interesting....

http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/misc/div_ia_wins.php

The fact that Army is still in the top 25, despite very little success over the past 50 years, shows how dominant they were in the first half of the 20th century.

Wow, the bE has 3 teams in the top 25. Syracuse #14, WV #15 and Pitt #22. Very surprised to see WV ahead of Pitt, and Rutgers ahead of everyone else in the BE. Cincy is not too shabby at #59.

WV could actually move ahead of Syracuse next season, if the 2 teams have similar seasons as this past season.

All it proves is that Army has been playing football for a long time. I mean, look at Rutgers. They had been lousy for so long. But they played in the first football game, and have been playing since. Their long-time level of success, except for the last few years, certainly doesn't warrant 39th place. But since they've played so long, it does.

Quote:WV could actually move ahead of Syracuse next season, if the 2 teams have similar seasons as this past season.

-- Was thinking the same thing.....our football program has come along way in 30 years

Jackson

If Syracuse doesn't play .500 ball the Mountaineers just may pass 'em. I'd like to see that.

bitcruncher Wrote:All it proves is that Army has been playing football for a long time. I mean, look at Rutgers. They had been lousy for so long. But they played in the first football game, and have been playing since. Their long-time level of success, except for the last few years, certainly doesn't warrant 39th place. But since they've played so long, it does.

That's no ALL it proves. There are plenty of schools a lot farther down the list than Army that have played for just as long.

cuseroc Wrote:Wow, the bE has 3 teams in the top 25. Syracuse #14, WV #15 and Pitt #22. Very surprised to see WV ahead of Pitt, and Rutgers ahead of everyone else in the BE. Cincy is not too shabby at #59.

I would have guessed Pitt ahead of WVU as well. I am not surprised to see UofL 7th in the leagues just on the basis of win total, and not % though. Another thread on here mentioned this week that Cincy has been playing for longer than nearly everyone else, and we know Rutgers started in 1869. Louisville's first season was in 1912. We also weren't that successful for much of our history, so that plays a solid part as well.

They even lump in I-AA games as the same, and thus 6th place UConn has played over 100 games more total than UofL. The Cards are 5th in the league by winning %, behind the expected 3 of WVU, Syracuse & Pitt, and also USF who is actually 1st in % with a quite small sample size.

army did win national titles in the 1940's.

bitcruncher Wrote:All it proves is that Army has been playing football for a long time. I mean, look at Rutgers. They had been lousy for so long. But they played in the first football game, and have been playing since. Their long-time level of success, except for the last few years, certainly doesn't warrant 39th place. But since they've played so long, it does.

Exactly, I would be more impressed with winning percentage than with number of games won.

3601 Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:All it proves is that Army has been playing football for a long time. I mean, look at Rutgers. They had been lousy for so long. But they played in the first football game, and have been playing since. Their long-time level of success, except for the last few years, certainly doesn't warrant 39th place. But since they've played so long, it does.

That's no ALL it proves. There are plenty of schools a lot farther down the list than Army that have played for just as long.

Those other schools didn't have the financial support the military academies did back in the day either. Plus, size restrictions hadn't come into place, and the best athletes of the day were in the military.

Anything else you missed that I need to shoot down?

true, but it shows they have a long history, which some BE schools do not. It also shows they are in group that have won a national champ, which some BE schools can't claim.

CollegeCard Wrote:

cuseroc Wrote:Wow, the bE has 3 teams in the top 25. Syracuse #14, WV #15 and Pitt #22. Very surprised to see WV ahead of Pitt, and Rutgers ahead of everyone else in the BE. Cincy is not too shabby at #59.

I would have guessed Pitt ahead of WVU as well. I am not surprised to see UofL 7th in the leagues just on the basis of win total, and not % though. Another thread on here mentioned this week that Cincy has been playing for longer than nearly everyone else, and we know Rutgers started in 1869. Louisville's first season was in 1912. We also weren't that successful for much of our history, so that plays a solid part as well.

They even lump in I-AA games as the same, and thus 6th place UConn has played over 100 games more total than UofL. The Cards are 5th in the league by winning %, behind the expected 3 of WVU, Syracuse & Pitt, and also USF who is actually 1st in % with a quite small sample size.

Only 4 schools have been playing longer then Cincinnati. Off the top of my head I believe it's Rutgers, Michigan and Minnesota. I can't remember the 4th. Being in the Top 60 after a down period of 50 years speaks volumes! But UC has been on the rise the last 20 years so we're doing pretty well. There's a lot of tradition in this "new" Big East.

TIGER-PAUL Wrote:true, but it shows they have a long history, which some BE schools do not. It also shows they are in group that have won a national champ, which some BE schools can't claim.

But, at the end of the day, I would rather be any of those Big East schools then Army as far as football success over the last 30 years. Nothing against our men and women in the armed forces.

CatsClaw Wrote:

TIGER-PAUL Wrote:true, but it shows they have a long history, which some BE schools do not. It also shows they are in group that have won a national champ, which some BE schools can't claim.

But, at the end of the day, I would rather be any of those Big East schools then Army as far as football success over the last 30 years. Nothing against our men and women in the armed forces.

yeah you are right tradition will not win you football games. Army and to a lesser degree Syracuse are not geeting it done, I truley think Army is finished they should drop to D-1AA. SU I am very scared because I don't like the the direction the program is going in and I don't trust the people in charge (AD/challencer/coach). SU football is in a dark dark place and there is no light, I just don't want be a fan of the next Army/Temple

CatsClaw Wrote:

TIGER-PAUL Wrote:true, but it shows they have a long history, which some BE schools do not. It also shows they are in group that have won a national champ, which some BE schools can't claim.

But, at the end of the day, I would rather be any of those Big East schools then Army as far as football success over the last 30 years. Nothing against our men and women in the armed forces.

I'm an Army vet, and I'd rather be anywhere than Army myself right now. It's wartime, and there are too many morons in charge.

Sorting the teams by winning percentage and then have a ?500? win minimum might be a better way to determine the best programs. Army still isn't that bad under those conditions at 33.

WVU would be 23 in that scenario.
Syracuse - 30
Pitt - 37

BTW- Army should be able to be doing what Navy is doing. Syracuse should be able to turn it around in the BE. It is a matter of will with the athletic departments and strong coaching. It will take time and baby steps though.

Navy doesn't visit the front lines. The only academy that could match Navy would be Air Force. If I was enlisting now, I'd choose one of those branches of service. I didn't really chose the Army. They chose me. When your draft number is 2, you don't get much choice in the matter.

A small but not insubstantial number from the Navy do visit the front line, Bit. Medical Corpsmen and Seals of course. Quite a few in backup roles such as security, bomb removal, etc.

Of course the Army and Marines are carrying the largest burden in the most dangerous action. There will always be those that do the heavy lifting.

True. But the chances of serving on the front lines is far diminished at Navy. when compared to Army. The survival rate of new Lieutenants is little better than 50% during time of war. If they make it through the first year, they have a good chance of getting promoted. If they don't, they're dead.