The C-USA affiliation never seemed to make sense, but maybe Army’s mid-90s success (we lost to them painfully all four of my years at Navy) led to grand ideas that couldn’t be sustained as college football evolved. It’s not as if C-USA was a dominant conference, but I believe Army/Navy need to have the independent status. AF faces far less of the restrictions that Army/Navy have to endure (both coming in and post-grad). Now that Army’s C-USA scheduling legacy is fading and is replaced by more flexible (and appropriate) scheduling, the opportunities for success are there.

But I still think it all comes down to coaching and the system best suited for the players that come in year after year (smaller, slower but more disciplined). Navy’s success in the mid-90s and then from ‘03-’07 was almost all Paul Johnson’s doing. Let’s hope Brock is the man for the job in Woop Town.

Navy has remained independent, and can schedule whomever and however they please. They are not forced to share any of their annual windfall from their lucrative annual game with Notre Dame (Home: play the game in a 70,000 seat stadium and keep the gate; Away: the visitor’s share of ND’s NBC deal; both sums regularly top $2M, if not more).

Air Force’s membership in the WAC and then the Mountain West was rather seamless, as a) they had no real traditional opponents other than Army and Navy (they continued to play both), as the AFA only began playing football in 1957, and b) it did little to alter their schedules, as prior to conference membership, they would regularly play 3 WAC members every season, along with a rotation of middling programs (Vandy, Kent, K-State, etc.).

Army’s membership in Conference USA (1997-2004), however, was neither seamless nor a good fit, as traditional eastern opponents such as Boston College, Rutgers, Temple, 1AA Holy Cross, and 1AA Lafayette were replaced with C-USA teams that the Black Knights had no tradition of playing. Furthermore, due to some quirky C-USA scheduling, in 5 of the 8 years Army was in the conference, they played only 1 home game in October, traditionally the peak month for attendance (and recruiting) when the fall foliage is in its fullest splendor, making Michie Stadium one of the best venues for a college football game in the country.

While Army’s unfulfilling foray into C-USA membership was not the only factor in their struggles in the last 10 years, I think it should not be overlooked as contributing to them.

And your point about the Marines/SEALS being optional is true. However I would say that is an argument more applicable to the overall student bodies than the football teams. I believe that in general athletes in aggressive sports have more of the warrior mentality, hence they tend to go Marines or other warfare specialties – not supporting roles. I haven’t seen the data for WP but I would bet that your football players are probably pretty similar in WANTING to be athletes, not athletic supporters.

Regarding the point about life at one academy being easier / harder vs. another academy, I am going mostly off of what I was told from exchange cadets. The Middies and AF Cadets that I spoke with generally thought that the rules enforced and general living conditions at WP sucked compared to what they were used to. But again, to each his own.

In the end, coaching plays the biggest part in all of this, but I truly believe that it is harder to recruit someone to WP than the other academies… and it’s not solely due to our shitty performance on the field over the last 10 years. Most of the people taking bullets in Iraq (other that the Iraqis themselves) are soldiers or Marines. A USNA recruit knows that they don’t have to go into the Marines. A USMA recruit knows that they ARE going into the Army upon graduating and they are figuring that they will be in a combat arms branch because no one assumes that they are going to blow out their knee in their 4 years of playing ball.

But I’m seriously tired of watching Army get their ass kicked on a yearly basis. I guess it’s karma for what happened in the mid-90’s.

No wonder they rejected the option as being a little too Western Front in nature. But it’s time to drop FedEx on-field logistics and get back to the fog of battle and shelling confused defenses.

And you guys have two guys at the NFL combine that might be allowed to do their “alternative service commitment” playing a sport vice actually serving. Meanwhile, I’m at 11 years and counting.

I hope Brock figures something out because l’m tired of sitting in the cold watching blowouts. Please come back to option football, it is the ONLY way for we SAs to compete.

#9, I wouldn’t bank too much on the post-graduation life of Navy football players being so much easier than that of WP players. A strong percentage of Navy football players select the Marine Corp after graduation (I can get you the statistics if you want them) and I don’t think many would call the Marines “easy”. Also many WP football players have to go into non-combative fields (intel, supply, etc.) because of blown out knees and other medical issues, just like Navy and AF.

#14, no that wasn’t Anchors Aweigh.

And for #9, the quality of Army’s football team has much more to do with having an excellent coach that understands where football fits in at the academy (such as Fisher DeBerry at USAFA, Paul Johnson at USNA, or even Bob Sutton at USMA) than it does location of the school or ease of experience while at the school.

To be fair, post-grad experience at Army is notably worse than at Navy (generally, people shooting at you, dying v. shipboard life in the Persian Gulf) and that may impact recruiting. But that can’t be the sole reason that Army football has been unwatchable while Navy has been bowl-bound. To your point, having the wrong coach and the wrong system is much more damaging.

#13 – well said!

I know that’s the word…

but why not inaptitude? I submit that the “e” substitution is null and moot.

Loving the Anchor’s Aweigh background music. Nice.