(06-26-2018 09:03 PM)_C2_ Wrote: (06-26-2018 08:09 AM)esayem Wrote: Army went 10-2 before joining C-USA and floated around .500 the years before that. They were always tough and respectable, not the doormat they became after C-USA. Granted, their new coach tried to implement a West Coast passing attack, which was part of their demise. Another note, the C-USA they joined was a better football conference than the American; it housed two P5 teams in Louisville and TCU, after all.
Yeah but even back then they were good, not great. Why play a C-USA/AAC schedule when you can play a national schedule? Same for Navy, after their traditional games against the academies and their Notre Dame game, they're down to one other game plus a potential bowl game.
I'm replying to C2, because this is the post that prompted me to pull together these thoughts. However, I'm also addressing some points in subsequent posts.
As a Navy fan, I completely understand the rationale for joining the Big East in 2011-2012 (pursued for years, started talking about how to get to "yes" in 2011, and announced in January 2012) and sticking through the chaos to be proud members of the AAC. Because of why we gave up independence in the first place, I am all-in with the P6 campaign. And saying all that, I miss our ability to schedule as an independent including both lower-level contract-bowl-conference teams with whom we had a lot of history as well as the occassional big-time game.
Look at our last few years of independence...in 2014, Ohio State returned a home-and-home, which we played in Baltimore. Additionally Rutgers. In 2013, Indiana Duke and Pitt. In 2012 PennState Indiana and Arizona State in a bowl. In 2011 South Carolina and Rutgers.
Now, as pointed out, 8 conference games plus AF, Army, & ND we have one game to schedule, and we have been choosing to get a 5th true home game with an FCS. That has recently been all Patriot League to give a little something back to our all-sports league partners.
Joining the Big East / AAC was done for two major reasons. The primary was to be on the right side of the divide in 2025-ish. USNA could accomplish its mission without being at the top level of football, BUT being at the top level of football is central to how we accomplish the mission today. It's a front porch and a first look for many many midshipman candidates, not just football players. It funds our other 32 varsity intercollegiate sports -- if any, ANY of your schools do that much I'll be shocked -- as well as directly funding club sports and contributing to the intramural programs which ALL mids do to keep with the "develop midshipmen...physically" part of the mission.
The second reason was that although we were successful as an independent, it was getting harder. Bowl deals through '16, but no guarantees beyond that. Scheduling was getting harder, especially in November. tOSU, Penn State, South Carolina would still say yes, but a lot of schools stopped taking our calls - Indiana coach Kevin Wilson said he never wanted to play us again after the two games mentioned above. Look again at Army's November - uninspiring. Uninspiring, but before Monken's recent success, other ADs still said yes. We were more of a no-win, as in the last 15 years we have more BCS auto / "P5" wins than any non-BCS-auto/"P5" school. Yes, more than Boise State. With a couple winning seasons, their scheduling may get even harder.