You're being obtuse for the sake of it, with zero evidence to back your claim other than your own feelings. When Navy plays Notre Dame, it's huge. 3 hours of the US Naval Academy on NBC. When Army plays Stanford, it's huge. Coverage all over the Pac-12 network area, which stretches the width and breadth of the Western US and huge pockets of the Midwest, South, and East.
Name some famous Navy athletes. Roger Staubach. David Robinson. Hell, that's why David Robinson was known as "The Admiral" his whole career. Everybody who remembers him playing knows he went to Navy.
It's a dog-eat-dog world for admissions talent. Like it or not, there's value in TV time and seeing "Army at Stanford" and "Notre Dame at Navy" and "Air Force at Boise State" crawl across the bottom of the screen when you're watching a different game. There's a reason you've heard of Anaheim. They have a team. You think anyone would know Green Bay, Wisconsin exists without the Packers? Love sports or hate them, but they're the most popular thing on TV. Being in the mix matters.
Aside from your personal assessment of my mindset, lets discuss your answer.
Feelings, experiences and opinions are not the same.
A feeling is an emotion.
An experience is an interaction with the world around you.
An opinion is a personal assessment/point of view based upon feelings and experiences
1) My EXPERIENCE as a parent living in the North East of a USAFA cadet is that despite D1 football, most people do NOT know the USAFA exists. I have actively and consistently interacted with people from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts since my son started the application process last year. Nine out of ten people had no clue. Nada. Nothing. Many of them are huge football fans. Still nada, nothing. This is an experience not a feeling. The people who tended to know about the USAFA were those who were previously enlisted or currently serving.
2) My EXPERIENCE is that cadet parents living on the east coast were unable to watch the Navy-Air Force game because it was not shown on any of the major stations. If you wanted to see it, you had to purchase special on-line access or cable channel access. This includes parents from Maine down through Florida. We would not have bothered networking with parents who were actually out in Colorado Springs at the game if we could easily view the game for ourselves.
3) College football only reaches out to those who watch college football. College games, just like professional games, are only shown in areas where people will be interested enough to tune in. Meaning, the teams need to be popular already. Advertisers target a given demographic. They are not going to spend money if they don't get that viewership. Thus, the television stations are only going to broadcast games that generate the required viewership. This in itself limits the publicity exposure of and impact of D1 football games. If the population doesn't demand it, the station isn't going to broadcast it. The rules of marketing and economics applies to all, even academy football teams.
4) Citing the popularity of other college football teams is a fallacious argument. Just because most people have heard about Notre Dame, does not mean that most people have heard about the USAFA, USNA, USMA, USMMA, USCGA. Since most of the people in my neighborhood know me, does this mean I can conclude that most of my town knows me? Of course not. It is a false argument.
5) You pointed out that there is a set market for D1 football. I quote "When Army plays Stanford, it's huge. Coverage all over the Pac-12 network area, which stretches the width and breadth of the Western US and huge pockets of the Midwest, South, and East." Do you see the areas of the country you are missing? "Only pockets" are your words. You pointed out the limited market they consistently advertise to. Your statements supports my point that it is a limited area.
My feelings are that I don't like (notice the word like, that denotes an emotion) the controversy surrounding D1 sports. It concerns me (another word denoting emotional state of mind) that many questions go unanswered or are not addressed. I disapprove of (personal feeling here) "the sit down and shut up and just accept it because it has always been this way and we said so attitude." I feel (again, another word denoting an emotional state) that if things were openly discussed and information shared, there would be more support and acceptance. I am uneasy (again, emotional indication) about the future of not only D1 sports but all IC sports in military academies due to budgetary issues (sequestration still continues). I am puzzled (emotional state of mind) over why there is no ready source outlining the benefits and purpose of D1 sports for a military academy other than "we are on TV, and its advertising, and it builds character." What characteristics are built? There are different types of sports, individual vs. team, which emphasize and develop different characteristics. As only a subset of an academy participates in the D1 sports, what benefit does it bring to all the cadets, not just the small group which participates? What is even more worrisome (again, feeling state of mind) is that there seems to be an over emphasis on D1 football, and the other D1 sports are looked over. In fact (note fact isn't an emotional word here, its not a feeling), other D1 sports are cut or proposed to be cut when budgetary times are tough, but no one wants to touch football. The USAFA originally proposed cutting 4 D1 sports without touching D1 football. The USAFA actually cut assistant coaching positions while adding another assistant coach to football (again a fact, not a feeling). I think many parents and tax payers would love (word connotative of a strong emotion) why D1 football is such a holy cow? Overall, why are D1 sports so important to character development?
My actual feelings on football and D1 sports is I have no problem with sports, D1, football or otherwise. I have a problem with the culture that can grow up around the sport. Those are my feelings.