The Process

Feel free to read this, but know that I have changed my mind, or shall I say grown in my learning, and here is an updated explanation: http://livefullyawake.blogspot.com/2011/11/when-just-because-is-not-satisfactory.html

This thought process consumed me for 4 days. Please read this entirely before you judge. This is describing a learning process, so what I think about this question in the first paragragh is not the same as what I think about it in the last paragraph.

The question:
I am in debate about how many sentence patterns we have in the English language. I am to teach Essentials of the English Language (EEL) in the Classical Conversations program next year.
Here are the 7 that EEL teaches:

S-Vi (intransitive verb)
S-Vt (transitive verb)-DO
S-Vl (linking verb)-PN (subject complement)
S-Vl (linking verb)-PA
S-Vt-IO-DO
S-Vt-DO-OCN (object complement noun)
S-Vt-DO-OCA (OC adjective)

This is lacking the 3 "be" patterns (that I learned in college), 2 of which can be compensated for with the S-LV-PA or PN patterns.

The third is the S-V(be)-ADV (of place or time)

My question is this: Can you eliminate the S-V(be)-ADV (of time or place) pattern and put these sentences in the S-Vi pattern?

If so, then how? For example, what sentence pattern does a sentence like: The girl is outside fit into?

What is the purpose of sentence patterns?
I am starting with the premise that the reason we study grammar is to learn how to communicate by learning how a language is used or how it should be used. If you were teaching a non-native speaker of English how to speak our language, what would be the purpose of teaching sentence patterns?
I would think that the sentence patterns were not for purposes of diagramming but for learning patterns of necessary elements to make a sentence grammatically correct and convey intent or meaning (in order to learn to communicate). That is, that you could take anything that was not in the pattern away and still have a sentence that is grammatically correct. To me, the statement "Tom is" or "The performance is" does not pass the "does it make complete sense" test. Does it make sense, well yes, I suppose. But that is not our question. The question is, "Does it make COMPLETE sense?" Even changing the verb "is" to "exists" or "is" to "happens" doesn't really make complete sense regards to how we us language to communicate.

What pattern does this sentence fit into?
Since there is not a direct object, predicate noun or predicate adjective, S-Vi seems to be the only option.
"Outside" is an adverb and there is no linking verb pattern it will fit into.

What I know about the verb "be": it is sometimes called a linking verb and sometimes a "state of being" verb. It is not an action verb and cannot be a transitive verb.

Why I do not think this sentence fits well in the S-Vi pattern:
Most sources define intransive verbs as action verbs; though some say any verb can be classified as transtive or intransitive.
The sentence seems incomplete without the adverb. "The girl is" is not a normal speech pattern and seems to be incomplete. In order for a sentence to be grammatical, it has to make "complete sense". In my mind, this is a stretch.

I think I'm on to something!
After a dictionary study of the word "be", this is what I came up with.
"Tom is outside" really means:
"Tom occupies a place outside"
(which is a S-Vt-DO pattern) but more importantly, if you understand that the word "be" can mean "to occupy a place" it lends the verb action (intransitive verbs are action verbs)
"The performance is Monday" really means:
"The performance will take place on Monday"

I found an answer: 
Here's the source: http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=navigating/verbphrase/summary

There are 5 sentence patterns according to verb type (or subtype).

1.Intransitive: subject + VI
2.Linking: subject + VL + subject complement (EEL makes 2 from this)
{EEL lists the following subtypes as transitive}    
3.Transitive: subject + VT + direct object
4.Ditransitive: subject + VD + indirect object + direct object                                                
5.Complex Transitive: subject + VC + direct object + object complement (EEL makes 2 from this)

To analyze sentences fluidly, you need to learn these verb patterns thoroughly. You should be able to look at the constituents after a verb and say to yourself, "this pattern means that this verb is of type __". Note that if you consult a major reference grammar such as A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language or The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (am i insane because I want these resources?), you will find more subtypes of verbs. These other patterns, however, are minor variations on the basic ones we have presented. If you understand these five, the subtler variations will be relatively easy to understand.
Just as words can fall into several different parts of speech, verb can employ several different patterns. For this reason, you can't just assume that a particular verb will always fall into one subtype. You must look at the sentence in which that verb appears.

Reading this makes me think that the sentence patterns are not in place to model speech patterns, but to classify sentences by verb type. Since adverbs do not affect the type of verb, they are never include in the patterns. If this is true, my premise about the purpose of sentence patterns was flawed.

Apparently, this is a S-Vi pattern.

{insert days passing}

I think I've changed my mind.
I asked a trusted friend an mentor, Mead Vest, about this sentence upon beginning my journey. She, too, began searching for answers. She consulted Grammar Girl and GG gave her a concise answer: if a word follows "is" it is a predicate adjective.
At first, I was thinking that there is no way that "outside" could be an adjective. In the sentence, "The girl is outside," outside  is clearly describing where and not which.

My mind opens and understanding comes in
My mind opens to the possibility that these "adverbs" could be a subject complements (yes, adjectives) because they seem to be more closely related to the subject than the verb. And, they can be moved to an adjective postion.
Take the following examples:
The performance is Monday -- The Monday performance (check)
The girl is upstairs -- The upstairs girl (maybe)
Though "upstairs girl" sounds awkward, what if it were "upstairs room" or "upstairs closet"? It is a matter of grammar and not semantics.

Who would have thought that grammar could be philosophical?
When you change "he is silly" to "he acts silly", it changes silly from an adjective to an adverb. I'm not sure you can modify a "be" verb, it is just too closely related to the subject that is "being". If you change it to the progressive tense, "He is being silly," It could be argued that silly is modifying how he is being, an adverb function.

Take the sentence, "I feel sick." Here "sick" is telling how I feel, which is normally an adverb function. But, since it follows a linking verb, we classify it as an adjective. It is really not describing "feel" but how "I feel."
When we are modifying "be" we are modifying more than just a verb, we are modifying someone's "state of being" (which is a noun).

The sentence in question: The girl is upstairs.
Upstairs is modifying not where "is" is taking place but describing the girl's "state of being" at this point in time.
I will label upstairs as an adjective and put it in the S-Vl-PA pattern.