Some thoughts on Navy

[WoadBlue]

Years ago, some Big Wig at Army allegedly said that Army would never try to be part of a Major conference because its team would get beat up too much playing that kind of schedule. That alleged assertion has since become proof that none of the 3 academies would ever make the leap if offered.

Navy agreed to join the BE before it was officially demoted from Major in football, which demotion led to the death of BE football, only to be reborn as the AAC. The AAC is definitely the #6 conference for football. In fact, its quality of play is so good down through 2/3rds of the league that if it had 2 schools with large average attendance (even if just WVU and Ok St (added on), it would be accounted a Major or Power conference.

Has Navy been swamped in such a conference? Not hardly. Navy Is no worse than the 4th best AAC team and may be 2nd best - which is my assessment unless it loses to Army.

And that means that Navy would not be afraid to play ACC football and would have a good shot to do well.

 

[WoadBlue]

Ken Niumatalolo should keep that in mind when he talks to BYU.

 

[texascpa]

Ken Niumatalolo should keep that in mind when he talks to BYU.

BYU will pay a lot more than Navy does. Keenan Reynolds is gone after their bowl game, plus 9 other Senior offensive starters.

 

[texascpa]

You know what, the money might not be that big of a difference afterall. Ken's making $1.7M! Holy crap, I didn't realize Navy paid their coaches that well. Army's coach makes $1.4M.

 

[SWC75]

Army-Navy-Boston College-Syracuse-Penn State-Pittsburgh-West Virginia-Virginia Tech- Maryland should have formed a conference back in the 50's. I think it might still be in business, with maybe Connecticut, Rutgers and Temple added to make it 12.

Things just aren't the way they should be. Oh Lord

 

[longtimefan]

Army-Navy-Boston College-Syracuse-Penn State-Pittsburgh-West Virginia-Virginia Tech- Maryland should have formed a conference back in the 50's. I think it might still be in business, with maybe Connecticut, Rutgers and Temple added to make it 12.

Things just aren't the way they should be. Oh Lord

The '60's might have been a more opportune time. In the '50's, Holy Cross and maybe Boston U (which was about even with BC) might have wanted in. And, VT was nothing--a condition that existed until Beamer. And UMd was not going to bail so quickly on the ACC, of which they were a founding member. Etc., etc.

In short, there were lots of complications. No simple solution.

That being said, what we ended up with is sure a mess.

 

[atom58]

Army-Navy-Boston College-Syracuse-Penn State-Pittsburgh-West Virginia-Virginia Tech- Maryland should have formed a conference back in the 50's. I think it might still be in business, with maybe Connecticut, Rutgers and Temple added to make it 12.

Things just aren't the way they should be. Oh Lord

I posted on this site before about the proposed "Airplane Conference" of 1959 which the Pentagon vetoed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconference

These days most long distance travel is by plane but not so much back in the 1950s when schools were in more geographically contiguous conferences - that explains the funny name Airplane Conference because it would have stretched from coast to coast.

Interestingly enough, the "Superconference" idea came from Raycom at the behest of FSU's then-conference the Metro in 1990. We jumped into the ACC anyway because the $$ was better in the ACC than the SEC (basketball $$ > football $ in those days) and the trip to the mythical NC game was less perilous. It was still a good decision despite the perceived football weakness in the ACC. FSU's presence increased ACC football TV $$. Now with 4 new HCs the ACC will soon be the strongest in football that it has ever been. TV money drove the recent expansion with the SEC being the first 12 team 2 division conference with a $$ making title game from TV $$ between the 2 division winners. It was so successful, it caused the ACC, Pac-10, and Big 10 to expand to 12 members to have their own title game, and resulted in the death of the old Southwest conference as 4 Texas teams left to join the Big 8 so they could have a title game too.

The CFB playoff is now putting more stress on the conferences as there are only 4 spots for 5 conference winners. BTW, I hope the NCAA prevents the Big 12 from staging a title game with only 10 members. That would force them to be like the other 4 conferences. Cable/satellite TV $$ is still good despite loss of viewership b/c we are still under ESPN contract until 2027. What the long term trends will be is unknown. It will not affect conference $$ for a long while, if ever.

Finally if ND ever fully joins, they just may bring Navy with them as Navy kept ND afloat (mixed metaphor) during WW II.

 

[SWC75]

The '60's might have been a more opportune time. In the '50's, Holy Cross and maybe Boston U (which was about even with BC) might have wanted in. And, VT was nothing--a condition that existed until Beamer. And UMd was not going to bail so quickly on the ACC, of which they were a founding member. Etc., etc.

In short, there were lots of complications. No simple solution.

That being said, what we ended up with is sure a mess.

VT has a solid program before Beamer with Jerry Clairborne and Bill Dooley. And they ahd an undefeated tema in 1954:
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/VirginiaTech.htm

I picked the 1950's because that's when the ACC was formed and Maryland was a big football power. We might have gotten them then because their recruiting base was Pennsylvania in the Jim Tatum Era. SU upgraded their schedule to play the Terps, Army, Pitt and West Virginia in 1955. That might have been a good year to start.

 

[longtimefan]

VT has a solid program before Beamer with Jerry Clairborne and Bill Dooley. And they ahd an undefeated tema in 1954:
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/VirginiaTech.htm

I picked the 1950's because that's when the ACC was formed and Maryland was a big football power. We might have gotten them then because their recruiting base was Pennsylvania in the Jim Tatum Era. SU upgraded their schedule to play the Terps, Army, Pitt and West Virginia in 1955. That might have been a good year to start.

Re: VT--Their schedule was very regional at least through 1960. The only "Eastern" opponent they played was WVa. They didn't even play UMd. Their staples were Virginia, VMI, and Wm. & Mary. I don't think they were interested in playing all of us Yankees.

Thirty years later, the Big East rescued their football program. But it's a long way from 1960 to 1990.

 

[SWC75]

Re: VT--Their schedule was very regional at least through 1960. The only "Eastern" opponent they played was WVa. They didn't even play UMd. Their staples were Virginia, VMI, and Wm. & Mary. I don't think they were interested in playing all of us Yankees.

Thirty years later, the Big East rescued their football program. But it's a long way from 1960 to 1990.

SU played them in 1964. If they had the opportunity to join the conference I described, I think they would have taken it.

 

[WoadBlue]

Finally if ND ever fully joins, they just may bring Navy with them as Navy kept ND afloat (mixed metaphor) during WW II.

And that is the salient point.

Notre Dame has played Navy more than any other school. It is the longest uninterrupted intersectional rivalry in CFB. And Navy will play ND anywhere - Philly, NYC, Jacksonville, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Dublin. So Navy plays a significant role in ND playing all across the country and internationally.

The odds of ND ever going full member in ACC football without Navy also getting the invite are none and virtually none.

 

[Btstimpy]

And that is the salient point.

Notre Dame has played Navy more than any other school. It is the longest uninterrupted intersectional rivalry in CFB. And Navy will play ND anywhere - Philly, NYC, Jacksonville, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Dublin. So Navy plays a significant role in ND playing all across the country and internationally.

The odds of ND ever going full member in ACC football without Navy also getting the invite are none and virtually none.

Navy has a lot of history playing ACC schools over the years in addition to Notre Dame. Notre Dame has played Navy the most with 89 games, but here are other series with ACC members.

Duke 40 games
Virginia 39 games
Pittsburgh 39 games
Boston College 29 games
Syracuse 27 games
Georgia Tech 25 games
Wake Forest 12 games
Virginia Tech 10 games
North Carolina 10 games
NC State 9 games
Miami 5 games
Louisville 2 games
Clemson 1 game
Florida State 1 game

Annapolis is a good road trip and convenient for many in the conference. If Navy helps with Notre Dame scheduling and can allow Notre Dame to join in football, by all means.

 

[atom58]

Re: VT--Their schedule was very regional at least through 1960. The only "Eastern" opponent they played was WVa. They didn't even play UMd. Their staples were Virginia, VMI, and Wm. & Mary. I don't think they were interested in playing all of us Yankees.

Thirty years later, the Big East rescued their football program. But it's a long way from 1960 to 1990.

FSU had a standing series with Va Tech from 1988 through 1991 and it would have continued but we agreed to enter the ACC in 1990 and began play in football in 1992. The only loss the 1964 team had was to them in Blacksburg. Now we will see them only every 6 years unless both of us get to Charlotte - that happened in 2005 and 2010. It would be nice if we could somehow stagger or rotate games/divisions so that would occur more frequently. There are some long-term in-conference rivalries that I understand need to be preserved.

TV $$$ has driven all the conference expansions but it is still amazing that games older readers knew like Oklahoma-Nebraska, Texas-Arkansas, and Pitt-WVU have fallen by the wayside. At least since PSU seems not to want to play Pitt, that last series may be coming back, and the Army-Navy game seems indestructible even though the American Athletic Conference wanted them to change to an earlier date.

 

[WoadBlue]

Navy has a lot of history playing ACC schools over the years in addition to Notre Dame. Notre Dame has played Navy the most with 89 games, but here are other series with ACC members.

Duke 40 games
Virginia 39 games
Pittsburgh 39 games
Boston College 29 games
Syracuse 27 games
Georgia Tech 25 games
Wake Forest 12 games
Virginia Tech 10 games
North Carolina 10 games
NC State 9 games
Miami 5 games
Louisville 2 games
Clemson 1 game
Florida State 1 game

Annapolis is a good road trip and convenient for many in the conference. If Navy helps with Notre Dame scheduling and can allow Notre Dame to join in football, by all means.

Not only all that, but Navy needs no more than 3 or 4 Home games in Annapolis each year. Navy would play various Home games in locales other other than Annapolis. So I could see Navy playing its Home games versus FSU and Miami in Jacksonville or Tampa Bay. How about Navy versus VT in Baltimore? Navy versus UVA in Philly? Navy versus Dook or Cuse in NYC?

Navy's barnstorming could be of benefit to more than just ND. All of ACC football could benefit.

 

[WoadBlue]

FSU had a standing series with Va Tech from 1988 through 1991 and it would have continued but we agreed to enter the ACC in 1990 and began play in football in 1992. The only loss the 1964 team had was to them in Blacksburg. Now we will see them only every 6 years unless both of us get to Charlotte - that happened in 2005 and 2010. It would be nice if we could somehow stagger or rotate games/divisions so that would occur more frequently. There are some long-term in-conference rivalries that I understand need to be preserved.

TV $$$ has driven all the conference expansions but it is still amazing that games older readers knew like Oklahoma-Nebraska, Texas-Arkansas, and Pitt-WVU have fallen by the wayside. At least since PSU seems not to want to play Pitt, that last series may be coming back, and the Army-Navy game seems indestructible even though the American Athletic Conference wanted them to change to an earlier date.

If the Swofford proposal passes, the ACC can eliminate divisions. That means we can have each team play 3 or maybe 4 teams annually, which will mean much faster rotation. To use FSU - if FSU were to have Miami, Clemson, GT, and Wake (to prevent the FSU annual games from being too tough and to have FSU play an NC team annually) as annual rivals, FSU would play BC, Cuse, Louisville, and MooU much less than now scheduled, and would see VT, UNC, Dook, Pitt, and UVA more than now scheduled.

I think that greater variation in foes would be very good for ACC football. Variety is the spice of life. Going from 7 annual rivals down to 4 or even 3 will mean less boredom. It will allow all of us to exploit our league geography better.

 

[IHeartSUFball]

If the Swofford proposal passes, the ACC can eliminate divisions. That means we can have each team play 3 or maybe 4 teams annually, which will mean much faster rotation. To use FSU - if FSU were to have Miami, Clemson, GT, and Wake (to prevent the FSU annual games from being too tough and to have FSU play an NC team annually) as annual rivals, FSU would play BC, Cuse, Louisville, and MooU much less than now scheduled, and would see VT, UNC, Dook, Pitt, and UVA more than now scheduled. I think that greater variation in foes would be very good for ACC football. Variety is the spice of life. Going from 7 annual rivals down to 4 or even 3 will mean less boredom. It will allow all of us to exploit our league geography better.

any idea when divisions could go away?

 

[longtimefan]

I don't know the answer to that question, but I have read that the B1G is against the Swofford proposal. If that's correct, it may be tough to get it enacted, which would be a shame.

 

[SWC75]

If there are no divisions, who plays in the championship game? The top two teams? One might have an inferior record and be behind the other in the standings. How would that legitimize their being in the title game- or being "champion" if they win it? Shouldn't they have to be champion of a division they won?

Of course we've had teams play for the national title who didn't win their division, (Nebraska in 2001 and Alabama ten years later), so maybe it would make sense in the world we are in.

 

[SU2NASA]

I don't know the answer to that question, but I have read that the B1G is against the Swofford proposal. If that's correct, it may be tough to get it enacted, which would be a shame.

Which would be ridiculous since the B1G East is significantly more difficult than the west. I miss Michigan playing traditional opponents like Illinois, Purdue, Iowa, and Wisconsin rather than Maryland and Rutgers.

 

[WoadBlue]

I don't know the answer to that question, but I have read that the B1G is against the Swofford proposal. If that's correct, it may be tough to get it enacted, which would be a shame.

The BT is opposed, and that because the BT from now until the end of time will take any shot it can at the ACC because of ND. The BT's Robber Baron proprietary sense means it sees ND as its. Nobody has the right to save ND from the BT long range plans to squeeze the Irish, when not bribing them, until they join the BT. The ACC is the only viable life line for ND, and for that the BT will always act to harm the ACC.

And the opposition is not because the BT thinks that is the only way ND might go full member in football. The BT people aren't fools - no Gordon Gekko ever is or can be. The BT knows that if ND were to say it will play a full football schedule as long as it gets to name its division mates and its annual cross division rival that the ACC would agree immediately, before ND names its annual foes.

The BT is opposing the Swofford proposal to spite the ACC, to show us who's boss.

 

[WoadBlue]

Which would be ridiculous since the B1G East is significantly more difficult than the west. I miss Michigan playing traditional opponents like Illinois, Purdue, Iowa, and Wisconsin rather than Maryland and Rutgers.

Yes, the BT would benefit from playing without divisions. It would allow more games between all old BT members. But the BT will always act first to flex its weight and flash its bank account.

 

[WoadBlue]

If there are no divisions, who plays in the championship game? The top two teams? One might have an inferior record and be behind the other in the standings. How would that legitimize their being in the title game- or being "champion" if they win it? Shouldn't they have to be champion of a division they won?

Of course we've had teams play for the national title who didn't win their division, (Nebraska in 2001 and Alabama ten years later), so maybe it would make sense in the world we are in.

There are always uneven schedules, even when the league has just 12 members. The original Big 12 is a perfect example. It was simply much harder to win 6 of 8 league games in the South than the North.

As divisions can never be truly balanced, worrying about the lack of balance of schedules without divisions is silly. Lack of equal schedules is a given. It is all the other factors that are important.

 

[Ozcuse]

If there are no divisions, who plays in the championship game? The top two teams? One might have an inferior record and be behind the other in the standings. How would that legitimize their being in the title game- or being "champion" if they win it? Shouldn't they have to be champion of a division they won?

Of course we've had teams play for the national title who didn't win their division, (Nebraska in 2001 and Alabama ten years later), so maybe it would make sense in the world we are in.

Without going to the effort of having to rebalance divisions every few years I think that pitting the two best teams in the ACC Championship would be ideal. In the recent past we have had FSU have to match up against inferior GT and Duke teams when a FSU-Clemson rematch would have been a much more compelling game. This year it worked out because UNC finished strong however it would have been a shame if an undefeated Clemson had to match up against a 8-4 Coastal Division winner. If Clemson had one loss sitting at #5 or #6 in the rankings and was matched against an 8-4 Miami or Pitt, that win may not be enough to vault them into the Top 4.

I would also prefer removing divisions because it's going to be a huge challenge for SU to compete every year in the ACC with 2 most likely losses on the schedule (Clemson & FSU).

 

[WoadBlue]

Without going to the effort of having to rebalance divisions every few years I think that pitting the two best teams in the ACC Championship would be ideal. In the recent past we have had FSU have to match up against inferior GT and Duke teams when a FSU-Clemson rematch would have been a much more compelling game. This year it worked out because UNC finished strong however it would have been a shame if an undefeated Clemson had to match up against a 8-4 Coastal Division winner. If Clemson had one loss sitting at #5 or #6 in the rankings and was matched against an 8-4 Miami or Pitt, that win may not be enough to vault them into the Top 4.

I would also prefer removing divisions because it's going to be a huge challenge for SU to compete every year in the ACC with 2 most likely losses on the schedule (Clemson & FSU).

This is the way that the current ACC division are imbalanced: the 2 ACC programs in best shape, by far, are in the Atlantic, but the Coastal is deeper and about to get much deeper due to coaching changes.

Syracuse could gain by playing more often in Miami and Atlanta and VA. Playing fewer games against Louisville, Wake, MooU, and even FSU will not hurt Syracuse football if it gets more GA, VA, and south FL.

 

[SmilinBob]

The Big 10 just continues to show their arrogance, bitterness and lack of vision with this holdup of the ACC having just one division. It reminds me of congress and the senate which the NCAA is its proverbial red haired step child. Pork and Graft.