(04-13-2015 01:53 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 08:33 AM)subflea Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 11:24 AM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 09:26 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 09:06 AM)oasispirate Wrote:  I personally think they are more desirable branches of service. Navy and Air Force have advantage of when you graduate, good chance you're not serving in the trenches of Afghanistan.

As a Navy veteran it would be fun to agree with you. As a veteran in general this is a little insulting, though I don't think that was your intent.

The Army is a fine branch, and is the pillar of our nation's military service. The Army and Marine Corp are the forces that do our dirty work, while the Navy and Air Force are the ones that provide quick strike capability, and quickly project power. All of them are needed, and are appreciated.

I'd love to have the Army Cadets in our conference.

Oh, and go Navy!

I am just being honest. The Navy and Air Force are both very important branches to winning wars and providing security. But the reality is our technological advantage is so far to superior to any enemy engaged over the last 25 years that statistically speaking there are many domestic jobs more dangerous than being in the Air Force or Navy.

Yes I expect this posted to be blasted.

I may not have been in fear of being shot or blown up by an IED, but working 20 feet from the core of a nuclear rector, between missiles loaded enough power to destroy entire continents, while underneath several hundred feet of water isn't exactly the safest job one could have.

(04-13-2015 12:47 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 08:33 AM)subflea Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 11:24 AM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 09:26 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  As a Navy veteran it would be fun to agree with you. As a veteran in general this is a little insulting, though I don't think that was your intent.

The Army is a fine branch, and is the pillar of our nation's military service. The Army and Marine Corp are the forces that do our dirty work, while the Navy and Air Force are the ones that provide quick strike capability, and quickly project power. All of them are needed, and are appreciated.

I'd love to have the Army Cadets in our conference.

Oh, and go Navy!

I am just being honest. The Navy and Air Force are both very important branches to winning wars and providing security. But the reality is our technological advantage is so far to superior to any enemy engaged over the last 25 years that statistically speaking there are many domestic jobs more dangerous than being in the Air Force or Navy.

Yes I expect this posted to be blasted.

I may not have been in fear of being shot or blown up by an IED, but working 20 feet from the core of a nuclear rector, between missiles loaded enough power to destroy entire continents, while underneath several hundred feet of water isn't exactly the safest job one could have.

Well, when OSHA puts reps in battlefields, I'll believe that there is a slight comparison to anyone's job here as the guys whose Hummer gets blown upside down.

The whole discussion is pretty silly.

My opinion is based on fact. Why it is more difficult for Army to succeed? The following links are combat deaths by branch in both wars. I would bet (not fact), that the bulk of the Navy casualties are Seals and combact medics, both of which is a chosen specialty where you have to have huge balls.

All branches of service are necessary for our nations security. I could even argue the Navy is a more valuable deterrent for our nations secruity. However if you don't see a frontline infantryman as inheritantly more dangerous in modern history than on a ship then imo you ignore statistics.

To think a football recruit doesn't know this, is naive imo.

http://www.americanwarlibrary.com/personnel/iq-bran.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/....html?_r=0

Done both, had a Army FB player in my company and i think hes right.

(04-13-2015 06:58 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 04:37 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 03:53 PM)Go Navy Wrote:  "To think a football recruit doesn't know this, is naive imo."

I am a USNA grad as are my two daughters. One served in Afghanistan and the other in Iraq. We were all athletes. None of us knew anything. I was a football player back in the height of the Vietnam War.

When my first daughter went in, I had no concerns. When my second daughter went in, I might have been concerned, but the conversation never came up.

Granted, we were a legacy deal. But, the point is that no young kid understands what he is getting into. How could you?

As time goes on, you are either a part of it or not. It is your choice.

I'll grant you it would be difficult to know during Vietnam era, maybe even at the beginning of the first Iraq war.

But by 03 or so when statistics became readily available anyone can know via a quick google search.

Without doing a search, I believe in WW2 the Navy was the most dangerous branch of all , it's just changed due to our modern technology and the types of conflicts we've been engaged in.

That could all change of course and it doesn't diminish the role of the Navy or Air Force. If anything they've made America the super power that it is.

But stats are stats. I think that plays a factor into why a 17 year old would choose Navy over Army. I can't be the only thinking this can I?

There's no empirical evidence to support your argument. You are saying that young men\women choose to play for Navy because they're avoiding the grunt's life, which is inherently insulting to anyone who has ever volunteered to serve this country. Each person who signs that contract has voluntarily signed a check that is worth each person's life. Just say thank you. I think you're making a point, but going about it the wrong way, imo.

Emotions have taken over.

That is exactly it. You are basically picking a profession when you pick a certain academy. West point produces officers for many combat MOS.

There is a reason why the AF is usually the most successful of the 3 academies. It is the most "white collar" and considered the easiest of the 3 service academies. I am not saying the AF and Navy men are not in harms way, but usually not near as much as the Army & Marines (unless we are in a full scale war).

Not everybody likes their head in the dirt, most people prefer a bed.

(04-13-2015 06:58 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 04:37 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 03:53 PM)Go Navy Wrote:  "To think a football recruit doesn't know this, is naive imo."

I am a USNA grad as are my two daughters. One served in Afghanistan and the other in Iraq. We were all athletes. None of us knew anything. I was a football player back in the height of the Vietnam War.

When my first daughter went in, I had no concerns. When my second daughter went in, I might have been concerned, but the conversation never came up.

Granted, we were a legacy deal. But, the point is that no young kid understands what he is getting into. How could you?

As time goes on, you are either a part of it or not. It is your choice.

I'll grant you it would be difficult to know during Vietnam era, maybe even at the beginning of the first Iraq war.

But by 03 or so when statistics became readily available anyone can know via a quick google search.

Without doing a search, I believe in WW2 the Navy was the most dangerous branch of all , it's just changed due to our modern technology and the types of conflicts we've been engaged in.

That could all change of course and it doesn't diminish the role of the Navy or Air Force. If anything they've made America the super power that it is.

But stats are stats. I think that plays a factor into why a 17 year old would choose Navy over Army. I can't be the only thinking this can I?

There's no empirical evidence to support your argument. You are saying that young men\women choose to play for Navy because they're avoiding the grunt's life, which is inherently insulting to anyone who has ever volunteered to serve this country. Each person who signs that contract has voluntarily signed a check that is worth each person's life. Just say thank you. I think you're making a point, but going about it the wrong way, imo.

I tend to disagree with you (shocking, I know). He may very well have a point but I think some are taking an emotional response.

Hes not insulting the Army or the "grunt life" as you put it but more so saying that within the Army there are higher casualties and that it could play into a kids decision. I was a soccer star and also took the ASVAB and was very close to being in the military. I did look at those factors.

There is also a perception among kids that the navy does their job from a distance whereas the Army gets real up close and personal. In the video game age, I can see where kids want to look at a screen and do the job instead of being in the streets sweeping houses. So id say he may very well have a point.... given, I tend to think that Navy has done better in football because their administration tends to support the sport more and that they have been blessed to get a couple good coaches in a row. Either way, recruiting for any academy is going to be significantly harder then any "regular" school.


As far as our military, I cant ever see one branch being more important than another simply because they are designed like a set of precision surgical instruments. Separately they can be effective but together they do a job that is something to be revered (when politics doesnt get in the way)

Our navy gives us capabilities that almost nobody on this planet has. There are only 4 countries in the world with modern aircraft carriers, and china only has 1 of them. That is a huge tactical advantage. Our Air Force is second to none. Our Tank divisions are so elite that nobody is within a decade of touching us. What we did in Iraq with our tanks was simply insane. All keys used to open very specific doors. We wiped from this earth the 5th largest army and sustained nearly no tank casualties.... in fact, when the military is allowed to do what it is meant to do, in the way that it is meant to do it we hardly have large scale casualties (in this modern day) Its only when politics hamstrings them and forces agendas which are nearly impossible to do is when our boys get injured.

and just for the record, I am 4F.... a lovely torn ACL and PCL not only ended my soccer playing days but made me the first in 7 generations to not serve.

(04-14-2015 09:22 AM)bearcat29 Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 06:58 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 04:37 PM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 03:53 PM)Go Navy Wrote:  "To think a football recruit doesn't know this, is naive imo."

I am a USNA grad as are my two daughters. One served in Afghanistan and the other in Iraq. We were all athletes. None of us knew anything. I was a football player back in the height of the Vietnam War.

When my first daughter went in, I had no concerns. When my second daughter went in, I might have been concerned, but the conversation never came up.

Granted, we were a legacy deal. But, the point is that no young kid understands what he is getting into. How could you?

As time goes on, you are either a part of it or not. It is your choice.

I'll grant you it would be difficult to know during Vietnam era, maybe even at the beginning of the first Iraq war.

But by 03 or so when statistics became readily available anyone can know via a quick google search.

Without doing a search, I believe in WW2 the Navy was the most dangerous branch of all , it's just changed due to our modern technology and the types of conflicts we've been engaged in.

That could all change of course and it doesn't diminish the role of the Navy or Air Force. If anything they've made America the super power that it is.

But stats are stats. I think that plays a factor into why a 17 year old would choose Navy over Army. I can't be the only thinking this can I?

There's no empirical evidence to support your argument. You are saying that young men\women choose to play for Navy because they're avoiding the grunt's life, which is inherently insulting to anyone who has ever volunteered to serve this country. Each person who signs that contract has voluntarily signed a check that is worth each person's life. Just say thank you. I think you're making a point, but going about it the wrong way, imo.

Emotions have taken over.

That is exactly it. You are basically picking a profession when you pick a certain academy. West point produces officers for many combat MOS.

There is a reason why the AF is usually the most successful of the 3 academies. It is the most "white collar" and considered the easiest of the 3 service academies. I am not saying the AF and Navy men are not in harms way, but usually not near as much as the Army & Marines (unless we are in a full scale war).

Not everybody likes their head in the dirt, most people prefer a bed.

I can attest to part of that. After my ACL tear the Army kindly gave me the boot, the navy wouldnt have me, the Marines just kinda stared at me in a weird and creepy way.... but the Air Force said I could join if i could pass the PT exam. Being 6'3" though my childhood dream of flying F14s wasnt gonna happen! (yes, I watched top gun one too many times!)

Back to topic:

Army releases new logo:



http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/.../25748989/

One thing that is not clear to me is their new nickname. Is it "West Point" or will the athletic team be known as "Army West Point" just like "NC State" or is it "Army West Point" like "Tulane Green Wave" with West Point as the mascot. Also will they be known as the cadets or the black knights now or just West Point.

I like it... though I wish they had just gone with Cadets. Hopefully under armour comes out with some cool specialty gear for them. Last year Navy had probably the best looking helmet Ive ever seen. Classy and bad ass.

There are some very good posts above. However, many do not know the full story. If you go to AF, Army or Navy, you have two years to figure out whether this is what you really want to do. If not, you leave - no questions asked.

As to Navy, many athletes select very difficult options at service selection, such as Navy Seals. During the height of the Vietnam War, USNA had many pilots who were KIA, MIA or POW's. We were reminded of that everyday.

The point is that a young man or woman has two years to decide what to do. Notwithstanding that, if you stay, professional sports is not an option. That is the only real difference between Navy and the other members of the AAC. You will serve.

I have no idea where the heck we are doing. I love the new logo, but good grief, pick a moniker!

Army West Point?!

(04-14-2015 09:41 AM)mtmedlin Wrote:  I like it... though I wish they had just gone with Cadets. Hopefully under armour comes out with some cool specialty gear for them. Last year Navy had probably the best looking helmet Ive ever seen. Classy and bad ass.

Doubt it since Nike did the rebranding.

(04-14-2015 09:59 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  I have no idea where the heck we are doing. I love the new logo, but good grief, pick a moniker!

Army West Point?!

My cousin currently attends West Point and said most everyone there was upset about changing back to the Cadets.

Like everyone else here, I'm confused if they're going to be the Black Knights, Cadets, or just Army West Point.

I can see them pushing the name of the School as "Army West Point" and reverting the mascot to being the "Cadets".... but why keep the black knights too?

Army Cadets
West Point Cadets
Army Black Knights
West Point Black Knights

All work but Army West Point does not. Army is a great brand name people immediately know who you are talking about so why change it.

I would have changed it to Army "West Point Cadets"

Will they not forever be known by the masses as "Army"?

is it me or does this logo look like the bad guys just ran a sword right between the eyes of whoever is wearing that helmet?

(04-14-2015 12:09 PM)tigerjeb Wrote:  is it me or does this logo look like the bad guys just ran a sword right between the eyes of whoever is wearing that helmet?

Not a huge fan of the new logo or name. It looks somewhat similar to Michigan State.

I like the nickname the black knights more than cadets.

I admit that I have not been following this thread very closely, but the full, correct name of the institution is:
USMA- The United States Military Academy. I would have used USMA.

The team mascot name "Cadets" is fine. I was also fine with the "Black Knights" (of the Hudson). But being "old school" in my preferences, the "Cadets" has more history and distinctiveness. (The AFA (Air Force Academy) uses the "Fighting Falcons" as their mascot name so you could easily argue that there is no "rule" saying that you have to use the name of your Corps of Cadets as the name of your athletic teams.)

But I was hoping for the USMA in the logo. USMA - West Point would have been fine. Or USMA- Army would have been fine as well.

For those that may know. When do Cadets select an MOS at West Point or how does that work?
No idea if Air Force or Navy have a recruiting advantage due to the Army casualty rate.

(04-14-2015 12:21 PM)bearcat29 Wrote:  

(04-14-2015 12:09 PM)tigerjeb Wrote:  is it me or does this logo look like the bad guys just ran a sword right between the eyes of whoever is wearing that helmet?

Not a huge fan of the new logo or name. It looks somewhat similar to Michigan State.

I like the nickname the black knights more than cadets.

Definitely looks like a knock off Michigan State. As a marketing person this was not very smart. Army was the Army Black Knights. Now they are just Army West Point with a new logo. The new logo is also not a knight helmet it is a spartan or trojan helmet which has nothing to do with Army history or athletic history (knights I can kind of see not Greek / Turkey historical soldiers). Also ARMY is a great name everyone knows it no questions asked no reason to change it. If change was needed go by Army Cadets or Army "West Point Cadets". Below is an image showing the different styles of helmets:

Better Knight Head Logo:

To go along with the TDECU Stadium just erected, the University of Houston announced their new mascot is a skull with crossbones, an eye patch over an eyehole with a purple and yellow hat over the skull.