(09-29-2014 10:55 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 08:11 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  No, it wasn't cool to play in a FCS stadium. It was embarrassing.

And Houston has no room to talk trash on the service academics.

I am so sick of this "it's an FCS stadium" talking point.

That "FCS stadium" is one of the most iconic/important football stadiums in college football history. That "FCS stadium" could seat more people than most FBS stadiums.



This was the stadium that directly lead to the Michigan, California, Notre Dame, the Rose Bowl, and the LA Coliseum venues.

I don't agree with many of your posts, but you're spot on here.

(09-29-2014 08:50 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 08:36 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 08:11 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  No, it wasn't cool to play in a FCS stadium. It was embarrassing.

And Houston has no room to talk trash on the service academics.

I wasn't talking trash, I think it makes more sense for the academies to be on that level, heck Army and Navy even play in the Patriot League in everything else. Granted, the PL is no longer non-scholarship but I think the academies have more in common with them.

The irony of that statement is that Navy has more wins versus BCS teams (and a better winning percentage in those games) than any team in the current AAC other than Cincinnati in the last dozen years. Obviously they do okay for themselves.

And Gonzaga can compete for national championships in basketball. It doesn't change the fact that they are a perfect fit for their current conference (and how conversely BYU has struggled some in the WCC but is still in many ways above it). NDSU has more wins over P5 opponents than most of the G5. So they're a shoe-in for a P5 league, right?

It doesn't change the point. It's about fit, not well a team can compete.

It's not so much playing in the Yale Bowl, but that Army is too busy sniffing around elite schools thinking that by playing these internationally known private colleges, the school will be getting the kind of recruits at West Point they think they're entitled to.

The AD over there thinks so low of what's going on in FBS and driving conference expansion, but he indulges this kind of whimsical gimmickry. I like the tradition of it, but this guy needs to either follow Navy and Air Force, or drop down so he can play with schools he respects on a regular basis. It's just painful where they're at now.

(09-29-2014 12:27 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 08:50 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 08:36 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 08:11 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  No, it wasn't cool to play in a FCS stadium. It was embarrassing.

And Houston has no room to talk trash on the service academics.

I wasn't talking trash, I think it makes more sense for the academies to be on that level, heck Army and Navy even play in the Patriot League in everything else. Granted, the PL is no longer non-scholarship but I think the academies have more in common with them.

The irony of that statement is that Navy has more wins versus BCS teams (and a better winning percentage in those games) than any team in the current AAC other than Cincinnati in the last dozen years. Obviously they do okay for themselves.

And Gonzaga can compete for national championships in basketball. It doesn't change the fact that they are a perfect fit for their current conference (and how conversely BYU has struggled some in the WCC but is still in many ways above it). NDSU has more wins over P5 opponents than most of the G5. So they're a shoe-in for a P5 league, right?

It doesn't change the point. It's about fit, not well a team can compete.

actually yes it does change the point. Especially when they were playing 4-5 BCS opponents per year, and the rest of their schedule was full of teams who are now G5. And they were doing as good or better than just about every other G5 team. It completely changes the point, and kills the point you were trying to make.

(09-29-2014 10:43 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 08:45 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Army's entrance requirements put them at a disadvantage to almost everyone, including FCS programs, all of whom can recruit bigger players for their lines.

Before writing Army off, the nation needs to be clear of ground combat operations for at least a decade.

Who's writing off Army? I'm just stating the facts.

BTW, you're speaking to an Army (infantry) veteran of the Vietnam War. So I can talk about Army all I want.

(09-29-2014 02:21 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  BTW, you're speaking to an Army (infantry) veteran of the Vietnam War. So I can talk about Army all I want.

I sometimes forget how old you are Bit. Grumpy old man there. said with much love

(09-29-2014 02:43 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 02:21 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  BTW, you're speaking to an Army (infantry) veteran of the Vietnam War. So I can talk about Army all I want.

I sometimes forget how old you are Bit. Grumpy old man there. said with much love

I've got an Irish country hat covered in pins, and the one displayed prominently in the front is Grumpy.

(09-29-2014 02:43 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 02:21 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  BTW, you're speaking to an Army (infantry) veteran of the Vietnam War. So I can talk about Army all I want.

I sometimes forget how old you are Bit. Grumpy old man there. said with much love

I've got an Irish country hat covered in pins, and the one displayed prominently in the front is Grumpy.

(09-29-2014 12:30 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's not so much playing in the Yale Bowl, but that Army is too busy sniffing around elite schools thinking that by playing these internationally known private colleges, the school will be getting the kind of recruits at West Point they think they're entitled to.

The AD over there thinks so low of what's going on in FBS and driving conference expansion, but he indulges this kind of whimsical gimmickry. I like the tradition of it, but this guy needs to either follow Navy and Air Force, or drop down so he can play with schools he respects on a regular basis. It's just painful where they're at now.

How do you know what the Army AD thinks? I'm sure you didn't mean it, but your post comes across as being from somebody who was turned down for an appointment to West Point and never got over it. Football is important at Army, but not for the reasons and in the way it's important for other schools.

(09-29-2014 12:40 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  actually yes it does change the point. Especially when they were playing 4-5 BCS opponents per year, and the rest of their schedule was full of teams who are now G5. And they were doing as good or better than just about every other G5 team. It completely changes the point, and kills the point you were trying to make.

We can agree to disagree. Again, it's not that the academies can't compete at an FBS level, they obviously can, I just think they are a better fit with the Ivies and the Patriot League (where they generally compete anyways).

(09-29-2014 03:14 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 12:30 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's not so much playing in the Yale Bowl, but that Army is too busy sniffing around elite schools thinking that by playing these internationally known private colleges, the school will be getting the kind of recruits at West Point they think they're entitled to.

The AD over there thinks so low of what's going on in FBS and driving conference expansion, but he indulges this kind of whimsical gimmickry. I like the tradition of it, but this guy needs to either follow Navy and Air Force, or drop down so he can play with schools he respects on a regular basis. It's just painful where they're at now.

How do you know what the Army AD thinks? I'm sure you didn't mean it, but your post comes across as being from somebody who was turned down for an appointment to West Point and never got over it. Football is important at Army, but not for the reasons and in the way it's important for other schools.

It comes from a couple of articles/pieces where Army's AD actually puts down what Navy did (joining a conference) along with talking down the kind of schools who made up the Big East/AAC, and other conferences those schools could have joined. He comes off like a total snob.

The frustration comes out of knowing Army, the institution, does care about this stuff. It just has an awful athletic director. And I question his values. Yes, Army is a prestigious school who gets to turn down a lot more people than they take in, but who should you be trying to be seen playing? Yale's about as old as they get in this country, but considering they take in so many international students, does the game serve them much? The same goes for Stanford and Rice. And when you pick up one or two of these schools, why then also go for Fordham? On top of the games with Air Force and Navy? Army's football schedules the past couple of years...it's about 50% indulgence and tradition, which doesn't exactly do much for its recruiting.

(09-29-2014 03:48 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 03:14 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 12:30 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's not so much playing in the Yale Bowl, but that Army is too busy sniffing around elite schools thinking that by playing these internationally known private colleges, the school will be getting the kind of recruits at West Point they think they're entitled to.

The AD over there thinks so low of what's going on in FBS and driving conference expansion, but he indulges this kind of whimsical gimmickry. I like the tradition of it, but this guy needs to either follow Navy and Air Force, or drop down so he can play with schools he respects on a regular basis. It's just painful where they're at now.

How do you know what the Army AD thinks? I'm sure you didn't mean it, but your post comes across as being from somebody who was turned down for an appointment to West Point and never got over it. Football is important at Army, but not for the reasons and in the way it's important for other schools.

It comes from a couple of articles/pieces where Army's AD actually puts down what Navy did (joining a conference) along with talking down the kind of schools who made up the Big East/AAC, and other conferences those schools could have joined. He comes off like a total snob.

The frustration comes out of knowing Army, the institution, does care about this stuff. It just has an awful athletic director. And I question his values. Yes, Army is a prestigious school who gets to turn down a lot more people than they take in, but who should you be trying to be seen playing? Yale's about as old as they get in this country, but considering they take in so many international students, does the game serve them much? The same goes for Stanford and Rice. And when you pick up one or two of these schools, why then also go for Fordham? On top of the games with Air Force and Navy? Army's football schedules the past couple of years...it's about 50% indulgence and tradition, which doesn't exactly do much for its recruiting.

again people need to ST.FU about this. I think Army has every right to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the yale bowl by playing a game there against a historic rival. people need to concentrate their beefs with army on anything other than this matchup.

(09-29-2014 12:07 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 10:55 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-27-2014 08:11 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  No, it wasn't cool to play in a FCS stadium. It was embarrassing.

And Houston has no room to talk trash on the service academics.

I am so sick of this "it's an FCS stadium" talking point.

That "FCS stadium" is one of the most iconic/important football stadiums in college football history. That "FCS stadium" could seat more people than most FBS stadiums.



This was the stadium that directly lead to the Michigan, California, Notre Dame, the Rose Bowl, and the LA Coliseum venues.

I don't agree with many of your posts, but you're spot on here.

you are not the first to say that

Army and Air Force Academy both should join the American, where Navy will be next year. Rice would be great addition, too. If ECU and CF want to go to Big 12 -- so long!

Great tradition in the Ivy League. In the early 70's, at least 3 different Ivy League stadiums were home to NFL teams...

73-74 - Yale Bowl (50k capacity).
NY (football) Giants played there because the Yankees were renovating Yankee Stadium. The Yanks played at Shea in 74 and 75, and the Giants at Shea in 75 too. Bobby Murcer only had 2 homers (at home) at Shea in 74, compared to 19 HRs (at home) in 1973 with the short porch in the Bronx. This was the source of many arguments between fans of the Yanks and Red Sox, about how Murcer wasn't that good and just benefitted from the dimensions at "The Stadium". The Yankees' time at Shea Stadium bridged the Horace Clarke years with their World Series years of the 70's.

[insignificant trivia: when Yankee Stadium re-opened in '76, for years their center field camera was shaded to right field, so on TV the view was on the second baseman's side of the bag... all other stadiums (like today) had the CF camera behind the shortstop... doesn't seem like a big deal maybe, but it was an odd perspective for the tv viewer and actually tough to watch... anyone else remember this...?]

1970 - Harvard Stadium (30k or so capacity).
The "Boston" Patriots played at Harvard the first year of the merger, then moved to the "Schaefer" Stadium dump in Foxboro in 71 (became "New England").

58-70 - Franklin Field (Penn) (60k capacity).
The Eagles played a bunch of years at Penn. The Vet was built for the Phillies and Eagles for the 71 season. The Phillies had been at "Connie Mack Stadium", aka "Shibe Park", for years... actually the A's were the main tenants before they moved to Kansas City in the 50's.

While I like what Army did as a nod to history, it was a dumb idea for today unless you concede going in that you aren't going to win enough games to make a bowl or you ignore recent history and assume you will win 7 or more since a win would have been the equivalent a loss for eligibility (that I supposed ironed itself out).

(09-30-2014 09:02 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  While I like what Army did as a nod to history, it was a dumb idea for today unless you concede going in that you aren't going to win enough games to make a bowl or you ignore recent history and assume you will win 7 or more since a win would have been the equivalent a loss for eligibility (that I supposed ironed itself out).

Yeah, Yale itself was not the issue. Yale and Fordham are. Next year, it's Fordham and Bucknell. And they're short a game in '16, with Lafayette already on the schedule. Jump right back in for another FCS club?

Boo's a boob. Last year he said he was having no problems filling in his schedules. Well, does doubling up on FCS clubs really count?

(09-28-2014 08:45 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Army's entrance requirements put them at a disadvantage to almost everyone, including FCS programs, all of whom can recruit bigger players for their lines.

Navy's entrance requirements are a bigger hindrance to their basketball team than anything Army has to deal with for football. Navy isn't supposed to recruit anyone over 6 ft 6 inches.

But as Navy showed with David Robinson, the service academies are allowed to grant waivers for NCAA athletes. Robinson was 6'8" when he was admitted, and grew 4 more inches in the next 2 years. I'm sure it helped that he was more than qualified academically and had a family tradition of Navy service.

(09-30-2014 11:23 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 08:45 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Army's entrance requirements put them at a disadvantage to almost everyone, including FCS programs, all of whom can recruit bigger players for their lines.

Navy's entrance requirements are a bigger hindrance to their basketball team than anything Army has to deal with for football. Navy isn't supposed to recruit anyone over 6 ft 6 inches.

But as Navy showed with David Robinson, the service academies are allowed to grant waivers for NCAA athletes. Robinson was 6'8" when he was admitted, and grew 4 more inches in the next 2 years. I'm sure it helped that he was more than qualified academically and had a family tradition of Navy service.

The H/W standards only apply at the back end when you are about to graduate, not at the beginning for entry. So the concern for Robinson, was that he wouldn't fit into a tank, a cockpit or through a p-way on a ship or sub. If he had joined the Air Force (where only 15% of the service actually flies) it would have been fine.

With CFB players at all of the SA's is that after the final game of the season, players have to get within the H/W standards and pass the PRT which they have been given waivers on for 3.5 years. And the killer for that test is running the 1.5 mile in 10:30.

(09-30-2014 11:23 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 08:45 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Army's entrance requirements put them at a disadvantage to almost everyone, including FCS programs, all of whom can recruit bigger players for their lines.

Navy's entrance requirements are a bigger hindrance to their basketball team than anything Army has to deal with for football. Navy isn't supposed to recruit anyone over 6 ft 6 inches.

But as Navy showed with David Robinson, the service academies are allowed to grant waivers for NCAA athletes. Robinson was 6'8" when he was admitted, and grew 4 more inches in the next 2 years. I'm sure it helped that he was more than qualified academically and had a family tradition of Navy service.

Robinson was 6'7" when recruited by Navy, and the naval entrance requirement at the time was also 6'7". But other than those minor corrections, you're basically correct. However none of the service academies can get the bigger guys you need on the offensive and defensive lines. They make do with guys who are outweighed by 40 pounds or more. It makes their road through the schedule much more difficult than any other football programs. Navy has compensated due to a gimmick offense that is little used. Army hasn't followed suit, and it's made their life much more difficult.