(10-20-2013 09:00 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 07:33 AM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 12:46 PM)mnjayhawk Wrote:  0-6 Temple leads Army 14-0 in the 1st quarter.

? We were favored

It's more proof that Army would be better off playing FCS football...

If Navy and Air Force can be moderately successful, then there's no reason Army can't. They just need to find the right coach that understands the situation.

That's assuming that West Point cares...

(10-20-2013 03:11 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 09:00 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 07:33 AM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 12:46 PM)mnjayhawk Wrote:  0-6 Temple leads Army 14-0 in the 1st quarter.

? We were favored

It's more proof that Army would be better off playing FCS football...

If Navy and Air Force can be moderately successful, then there's no reason Army can't. They just need to find the right coach that understands the situation.

Army lack of success is predicated upon what has been the reward for new 2nd LT upon commission for the past decade. It IMO will take another decade for West Point to fully recover.

(10-20-2013 04:59 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 03:11 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 09:00 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 07:33 AM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 12:46 PM)mnjayhawk Wrote:  0-6 Temple leads Army 14-0 in the 1st quarter.

? We were favored

It's more proof that Army would be better off playing FCS football...

If Navy and Air Force can be moderately successful, then there's no reason Army can't. They just need to find the right coach that understands the situation.

Army lack of success is predicated upon what has been the reward for new 2nd LT upon commission for the past decade. It IMO will take another decade for West Point to fully recover.

Being hated by all enlistee's for being a butter bar?

(10-20-2013 03:14 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  That's assuming that West Point cares...

I have to ask, do you have something personal against Army? They are no worse than many of these other teams playing FBS. Besides winning games is not the priority for the academies. I remember going to a game against Navy before and it was by far one of the most fun games I have ever been to.

(10-21-2013 12:15 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 03:14 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  That's assuming that West Point cares...

I have to ask, do you have something personal against Army? They are no worse than many of these other teams playing FBS. Besides winning games is not the priority for the academies. I remember going to a game against Navy before and it was by far one of the most fun games I have ever been to.

I have nothing against Army. I am an Army veteran. But the team has been futile for so long it's pathetic. I'd prefer they move down to a level where they have a chance to compete for something...

And playing the game at a lower level wouldn't diminish the experience. Go to a Harvard-Yale game sometime. I've been to quite a few FCS games, and they have just as much excitement as any game you'll find anywhere...

In fact, it could be argued the the only remaining true college football experience is among lower level programs. FBS football has become so commercialized as to become almost indistinguishable from NFL games. It's rapidly moving in that direction, and every expansion scenario I see pushed on this forum are calculated on eliminating the last remaining vestiges of difference...

All the military academies would be better off playing where they had a chance to be competitive IMO. Why does that mean I hate Army, or any other academy? I just see no reason why a school needs to stay in the big time, when they field a losing team every single year, and stand no chance of success...

(10-21-2013 12:05 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 04:59 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 03:11 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 09:00 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 07:33 AM)JHG722 Wrote:  ? We were favored

It's more proof that Army would be better off playing FCS football...

If Navy and Air Force can be moderately successful, then there's no reason Army can't. They just need to find the right coach that understands the situation.

Army lack of success is predicated upon what has been the reward for new 2nd LT upon commission for the past decade. It IMO will take another decade for West Point to fully recover.

Being hated by all enlistee's for being a butter bar?

I think he's referring to the graduation perk of an all expense paid trip to Afghanistan, Iraq, or some other destination of hostile endeavor.

(10-21-2013 12:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 12:05 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 04:59 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 03:11 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 09:00 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  It's more proof that Army would be better off playing FCS football...

If Navy and Air Force can be moderately successful, then there's no reason Army can't. They just need to find the right coach that understands the situation.

Army lack of success is predicated upon what has been the reward for new 2nd LT upon commission for the past decade. It IMO will take another decade for West Point to fully recover.

Being hated by all enlistee's for being a butter bar?

I think he's referring to the graduation perk of an all expense paid trip to Afghanistan, Iraq, or some other destination of hostile endeavor.

Thanks JR, I guess euphemisms translate about as well as sarcasm does on the 'net. But to Bit's ultimate point, the FBS level of college football is moving to place where the SA can't and don't want to follow. There's nothing wrong with moving down to FCS and if that means that the crowds go from 30K to 15K, then so be it. I don't think that will happen as I don't see a full split coming, be the schedules of Army, Navy and AF will never garner any CFP consideration.