Published in Annapolis' "The Capital", December 21, 2009

There is something unique about the annual Army / Navy football game found in no other collegiate athletic rivalry.

In other rivalries, individuals come together for the limited purpose of playing as a team for 60 minutes to win that contest. Once the game is over and graduation follows, the diverse range of priorities in life for each individual player becomes apparent. Most embark upon careers in which the concept of the good of the team falls victim to the concept of the good for oneself.
 
But for the players who do battle on the football field during the Army / Navy game and graduate, it is a different mindset. The focus for these young men, who surrender a football uniform for a military one, is unchanged. Bonded together by a common desire to serve country, this band of brothers understands the same teamwork that served them well on the football field extends to the battlefield.
 
One of the prime examples of the respectful rivalry these teams share occurred during World War II. Normally played on a neutral field in Philadelphia, the Army / Navy game was held in Annapolis (1942) and West Point (1943) to save transportation costs. As cadets were unable to attend the 1942 game to cheer their team, the Brigade of Midshipmen was split up - half on Navy's side, half on Army's, with the latter instructed to cheer for Army! (Despite Navy's support, Army lost 14-0.)
 
The common bond of respect the two institutions share was very apparent in their most recent football game on Dec. 12. It rose to transcend the usually high emotions attached to most bitter rivalries.
 
It was evident by a gesture uncommon to non-service academy rivalries. Several times after a play was over and players were getting up, a player on one team extended his hand to an opposing player to help him up. While such a courtesy is commonplace for members of the same team, it is seldom extended between opponents.
 
Of additional note was the fact that during the entire game not a single personal foul was committed by either side. This is an absolute rarity in such rivalries. To be accurate, in the fourth quarter, a call was made and penalty imposed upon Navy for a personal foul for "helmet-to-helmet" contact. However, a replay showed it was a bad call as the illegal contact never occurred.
 
This bond was most obvious during an interview after the game with Navy Coach Ken Niumatalolo. Asked about his team, Niumatalolo became visibly emotional. He tried to share those emotions, explaining the great respect he held for all the players, some of whom would soon be going off to war. One could expect such emotion from a coach playing his last game of the season, but such was not the case for Navy. (It plays Missouri in the Texas Bowl on Dec. 31.) It was, however, the last game for Army - who needed to beat Navy to gain a bowl bid.
 
I could not help but think even Coach Niumatalolo's emotions transcended the rivalry. Despite his elation over Navy's win, he too felt the pain of the Army players over their loss. In a way, beating Army affected Navy differently than beating other teams during the season. The bond between services is so deep the emotions of a Navy win were tempered by those of a struggling Army team losing out on its first bowl bid of the 21st century.
 
There is something unique about the bond shared among brothers in uniform - some of which was evident in the Army / Navy game. It is something those who choose not to serve will never really understand.