(10-16-2013 05:34 PM)Tallgrass Wrote:  But the original question remains, can the Service academies remain competitive?

I am saying the increasing recruiting competition from fellow NonBCS colleges is making life more difficult for Navy and AFA and it will be difficult for Navy and AFA to maintain their previous standards of winning.

Now, you are trolling. You are "Saying increased competition from non BCS teams" will impact them, but you have no evidence. Even the "evidence" you have, STILL puts them in a better light than the teams you say have an advantage. No one is gaining an advantage over the service academies NOW that has not existed for the past ten years. If anything, the past ten years of heighten war should have killed off the academies because of the real threat of what their job would entail.

Anyway, past all of that, your statements we are now dimissing that this same team played a SIGNIFCANTLY tougher than every other AAC team has played for the last decade, save for maybe the three BCS holdovers, AND they had a significantly better record than ANY of the other new teams, both versus P5 teams and against future AAC teams. And by a WIDE margin. And we are asking if Navy can compete because they are having one down season, where they STILL have a winning record? And we are asking if Air Force can compete, who has been more than competitive in the MWC for the last 25+ years, who is now playing in a lighter conference? Is this some sort of joke?

If you are seriously asking this question, then you need to ask it about every single new AAC team before remotely getting to Navy. It's like you purposely ignore layers and layers of facts, and keep harping to a question that has no basis in the last decade plus of results.

Tallgrass,

Navy already uses a 4-4-4 type scheduling which constitutes 4 likely wins, 4 probable wins and 4 difficult games. We'll see what happens once they join the AAC, but I suspect the experience will not be that dissimilar than the one Army had in C-USA.

Again, many of the schools in the AAC have aspirations of joining one of the P5 or being a legitimate alternative for overlooked CFB players. For Navy, joining the AAC is all about ensuring the schools' Athletic Department continues to be at the very least, revenue neutral.

ECU Pirate,

While there are clearly some very intelligent people who play CFB, there exists an overwhelming majority who are only interested in football and care nothing about being student athletes. Navy, and the other service academies compound this dilemma by their military nature. There are no majors to 'stash' academically marginal players. Everyone, regardless if they major in History or Middle East Studies, earns a B.S. degree. That is just how much required engineering and science exist for every major.

Also, at the federal level, when you start making exceptions you have to understand that they can't be narrowly defined. People will want to look for the female equivalent such as softball or crew to also be extended the same opportunity. It's just not a game Navy wants to play. Ultimately, SA's are not looking for CFB players strictly for athletic prowess. A diverse officer corps is the real objective and most CFB go on to become great 2nd LT's in the Marine Corps.