Army Week
Army football's decision to join Conference-USA in 1998 is one of the more misunderstood episodes in service academy football from the last 50 years. The C-USA experience has left a scar on the collective psyche of the Army faithful and continues to influence decisions made by school leadership 20 years later, although I'm not sure that it should.
It is generally accepted that joining C-USA was a colossal mistake. There's an element of truth to that, although the role of the conference in Army's past misfortune is overstated. Army fired head coach Bob Sutton in 1999 after back-to-back 3-8 campaigns in their first two seasons in their new league. He was replaced by Todd Berry, who proceeded to win all of five games over the next four years. The Berry years were arguably the lowest point in Army history. But what if Army had hired someone else? What if Army chose someone like Paul Johnson to replace Sutton? (Not that he would ever move to New York, but just work with me here). Is there any doubt that they would have been far more successful? If not, then the problem with Army wasn't C-USA.
Still, that doesn't mean that joining the conference was a good idea. Army simply wasn't ready. The Cadets went 10-2 in 1996, and the success of that season led many at West Point to believe that the program was in better shape than it was. In truth, they had scheduled two to four I-AA programs every year since 1982, with the majority of those teams being of the non-scholarship variety. The program wasn't prepared to quit those games cold turkey even though the 1996 campaign had them thinking otherwise.
In a way, one gets a similar vibe when looking at the 2019 edition of the Army team. Like 1996, the 2018 season had had West Pointers dreaming of bigger and better things. While there aren't any program-altering decisions being made at Army today (that I know of, anyway), this season has served as a rather blunt recalibration of those expectations.
The scheduling formula of the Jim Young years isn’t feasible in modern college football, but Army has done their best to come as close to it as they can. They’ve scheduled two FCS programs in five of the last six years, along with a host of MAC and C-USA teams of varying quality. The lighter load went a long way toward jump-starting the Army program, and last season everything fell into place. Army won 11 games, finished ranked in the top 25, and won their first Lambert Trophy in 60 years.
There's more to it than that, of course; it would be foolish to attribute the rise of Army football to mere scheduling. Under head coach Jeff Monken, Army has established a distinct identity for themselves. They play excellent defense. They choke the life out of their opponents by controlling the clock and putting together extended drives. They win at the line of scrimmage and run between the tackles. They don’t beat themselves. It’s the kind of style that SEC fans used to call “big-boy football” when they wanted to mock spread offenses. Now that spread offenses are all the rage, those same fans call Army’s style a gimmick. Irony abounds.
While Army has found a winning formula, it is not without its drawbacks. They were celebrated last year for being the team that took Oklahoma to the wire, but they were also the team that could have easily lost to Miami of Ohio. The line between winning and losing is still a fine one, which is a lesson that was seemingly lost in the euphoria of 2018's triumphs. Over the summer, there was even chatter that Army might have a shot at going undefeated this year. After the preseason polls were released without ranking the Black Knights, some called it a "snub."
When reading most of the preseason discussions on Army football, all of these high expectations came with a common theme. The hype wasn't based on the strength of the team, but rather on the weakness of the schedule they would face. People looked at that slate of games and simply couldn't see anything less than ten wins for Army; who wouldn't win ten games against that lineup? That Army was a service academy team that lost both top fullbacks, its defensive coordinator, and seven starting defenders was barely mentioned if acknowledged at all.
It didn't take long to discover warning signs that maybe 2019 wasn't going to go as planned. Army opened the season at home against Rice and scraped together a 14-7 win in which they were limited to only 284 total yards. Still, one could argue that the team was looking ahead to the following week's matchup against #7 Michigan. Play well in that one, and all would be forgiven.
In many ways, they did. Army gave the Wolverines a genuine run for their money before falling in double overtime, 24-21. For most people, that was enough to justify the hype. Surely, the team that took Michigan to the brink would run roughshod over the likes of Western Kentucky and Georgia State. Putting aside the opponent, though, yields a different impression of Army's performance. As well as they played, what ultimately turned the tide in Michigan's favor were Army miscues. In the second half, the Black Knights drove the ball to the Michigan one-yard line with a chance to take a 21-7 lead. However, a false start penalty moved the offense back five yards, which led to an interception. The game ended with Army giving up back-to-back sacks, with the second one forcing a fumble. These were the kinds of mistakes that Army didn't make a year ago, and as it turns out, it was a sign of things to come. After getting to 3-1 with wins over UTSA and Morgan State, Army lost five straight. They will enter Saturday's game at 5-7, with a 3-7 record against FBS competition.
At first glance, it is difficult to tell where things have gone wrong for Army. Statistically, their offense is very similar to last year's. Army has averaged 311 yards per game on the ground this year. In 2018, it was 312. Defensively, it would have been difficult to replicate the Army unit that finished eighth in total defense and tenth in scoring defense last year. However, while this year's defense hasn’t matched last year's, their numbers are virtually identical to the 2017 team that finished 10-3. Maybe going undefeated was always a pipe dream, but surely this should be enough to do better than 5-7.
To truly understand where things have gone wrong, one needs to dig a little bit deeper. This year's Army team might have similar overall rushing numbers as the 2018 squad, but those numbers are buoyed by FCS competition. Against FBS opponents, Army's average drops to 274.3 ypg on the ground. They are 93rd in total offense against FBS opponents. They had only eight turnovers a year ago, but they exceeded that in only four games this year. Their average time of possession has fallen by more than five minutes, and their third-down conversion percentage has dropped by over ten percent.
In a vacuum, not all of these numbers are horrible. Army is converting third downs at a slightly better rate than Navy, for example. The question, though, isn't what's bad in a vacuum; it's what's bad for Army. The style of football that Army plays necessitates a high level of consistency if they want to win. They need an elite third-down conversion rate. They need to make their passes count. They need to hold onto the ball. They need these things because they don’t make up for inefficiencies through big plays; they just don’t have the speed. While option teams tend to be stereotyped as three yards and a cloud of dust, Army fits that description considerably more than Navy does. The Black Knights succeed by staying on schedule and extending drives. They rely on systematic, steady execution, but this year, that has been easier said than done.
It’s difficult to point to a single reason why Army hasn’t performed to last year’s standard. Injuries have undoubtedly taken a toll. The Black Knights have been forced to play four different quarterbacks this season, and even when Kelvin Hopkins has played, he hasn’t been 100 percent healthy. Ten different offensive linemen have also started at least one game, although this is slightly misleading. The same five linemen started seven of Army’s first eight games. They’ve had to do more shuffling over the last four, but those games also included some of Army’s best performances of the year.
At its best, the Army offense likes to funnel the ball through its fullbacks. The duo of Connor Slomka and Sandon McCoy have combined for nearly 40 percent of Army’s carries this season. Slomka has rushed for 632 yards, while McCoy had a breakout game at Hawaii, running for 91 yards and two touchdowns. When Army does go outside, they try to get the ball to Kell Walker, who ran for 109 yards against Navy a year ago. He has 387 yards and three TDs this season. Defensively, the Black Knights are led by linebacker Cole Christiansen with 103 tackles (including 16 against Air Force). Elijah Riley has been a bona fide star at cornerback, leading the team in sacks (4), tackles for loss (8), interceptions (3), and forced fumbles (3).
The key for Army, though, will most likely be the play (and health) of Hopkins. Hopkins is a senior who knows the offense the best, making him less likely than the others to make a drive-killing mistake. For a team that depends on meticulous execution to extend drives, that is crucial.
Because the service academies are so familiar with each other, Army-Navy tends to be both close and low-scoring. Seven of the last eight Army-Navy games have been one-score contests, and in each of the previous five, the combined score was less than 40 points. With the teams knowing each other so well, the game often hinges on which of them is better at doing something unexpected or out of character. Sometimes, that means trick plays. Other times it's something more subtle, like using a different formation or a different motion to get a numbers advantage and hoping that you can score before the defense adjusts.
It is impossible to predict which team will have a better game plan. There are other factors, though, where there are differences between the teams that could have an enormous impact on a close game.
Turnovers and big plays - Both teams are comparable when it comes to turnover margin, but Navy is far better at generating big plays. The Mids are 35th in the country in number of plays of 20 yards or more. Army is 119th. Navy's top fullback averages more yards per carry than Army's top slotback. Navy has three players with 10+ carries who average more than 8 ypc, and that doesn't even include Malcolm Perry. Army has one: backup quarterback Christian Anderson, who may not even play.
In a limited-possession game where every yard will come at a premium, the team able to take advantage of big-play opportunities when they arise will have a distinct edge.
Passing - Navy shut down the option game of Air Force, but the Falcons were able to mount a comeback through the air. One would think that this would be an opportunity for the Army offense, but it is questionable as to whether or not they will be able to take advantage of it. Navy is ranked in the top ten in passing efficiency, while Army is 93rd. Navy has also used the passing game to weaponize Perry's scrambling ability. The Mids have done a better job of making plays outside of their comfort zone.
Situational rushing - Both teams want to stay on schedule to set up manageable third-down situations, and both teams have averaged more than 5 ypc on first and second down this season. The two teams separate, though, once they get to third down. On third and short (1-3 yards), Navy averages 6.33 ypc, which is seventh in the country. Army's average drops to 3.54 (72nd). On third and medium (4-6 yards), Navy averages 7.25 ypc, while Army is 53rd nationally with 3.47. Navy has done a better job of making plays when they are needed most.
These differences become magnified when considering each team's competition. The average strength of schedule rank across the BCS computers (Sagarin, Massey, Anderson & Hester, Colley, and Billingsley) is 67.4 for Navy and 114.2 for Army.
There is no question that Navy has been the better team this season. Army, however, is at least playing their best football at the end. It's true that most teams would have their best performances against the likes of UMass and VMI, but Army was competitive against Hawaii, too. Whether that's a momentary spike or a sign of a turnaround will go a long way toward determining the course of Saturday's game.
Navy has accomplished a lot in 2019. They won a share of the AAC West crown, are ranked by the Playoff committee, and will play in the Liberty Bowl on New Year's Eve. The only thing left to do now is everything.