Army-Navy 2025: Previewing the Navy’s Most Important Gridiron Battle
The MOC
By
Matthew Reisener
December 12, 2025
The US Navy’s recent operations in the Caribbean will briefly take a backseat in the public consciousness this Saturday as the Navy prepares for battle in another theater. On December 13, the eyes of the sporting world will be fixed on Baltimore, Maryland, where the United States Military Academy and the United States Naval Academy will square off for their 126th meeting on the gridiron. The winner of this game will not only hold bragging rights over their historic rival, but will also clinch the Commander-in-Chief’s Trophy, the award given annually to the winningest school in the triangular rivalry of Navy, Army, and Air Force. There is no other college football event quite like the Army-Navy Game. The stylistic and cultural similarities between the two programs make for a compelling matchup, and the rich history, pageantry, and enduring cultural significance of the game has captivated both hard-core football fans and casual observers for generations.
The rivalry between America’s two oldest military service academies dates to 1890 and has been closely contested for most of its history, with Navy holding a narrow series lead of 63-55-7. Although the Midshipmen dominated the rivalry for most of the early 2000s, including a 14-game winning streak from 2002-2015, the programs have largely been on even footing since the hiring of Army coach Jeff Monken, with the Black Knights winning six of the last ten games. However, it was Navy who claimed victory in last year’s matchup, upsetting #19 Army 31-13 on the strength of a four-touchdown performance by quarterback Blake Horvath.
The sustained success both football programs have found in recent years has been hard-earned. Army and Navy once ranked among the premiere teams in college football, competing for and winning national championships while producing Heisman Trophy winners and All-Americans. However, the service academies face significant structural disadvantages in the modern college football landscape. The academies’ lofty academic and admission standards weed out most prospective recruits, while their rigorous curriculums and daily schedules scare others away. While other programs use the transfer portal to fill roster holes with experienced players, difficulties transferring credits to service academies functionally prevent Army and Navy from utilizing this resource. Meanwhile, the academies’ post-graduation service requirements complicate players’ ability to pursue professional football careers. While some graduates like Navy’s Roger Stabauch and Army’s Alejandro Villanueva have achieved high levels of NFL success, most recruits with legitimate NFL aspirations are unwilling to defer their professional careers for military service. The academies’ height and weight admission requirements also limit the size of incoming recruits, preventing Army and Navy from recruiting the hulking offensive and defensive linemen associated with Power Four programs and leaving them perpetually undersized in the trenches.
Most significantly, the service academies are unable to compete with the budgets and big-money boosters of blueblood programs who can outspend the service academies in their efforts to recruit and retain elite players. While recent rule changes allow most college athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness (NIL), midshipmen and cadets are unable to accept NIL deals because they are federal employees and are legally prohibited from using their status as academy students for personal financial gain. With NIL for college football players representing a nearly $2 billion industry in 2025, it should be impossible for Army and Navy to remain competitive football bowl series (FBS) programs.
However, the academies responded to these challenges the exact same way the armed services they support might when facing a larger, better equipped fighting force: adopt a strategy that plays to your strengths and forces your opponents to compete on your terms. Army and Navy did this by implementing variations of the Triple Option offense, a ground-based attack created in the 1940s in which the quarterback rapidly reads and reacts to cues from the defense in deciding when to hand-off, pitch, or keep the ball. This scheme emphasizes heady decision making, allowing athletes to draw on the lessons in strategy and leadership learned from their time at the academies. The run-heavy nature of this offense allow Army and Navy to dominate time of possession (both teams regularly finish in the Top 10 in this metric nationally, and Army currently leads the nation in time of possession per game), keeping opposing offenses on the sideline and forcing the game to be decided by their opponents’ ability to stop a unique offense that can be extremely difficult to prepare for on short notice. On the strength of this strategy and due to a series of deft head coaching hires, both teams have beaten the odds and established themselves as regular fixtures in postseason play.
Which program holds the edge in this year’s Army-Navy game? Both teams are having successful seasons, with the Midshipmen bringing a 9-2 record and #22 ranking in the AP poll into their matchup against a 6-5 Army team that secured bowl eligibility with its November 29 win against the University of Texas San-Antonio. The Midshipmen are the current betting favorites due to their strong offense, which features one of the most dynamic QBs in the nation in Blake Horvath, a hard-charging fullback in Alex Tecza, and a versatile offensive weapon in running back Eli Heidenreich.
This game will predictably feature two of the best rushing attacks in the country; Navy leads the FBS in rushing yards per game, while Army ranks 5th and features a workhorse quarterback in junior Cale Hellums who has the second most in rushing attempts in football with a whopping 264. The Midshipmen are particularly strong up front, allowing the fewest tackles for loss in college football with only 34. The credit for this is split between a solid Midshipmen offensive line, a QB in Horvath who typically makes the right reads on option plays, and the hard-running style of Navy’s backs who rarely go down at first contact. Navy is also one of the best third-down offenses in college football, converting on just under half of their attempts. Army, meanwhile, has struggled to stop opponents on third down and ranks 123rd of 136 FBS teams in opponent third down conversion rate (44.93%). In a game often decided on the margins, the ability of the Midshipmen to convert third downs could be the difference.
When Army has the ball, Navy’s most formidable asset is AAC Defensive Player of the Year Landon Robinson. A game-wrecking defensive tackle, Robinson is strong enough to squat 665 pounds and athletic enough to occasionally be deployed as a ballcarrier on fake punt plays. Robinson’s ability to disrupt plays in the opposing backfield despite regularly commanding double-teams could make him an X-factor in this game.
WHAT A WILD PLAY — Navy calls a fake punt to the big man Landon Robinson!
Navy’s weakness is its pass defense, where it allows opposing QBs to complete nearly 65% of their passes and post a season-long passer rating of 150.33. However, no team is worse positioned to exploit this deficiency than Army, which statistically has the worst passing attack in the FBS. Army QBs have completed just a shade over 50% of their passes for a measly 861 yards with a 5:4 touchdown: interception rate. Meanwhile, while Army boasts a more respectable pass defense, it must also contend with a considerably more potent aerial attack and a legitimate pass catching threat in Heidenreich, Navy’s all-time leading receiver. With both defenses focused on stopping the run, the ability of either team to hit big plays in the passing game could be a deciding factor in this contest.
However, arguably the biggest variable in this game is what version of the Black Knights show up to play. Army plays a predictably orderly brand of football, racking up the sport’s lowest number of penalties (2.8) and penalty yardage per game (24.1) in the country. Yet despite this discipline, Army has also been extremely inconsistent this year. At their best, the Black Knights won on the road against a Big 12 program (Kansas State) and played playoff contenders Tulane and North Texas to within one score. At their worst, they surrendered 30 points and committed three turnovers in a loss to a lower-division team in Tarleton State, scored only six points in a decisive 28-6 defeat against East Carolina, and fell to a 4-8 Tulsa team at home. Given the stakes of the Army-Navy Game, the Black Knights will likely play more like the squad that upset a solid Power Four team than the one that gave up nearly 500 yards of offense to Tulsa. If not, the potent offense Navy displaced in recent wins against quality opponents such as South Florida and Memphis could allow them to run away with this game.
Regardless of the outcome, the Army-Navy game is worth celebrating for what it represents—the future of the US military competing in a spirited yet collegial contest of skill and resolve which personifies the friendly but competitive interservice rivalry. That this game stands as the sport’s final regular season contest is a fitting vehicle to elevate the platform of this game, but also a testament to its significance to both service academies. Army and Navy made a conscious decision to schedule this game for the week after the AAC Championship was decided and the playoff and bowl fields were set. Navy could not use this game to strengthen its case for a playoff bid or a spot in the conference championship, and Army could not have used this game to secure bowl eligibility had it failed to do so against UTSA. In an increasingly cut-throat sport that prioritizes winning over all else, teams scheduling a game that actively hurts their postseason chances is basically unheard of. Yet both academies understand the importance of this game as a historic and cultural event, as well as a core memory for players, past graduates, and their families which is in many ways more meaningful than the hunt for conference, bowl, or national championships.
At the end of Saturday’s game, the assembled bands will perform the alma mater songs of both schools, with the winning team standing side by side with their opponents in a show of camaraderie in the wars to be waged beyond the gridiron. With the increasing polarization of American society and the US armed forces facing the looming specter of politicization, one can only hope that this year’s Army-Navy Game reminds all those watching of the importance of national unity as America prepares to face the battles to come.
Matthew Reisener is the Senior National Security Advisor at the Center for Maritime Strategy. He also moonlights as a sports columnist for SB Nation, covering University of Iowa athletics, which you can read here.
The views expressed in this piece are the sole opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Maritime Strategy or other institutions listed.
Center for Maritime Strategy
By Matthew Reisener
The US Navy’s recent operations in the Caribbean will briefly take a backseat in the public consciousness this Saturday as the Navy prepares for battle in another theater. On December 13, the eyes of the sporting world will be fixed on Baltimore, Maryland, where the United States Military Academy and the United States Naval Academy will square off for their 126th meeting on the gridiron. The winner of this game will not only hold bragging rights over their historic rival, but will also clinch the Commander-in-Chief’s Trophy, the award given annually to the winningest school in the triangular rivalry of Navy, Army, and Air Force. There is no other college football event quite like the Army-Navy Game. The stylistic and cultural similarities between the two programs make for a compelling matchup, and the rich history, pageantry, and enduring cultural significance of the game has captivated both hard-core football fans and casual observers for generations.
The rivalry between America’s two oldest military service academies dates to 1890 and has been closely contested for most of its history, with Navy holding a narrow series lead of 63-55-7. Although the Midshipmen dominated the rivalry for most of the early 2000s, including a 14-game winning streak from 2002-2015, the programs have largely been on even footing since the hiring of Army coach Jeff Monken, with the Black Knights winning six of the last ten games. However, it was Navy who claimed victory in last year’s matchup, upsetting #19 Army 31-13 on the strength of a four-touchdown performance by quarterback Blake Horvath.
The sustained success both football programs have found in recent years has been hard-earned. Army and Navy once ranked among the premiere teams in college football, competing for and winning national championships while producing Heisman Trophy winners and All-Americans. However, the service academies face significant structural disadvantages in the modern college football landscape. The academies’ lofty academic and admission standards weed out most prospective recruits, while their rigorous curriculums and daily schedules scare others away. While other programs use the transfer portal to fill roster holes with experienced players, difficulties transferring credits to service academies functionally prevent Army and Navy from utilizing this resource. Meanwhile, the academies’ post-graduation service requirements complicate players’ ability to pursue professional football careers. While some graduates like Navy’s Roger Stabauch and Army’s Alejandro Villanueva have achieved high levels of NFL success, most recruits with legitimate NFL aspirations are unwilling to defer their professional careers for military service. The academies’ height and weight admission requirements also limit the size of incoming recruits, preventing Army and Navy from recruiting the hulking offensive and defensive linemen associated with Power Four programs and leaving them perpetually undersized in the trenches.
Most significantly, the service academies are unable to compete with the budgets and big-money boosters of blueblood programs who can outspend the service academies in their efforts to recruit and retain elite players. While recent rule changes allow most college athletes to profit off their name, image, and likeness (NIL), midshipmen and cadets are unable to accept NIL deals because they are federal employees and are legally prohibited from using their status as academy students for personal financial gain. With NIL for college football players representing a nearly $2 billion industry in 2025, it should be impossible for Army and Navy to remain competitive football bowl series (FBS) programs.
However, the academies responded to these challenges the exact same way the armed services they support might when facing a larger, better equipped fighting force: adopt a strategy that plays to your strengths and forces your opponents to compete on your terms. Army and Navy did this by implementing variations of the Triple Option offense, a ground-based attack created in the 1940s in which the quarterback rapidly reads and reacts to cues from the defense in deciding when to hand-off, pitch, or keep the ball. This scheme emphasizes heady decision making, allowing athletes to draw on the lessons in strategy and leadership learned from their time at the academies. The run-heavy nature of this offense allow Army and Navy to dominate time of possession (both teams regularly finish in the Top 10 in this metric nationally, and Army currently leads the nation in time of possession per game), keeping opposing offenses on the sideline and forcing the game to be decided by their opponents’ ability to stop a unique offense that can be extremely difficult to prepare for on short notice. On the strength of this strategy and due to a series of deft head coaching hires, both teams have beaten the odds and established themselves as regular fixtures in postseason play.
Which program holds the edge in this year’s Army-Navy game? Both teams are having successful seasons, with the Midshipmen bringing a 9-2 record and #22 ranking in the AP poll into their matchup against a 6-5 Army team that secured bowl eligibility with its November 29 win against the University of Texas San-Antonio. The Midshipmen are the current betting favorites due to their strong offense, which features one of the most dynamic QBs in the nation in Blake Horvath, a hard-charging fullback in Alex Tecza, and a versatile offensive weapon in running back Eli Heidenreich.
This game will predictably feature two of the best rushing attacks in the country; Navy leads the FBS in rushing yards per game, while Army ranks 5th and features a workhorse quarterback in junior Cale Hellums who has the second most in rushing attempts in football with a whopping 264. The Midshipmen are particularly strong up front, allowing the fewest tackles for loss in college football with only 34. The credit for this is split between a solid Midshipmen offensive line, a QB in Horvath who typically makes the right reads on option plays, and the hard-running style of Navy’s backs who rarely go down at first contact. Navy is also one of the best third-down offenses in college football, converting on just under half of their attempts. Army, meanwhile, has struggled to stop opponents on third down and ranks 123rd of 136 FBS teams in opponent third down conversion rate (44.93%). In a game often decided on the margins, the ability of the Midshipmen to convert third downs could be the difference.
When Army has the ball, Navy’s most formidable asset is AAC Defensive Player of the Year Landon Robinson. A game-wrecking defensive tackle, Robinson is strong enough to squat 665 pounds and athletic enough to occasionally be deployed as a ballcarrier on fake punt plays. Robinson’s ability to disrupt plays in the opposing backfield despite regularly commanding double-teams could make him an X-factor in this game.
Navy’s weakness is its pass defense, where it allows opposing QBs to complete nearly 65% of their passes and post a season-long passer rating of 150.33. However, no team is worse positioned to exploit this deficiency than Army, which statistically has the worst passing attack in the FBS. Army QBs have completed just a shade over 50% of their passes for a measly 861 yards with a 5:4 touchdown: interception rate. Meanwhile, while Army boasts a more respectable pass defense, it must also contend with a considerably more potent aerial attack and a legitimate pass catching threat in Heidenreich, Navy’s all-time leading receiver. With both defenses focused on stopping the run, the ability of either team to hit big plays in the passing game could be a deciding factor in this contest.
However, arguably the biggest variable in this game is what version of the Black Knights show up to play. Army plays a predictably orderly brand of football, racking up the sport’s lowest number of penalties (2.8) and penalty yardage per game (24.1) in the country. Yet despite this discipline, Army has also been extremely inconsistent this year. At their best, the Black Knights won on the road against a Big 12 program (Kansas State) and played playoff contenders Tulane and North Texas to within one score. At their worst, they surrendered 30 points and committed three turnovers in a loss to a lower-division team in Tarleton State, scored only six points in a decisive 28-6 defeat against East Carolina, and fell to a 4-8 Tulsa team at home. Given the stakes of the Army-Navy Game, the Black Knights will likely play more like the squad that upset a solid Power Four team than the one that gave up nearly 500 yards of offense to Tulsa. If not, the potent offense Navy displaced in recent wins against quality opponents such as South Florida and Memphis could allow them to run away with this game.
Regardless of the outcome, the Army-Navy game is worth celebrating for what it represents—the future of the US military competing in a spirited yet collegial contest of skill and resolve which personifies the friendly but competitive interservice rivalry. That this game stands as the sport’s final regular season contest is a fitting vehicle to elevate the platform of this game, but also a testament to its significance to both service academies. Army and Navy made a conscious decision to schedule this game for the week after the AAC Championship was decided and the playoff and bowl fields were set. Navy could not use this game to strengthen its case for a playoff bid or a spot in the conference championship, and Army could not have used this game to secure bowl eligibility had it failed to do so against UTSA. In an increasingly cut-throat sport that prioritizes winning over all else, teams scheduling a game that actively hurts their postseason chances is basically unheard of. Yet both academies understand the importance of this game as a historic and cultural event, as well as a core memory for players, past graduates, and their families which is in many ways more meaningful than the hunt for conference, bowl, or national championships.
At the end of Saturday’s game, the assembled bands will perform the alma mater songs of both schools, with the winning team standing side by side with their opponents in a show of camaraderie in the wars to be waged beyond the gridiron. With the increasing polarization of American society and the US armed forces facing the looming specter of politicization, one can only hope that this year’s Army-Navy Game reminds all those watching of the importance of national unity as America prepares to face the battles to come.
Matthew Reisener is the Senior National Security Advisor at the Center for Maritime Strategy. He also moonlights as a sports columnist for SB Nation, covering University of Iowa athletics, which you can read here.
The views expressed in this piece are the sole opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Maritime Strategy or other institutions listed.