Army

fans should be seeing the 2008 football schedule prior to Christmas, according

to Bob Beretta, Army Sports Information Director, who spoke about this during

the KnightVision internet broadcast before the Army – Navy game. Beretta also

mentioned that the 2008 season is firm; that they are finalizing contracts with

opponents; and that might cause delays to releasing the schedule. He also

stated that the 2009 and 2010 seasons are set, with the hope of releasing the

2009 schedule in the spring or summer 2008.

Combined with recent events, such as Athletic Director Kevin Anderson's recent

cancellation of the home game with Georgia Tech, have indicated that there is a

significant change in the 2008 and beyond seasons than what Army fans had

previously heard.

Anderson

explained in an "Ask the AD section on the Army web page the desire to increase

the number of home games and to address the competitive balance by scheduling

opponents on a 3-3-3 basis. Anderson explained that an idea schedule would be

six or seven home games. As for opponents, schedule Air Force and Navy each

year, plus three opponents that would be a stretch and difficult to win; three

teams that Army should be competitive with and if the Black Knights played well,

could win; and three opponents that Army would be very confident and should

beat. I would add that with the current 12 game schedules, this 3-3-3 concept

would also include a game against a 1-AA opponent. So let's call it what it

really is, a 3-3-4 Concept.

During the radio

broadcast, Beretta indicated that the current athletic administration was making

changes in the upcoming seasons, and that the 2009 season really offered the

first time that the current athletic administration would really have a

significant effect on scheduling opponents, since so many games are scheduled

five to ten years in advance. That got me looking at the past history of

On February 25,

2003, LTG Lennox, then Superintendent of USMA, announced the formation of the

USMA Football Advisory Panel. Five months later, on July 9^th, Army

announced that it would leave Conference USA and return to being an independent

in major college football, starting with the 2005 season.

The athletic

director at the time, Rick Greenspan, explained that Army was having issues with

being in a conference in regards to home football games and the inability to

schedule many non-conference opponents. When Army joined Conference USA, it

played six conference games out of the 11 games. Combined with Air Force and

Navy, this allowed Army to schedule three additional non-conference opponents.

After having to play six in 1998 and 1999, this went up to seven in 2000 and

2001, and the number of conference games rose to eight starting with the 2002

season. This meant that Army could only schedule one non-conference opponent

(plus Air Force and Navy), and could create a situation with only four home

games. Reliance on a conference-dictated schedule would also make it difficult

to schedule home games in October – Army had four straight home games in

September, plus one home game each in October and November for the upcoming 2003

season.

The NCAA at that

time allowed teams to schedule 12 games only in years with 14 weekends for the

football season, such as 2002 and 2003. Otherwise, each team could only

schedule 11 games. An exception was granted to allow teams to schedule an extra

game at Hawaii. So Army had played 12 games in 2002, and was scheduled to play

13 games in 2003, playing Holy Cross (2002), Rutgers (both years), Connecticut

(2003), and Hawaii (2003) as non-conference opponents. The NCAA also only

allowed 1-A teams to count one game played against a 1-AA team for bowl game

eligibility every four years.

In the summer of

2003, Army was scheduled to play in eight conference games each season. Army

had already released the 2003 schedule, and was probably OK for the 2004 season,

as it had announced in September 2002 home and away games with Connecticut in

the 2004 and 2005 seasons. This left Army with an immediate need to schedule at

least eight opponents each year beginning with the 2005 season, maybe nine if

the Black Knights had not already booked its one non-conference opponent. The

2008 season would also be of 14 weekends, and would consist of 12 games.

Since most of

these games are scheduled by the then 117 1-A teams five to ten years in

advance, Army's athletic staff faced a daunting task. The advisory panel no

doubt had made suggestions regarding Army football schedules, and some of the

objectives would be explained latter by Greenspan:

·

Maximize the number of home games,

·

Schedule two or more home games in

October,

·

Play up to two 1-AA opponents a

season, and

·

Start to schedule old rivals, such

as Notre Dame and Boston College.

I would imagine that the Army staff had a few

months prior to the leave Conference USA decision to consider potential

opponents and determine whether Army should leave the conference after the 2004

season or sometime later. One factor playing into this was the movement of

Virginia Tech, Miami, and Boston College into the Atlantic Coast Conference, and

subsequent movements of Cincinnati, Louisville, and South Florida from C-USA to

the Big East, Texas Christian from C-USA to the Mountain West Conference, and

the latter movements between C-USA, WAC, and Sun Belt teams. These conference

changes probably opened up a few more opponents than normally would be

available.

Army was an attractive team to many opponents,

based either upon its past football history, fans that travel and also come from

nearby military installations, or because of its recent poor win-loss records, a

team that the opponent should beat.

Based upon the knowledge of the actual 2005 –

2007 seasons and current forecasts for 2008-2010 seasons, Army was able to

obtain home and away games with a number of teams, such as Baylor, Central

Michigan, Iowa State, Rice, Rutgers, Texas A&M, Texas Christian, Tulane, Tulsa,

and Temple. Army found two 1-AA teams for 2005 (New Hampshire and

Massachusetts).

Other opponents appeared to offer less idea away

and away deals, agreements that typically happened in the past between powerful

Big Ten teams and lesser MAC opponents. The Akron and Boston College deals

appear to be away, away, and home games for the 2005, 2007, and 2008 seasons.

Some deals dealt with the immediate need to fill

near-term schedules, with the return game in some future year. Wake Forest

(away in 2007, away in 2012, and home in 2013) and Kent State (home 2006 and

2010) are some examples of this type of scheduling.

With the firing of Coach Todd Berry in October

2003 and the hiring of Coach Bobby Ross in December, several opponents were

added due to Ross' connections, such as VMI in 2006 and Georgia Tech (away in

2007 and home in 2008).

The staff no doubt worked hard on these

scheduling issues during late 2003 and 2004 in order to fill out the 2005 – 2008

seasons.

Meanwhile, Greenspan was hired as Athletic

Director for Indiana University in early September 2004, and Army hired Kevin

Anderson as its AD in mid December.

Army released its 2005 schedule on January 25,

2005, with home games against 1-AA opponents New Hampshire and Massachusetts;

home games with Baylor, Central Michigan, Connecticut, and Iowa State; games at

Akron, Boston College, Air Force, and Texas Christian; and the annual Navy

game. The staff had achieved most of Greenspan's objectives. There would be

three home games in September, two in October, and one in November.

But Coach Ross had a concern with the early

start of the 2005 season and the three weeks between the Massachusetts and Navy

games. Army found Arkansas State willing play at Michie Stadium in mid November

and scheduled home and away games in 2005 and 2006. New Hampshire moved its

2005 game to 2008, and Iowa State moved its away game from 2006 to 2009. This

change in the 2005 schedule was announced in early March 2005.

In May 2005, the NCAA announced that 1-A teams

could play 12 games each season, starting in 2006, and that one 1-AA game would

now count for bowl eligibility each season. It is believed that Army was able

to schedule away and home games with Notre Dame in 2006 and 2009 due to this

increase.

In June 2005, Army announced home games with

Yale in 2010 and 2012, as the staff worked on filling future seasons. Various

announcements by opponents or information from fan websites gave information on

Army's future schedules, such as Brigham Young (home in 2011 and away in 2012),

Duke (away in 2009 and home in 2010), Northwestern (away in 2010 and home in

2011), Ohio State (away in 2009 and home in 2010), Rutgers (home in 2009 & 2011,

away in 2010 & 2012), Stanford (home in 2013), Syracuse (home in 2010), Temple

(games in 2009, 2011, 2012, & 2013), and Vanderbilt (home in 2009). Of course,

these are tentative, and Army ended its plans to play Ohio State in early 2007.

Army announced its 2006 schedule on December 20,

2005. This was much earlier than previous years (late February for 2003 & 2004

and late January for 2005). The 2006 season would have six home games – three

in September, two in October, and one in November, with one game with 1-AA VMI.

Anderson was dealing with financial pressures,

and worked a deal to move the Texas A&M home game to the Alamodome in San

Antonio, which Army announced in February 2006. While this solved one problem,

this ignited the Army fan base who did not like losing a home game.

Army announced its 2007 schedule on January 24,

2007. It consisted of only five home games (two in September, one in October,

and two in November). The schedule had only one 1-AA opponent (Rhode Island).

The Army fan base continued to be unhappy with the number of home games, the

sequencing of games, and the valid perception that in 2006 and 2007 Army was

playing a lot of bowl-bound opponents.

On January 29^th, Coach Ross announced

his retirement, and Army hired Stan Brock as its next football coach, and Army

football dealt with a lot of transition issues early in the year. Brock appears

to be much for outspoken about the scheduling issues and the Superintendent had

another panel looking at football. Nearing the end of the 2007 season, Army

fans are seeing a number of comments by Anderson and Beretta on making changes

to the 2008 and beyond schedules.

Clearly, Anderson has only been able to react

and tweak the schedules set up by Greenspan for the 2005 – 2008 seasons; and

Greenspan had to develop these schedules literally at the last minute due to

Army's decision to leave Conference USA. Beretta has said that Anderson and his

staff will be clearly responsible for the 2009 and beyond schedules.

What is not clear is what the objectives will be

used by Anderson to fill (or change) these football schedules. If one goes back

to the interview that Rick Greenspan did on July 9, 2003 at the time of the

withdrawal announcement from Conference USA, the AD and his staff developed a

schedule for the 2005 – 2007 seasons that met those objectives, and did it with

a need to fill eight games a year.

Based upon the Anderson and Beretta comments, we

can anticipate these objectives, in priority order, to be:

·

Schedule opponents based upon the

3-3-4 concept,

·

Schedule six or more home games a

year,

·

Play two or more home games in

October, and

·

Play one 1-AA opponent a season.

There may be other objectives, and of course, it

takes two schools to agree schedule a game.

It is believed that one of the drivers for the

3-3-4 concept has been the success of Navy since the 2003 season. So let us

look at the records, and use a combination of win-loss percentages and power

ratings from James Howell's website, classifying the Stretch opponents with

ratings above 0.60, Competitive from 0.35 to 0.59, and Beatables below 0.35.

1-AA opponents are classified as Beatables. Of course, one does not exactly

know when Navy scheduled the opponent, so we will look at team records over a

five to ten year period prior to the season to assess their 3-3-4 standing.

First, let's look at the location of Navy games

from the 2000 season onward, with their respective win loss records:

·

2000: 5 home (0-5), 4 away (0-4),

2 neutral (1-1)

·

2001: 4 home (0-4), 5 away (0-4),

2 neutral (0-2) (at Northwestern cancelled)

·

2002: 5 home (0-5), 6 away (1-5),

1 neutral (1-0)

·

2003: 5 home (4-1), 5 away (2-3),

2 neutral (2-0)

·

2004: 6 home (6-0), 3 away (2-1),

2 neutral (1-1)

·

2005: 5 home (4-1), 4 away (2-2),

2 neutral (1-1)

·

2006: 6 home (4-2), 4 away (4-0),

2 neutral (1-1)

·

2007: 6 home (3-3), 5 away (4-1),

1 neutral (1-0)

·

2008: 5 home, 5 away, 2 neutral

·

2009: 5 home, 6 away, 1 neutral

(plays at Hawaii, so Navy could add one)

·

2010: 3 home, 4 away, 3 neutral 2

unknown

·

Besides the Army game each season, Navy plays

Notre Dame at a neutral site instead of a home game, played Air Force in 2001

and 2003 at a neutral site instead of a home game, and played Maryland in 2005

at a neutral site. However, Navy has played Air Force at home in 2005 and 2007.

Navy has scheduled 1-AA opponents as follows: 0

(2000, 2001, 2002 & 2005), 1 (2006, 2007 & 2008), and 2 (2003, 2004 & 2009).

Now let us look at Navy's schedule by

classifying its opponents each year as either Stretch, Competitive, or Beatable

(excluding Air Force and Army), with Navy's win-loss results against these

opponents:

·

2000: 2 Stretch (0-2), 5

Competitive (0-5), 2 Beatable (0-2)

·

2001: 2 Stretch (0-2), 5

Competitive (0-5), 2 Beatable (0-2)

·

2002: 1 Stretch (0-1), 7

Competitive (1-6), 2 Beatable (0-2)

·

2003: 1 Stretch (0-1), 4

Competitive (3-1), 5 Beatable (3-2)

·

2004: 1 Stretch (0-1), 3

Competitive (2-1), 5 Beatable (5-0)

·

2005: 1 Stretch (0-1), 4

Competitive (2-2), 4 Beatable (4-0)

·

2006: 1 Stretch (0-1), 3

Competitive (3-0), 6 Beatable (4-2)

·

2007: 2 Stretch (2-0), 4

Competitive (2-2), 4 Beatable (2-2)

·

2008: 2 Stretch, 4 Competitive, 4

Beatable

·

2009: 2 Stretch, 4 Competitive, 4

Beatable (could add one game)

·

2010: 2 Stretch, 4 Competitive, 2

Beatable, 2 unknown

·

Of course, a team's competitive status changes

each year. For example, it can be easily concluded that Rutgers was a Beatable

if Navy scheduled this game around 2000 for the 2006-7 seasons, and the Scarlet

Knights were clearly a Stretch team in 2006 and 2007. So let us look at Navy's

schedule with the knowledge of how strong the opponent was that season:

·

2000: 5 Stretch (0-5), 2

Competitive (0-2), 2 Beatable (0-2)

·

2001: 3 Stretch (0-3), 4

Competitive (0-4), 2 Beatable (0-2)

·

2002: 4 Stretch (0-4), 3

Competitive (0-3), 3 Beatable (1-2)

·

2003: 1 Stretch (0-1), 4

Competitive (2-2), 5 Beatable (3-2)

·

2004: 1 Stretch (0-1), 5

Competitive (4-1), 3 Beatable (3-0)

·

2005: 1 Stretch (0-1), 3

Competitive (0-3), 5 Beatable (5-0)

·

2006: 2 Stretch (0-2), 3

Competitive (2-1), 5 Beatable (5-0)

·

2007: 2 Stretch (0-2), 2

Competitive (1-1), 6 Beatable (5-1)

·

·

The data shows that Navy made a

significant change in its scheduling process starting with the 2003 season by

scheduling more Beatable opponents. (Note: Navy hired a new AD in September

2001 and a new coach in December 2001).

·

Since 2003, Navy averages almost

six home games a year and wins 75% of them.

·

Navy schedules from one to two

1-AA opponents each season.

·

Navy schedules at most no more

than two Stretch opponents, and usually only one (Notre Dame).

·

Navy scheduled more Beatable

opponents during Coach Johnson's first few years, but still schedules a minimum

of four Beatables each year.

·

Navy operated around a 1-3-6

during 2002 – 2006 seasons, and now has moved to about a 2-4-4 scheduling

concept.

·

Since 2003, Navy has beaten

Stretch opponents 33% of the time, Competitive opponents 73%, and Beatables 75%,

based upon the competitive classification when likely scheduled.

·

Navy has likely achieved more

victories due to scheduling more Beatables and Competitive opponents than would

be scheduled by a 3-3-4 concept.

·

When compared to actual opponent

power rating in that season, Navy has not beaten a Stretch opponent, won 53% of

Competitive opponents, and 88% of Beatable opponents, since 2003.

·

By scheduling around a 1-3-6 or

2-4-4 concept rather than a 3-3-4, Navy had a better chance of being competitive

when a team moved upwards compared to when the games were originally scheduled.

Now, let us quickly look at Army's schedules and

opponents in the same way we just looked at Navy's. First, Army's home, away,

and neutral site games:

·

2003: 6 home (0-6), 6 away (0-6),

1 neutral (0-1)

·

2004: 5 home (1-4), 6 away (1-5),

1 neutral (0-1)

·

2005: 6 home (2-4), 4 away (2-2),

1 neutral (0-1)

·

2006: 5 home (2-3), 5 away (1-4),

2 neutral (0-2)

·

2007: 5 home (3-2), 5 away (0-5),

2 neutral (0-2)

·

2008: 5 home, 5 away, 1 neutral,

1 unknown (home Georgia Tech canceled)

·

2009: 3 home, 3 away, 2 neutral,

4 unknown

·

2010: 5 home, 2 away, 1 neutral,

4 unknown

·

·

Army has scheduled one 1-AA opponent in 2005,

2006, 2007 and 2008.

Now let us look at Army's schedule by

classifying its opponents each year as either Stretch, Competitive, or Beatable

(excluding Air Force and Navy), with Army's win-loss results against these

opponents:

·

2003: 0 Stretch (0-0), 7

Competitive (0-7), 3 Beatable (0-3)

·

2004: 0 Stretch (0-0), 8

Competitive (2-6), 1 Beatable (0-1)

·

2005: 2 Stretch (0-2), 3

Competitive (1-2), 4 Beatable (2-2)

·

2006: 3 Stretch (0-3), 3

Competitive (0-3), 4 Beatable (3-1)

·

2007: 2 Stretch (0-2), 3

Competitive (1-2), 5 Beatable (2-3)

·

2008: 2 Stretch, 3 Competitive, 4

Beatable, 1 unk (Georgia Tech was stretch)

·

2009: 1 Stretch, 3 Competitive, 2

Beatable, 4 unknown

·

2010: 0 Stretch, 3 Competitive, 2

Beatable, 3 unknown

·

·

Let us look at Army's schedule with the

knowledge of how strong the opponent was that season:

·

2003: 1 Stretch (0-1), 8

Competitive (0-8), 1 Beatable (0-1)

·

2004: 1 Stretch (0-1), 7

Competitive (2-5), 1 Beatable (0-1)

·

2005: 3 Stretch (0-3), 5

Competitive (2-3), 1 Beatable (1-0)

·

2006: 3 Stretch (0-3), 5

Competitive (2-3), 2 Beatable (1-1)

·

2007: 5 Stretch (0-5), 3

Competitive (1-2), 2 Beatable (2-0)

·

·

·

The data shows that Army has

averaged five home games since 2003 and has won twice as many games at home

compared to away ones.

·

Army has scheduled an average of

1.4 Stretch, 4.8 Competitive, and 3.4 Beatable (about a 1-5-3 pattern)

opponents.

·

Actual opponent competitiveness

has averaged 2.6 Stretch, 5.6 Competitive, and 1.4 Beatable (about a 3-6-1

pattern), meaning that more opponents were stronger than previous history would

warrant.

·

Looking at data from 2005-7, Army

won 44% of its home games while only winning 21% away games.

·

For 2005-7 seasons, Army's

schedule resulted in a 2-3-4 pattern, and Army won 22% of its Competitive games

and 54% of its Beatable games.

·

Based on actual opponent

competitiveness in the 2005-7 seasons, Army had a 4-4-2 pattern, winning 38% of

the Competitive games and 80% of the Beatable games.

·

If Army uses a 3-3-4 opponent's

competitiveness concept, it is likely to have more opponents actually being more

competitive than when scheduled.

Army is on the right path to review the

schedules developed under the previous AD and attempt to schedule more home

games. However, the current administration's track record shows tinkering with

the schedule that actually produces less home games.

Army should also seriously consider scheduling

two 1-AA opponents per season, similar to what Navy has typically done. In the

1980's, the NCAA authorized Army and Navy to count two 1-AA games for bowl

eligibility, maybe that can be authorized again. Regardless of bowl-eligibility

rules, Army needs to provide the team with more opportunities to win against

Beatable opponents.

Navy has had more success in scheduling and

beating Competitive and Beatable opponents by going with a 1-3-6 and then 2-4-4

competitiveness concept. While their opponents have been stronger or weaker

than their historical average, it has tended to balance out each season.

Army clearly did not use the competitive

balance concept as a basis for scheduling opponents for the 2005 – 2007

seasons.

Using the historic competitiveness factors, Army

has almost accidentally scheduled to a 3-3-4 concept for the 2005 – 2007

seasons. However, actual opponents' competitiveness generally was stronger than

predicted, and those seasons were actually 3-5-1, 3-5-2, and 5-3-2. For an

example of this happening to Navy, see the 2000 – 2002 seasons, comparing the

historic to actual competitiveness, and Navy only won three games those three

seasons.

Even Navy does not win against actual Stretch

opponents. On average, Army is playing three less Beatable opponents each

season than Navy, and one to two more Stretch opponents.

Recommend that Army take a page from the Navy

scheduling guide, and schedule more Beatables and less Stretch opponents than

the proposed 3-3-4 concept described by Kevin Anderson. A goal for 2009 and

2010 should be 1-3-6, with eventually going to a 2-4-4 schedule. A 3-3-4 risks

that too many opponents will actually be Stretch and too many opponents will not

be Beatables in that season.

After the 2008 (and 2009) schedules are

released, I plan to look at the anticipated competitiveness of Army's opponents.