Today’s mission: Beat Navy

December 8th, 2012

The Army Chief of Staff on today’s singular mission:

comments

39 Responses to “Today’s mission: Beat Navy”

1
Cobalt-Blue Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
GO NAVY!
2
Ex-PH2 Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
NAVY. NAVY. NAVY.
3
Biermann Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Go Army!
4
Rock8 Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
I think this needs its own ‘The Damn Few’ treatment.

(oh yeah, BEAT ARMY!)
5
2-17 Air Cav Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Navy (7-4) is favored by 7 points and hasn’t lost to Army (2-9) in about 10 years. So, it looks like another Navy win, right? Fahgettaboutit. This is a ground game. Neither team passes much and both have outstanding running games. Army is meaner and hungrier than the fancy boys in white and while the men of Army don’t like goats, they’ll eat them if it’s the only meat on the table. And today, it is the only meat on their table. ARMY.
6
Anonymous Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
I’ve served in both branches. I wear red, white, and blue and cheer for the winner.
7
SGT E Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
GO ARMY!
8
2-17 Air Cav Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Knights vs. Fancy Boys.
9
melle1228 Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Go Army1
10
NHSparky Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Only if Army comes up with a 500-slide Power Point presentation on their strategy.

IOW, ain’t happening.
11
Devtun Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Army complains “how can we ever win”? The label says “Navy”, but its “Marines” who come to play.
12
Ex-PH2 Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Am I seeing #64 (Navy) with a tattoo on his right upper arm?
13
Edward1811 Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Go Navy! 11 in a Row!
14
Open Channel D Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Navy wins.

Again.
15
Devtun Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Army loses…again. This event has pretty much become the Navy invitational. Shitsucki was CSA last time the Knights won. Mean Green had their chance deep inside the Navy 20 yard line and 1st down, then they realized they were Army and promptly fumbled – game over.
16
68W58 Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
#%*&-how do we break this curse?
17
2-17 Air Cav Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Army drives down the field and comes away with…zip. Army drives down the field and… fumbles. Game over. AAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
18
DaveO Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
It’s West Point. It’s generals f*ck their biographers and subordinates, and its cadets f*ck the game of football.

As for real football, I see OU will get to destroy the jack-booted thugs of Texas A&M in the Cotton Bowl this year.
19
Open Channel D Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Army just took out a 1-year lease on a rented mule with a 2-year follow-on option.

Word.
20
O-4E Says:
December 8th, 2012 at 10:41 pm
Explain to me again why the US taxayer is footing the bill for Diviion I football teams?
21
Eric Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 2:51 am
The Army wasn’t wearing their reflective belts for the game, that’s why we have lost 11 straight years….
22
68W58 Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 8:26 am
Eric-don’t give them any ideas.
23
2-17 Air Cav Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 8:59 am
@20. Because we want to.
24
Hondo Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 9:16 am
O-4E: Division I football is one of the few moneymaking NCAA sports at most colleges. Its revenue, along with that from Div I basketball programs, generally funds much of the remainder of a college’s athletic programs.

I’m guessing Division I football is a net moneymaker for the service academies, and probably actually saves the taxpayer $$$ by subsidizing many of their other sports.
25
DaveO Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 10:30 am
#24: No. It is a recruitment tool. We the taxpayers are still footing the bills.
26
Ex-PH2 Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 10:30 am
I think we need to put AirCav in a corner with a beer and a brat within eash reach, and a big box of Puffs with lotion.
27
O-4E Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 4:55 pm
@24 – Hondo

You are missing my point brother. Why are WE paying for ANY sports teams at a Service Academy?

Notice Sandhurst and Saint Cyr (among most others) do not have collegiate sports teams.

And it never seemed detrimental to them.
28
2-17 Air Cav Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
@26. I BELIEVED. I truly believed that this Army Navy game (notive it’s never the Navy Army game!) would be the one. I am crushed.
29
Hondo Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Well, O-4E – THAT’s a different question entirely, amigo. You asked why we’re paying for them to compete in Div I football – not why they were competing at all. (smile)

My original point was that Div I football at the service academies likely doesn’t cost Uncle Sam a dime, and probably saves DoD copious coin by bringing in revenue. That Div I football revenue subsidizes the other NCAA sports in which the academies participate. And there’s a good chance that we (the US taxpayer) aren’t paying much if anything to subsidize athletics at the service academies for precisely that reason. For the Naval academy, the 503-nonprofit Naval Academy Athletic Association picks up about 90% of the bill for athletic activities. I believe the situation is similar at the others – a nonprofit setup to raise/spend most of the $$$ required to fund Div I athletics.

Why any of the service academies participate in NCAA sports at all is another matter entirely. Why do any universities? Very good question, IMO. Even the Ivy League does – hell, they were Div I in football until 1982, and have been in Div II since; they still are Div I in some sports. My guess – and this is only a guess – is that the service academies do this for the same reasons as other colleges: e.g., alumni and students desire it, it’s a tradition, and it helps with marketing and recruiting. Whether they should is a different – and damn good – question.

I personally feel that the service academies should probably compete in Div II or III vice Div I, given their mission – and Div III would have the advantage of also allowing elimination of de facto athletic scholarships at all of the service academies except as a last-resort tiebreaker (yeah, they exist – IMO, of course). But I predict you’ve got a better chance of seeing a blizzard in Phoenix AZ in mid-June. And given the current funding setup, competing in college athletics doesn’t exactly cost the US govt terribly much.
30
Hondo Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 5:48 pm
DaveO: the majority of service-academy athletics funding comes from non-govt sources. At Navy, the fraction from non-govt sources seems to come to about 90% per info I’ve been able to find quickly. I believe roughly the same percentage is the case at USAFA and USMA as well, but couldn’t find the same info for those two quickly.
31
68W58 Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Hondo-a minor correction; the Ivys are not Div II; they are Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FCS what used to be called I-AA). They don’t participate in the postseason at that level, but they are division I in all sports.
32
Ex-PH2 Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
AirCav, you have my sympathy. But there are still bowl games coming up, there’s hockey, basketball, and (depending on where you live) spring training for baseball. There’s also the Superbowl.

Besides, the Army-Navy title has always been in alphabetical order.
33
DaveO Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
#30 Hondo: what are those sources? By amount, please. And then we can jaw-jack about the fixed facilities, education, and other errata that goes into the modern military cadet/midshipmen.
34
Redacted1775 Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 7:46 pm
The Duffel Blog has ainteresting piece where Army beats Navy…with baseball bats, grenades, crew served weapons and a JDAM.
35
Hondo Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
DaveO: the costs for fixed facilities, education, etc . . . are irrelevant. Those facilities/services/educational costs would be required regardless of what level (or, in general, whether) service academies participated in NCAA athletics. Ergo, including them is red herring.

I found summary information regarding percentages of NAAA funding for USNA athletic activities with a quick Google search; I didn’t find complete details. What I found appeared reasonable and “jibes” with other information I’ve seen elsewhere.

I have neither the time nor inclination to research this for you in detail at present. Feel free your own research if you’re curious. I’d start by researching NAAA, AAA (Army Athletics Association), and the equivalent USAFA organization. Let me know if what you find is grossly different from my results.
36
Green Thumb Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Its always a great game. The QB rushes 41 times for 54 yards (give or take).

The AF showed up and actually threw the ball. Army and Navy are still thinking about that.

Anyway.

I pull for Army.
37
DaveO Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
#35 Hondo: thanks, I will. And no, you have to include fixed facilities because they require maintenance, or new facilities to be built in order to replace them.
38
2-17 Air Cav Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
The game is very special. Most of those young officers who have played in the Army Navy game since 2001 were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some have been severely wounded and at least one KIA. It is always much more than a football game. Always.
39
Devtun Says:
December 9th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Newsflash: The Navy goat mascot, bust of ADM Rickover,and the giant anchor on Annapolis courtyard has gone missing…Army chief suspect and authorities currently seeking their whereabouts for questioning…just kidding, but mascot “kidnappings” a tradition – mostly by West Pointers.

Navy’s Battle Plan: Don’t Let Them Get Your Goat
On Eve of Big Game, Army Kid-Nappers Are Already Leading 2-0
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323316804578165611832023332.html