(04-12-2015 11:34 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 11:18 AM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 09:59 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 09:06 AM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 09:01 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  If Navy and Air Force can, why not Army?

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.

That could change fast. What if we get involved in a war in the Pacific?

Historically speaking, there hasn't been a dangerous war on the seas since 1945. Tough to for people to wrap their minds around something that hasn't happened in their lifetime or parents lifetimes.

Until it happens

People live under volcanoes, they don't think it's going to erupt till it happens.

(04-12-2015 09:01 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 08:53 AM)oasispirate Wrote:  I say this with all due respect, but Army needs to revert to FCS. They can't compete at this level.

If Navy and Air Force can, why not Army?

If anything, the Marines need to be allowed to field a team not associated with Navy and Coast Guard needs to come up from D-III. The more the merrier.

(04-12-2015 11:24 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.

(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!

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

Nah, I just ask that we respect our Army brothers. Their service ensures your right to disagree, but once again, I'd enjoy having all the academies in our conference.

You go away for a day and the "Army to the FCS" post appears. I was going to say something about ECU in response to that poster, but I respect the other ECU posters too much to criticize a solid school because of one silly comment.

We just need the right coach. Navy was awful until Johnson and Ken took the helm. We have been competitive in most of our losses. A few plays here or there and we are going bowling.

That Yale defeat still frustrates me. Our kicker and defense stunk. We shouldn't have scheduled a game against Yale at Yale even if it was the 100th anniversary of the Yale Bowl. The Ivy League decided to withdraw (voluntarily) from big time football. Our AD blew it.

We are going to beat PSU, because I am going to that game and yelling trash talk at PSU fans and when they get angry, I am running to my church's concession stand there and hiding. Modern day version of medieval sanctuary.

(04-08-2015 08:08 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 09:28 AM)AGuyIn_Water Wrote:  What is the holdup for inclusion of Army in American?

....

Well, the answer is that Army is holding it up. If they gave the slightest hint that they were interested, I'm sure someone would hand deliver an invitation asap.

FWIW and for those that may not know, Army has a conference history with a lot of the members of this conference and they struggled to compete at the top level of the conference.

I love their tradition. Having the Golden Knights deliver the game ball from the air is really a neat experience. I'm sure several long time fans of programs in this conference, or especially HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine can describe in detail just how special attending a game at Michie Stadium is. Sports Illustrated named it the #3 sports venue of the 20th century. I love the Liberty Bowl, but it ain't got Michie's history, setting, or charm. :)

Oldtiger nailed it.

The AAC contains many of the same teams that wreck us during our worst campaign since Bataan. And we haven't gotten better since then.

I like independence and I don't wish to join a conference unless we can compete in a respectable manner.

Michie Stadium is an absolute gem of a stadium. Rustic, yet modern. Fits like a glove on the riverbank, yet stands out among the gray granite of West Point. To realize that the stadium watched legendary players compete is awe-inspiring. The Cadets stand and cheer with passion. Throw in the Hudson River lurking alongside and you have a picturesque postcard for college football. We don't have 100,000 fans, but we are loud enough to imitate 500,000. And we have cannons. Howitzers to be exact.

I have only attended one game at Michie. That occurred last year when we beat Ball State in a rainstorm. Even the torrent of water didn't harm the festival. You park a fair distance from the stadium and ride buses to the field. It is pretty cool. Feels like you are on a military base tour. After the game was over, the sun peeked over the chapel. Glorious.

Every college football fan should attend a game there. If God wills it, I will attend another game this year, if any poster decides to go during the same game, we can meet up and swap stories.

I love you, Oliphant.

(04-12-2015 11:24 AM)oasispirate Wrote:  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 overlooked this comment previously, and I wish I hadn't seen it now.

Just being "blasted" by not showing respect to the actual people that wear the uniforms would be way too kind, but that's just my opinion.

Sure, we have a technical advantage. However, you do a huge disservice to the actual men and women that wear the uniforms, serve overseas, carry rifles, fly fighters, and do a thousand other jobs by not recognizing their sweat, toil, and bravery.

I'll be extremely kind and leave my comments at that.

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

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

(04-12-2015 09:06 AM)oasispirate Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 09:01 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 08:53 AM)oasispirate Wrote:  I say this with all due respect, but Army needs to revert to FCS. They can't compete at this level.

If Navy and Air Force can, why not Army?

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 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:  

(04-12-2015 09:01 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  If Navy and Air Force can, why not Army?

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.

One benefit of our jobs (I was an AO) is that if we screw up we'll most likely never notice.

(04-13-2015 10:13 AM)FuzzyHasek 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.

One benefit of our jobs (I was an AO) is that if we screw up we'll most likely never notice.

Ah, a BB stacker! I was an airdale as well. AT type.

MM1(SS) here.

(04-13-2015 11:07 AM)Knightsweat Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 10:13 AM)FuzzyHasek 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.

One benefit of our jobs (I was an AO) is that if we screw up we'll most likely never notice.

Ah, a BB stacker! I was an airdale as well. AT type.

(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:  

(04-12-2015 09:01 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  If Navy and Air Force can, why not Army?

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.

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.

Point is Army has been to 2 bowl games in 27 years, playing mostly a powderpuff schedule. People asked me why I thought it would be difficult to them succeed when Navy and Air Force have, I gave an honest answer and people got emotional.

(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:  

(04-12-2015 09:01 AM)CalallenStang Wrote:  If Navy and Air Force can, why not Army?

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:  

(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.

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

(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

Have a good day and thank a soldier or sailor for protecting you today...or visit a VA hospital and start this conversation with an amputee who protected your butt.

Cheers.

(04-13-2015 02:01 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(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:  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:  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

Have a good day and thank a soldier or sailor for protecting you today...or visit a VA hospital and start this conversation with an amputee who protected your butt.

Cheers.

Nope I don't do that, I buy them drinks at bars.

That said the statistics above prove not all branches are equally dangerous. It's like saying being a cop in town A) is as dangerous as town B). Yet to town A may have lost one officer in their history and town B may lose them routinely.

I realize I won't win this argument, because in America certain topics are taboo.

But if you're going to ask me why is it easier for Navy and Air Force to field a football program over Army, my #1 answer is in modern warfare those guys take the bulk of the casualties. To think recruits don't look at what they are going to be doing after their 4 years is insane.

"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.

(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?

(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.