
(11-04-2015 10:47 AM)NYCTUFan Wrote: [ -> ]The value Army would bring to the AAC is not about the competitive product they would put on the field as much as it would be the value they would bring to the next TV contract. The national appeal of Army and the ability to leverage the whole “American Conference” angle, along with the exposure of the Army Navy game as a conference game, and the NYC / Westchester County NY media market is more value than any program not named BYU could bring.
Army would get a predictable football schedule and a recruiting presence and exposure (not football recruiting Cadet recruiting) in Florida, NC, TN, OK and Texas. Support for West Point football is as strong as any program in this conference. They averaged over 34,000 last season (capacity 38,000) in 5 home games against Buffalo, Ball State, Rice, Air Force and UConn.
The divide between the P5 and G5 has more to do with TV revenue than on the field performance, fans need to look past Army in terms of what they do on the field, their value goes much deeper.
This.
Plus they would be one more American member that some of the A5 conferences count as P5 opponent.
I'd bet Army is going to sit back and see if Navy fares better in conference play than Army did during their CUSA days. Then if Navy is successful, they may reassess their independence. I'm sure the MAC would be glad to change its "all or nothing" rule to get Army, and I'm sure the SBC or CUSA would be happy to have them as well. As for the AAC, I can't see us taking them in unless there's some competitive improvement and there's an obvious 14th team to join with them (which would give us 12 all-sports members).
The biggest stumbling block about Army being in the AAC would be that Army-Navy would be a conference game and thus necessarily would have to be before the AAC Champ Game. Not sure they have any desire to give up the exclusivity around that game.
Army failed in CUSA because their program wasn't ready to make the move when they did. They had 1 good season, but the dirty truth was that they were scheduling 3 or more games a year against 1-AA teams, masking the true position of their team. They're not in a much better position in 2015 than they were in 1997, so I'd expect similar results if they made the jump now. Obviously having Army or Air Force in the AAC fold would make scheduling tons easier for Navy though.
I'd be in favor of adding Army, if we expanded and needed one more, for all the reasons stated above. If Navy can be good, and Air Force can be respectable, Army can too.
BUT... Army has their independent schedule under contract through 2022. A series with Wake Forrest runs through 2026. West Point isn't likely to spend a ton on buyouts (though the jerks bought out Tulsa's return game after we clobbered them in West Point a few years back. My Cousin was a cadet and had a travel permit for the Tulsa game!).
Unfortunately, it appears that their schedule is softening considerably moving forward. Lots fewer games with OU, Michigan, etc. and lots more games with Dartmouth, UMASS, VMI, Morgan State, North Texas, Directional Michigans, and Buffalo. The schedule seems to be dropping to 1 named team and some "winnable" games.
The AAC would be an overall step up in competition. With Navy in the conference, Army/Navy would both free up a spot on the schedule for marquee matchups OOC.
We would win it every year once I could afford a PS3 and a copy of NCAA Football.
Army would probably get to bowl every 2 to 3 years in the MAC. I doubt they would get to a bowl more than once a decade in the AAC.
If Army joined the AAC, could they improve their product on the field? Why aren't they more competitive like Navy and Air Force? Military restrictions, funding, facilities?
I would be against adding Army on competitive grounds, but as many have stated above, would be totally in favor on the grounds of making the Army / Navy game a conference game (WOW!).
Having said that, we are the right size now and there is no need to add a team. If the B12/ACC comes calling for a program, I would venture Army as a FB only would be on the short list for invitation.
Time will tell. The AAC has become the premier non-P5 conference... which means a few of us likely get poached into the cartel at some point...
(11-04-2015 12:48 PM)Xbones Wrote: [ -> ]If Army joined the AAC, could they improve their product on the field? Why aren't they more competitive like Navy and Air Force? Military restrictions, funding, facilities?
Army has physical fitness requirements for their cadets that make it very difficult for them to be competitive. We are trying to upgrade the quality of play to near P5 level--Army cant deal with that on a week-in week-out basis. They don't have the size and due to their physical training standards, I doubt they ever will.
You can still get the "American" branding play and synergy through an official bowl and scheduling affiliation with Army.
Army already plays Temple and Tulane frequently and UConn occasionally. Go grab a 4-game deal (outside of the Army-Navy game) that tends toward more games against Temple, Tulane, and UConn and gets Army to Texas, Florida, NC, Ohio, etc. The affiliation would allow the AAC to play up the relationship in its PR and marketing - and to broadcast 2 or 3 Army games as part of its TV deal each year - may be even some other non-AAC v. Army games.
Army isn't often bowl eligible, but their affiliation could help the AAC secure the Armed Forces and Poinsettia bowls on a consistent basis. It might help the AAC to sneak a spot into the Pinstripe Bowl.
(11-04-2015 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2015 12:48 PM)Xbones Wrote: [ -> ]If Army joined the AAC, could they improve their product on the field? Why aren't they more competitive like Navy and Air Force? Military restrictions, funding, facilities?
Army has physical fitness requirements for their cadets that make it very difficult for them to be competitive. We are trying to upgrade the quality of play to near P5 level--Army cant deal with that on a week-in week-out basis. They don't have the size and due to their physical training standards, I doubt they ever will.
How are they any different from Navy? (or Air Force?)
(11-04-2015 01:59 PM)NavyHusker Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2015 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote: [ -> ] (11-04-2015 12:48 PM)Xbones Wrote: [ -> ]If Army joined the AAC, could they improve their product on the field? Why aren't they more competitive like Navy and Air Force? Military restrictions, funding, facilities?
Army has physical fitness requirements for their cadets that make it very difficult for them to be competitive. We are trying to upgrade the quality of play to near P5 level--Army cant deal with that on a week-in week-out basis. They don't have the size and due to their physical training standards, I doubt they ever will.
How are they any different from Navy? (or Air Force?)
The way I understand it, they are similar, but the way they are enforced is different. Its mainly the timed runs that are the problem---for instance, from what I can gather, the Navy lineman don't have to meet the specified times during football season--but they are given a certain amount of time to get under the time once the season is over (and its not very long).