Go NAVY, Beat ARMY

I wonder if Army's football woes aren't linked to the fact that they, more than any other service (at least to my knowledge) have been involved in ground combat for roughly the last 12 years.

How long have they lost to Navy and been woeful as a D1 team? Oh, right, 12 years.:roll eyes:

In all seriousness, more than a few football recruits attend a "big 3" SA b/c it is the only school that would let them play D1 FB. If you're one of those and you have to choose among the three, you and your parents might be more excited about USNA and USAFA -- and the USN and USAF vs. the USA, in today's combat environment at least.
 
While I have no problem with the final TD, that's a silly "reason.". Unless of course Niuamatalolo really thinks that Reynolds will not score any points in the bowl game.

Coming in late to the discussion...


How many seniors did not get into their final A/N game when it was already out of reach. Coach K did them a disservice. :thumbdown:
 
How many seniors did not get into their final A/N game when it was already out of reach. Coach K did them a disservice. :thumbdown:
Army came out strong in the second half. The score was still 20-7 with only a little over six minutes remaining in the game. Hardly a time to declare victory.
 
Army came out strong in the second half. The score was still 20-7 with only a little over six minutes remaining in the game. Hardly a time to declare victory.

At 6:22 to go it was 28-7. Plenty of time to re-insert starters if necessary. :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
 
Yeah, taking it easy on them would have been more respectful.

Yeah, cause it's not like army is kinda forced to take it easy on Navy in literally every sport. For example on Friday, the day before the game(obviously) Navy had its annual boxing match against Army. But guess what? Army was forced to sit out its 3 national champion boxers, because Navy would not fight against them. Also, the refs gave Navy multiple fights even though they clearly loss in order to make it come down to the final fight in which army obviously beat Navy. So in response, Army gets literally forced to relax against Navy and I know this isn't the only example. The only sport that gets any coverage is football and fortunately for Navy that's the only sport their decent in.
 
Yeah, cause it's not like army is kinda forced to take it easy on Navy in literally every sport. For example on Friday, the day before the game(obviously) Navy had its annual boxing match against Army. But guess what? Army was forced to sit out its 3 national champion boxers, because Navy would not fight against them. Also, the refs gave Navy multiple fights even though they clearly loss in order to make it come down to the final fight in which army obviously beat Navy. So in response, Army gets literally forced to relax against Navy and I know this isn't the only example. The only sport that gets any coverage is football and fortunately for Navy that's the only sport their decent in.
Ok.:rolleyes:
 
Navy also beats Army at swimming. The last few years the Army dive team scored more points than the Navy one, but overall, swim and dive generally falls to Navy. All other sports (I believe) Army wins...but like you said above, all anyone notices is football.
 
Yeah, cause it's not like army is kinda forced to take it easy on Navy in literally every sport. For example on Friday, the day before the game(obviously) Navy had its annual boxing match against Army. But guess what? Army was forced to sit out its 3 national champion boxers, because Navy would not fight against them. Also, the refs gave Navy multiple fights even though they clearly loss in order to make it come down to the final fight in which army obviously beat Navy. So in response, Army gets literally forced to relax against Navy and I know this isn't the only example. The only sport that gets any coverage is football and fortunately for Navy that's the only sport their decent in.

Navy also beats Army at swimming. The last few years the Army dive team scored more points than the Navy one, but overall, swim and dive generally falls to Navy. All other sports (I believe) Army wins...but like you said above, all anyone notices is football.

Where are you guys getting this? Check the records. I cannot post links due to my few posts, but the Army athletic website has records for the past 10 years and NOT IN ANY YEAR has Army overall won more games than Navy. The Navy website doesn't list specific years but shows Navy with an overall 66% N Star for the entire last 18 years.
 
Might want to check the stats for wrestling:rolleyes: Navy 47-5-5......
 
Navy also beats Army at swimming. The last few years the Army dive team scored more points than the Navy one, but overall, swim and dive generally falls to Navy. All other sports (I believe) Army wins...but like you said above, all anyone notices is football.

And last time I looked . . . there are some women's sports that Army and Navy play each other in as well, and Navy wins a few "N Star" games in those too,:thumb: (Yeah . . . I have sisters. They kicked my a-- plenty over the years -- I don't forget women's athletics. Ever.)
 
I will say, if any Army rooters want to have a good laugh at the expense of Navy sports FANs, at least, read the message boards on Laxpower.com for men's lax. Those posters would trade Rick Sowell (Navy Lax coach) for Rich Ellerson in a New York minute. They are damn the torpedos angry.
 
Whoever comes in as the Army coach needs to make some changes that will enable lineman to be a lot bigger. Every game Army gives up 40 pounds per player on both the offensive and defensive lines to the other team. Army was definitely smaller than the Navy lines. It looked like the Army offensive line was clearly outweighed by the Navy defensive line. That is a huge factor against army in every game they play. Even Stoneybrook was bigger and controlled the line of scrimmage. Maybe Army's lineman should be able to get a physical fitness waiver till just before they graduate so that they can lose the extra weight during the 6 months after their final game.
 
Whoever comes in as the Army coach needs to make some changes that will enable lineman to be a lot bigger. Every game Army gives up 40 pounds per player on both the offensive and defensive lines to the other team. Army was definitely smaller than the Navy lines. It looked like the Army offensive line was clearly outweighed by the Navy defensive line. That is a huge factor against army in every game they play. Even Stoneybrook was bigger and controlled the line of scrimmage. Maybe Army's lineman should be able to get a physical fitness waiver till just before they graduate so that they can lose the extra weight during the 6 months after their final game.

West Point do give weight waivers for football players. Seen some of my football classmates sweating out after the football season to lose weight to graduate. I don't know how many or how much.

Suppose a West Point coach get unlimited waiver, but when should the coach stop. As a lineman has only six months to lose the weight -20 lbs, 30 lbs, 40 lbs, 50 lbs, . . .

Say an average lineman is 74 inches, the max allowed weight is 206 lbs (age 21 to 27). If you are over, you get taped to determine your body fat The current Army standard for body fat for male is 22% for the same age group. The Army's current method for determine body fat percentage is measuring neck and waist. I played with an online calculator - 22 year old, 74 inches, 19 inch neck and 41 inch waist comes in around 21%. Pretty obvious that unless you have a thick neck naturally it's hard to increase your neck size. Decreasing your waist line is closely related to losing weight.
 
The USNA has weight/fat limits as well. Some how they are able to consistently trot out bigger linemen than USMA. There must be a system that USNA has that enables players to get bigger and not negatively effect the players ability to serve active duty. USNA recruits better than USMA, but after a year of prep school and 2 years at the academies I think the players should be fairly close in size on average years. Currently there is a wide gulf in size between the two academies.
 
The USNA has weight/fat limits as well. Some how they are able to consistently trot out bigger linemen than USMA. There must be a system that USNA has that enables players to get bigger and not negatively effect the players ability to serve active duty. USNA recruits better than USMA, but after a year of prep school and 2 years at the academies I think the players should be fairly close in size on average years. Currently there is a wide gulf in size between the two academies.

You answered your own question.

12 years of beating your #1 rival, multiple trips to bowl games, upsets against top D1 teams...success breeds success. Then throw on top of that the perceived difference in the danger involved in each service (especially appealing to parents), compare Annapolis to Highland Falls, and you start to see the recruiting advantage Navy has.
 
I don't think it is just recruiting. There are things that the Army program is doing wrong which lead to a poor football team. The people in charge of the program and a new coach are going to need to make significant changes to the football program in order to be successful. These players were brought in to represent the academy well on the football field. They were put ahead of other students for admission who had better grades, test scores, and extracurriculars. Most are even given an extra year of prep school so that they can get ready physically for football and academically for the classroom. USMA needs to commit these players further to football when at the academy. We need to consider getting these approximately 30 players in each class out of a lot of the summer military training and just prepare for football. Maybe they can be behind militarily and have them attend OCS after graduation to catch up somewhat. The football players will still serve their military commitments. And USMA will make a lot more money by having a better football team. I would think the extra revenue of a better football team would significantly offset the cost of the football players needing to attend OCS. These thoughts are just things I was thinking as I was watching the pathetic game last weekend. I'm sure a lot of people closer to the program have better ideas than me to get a more competitive team.
It certainly doesn't instill much pride in the Army by having your team get beat every week.
 
I don't think it is just recruiting. There are things that the Army program is doing wrong which lead to a poor football team. The people in charge of the program and a new coach are going to need to make significant changes to the football program in order to be successful. These players were brought in to represent the academy well on the football field. They were put ahead of other students for admission who had better grades, test scores, and extracurriculars. Most are even given an extra year of prep school so that they can get ready physically for football and academically for the classroom. USMA needs to commit these players further to football when at the academy. We need to consider getting these approximately 30 players in each class out of a lot of the summer military training and just prepare for football. Maybe they can be behind militarily and have them attend OCS after graduation to catch up somewhat. The football players will still serve their military commitments. And USMA will make a lot more money by having a better football team. I would think the extra revenue of a better football team would significantly offset the cost of the football players needing to attend OCS. These thoughts are just things I was thinking as I was watching the pathetic game last weekend. I'm sure a lot of people closer to the program have better ideas than me to get a more competitive team.
It certainly doesn't instill much pride in the Army by having your team get beat every week.
Remind me again, what is the mission of USMA?
 
USMA needs to find some way in which they can achieve their mission of developing leaders of character who end up as excellent officers while improving the quality of the football team. That is the job of the Athletic department and the new head coach. If someone outside the athletic department doesn't care about the football team that is fine with me. I just happen to think that there may be a way to substantially change things to make big improvements in the football team. I'm hoping a new coach would institute big changes to improve then quality of the football team. Otherwise we should have just kept Ellerson. I think he was doing a great job teaching the cadets about character. If USMA is satisfied with the current football program then do things the same way, but just don't go around saying "Go Army, beat Navy". When the Navy cadets shout out "Go Navy, beat Army" the USMA cadets can shout out "Go Army, Become great officers!" That at least would be realistic.
OK, I think I'm done ranting now. I think the angst is out of my system. I wish the new coach success.
 
The Football team already gets out of a lot of summer training, can get out of Army Height & Weight requirements, has adjusted academic schedules to allow more time for practice, etc., gets preference for summer school slots, and seems to get preferential treatment when it comes to getting out of Honor boards...

what more do you want from the institution?
 
Back
Top