(11-04-2015 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 01:59 PM)NavyHusker Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 12:48 PM)Xbones Wrote:  If Army joined the AAC, could they improve their product on the field? Why aren't they more competitive like Navy and Air Force? Military restrictions, funding, facilities?

Army has physical fitness requirements for their cadets that make it very difficult for them to be competitive. We are trying to upgrade the quality of play to near P5 level--Army cant deal with that on a week-in week-out basis. They don't have the size and due to their physical training standards, I doubt they ever will.

How are they any different from Navy? (or Air Force?)

The way I understand it, they are similar, but the way they are enforced is different. Its mainly the timed runs that are the problem---for instance, from what I can gather, the Navy lineman don't have to meet the specified times during football season--but they are given a certain amount of time to get under the time once the season is over (and its not very long).

I'm not going to comment on how Army enforces any standards, but Navy does require all football players to pass the same PRT (physical readiness test) as all midshipmen.

I know this because a few years ago we had a few players who failed the run (1.5 miles in under 10:30 or a 7 minute mile pace), and they were not OL, but a WR, CB, & OLB. They were not allowed to participate in fall camp practices until they passed. We get a report on this every year at the beginning of fall camp.

I think you are referring to the height/weight standards that all 3 SAs allow waivers while they are on the team. Once they are no longer on the team (either quit or after last game) they are required to get back into h/w standards in order to graduate.

But I did hear that Army makes their players walk uphill to practices. Both ways. In the snow. With no shoes on.

(11-05-2015 09:19 AM)NavyHusker Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 02:11 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 01:59 PM)NavyHusker Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 01:03 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 12:48 PM)Xbones Wrote:  If Army joined the AAC, could they improve their product on the field? Why aren't they more competitive like Navy and Air Force? Military restrictions, funding, facilities?

Army has physical fitness requirements for their cadets that make it very difficult for them to be competitive. We are trying to upgrade the quality of play to near P5 level--Army cant deal with that on a week-in week-out basis. They don't have the size and due to their physical training standards, I doubt they ever will.

How are they any different from Navy? (or Air Force?)

The way I understand it, they are similar, but the way they are enforced is different. Its mainly the timed runs that are the problem---for instance, from what I can gather, the Navy lineman don't have to meet the specified times during football season--but they are given a certain amount of time to get under the time once the season is over (and its not very long).

I'm not going to comment on how Army enforces any standards, but Navy does require all football players to pass the same PRT (physical readiness test) as all midshipmen.

I know this because a few years ago we had a few players who failed the run (1.5 miles in under 10:30 or a 7 minute mile pace), and they were not OL, but a WR, CB, & OLB. They were not allowed to participate in fall camp practices until they passed. We get a report on this every year at the beginning of fall camp.

I think you are referring to the height/weight standards that all 3 SAs allow waivers while they are on the team. Once they are no longer on the team (either quit or after last game) they are required to get back into h/w standards in order to graduate.

But I did hear that Army makes their players walk uphill to practices. Both ways. In the snow. With no shoes on.

The last part is true. Has been an Army tradition since Valley Forge. We all can't be sitting on splendor ships sipping Scotch.

(11-04-2015 10:21 AM)PurpleReigns2012 Wrote:  I know a ton of you guys want Army in the AAC, but they would be terrible most years and eventually leave. A more realistic conference for them is the MAC. I think they would quickly make noise and could win the championship every few years.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They already have a schedule agreement with the MAC and play the MAC between 3-5 times a year and lose the majority of them.

Yeah, I'm not sure if Army would be very good in the MAC, let alone AAC. They're already struggling to win games against an independent schedule that features quite a few MAC teams. Seems like Army is struggling to get a schedule together considering the fact they're scheduling two FCS schools a year and actually did travel to Yale last year for a road FCS game.

Army might be a good add just due to the fact that the Army-Navy game could be included in a future TV deal (which CBS has the TV rights to Army/Navy right now), and their attendance & following is decent for a program that rarely wins. They are a good bottom dwelling school as you can get.

That said I think I'd probably rather have Army as a football only than Tulane.

I wish ECU would schedule a series with Army instead of all the FCS crap. Home game vs Army on Labor Day weekend would bring more excitement and fans than Towson.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Tulsa
Army
Tulane

they should consider forming a new conference

maybe add some MAC, Sunbelt, and Cusa teams

(11-07-2015 09:20 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Tulsa
Army
Tulane

they should consider forming a new conference

maybe add some MAC, Sunbelt, and Cusa teams

No.

(11-04-2015 12:48 PM)Xbones Wrote:  If Army joined the AAC, could they improve their product on the field? Why aren't they more competitive like Navy and Air Force? Military restrictions, funding, facilities?

Their leadership, goals of the academy (cranking out front-line soldiers versus flyboys and middies), bad coaching. It's more interested in putting soldiers out and football is a sideshow. A distant sideshow compared to the other academies.

Neat factoid here as well:

Here’s one theory: money.

As you probably saw during October’s federal government shutdown, it affected Army and Air Force – but not Navy. The reason is simple. Army and Air Force’s football programs are funded by the government. Navy is a separate 501c-3 corporation. The Naval Academy raises its own funds for the football program and therefore isn’t subject to – or limited by – government oversight.

Money pays the bills. Money has a trickle-down effect. The more of it you have, the more you can spend. On better athletic administrators, on better athletic directors, on better coaches, on better staffs, and on better recruiting coordinators.

Think about it. Who was Navy’s coach before the very successful Ken Niumataolo? The equally successful Paul Johnson, who turned in naval gig into a job at Georgia Tech. Ellerson was the 106th highest-paid FBS college coach out of 126 schools. If he’s making bottom-dwelling money, think about what kind of money is being spread through the program.

(11-07-2015 04:21 PM)AllPtsBulletin Wrote:  

(11-04-2015 12:48 PM)Xbones Wrote:  If Army joined the AAC, could they improve their product on the field? Why aren't they more competitive like Navy and Air Force? Military restrictions, funding, facilities?

Their leadership, goals of the academy (cranking out front-line soldiers versus flyboys and middies), bad coaching. It's more interested in putting soldiers out and football is a sideshow. A distant sideshow compared to the other academies.

Neat factoid here as well:

Here’s one theory: money.

As you probably saw during October’s federal government shutdown, it affected Army and Air Force – but not Navy. The reason is simple. Army and Air Force’s football programs are funded by the government. Navy is a separate 501c-3 corporation. The Naval Academy raises its own funds for the football program and therefore isn’t subject to – or limited by – government oversight.

Money pays the bills. Money has a trickle-down effect. The more of it you have, the more you can spend. On better athletic administrators, on better athletic directors, on better coaches, on better staffs, and on better recruiting coordinators.

Think about it. Who was Navy’s coach before the very successful Ken Niumataolo? The equally successful Paul Johnson, who turned in naval gig into a job at Georgia Tech. Ellerson was the 106th highest-paid FBS college coach out of 126 schools. If he’s making bottom-dwelling money, think about what kind of money is being spread through the program.

Care to explain the Alternative Service Option that they tried then? I supposed the 1/3 to 1/2 of the football team that select Marine Corps is irrelevant?