Army-Navy proposal alive on Big East table

[Cubanbull]

CoolBull

MT is a stooge that wants to keep the status quo. He is retiring at the end of 2009 and had told the ADs at the last go around that he WOULD NOT be interested in being the commissioner of a league if it had split.

His job is to protect the basketball schools that would get screwed longtime if a split happens. Is no coincidence he is leaving at the end of 2009.

It is MT that is pushing this Army/Navy crap

[Guest]

1) Scheduling "flexibility" does not equal scheduling "ability"... remember, USF has had problems in the past filling its schedule. The Miami contracts mitigate that significantly.  USF still needs one (road) game for 2009, one (home) for 2010, FOUR games for 2011, 3 for 2012... etc.

As for Army & Navy ... they have holes on their future schedules as well... (both DO play Rutgers for the next few seasons).

2) Army & Navy bring more than "storied past." They put butts in seats and eyeballs on tv.

3) In 2005, our first year in the Big East, USF only had five home games.  In an ideal world, USF would have seven home games every year.  It's hard to do when you only get three conference games.  (Heck, it can be hard to do with four conference home games).

---

I understand, and actually agree, that for USF it's not ideal.  Woolard and Leavitt have done a great job putting together a solid future schedule... however, if our choice is Army/Navy or, say, Buffalo or Western Kentucky - I'd take the Academies every time.

We can't play four BCS teams every year... in fact, ADDW and CJL only want 2 BCS teams each year.  So would oyu rather play Sun Belt or MAC teams than Army or Navy ???

[Guest]

After typing those schools I do rememeber reading that cjl's scheduling formula does include a 1-AA home game each year and those would fall under that criteria ..... some just barely. 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Adding Army/Navy and still having 4 ooc games doesn't seem like that bad of a deal to me..

CJL's "formula" (as reported in media reports last year):

A) 1 HOME game vs I-AA teams (because the NCAA allows a win over a I-AA to count towards bowl eligibilty)

1 HOME game vs BCS team

C) 1 AWAY game vs BCS team

D) 1 HOME game vs I-A team (non-BCS)

Years with 3 home Big East games:

E) 1 HOME game vs I-A team (probably a non-BCS team)

Years with 4 home Big East games:

E) 1 HOME game vs I-A non-BCS team  or  1 AWAY game vs I-A team (probably a non-BCS team)

---

2007, 2008, 2009, & 2010 fit this breakdown

A - Elon / Tennessee-Martin / Wofford / Samford

B - UNC / Kansas / Miami / T.B.A.

C - @ Auburn / @ NC State / @ Indiana / @ Miami

D - UCF / @ UCF / FIU / FAU

E - @ FAU / @ FIU / @ T.B.A. / @ Florida

[USF_Grouper]

and IF they get access to the Big East Bowls because of this deal which Im sure Navy will require. How many in this board will scream bloody murder when a 8-4 Navy playing mostly cupcakes goes 1-3 in Big East and gets chosen to a BE Bowl over a 8-4 USF that goes 4-3 in Big East. Think it cant happen?

Imagine the Meineke Bowl having to choose between an 8-4 (1-3) Navy team vs a USF 8-4 (4-3). Theyll go with Navy.

Sorry this deal sucks to high heaven. Navy WONT join for full membership

I think that is more an arguement for why the bowls system is awful.  If Care Care Bowl wants an 8-4 Navy team they can (and will) make that agreement with Navy directly.

[Joe]

Their home attendance is online with USF at about # 65 to 75, they draw on the road according to the opponent. The academy's are not looking to draw we pay for them. They are looking to promote the academy's and playing in some of the bigger markets in the US every year helps, so does a TV contract that is beetr than their current deal with ESPN that dictates the starting time of games and kills home attendance. Last years Army- Notre Dame game was 27% lower than the same time frame game the year before. That is with ND playing; people do not turn into watch Army play anybody they have to play Navy or a big name and then it is usually a blow out.

Army was in CUSA for 9 seasons and only asked to leave after a committee was formed that included Bill Parcells and they requested it because of a losing record and lack of scheduling flexibility. 4 games would keep them flexible

The Air force ranks higher in attendence at home than both of the other academies.

Navy plays in a stadium that holds a little less than 35,000 and averaged a little more than 33,000; Army plays in a stadium that holds 39,000 and averaged about 30,000 last year.

Further, their TV contracts are pretty sweet. Navy has a deal with CBS. CBS shows of course the Army-Navy game, plus the Navy Notre Dame game when it is a Navy home game; every other home game is on CSTV for  (Don't quote me, but I believe about $4 Million a year) with an option to sell select games to ESPN for more money.

Army has a deal with ESPN, not sure of the logistics.

I know people don't turn in to watch Army, they suck. But Navy has drawn ratings, as has Air Force. A competitive academy pulls in the viewers because so many who were in the Army, Navy, and Air Force find themselves rooting for the academy they were in.

Finally both teams have exclusive deals with bowl games...

I just don't see it happening.

[Bullpride08]

army and navy could schedule 4-6 guaranteed wins a year, the play ND and themselves and have 4 BE games (2 vs top tier 2 vs bottom tier)

this means  automatic 6 win seasons and poss 8-9 wins in good years...this is respectable and will get them to bowl games

that is a winning formula long term.

i had proposed this solution as our "9th member since the BE went to 16.

It's a winning formula for Army and Navy, but I couldn't care less.  What about the BE?

As with Notre Dame, we would have teams leeching off of the BigEast to make themselves better, but no real commitment.  Army and Navy won't even count in the standings, yet we would be forced to play them?  It seems like lose-lose to good BE teams, USF included.  You lose scheduling flexibility, you get nothing if you win, and if you lose, you lose a lot.

I could be wrong, Triple B, but I think USF could do better.  Army, Navy?  It just seems like being desperate and settling.  With Louisville, WVU, Rutgers, USF all regular top25 programs from now on, plus the development of Pitt and UConn, the BigEast shouldn't take a backseat to anyone, and shouldn't have to stoop to begging Army and Navy to be partial members.  Just my two cents.

It's very simple, the non-football refuse to allow any new members including football only.  The partial inclusion of these two would help teams with scheduling and lessen the need for a fifth OOC, or at least the OOC would be against a partial member in Army or Navy.  It's actually a wonderful idea given the fact we're never going to see expansion in the BE and all the BE football teams are worried about OOC scheduling particularly with some teams getting good enough that smaller schools are less inclined to provide advantageous scheduling. 

[Joe]

After typing those schools I do rememeber reading that cjl's scheduling formula does include a 1-AA home game each year and those would fall under that criteria ..... some just barely. 

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Adding Army/Navy and still having 4 ooc games doesn't seem like that bad of a deal to me..

CJL's "formula" (as reported in media reports last year):

A) 1 HOME game vs I-AA teams (because the NCAA allows a win over a I-AA to count towards bowl eligibilty)

1 HOME game vs BCS team

C) 1 AWAY game vs BCS team

D) 1 HOME game vs I-A team (non-BCS)

Years with 3 home Big East games:

E) 1 HOME game vs I-A team (probably a non-BCS team)

Years with 4 home Big East games:

E) 1 HOME game vs I-A non-BCS team  or  1 AWAY game vs I-A team (probably a non-BCS team)

---

2007, 2008, 2009, & 2010 fit this breakdown

A - Elon / Tennessee-Martin / Wofford / Samford

B - UNC / Kansas / Miami / T.B.A.

C - @ Auburn / @ NC State / @ Indiana / @ Miami

D - UCF / @ UCF / FIU / FAU

E - @ FAU / @ FIU / @ T.B.A. / @ Florida

Not too get too far off topic, but I had heard that Indiana was trying to get out of or move the 2009 and 2011 games, this was before the Hoeppner passing. Anyone else hear this?

[Joe]

It's very simple, the non-football refuse to allow any new members including football only.  The partial inclusion of these two would help teams with scheduling and lessen the need for a fifth OOC, or at least the OOC would be against a partial member in Army or Navy.   It's actually a wonderful idea given the fact we're never going to see expansion in the BE and all the BE football teams are worried about OOC scheduling particularly with some teams getting good enough that smaller schools are less inclined to provide advantageous scheduling. 

Bien,

I know you had mentioned the contract extension through 2013 the other day. I've been told that there is still an option (Think in 2009, as the original contract stated) to split the leagues, I really wouldn't rule out expansion. However, I do think that if the basketball and football sides spilt it will be because the basketball side wants out and NOT because the football side wants to add a team.

[BullsFanInTX]

C-USA tried this. I mean they offered both schools the kitchen sink. However, they only drew Army and even with that Army wanted out after a year (it was later granted). The Big East made a similar proposal in the early 90s, and they refused then too.

I highly doubt that Army and Navy are going to join a conference, while the BCS would intrigue them, it's not gonna be enough because in all likelihood (and they know it) it's tough for 270lb offensive linemen to hold up each week. Further, they both have historically big names that draw well. They have their own cvontracts to get on ESPN and do frequent the network.

To set aside Air Force, the academy can around in the 60s, they don't have the "Army" and "Navy" drawing power and probably never will.

I've seen crazier things, but I fully believe Army and Navy will always be independent from here on out.

Joe, they would not be members, they both would maintain their independent status.  This is a win-win for Army/Navy and the BE.  We have our 8 game "conference" schedule and they get flexibility to maintain independence.  Plus they get to play 4 good opponents and 8 cupcakes if they want.  They may also help secure more/better bowls for the BE if we let them piggy back off our deals like ND (IF, not that we have to).  Navy, especially, is competitive and has national appeal.  Army too, but they aren't so good.  So you have a almost sure win with an opponent that has national appeal. 

I LOVE this idea.  I think it is the best solution rather than adding Memphis, EZU, or CFU (no, NO, and NOOO!)

The only other realistic team I would like to see added would be TCU.  (Why aren't they ever mentioned, they are no farther away from the rest of the BE than Tampa, do a mapquest search).

[Jamie]

The only other realistic team I would like to see added would be TCU.  (Why aren't they ever mentioned, they are no farther away from the rest of the BE than Tampa, do a mapquest search).

1. Neither team does much for the other team's fans, unless you count people like me who live in the other team's city.

2. Even though TCU is at least as good if not better than USF, they get more out of beating us than we would get out of beating them. They can continue to play off the "look at the BCS teams we beat" angle they've used with their wins over Oklahoma, Iowa State, Baylor and Texas Tech in the last couple of years.

3. The travel costs are prohibitive. We have a bizarre airline market here and it's more expensive to fly from Tampa to Dallas than to just about any eastern city. (I have to put up with this every time I visit my family - in my five years here I've probably spent hundreds of extra dollars on airfare because it's so non-competitive.)