Storyline: I want to believe Army and Navy are different. They’re too good to get mired in the muck. They’re better than the rest. They’re above the fray. Well, I can dream, can’t I?
Courtesy: FirstAndMonday’s
If you’re like me, then you admire America’s service academies. And, as sports fan, each December you’ll likely watch Army and Navy play football. That game will be played today.
That game is symbolic, a respite from the hyper-competitive environment of big-time college football. It’s a throwback to a time when the games were…well…games, rather than expressions of a mega-industry that is college football today.
That’s what I used to think.
I’ll still watch the game today, but it won’t be without conflict. I very much want to believe the players are America’s best—and in many ways they are—but I also know there’s a hitch.
Courtesy: Time Magazine
I remember a time when service academy football was nationally competitive—Army in the 1940s, Navy in the 1960s. Army and Navy had great teams with great players, players like Blanchard (Army) and Staubach (Navy).
Those flush days ended long ago. Drought has followed. Navy stumbled. Army crashed. They just couldn’t compete against America’s best gridiron schools. With sights lowered, they could beat teams like Lafayette, Tulane, and Rice, but couldn’t win against schools like USC, Notre Dame, and Pitt.
In fact, today’s game is only the third time in the last half century that both Army and Navy will come into the game with winning records (source, ESPN).
Things are changing, though, and in a positive direction. Navy’s fortunes changed first with (very slowly) Army coming around. Actually, Air Force was the first service academy to win regularly. The Falcons had highly competitive teams with Fisher DeBerry as coach. The Falcons held their own in The Mountain West Conference against schools (before realignment) like BYU and Utah.
For Army and Navy I assumed success was a result of two things. First, Army and Navy eschew West Coast-style football in favor of the triple option. Because they run first, pass (reluctantly) second, Army and Navy are tough to prepare against; few teams play that way. Second, these contemporary athletics are a lot more athletic than they used to be, especially at Annapolis.
Both of those things are true, but there’s another factor that figures into a more competitive outcome. The New York Time’s Joe Nocera has been writing about it for a few years, most recently this week. He calls it “in through the back door.”
Courtesy: American Sports Network
All three academies have prep schools. It’s a way for prospective athletics to, well, “prep” for admission—athletes who would have little, if any, chance of gaining admission otherwise. All three academies also have foundations, entities that raise a lot of money to fund athletics.
I call it a way of “leveling the playing field.” It’s a way for these schools to compete against major teams.
Is it any different, I thought, from what my school (Michigan State) did over 50 years ago? MSU football recruited diverse players–mostly African Americans from the South and Southwest—who couldn’t matriculate at home-state schools because of segregation.
I’m not sure what Nocera would say about the comparison, but I do know what he thinks about what the service academies are doing. In 2013 he called it “the military prep school scam.” Nocera wrote: “Is there any institution of higher learning that isn’t gaming the system to gain athletic advantage? I’ve come to believe the answer is no.”
How extensive is the practice? Nocera offers specifics: “Nearly 80 percent of the 52-member Navy lacrosse team came through the Naval Academy Prep School; for returning football lettermen, the percentage is around two-thirds. Meanwhile, West Point recently built a new $107 million campus for its prep school.”
Courtesy: Davis Enterprises
Nocera was writing about it again this week—the week of the “big game.” He focused on Navy, providing details of what’s called “NAAA,” that is, The Naval Academy Athletic Association.
Sounds nice. What does it do? Per Nocera: “It doesn’t just finance the athletic department. It runs it. The N.A.A.A. employs and pays the coaches. (Navy’s football coach, Ken Niumatalolo, makes $1.6 million.) It manages the stadium. It negotiates the media contracts. And it rustles up sponsors. In all, Navy’s athletic budget is over $40 million, in the same range as the budgets at Hawaii, Boise State and New Mexico.”
Like most things in American society today, all of this says one thing: it’s not what you see that counts, it’s what you don’t see that matters—that is, behind-the-scenes machinations with self-serving intent.
What’s the alternative? It’s the same option that hundreds of other colleges and universities around the country should be pursuing. I’m talking about schools that aren’t “big time,” but act like they are. They impersonate the majors by channeling billions of dollars each year via sports subsidies. As for the admissions issue? I’m too afraid to ask.
What needs to change? Those schools need to drop down a division or two. Compete with schools of like-kind. Stop trying to be something they’re not.
Truth is, most Americans would watch Army-Navy whether the teams are D1, DII or DIII. There’s a lot more to this game than divisional affiliation–and a lot more to the service academies than big-time athletics.
So, yeah, I’ll watch today’s game. I still want to believe Army and Navy are different. They’re too good to get mired in the muck. They’re better than the rest. They’re above the fray.
I can dream, can’t I?
