(10-07-2019 04:15 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Army has no problem signing lower bowls.

True.

I’ll say this: if Army is satisfied with the Status Quo, they can probably sustain it for a long time. The scheduling formula seems to be: Navy and Air Force, 1 blue-blood, 3 middleweights, 4 lightweights, and 2 FCS. I don’t believe anybody on the outside is gonna mess with that.

On the other hand, I believe we are about to witness (over next few years) Navy athletics generate significantly more revenue (than Army) and receive significantly greater media-visibility via ABC/ESPN. Over time, this will translate into obtaining players and coaches of a higher caliber than what Army is able to do. What will Army do then?

(10-07-2019 05:17 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 04:15 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Army has no problem signing lower bowls.

True.

I’ll say this: if Army is satisfied with the Status Quo, they can probably sustain it for a long time. The scheduling formula seems to be: Navy and Air Force, 1 blue-blood, 3 middleweights, 4 lightweights, and 2 FCS. I don’t believe anybody on the outside is gonna mess with that.

On the other hand, I believe we are about to witness (over next few years) Navy athletics generate significantly more revenue (than Army) and receive significantly greater media-visibility via ABC/ESPN. Over time, this will translate into obtaining players and coaches of a higher caliber than what Army is able to do. What will Army do then?

The post-graduate service commitment is the rate limiter there. You're not going to get very many top football players willing to take on a five-year tour after college. Plus the SAs are plenty visible as it is. Even if Navy-Army was the only national TV game for either school, the ratings far surpass any AAC vs. AAC game.

Army seems pretty content with where they are: They can schedule who they please, their games are on TV, they have deals with bowls and they're not hurting for dance partners. No reason for them to do anything different unless the world around them changes dramatically.

Right?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-07-2019 05:35 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 05:17 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I believe we are about to witness (over next few years) Navy athletics generate significantly more revenue (than Army) and receive significantly greater media-visibility via ABC/ESPN. Over time, this will translate into obtaining players and coaches of a higher caliber than what Army is able to do.

The post-graduate service commitment is the rate limiter there. You're not going to get very many top football players willing to take on a five-year tour after college.

Granted, bona-fide NFL prospects are not going to be interested in the SA’s except in a few very-rare situations. But even allowing for that, there is a still a wide spectrum of talent available to choose from. If Navy is consistently drawing from the high-end of that spectrum, and Army is not, it will show on the field when they face one another. Time will tell if that happens or not.

Quote:Even if Navy-Army was the only national TV game for either school, the ratings far surpass any AAC vs. AAC game.

True, but Navy benefits from that, too. And Navy is (now) going to be getting other high-profile media appearances throughout the season. Not as high-profile as the Army-Navy game (of course not), but a lot better than CBS Sports Network.

(10-07-2019 12:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  We already play one cut block school. No thanks.

Point taken.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-07-2019 11:19 AM)TampaTom Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 11:10 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 10:21 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  What's the advantage for Army though? They don't need money

Source?

[img]

Army is a little behind Navy in setting up their Athletic Association as a 501.c.3 Air Force is further behind. USAToday had AF at something like 55% subsidized, since they don't have that accounting clarified.
As of 2015 reporting 3-4% of Navy's $40M + athletic budget was government appropriated funds - your federal tax dollars. Army is somewhere between those two.
For Navy, that 3-4% is because for some non-revenue sports (NAAA supports 33 varsity intercollegiate sports plus some of the higher level club sports.) coaches are PE department professors, including some active duty members - fully extricating travel and such is difficult.

(10-07-2019 11:39 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Army *football*, LOL

Says the poster that asked for a "source" about their money...

(10-07-2019 05:17 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  On the other hand, I believe we are about to witness (over next few years) Navy athletics generate significantly more revenue (than Army) and receive significantly greater media-visibility via ABC/ESPN. Over time, this will translate into obtaining players and coaches of a higher caliber than what Army is able to do. What will Army do then?

Source?

Logic?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-07-2019 09:41 PM)HiddenDragon Wrote:  

(10-07-2019 05:17 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  On the other hand, I believe we are about to witness (over next few years) Navy athletics generate significantly more revenue (than Army) and receive significantly greater media-visibility via ABC/ESPN. Over time, this will translate into obtaining players and coaches of a higher caliber than what Army is able to do. What will Army do then?

Source?

Well, our football share of AAC-ESPN media deal will be about $5M per year, guessing +$2M over Army's CBSSN money, plus $2M more from CFP, and we have ND and they don't and our gate guarantee from the host city is about $4M...that's 20% of the athletic budget.
Recruiting advantages come from being in the NY6 bowl conversation and other P6 intangibles, and telling Florida recruits and moms we'll play at UCF and USF and telling Texas recruits and moms we'll play at Houston and SMU, etc.
I feel no need to let Army or AirForce into our P6 world.

Let's assume for a moment that both Army and the AAC would be interested in this sort of arrangement.

Why would Navy NOT pitch a holy fit?

Navy is obligated to play a full schedule and Army would be allowed to reap virtually the same benefit with much less obligation. I can't see a world where Navy would not demand equal standing with Army.

(10-07-2019 10:16 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What do you all think about a 5 game deal between the AAC and Army?:

2 Home games (rotating)
2 Away games (rotating)
1 Neutral site game with Navy (AAC gets tv rights on years Navy is the Home team)

Those 4 Army games would help ease scheduling problems in November associated with having an odd number of teams.

They could conceivably give Army bowl access too, if Army would prefer that to the deals they are already getting on their own.

Any chance Navy might prefer this type of deal to what they have now?

Army does not need a scheduling agreement with the AAC. They can schedule decent games through out the season, have access to Play Off money from the Play Off System and do not need help in securing access to bowls. Actually in a they have two bowl opportunities with the money they make off the Army / Navy Game and a season ending holiday bowl if they are 6 & 6 or better for the year. They absolutely do not need a ND deal for their program.

(10-07-2019 12:44 PM)shere khan Wrote:  We already play one cut block school. No thanks.

That is one of the reasons Army will not join. I do not know the Army's schedule, but it would be more difficult to play teams already playing teams with that offence every year.

One ACL tear per game is enough when dealing with NAVY.

(10-07-2019 11:32 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Let's assume for a moment that both Army and the AAC would be interested in this sort of arrangement.

Why would Navy NOT pitch a holy fit?

Navy is obligated to play a full schedule and Army would be allowed to reap virtually the same benefit with much less obligation. I can't see a world where Navy would not demand equal standing with Army.

If Navy liked the Army deal I imagine that the AAC might be willing to do something similar with them.

The AAC would drop to 10 football members, 5 would play Army, 5 would play Navy, and then the next year they’d switch so that in a 4 year cycle you would visit both Army and Navy and host each of them once.

If both parties were interested this would have been done a while ago. I am sure ND's deal sparked similar ideas in people's heads. Bottom line as someone has said, it's a solution in search of a problem.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(10-07-2019 10:16 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  What do you all think about a 5 game deal between the AAC and Army?:

2 Home games (rotating)
2 Away games (rotating)
1 Neutral site game with Navy (AAC gets tv rights on years Navy is the Home team)

Those 4 Army games would help ease scheduling problems in November associated with having an odd number of teams.

They could conceivably give Army bowl access too, if Army would prefer that to the deals they are already getting on their own.

Any chance Navy might prefer this type of deal to what they have now?

No, and the AAC shouldn't give them one either.

A "Notre Dame type deal" would include full membership in all sports besides football and a set number of football games.

Neither the AAC nor Army would be interested in this at all.

The AAC would probably be interested in a Navy-type deal, aka a football-only membership for Army, but apparently Army is not interested in this.

I've been on-board the Army, BYU or Boise train for a long time, but after looking at Army's scheduling during their recent run of success, I do have concerns about whether they could do well here. They have been playing pretty fluffy schedules.

Army seems entirely happy with being a football independent.

There is nothing that suggests otherwise.

First, I seriously doubt Army has any interest in this. Other than Navy, they have no natural affinities with AAC schools, and they have no trouble putting together good schedules as an independent. Also, for obvious reasons, Army likes to play a geographically national schedule, they play a smattering of G5 from across the country.

And, this could create internal AAC problems, as I would think that Navy would carefully scrutinize any arrangement proposed between Army and the AAC, and would likely be quite upset if they felt that Army was somehow being given benefits that they, as AAC members, aren't getting.