Would ARMY add to CUSA ?

[GangGreen]

On 10/14/2016 at 6:10 PM, JesseMartin said:

I'd be happy to be in conference with any of the service academies

www.cga.edu ?

[Ben Gooding]

11 hours ago, All About UNT said:

Sorry Rick.....as a Navy vet I totally get what is being said.  

Deploying in the Navy for most means 6-7 months out at sea in a highly protected combat vessel well out of the reach of the average insurgent.  When the Army deploys they lead a far less comfortable deployment (on the average).  

I totally get how that could affect the number of people that are willing to attend a school like Army with the inevitable combat deployment right around the corner when they graduate.

Now as far as Army joining CUSA........ that won't happen in a thousand years.

The Navy Academy also services future Marines. Also, I was in the Navy and deployed 3 times during the 00's. I can assure you that my time was not comfortable, nor was it in a protected vessel of any sort. There are many jobs in the Navy where boots hit sand and mine were in that sand outside the comfort of large bases without running water, heated food, or technology to speak of (except sat phone) the entirety of all deployments for 8 months x 3. So not too sure what it is you're trying to say. 

[All About UNT]

2 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

The Navy Academy also services future Marines. Also, I was in the Navy and deployed 3 times during the 00's. I can assure you that my time was not comfortable, nor was it in a protected vessel of any sort. There are many jobs in the Navy where boots hit sand and mine were in that sand outside the comfort of large bases without running water, heated food, or technology to speak of (except sat phone) the entirety of all deployments for 8 months x 3. So not too sure what it is you're trying to say. 

You know what I'm trying to say. Congrats you deployed into a rough situation but that's not the normal for the Navy or AF compared to the Marines or Army. End of story

[Ben Gooding]

5 minutes ago, All About UNT said:

You know what I'm trying to say. Congrats you deployed into a rough situation but that's not the normal for the Navy or AF compared to the Marines or Army. End of story

Congrats? Don't be an internet dick. 

Again,  Navy Academy spits out some of the finest Marine Corps officers they have to offer. As in they are an Academy for both Marine AND Navy officers. But what you stated in your initial post makes 0 sense. So, no, I have no idea what you're trying to say. As a matter of fact, what you said makes even less sense after thinking about it. Why would people fair into going to West Point at the height of a World War (given their success in that era), but given your theory the Navy or Air Force should've been more likely to rack those natties up, because they're less likely to be put in harms way in the Air Force or Navy so more people (athletes) would've went there. Am I reading this correctly? 

[Aldo]

[All About UNT]

57 minutes ago, Ben Gooding said:

Congrats? Don't be an internet dick. 

Again,  Navy Academy spits out some of the finest Marine Corps officers they have to offer. As in they are an Academy for both Marine AND Navy officers. But what you stated in your initial post makes 0 sense. So, no, I have no idea what you're trying to say. As a matter of fact, what you said makes even less sense after thinking about it. Why would people fair into going to West Point at the height of a World War (given their success in that era), but given your theory the Navy or Air Force should've been more likely to rack those natties up, because they're less likely to be put in harms way in the Air Force or Navy so more people (athletes) would've went there. Am I reading this correctly? 

World War 2 = Afghanistan and Iraq......got it. 

Not gonna argue any further.  If you can't acknowledge how the average person might assume that a safer and less stressful career in the military would exist as the average Navy or Air Force officer over being one in the Army then I can't help ya.  

Marines are a different story all together but the tendency to wish to be involved in a conflict is represented here for you http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/01/AR2009030102053.html

"Marines are involved in the fight, and a lot of these people are very desirous of being in the fight," said Lt. Col. Bill Tosick, head of officers plans for the Marines at Quantico, Va. "People join the Marine Corps to fight. We have a whole lot of that going on now." 

But let's not continue on with nonsense.  The bottom line is that Army wouldn't be looking to the CUSA for a home anytime soon.

 

[Army of Dad]

Another point not in Army's favor for top athletes is their propensity to enforce the service agreement whereas canoe U and zoomie U have allowed their former players some accommodation for the ones with potential pro careers. 

[MeanGreenNC]

Midshipmen at the Naval Academy can choose the Marine option while they are at the Academy if they want to be in the fight. When the Navy and Air Force coach talks to recruits parents they can Push the advantage of being on a ship or aircraft as opposed to leading a platoon slugging it out in a ground fight in the global war on terror. As for your deployments with the Navy, I never said the Navy did not contribute, but you were the extreme minority for your branch. 

[FirefightnRick]

16 hours ago, MeanGreenNC said:

Rick, as a career Army officer and some who has completed five tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has been the overwhelming contributor in the recent wars around the world. The Navy and Air Force contribution is minuscule in comparison and their jobs keep them relatively safe.  When Army tries to recruit a player they have been at a significant disadvantage over the years. 

And It's interesting isn't it....that despite all of which you described, that coming off the heels of the first Iraq war in 1991....Army would have its greatest season in 28 years?  In 1995 they went 5-5....then in 1996..Army would finish 10-2, including a 27-10 over NT ......and suffer a 3 point loss to Auburn in the Independance Bowl.

And even despite the campaigns overseas in the late 2000's.....in 2010 Army went 7-6 and beat SMU in the Armed Forces Bowl.  

And even now..after a further decline in military numbers and things worsening overseas Army is two wins away from bowl eligibility again and  sitting at 4-2.  

The choice of the job ahead might have something to do with it.  But like everything football related..I think it's mostly coaching than anything else.

 

And thank you for your service.

 

Rick

 

[JesseMartin]

13 hours ago, GangGreen said:

www.cga.edu ?

Sure, if they could make it up to the FBS level.

[CMJ]

On 10/14/2016 at 2:01 PM, Ben Gooding said:

Meh. In the last decade they are 35-86 (and the decade before that isn't much better). Tough for me to say them going anywhere would be a step back. Army's history is there. But what's funny about their history is that at the height of the most significant war in World history they were mounting 3 "national championships" in consecutive order. I find that a little puzzling and ironic. 

I saw a story talk about this once.  They theorized that since everyone was getting drafted, many athletes wanted to be officers -- so they attended West Point.

[MeanGreenNC]

1 hour ago, FirefightnRick said:

And It's interesting isn't it....that despite all of which you described, that coming off the heels of the first Iraq war in 1991....Army would have its greatest season in 28 years?  In 1995 they went 5-5....then in 1996..Army would finish 10-2, including a 27-10 over NT ......and suffer a 3 point loss to Auburn in the Independance Bowl.

And even despite the campaigns overseas in the late 2000's.....in 2010 Army went 7-6 and beat SMU in the Armed Forces Bowl.  

And even now..after a further decline in military numbers and things worsening overseas Army is two wins away from bowl eligibility again and  sitting at 4-2.  

The choice of the job ahead might have something to do with it.  But like everything football related..I think it's mostly coaching than anything else.

 

And thank you for your service.

 

Rick

 

Rick, my point was comparing Army's success with the other service academies. Oh well to each their own!!

Thanks for what you do as well!

Go Mean Green beat USMA

[Christopher Walker]

On 10/15/2016 at 10:18 PM, GangGreen said:

www.cga.edu ?

 

[Stix]

On 10/15/2016 at 10:18 PM, GangGreen said:

www.cga.edu ?

Or maybe https://www.usmma.edu/? 

Mariners Stun Rochester, 55-7, For Seventh Largest Margin Of Victory In Program History

What do you think, @KRAM1? ;)

[KRAM1]

33 minutes ago, Stix said:

Or maybe https://www.usmma.edu/? 

Mariners Stun Rochester, 55-7, For Seventh Largest Margin Of Victory In Program History

What do you think, @KRAM1? ;)

Well, since both the Merchant Marine Academy (The Mariners) and the Coast Guard Academy are Division III schools for athletics, it would be a big reach for either to move to D1 to join any conference.  As an Admissions Field Representative and scoccer recruiter for Kings Point (Merchant Marine Academy) I can tell you there has been ZERO talk about moving up divisions at Kings Point.  It would be simply too expensive to upgrade facilities, add coaches, increase recruiting budgets, etc., etc.. The BIG game each year for these two schools is when they play each other in any sport.  It is our Army-Navy game.

By the way, that was a big win for the Mariners over Rochester.

Athletes (both male and female) at any of the service academies are very special student-athletes.  It isn't easy handling the academics, regimental duties and athletic responsibilities.  Plus there is that 5-year service commitment upon graduation.  Special places these service academies...special athletes as well.  I stand in awe of every one of them...past, present and future.

Edited October 17, 2016 by KRAM1

[Stix]

Of course I wasn't serious, and i'm sure neither was @GangGreen.  I was right that you wouldn't miss an opportunity to talk about the USMMA, though!

FYI, I worked for a Long Island insurance company back in the 1990's which was owned by two brothers who were USMMA alumni.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Stix

[BeatNavy]

First: hoping for a good game this weekend.  Hoping for an Army win, course, but hope that the trip is good for your team & fans.

Second:  a good mix of misconceptions and excuses in this thread as to why Army has struggled in football. No difference in height/weight standards between USMA, USNA, and USAFA.  Protracted war effort is not to blame, at least not in my opinion.  No, a one win season where that win is over Navy wouldn't be a cure-all.  The only grads who think that way are the ones who have simply given up.

The lack of success has mainly been due to a combination of lack of focus by administration and poor decisions on coaching changes.

Back in the late 1990s, we joined C-USA, struggled, then fired a long-time coach.  I think it was time for him to go, but we made the mistake of hiring someone who had an offensive philosophy that was diametrically opposed to the one that had brought us some success in the 1980s and first half+ of the 1990s.  Fired him and botched the next hire -- pulled Bobby Ross out of retirement.  He re-retired after three seasons and, on short notice, we promoted the OL coach, a guy with very little college coaching experience.  Fired him after a couple of years and hired a guy who at least a good resume, but we limited our search by both philosophy and salary.  Throughout this time, our staff wasn't being paid at FBS-level.  

Fired him and made some substantial philosophical changes.  Hired a coach who learned under the best service academy coach in the past 40+ years.  Pay him and his staff well.  Made reasonable modifications to the summer training schedule -- football players now do the mandatory military training early in the summer, then get back to West Point to attend summer school & do strength training.  Gone are the days where a senior starter may have been out in the field training with an active duty Army unit right up until the beginning of preseason practice.

Would we join C-USA? I don't think we're interested in any affiliation right now, we're simply trying to get back to football respectability.  We have the luxury of being able to do that as an Independent.  After we get where we believe we should be competitively, then maybe we'd look for a home for our football program.  It will get harder to have a decent schedule if we start winning more games.

[PlummMeanGreen]

17 minutes ago, BeatNavy said:

First: hoping for a good game this weekend.  Hoping for an Army win, course, but hope that the trip is good for your team & fans.

Second:  a good mix of misconceptions and excuses in this thread as to why Army has struggled in football. No difference in height/weight standards between USMA, USNA, and USAFA.  Protracted war effort is not to blame, at least not in my opinion.  No, a one win season where that win is over Navy wouldn't be a cure-all.  The only grads who think that way are the ones who have simply given up.

The lack of success has mainly been due to a combination of lack of focus by administration and poor decisions on coaching changes.

Back in the late 1990s, we joined C-USA, struggled, then fired a long-time coach.  I think it was time for him to go, but we made the mistake of hiring someone who had an offensive philosophy that was diametrically opposed to the one that had brought us some success in the 1980s and first half+ of the 1990s.  Fired him and botched the next hire -- pulled Bobby Ross out of retirement.  He re-retired after three seasons and, on short notice, we promoted the OL coach, a guy with very little college coaching experience.  Fired him after a couple of years and hired a guy who at least a good resume, but we limited our search by both philosophy and salary.  Throughout this time, our staff wasn't being paid at FBS-level.  

Fired him and made some substantial philosophical changes.  Hired a coach who learned under the best service academy coach in the past 40+ years.  Pay him and his staff well.  Made reasonable modifications to the summer training schedule -- football players now do the mandatory military training early in the summer, then get back to West Point to attend summer school & do strength training.  Gone are the days where a senior starter may have been out in the field training with an active duty Army unit right up until the beginning of preseason practice.

Would we join C-USA? I don't think we're interested in any affiliation right now, we're simply trying to get back to football respectability.  We have the luxury of being able to do that as an Independent.  After we get where we believe we should be competitively, then maybe we'd look for a home for our football program.  It will get harder to have a decent schedule if we start winning more games.

 The North Texas vs Navy game at our former venue (Fouts Field) was one of my all time favorite games on campus.   The flyover during the Star Spangled Banner was fabulous plus Navy had a good representative crowd in attendance.  It was a high scoring back & forth with the lead kind of game with Navy winning.

GMG!

[FirefightnRick]

On 10/18/2016 at 8:04 AM, BeatNavy said:

First: hoping for a good game this weekend.  Hoping for an Army win, course, but hope that the trip is good for your team & fans.

Second:  a good mix of misconceptions and excuses in this thread as to why Army has struggled in football. No difference in height/weight standards between USMA, USNA, and USAFA.  Protracted war effort is not to blame, at least not in my opinion.  No, a one win season where that win is over Navy wouldn't be a cure-all.  The only grads who think that way are the ones who have simply given up.

The lack of success has mainly been due to a combination of lack of focus by administration and poor decisions on coaching changes.

Back in the late 1990s, we joined C-USA, struggled, then fired a long-time coach.  I think it was time for him to go, but we made the mistake of hiring someone who had an offensive philosophy that was diametrically opposed to the one that had brought us some success in the 1980s and first half+ of the 1990s.  Fired him and botched the next hire -- pulled Bobby Ross out of retirement.  He re-retired after three seasons and, on short notice, we promoted the OL coach, a guy with very little college coaching experience.  Fired him after a couple of years and hired a guy who at least a good resume, but we limited our search by both philosophy and salary.  Throughout this time, our staff wasn't being paid at FBS-level.  

Fired him and made some substantial philosophical changes.  Hired a coach who learned under the best service academy coach in the past 40+ years.  Pay him and his staff well.  Made reasonable modifications to the summer training schedule -- football players now do the mandatory military training early in the summer, then get back to West Point to attend summer school & do strength training.  Gone are the days where a senior starter may have been out in the field training with an active duty Army unit right up until the beginning of preseason practice.

Would we join C-USA? I don't think we're interested in any affiliation right now, we're simply trying to get back to football respectability.  We have the luxury of being able to do that as an Independent.  After we get where we believe we should be competitively, then maybe we'd look for a home for our football program.  It will get harder to have a decent schedule if we start winning more games.

Yeah, that's what I thought too.  

First back-to-back wins over Navy in who knows how long?  First Commander-In-Chief's Trophy in 21 years.  Back-To-Back bowl wins?.

I'd say y'all got a few of the wrinkles from the past ironed out now.

 

 

Rick

Edited March 7, 2018 by FirefightnRick

[Arkstfan]

It's been two or three years since I've done it, but the last time I went through Army's roster vs Navy and AFA, West Point had significantly fewer players from the states of the confederacy (quick easy definition of the south) than either of the other two which is especially surprising given those states are strong from recruitment for the US Army.

Army doesn't play a notable number of games in the region but my presumption is the most significant problem has been the coaching staffs haven't made strong effort to recruit the region.

Army probably would be well served playing in a conference that is southern oriented but I cannot imagine Army accepting an invite to a league not widely deemed to be as good or better than MWC or AAC because the CIC Trophy is a huge deal if you are AD at Army and the perception you are playing a notch below the others isn't going to be well received because of the perceived recruiting disadvantage.

[FirefightnRick]

6 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

It's been two or three years since I've done it, but the last time I went through Army's roster vs Navy and AFA, West Point had significantly fewer players from the states of the confederacy (quick easy definition of the south) than either of the other two which is especially surprising given those states are strong from recruitment for the US Army.

Current Rosters With Southern Talent.

Army: 76

Navy: 70

Air Force: 56

Maybe that explains some of the recent turnaround?

Rick

 

Edited March 8, 2018 by FirefightnRick

[GTWT]

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 10:41 AM, FirefightnRick said:

And thank you for your service.

 

Rick

 

Amen

[Arkstfan]

12 hours ago, FirefightnRick said:

Current Rosters With Southern Talent.

Army: 76

Navy: 70

Air Force: 56

Maybe that explains some of the recent turnaround?

Rick

 

Very interesting. Few years ago it was Navy with the most, AFA second, and Army had around those numbers that AFA has.

Thanks for looking that up!

Edited March 8, 2018 by Arkstfan