'Best and brightest' article from hometownannapolis.com

Status
Not open for further replies.
Off topic, but the recruited athletes have always puzzled me when it comes to LOA's and acceptances. Why?

The SA's exist to make the best officers correct, not to win division titles right?

Granted there are candidates that athletically are great and academically great too, I am just not sure I bite off that they ALL got in under the WCS system without that LOA from an athletic recruitment purpose as Lucky's DS stated.

Just sayin.

Remember I am polish and a woman, so sometimes it takes me a longer time to grasp the reason why, in this case an athlete should get an LOA over the other candidate who isn't being recruited by UT, but plays ball for their hs varsity team and has higher academic stats.

We went to the Navy vs AFA game about 18 months ago, it was interesting to hear that they now give LOA's to cheerleaders as a recruitment tool.

Just sayin.
 
Remember I am polish and a woman, so sometimes it takes me a longer time to grasp the reason why, in this case an athlete should get an LOA over the other candidate who isn't being recruited by UT, but plays ball for their hs varsity team and has higher academic stats.

Off topic but UT doesn't recruit the in the same waters as service academies.
3,4 and 5 star recruits don't litter the rosters of the service academies. That's one of the positives that makes academy sports special at the Div. 1 level. :wink:
 
..recruited athletes have always puzzled me when it comes to LOA's and acceptances. Why?
I can think of four reasons for football players to receive LOAs:

1. Having a strong Div I football program helps the public visibility (image) of the SAs and assists with recruiting applicants to the SA
2. Who doesn't love football? SA alum and current students enjoy having a nationally competitively program to cheer for..
3. The USNA football staff has a difficult enough time competing with civilian colleges for athletes without also needing to recruit only those that could receive appointments competitively. Plus+ How do we know that these recruited football players aren't bringing some "special" intangible leadership skills to the table that lowly non-recruited HS varsity football players don't posses?
4. To teach the other Mids that life is not always fair and that you should help out your classmates regardless of what back door they used to get into the USNA.
.. it was interesting to hear that they now give LOA's to cheerleaders as a recruitment tool.
Now you tell us. Which SA...or both?
 
Last edited:
I can't speak for the other academies or even for the other sports, but I can speak for air force football.

1. Of the 50-60 recruited players in a particular year; VERY FEW came from the Prep-School
2. The overwhelming majority did NOT come in with an LOA. They went through the same process as everyone else. They got nominations just like everyone else. Were some given some of the slots available through the academy? probably, but it's not a large percentage.
3. While ALL recruited football players are considered "Blue-Chip, most have to get in on their own. Matter of fact; many of them are "Blue-Chipped" after they received an appointment. E.g. My son received his appointment in the end of October. He wasn't "Officially" recruited for a commitment until November. In other words, he got his appointment on his own.
4. Academics and becoming an officer is the #1 priority of Coach Calhoun. I know this personally to be a fact, and will argue anyone who thinks differently. He had benched and even kick off the team players who couldn't play and keep their grades up. EVEN STARTER! E.g. Tim Jefferson (Starting QB his freshman year); was NOT ALLOWED to do spring practice at all and was forced to to EI and get his grades up. And his position on the team was totally in jeopardy if he didn't have it fixed by the end of the 2nd semester.
5. Out of the original 50-60 recruited football players, only about 15-20 will finish still on the team, 4 years later. The coaches know this, and so does the academy. (Obviously the team can't be 240 players). They ensure that the players they are getting, will succeed as cadets, students, and future officers. There's quite a few players who have gone on to med school, grad school, engineering degrees, etc... Yes, there are some who get an English/Art type degree. But there's a lot of non-athletes who do that too.

So; are there some athletes who are given special treatment in the appointment process? Yes. I won't deny that. But I have not seen the type of cadets with the grades at air force, like the article is mentioning. Also; athletics bring a lot to the academy. I know some people want to believe that we don't need athletics, and just concentrate on academics and the future officers. Unfortunately, that isn't the real world. Sports like football, brings a lot of money to the school. Most of the athletic program is self sufficient and/or through contributions from the AOG and individuals. It brings a lot of advertising for the air force and the academy. It builds public support. And believe it or not, athletics help make better officers. That's why more than 85% of all applicants have high school varsity sports experience. And most aren't IC athletes.

I could go on with the topic a lot, but it won't really accomplish much. I just wanted to say that we can have quality athletes, who are/were quality students and applicants. Granted, the air force got into a lot of trouble a few years back by using the prep-school as a "Farm-Club" for athletics. But that has drastically changed. At least at air force. I personally know of 2.Xgpa applicants who were highly rated athletes, who the air force coach/recruiter specifically told the young man that his grades weren't good enough to go to the academy and play for air force. Are there some that could be considered questionable? Yes, I won't be that naive. But it's not like the horror stories I'm reading.
 
..I have not seen the type of cadets with the grades at air force, like the article is mentioning.

..it's not like the horror stories I'm reading.
Great. You are obviously proud of the USAFA and believe that is very different than the USNA. Maybe the USNA can learn from the USAFA's experience. Do you have a link to the last couple years of USAFA SAT scores with a break down by race/gender and the USAFA prep school? Thanks.
 
I don't currently have a break down based on race, gender, etc... Just averages. I brought up my opinion only because the air force went through similar scrutiny not too long ago. And they got nailed to the cross because of it. Not so much the minorities with lower gpa/sat/etc... But with using the prep school as a "Farm Club" for getting athletes into the academy. Not saying it is perfect now; I'm sure it's not. But they do take their responsibility for bringing in and producing quality cadets/officers a lot more seriously than they did a number of years ago. But do they let in lower GPA/SAT/etc... applicants because of minority status???? I don't know. I would think they probably do. But I do really know. I was simply responding to the "Off Topic" portion concerning air force academy athletes.

One thing is for sure. Not mentioning ANY INDIVIDUAL'S gpa/sat/act/accomplishments/etc... In just about every educational institution in the country; beyond high school; it is easier for a minority to be accepted than a while male. I am not stating what my opinion is on this fact; just that it's a fact. I've been helping high school kids apply to colleges, the academies, enlisted, and technical schools for more than 10 years. I have yet spoken with or corresponded with an admissions department that didn't admit that one of their goals is to attract more minorities. And if that means lower entrance scores, then so be it. They don't like to use the words quota; affirmative action; URM; etc... Their goals however seem to be the same across all institutions. To have a student body that more accurately reflects society at large.

I do believe that many of their motives may be different. Some, because they truly care about a better socially integrated nation. Some, because it expands their financial base. (A white individual who's family make $70K a year may not be able to afford the school; while a minority from a family making traditionally less, has a much easier chance of finding federal/state/university funding). Some do it because they socially want to make a difference by breaking the link of poverty that many minorities experience. Some do it for political reasons and political correctness. Point is: Why these schools strive for more minority representation isn't important. What is important, is that every single one of them do it. And the military academies are no different.

There's a lot of good reasons for having a "More Diverse" military. At the same time, it's almost impossible to wait 10, 15, 20+ years until all applicants are all equal in their opportunities and advantages. While on paper, it may seem wrong to give an appointment to anyone OTHER than the top 1300+/- WCS candidates; but the truth is, there is no way that the military can be as strong and effective if it only took those candidates. Just like the military academies want well rounded individuals who aren't just book worms and academic brainiacs; they don't want an officer corp made up only of whites, or white males. This is not something new. I watched enlisted individuals get promoted, based on the "Weighted Airmen Promotion System". Where the majority of your score is based on 2 tests. Tests that you received a score, but NEVER, EVER, were allowed to see your scored test. A system that allowed "The System" to move promotion slots around; slightly enough; to create a more BALANCED promotion cycle. This has been going on for years. I remember when the LEFT hand forgot to talk to the RIGHT had at AFMPC Randolf in the 80's. "I need to make up numbers because I don't have the actuals still available". But Women made up supposedly 24.7% of the air force at the time. (That was on like page 2 of the Air Force Times). On page like number #30, they had an article about enlisted promotions that cycle. It specifically said that 24.7% of all promotions were females that cycle. To have the two stats be within the SAME tenth of percent, went far beyond coincidence. Promotions happen that way with other minority members also. None of this is new.

Anyway; appointing and commissioning minorities in the military is not something new. Does the academies lower the standards for minorities IF there aren't enough applying that exceed the standards compared to all other applicants? I'm sure they do. Will/Can anyone actually prove that? It will be hard, but someone on the inside could. Will it accomplish anything if they do? No; not at all. The only thing they will do is lower the standards for everyone; which means MORE QUALIFIED individuals. Then; they'll unofficially break up all individuals by whatever social category they want to use. Race, Sex, color, economic background, etc.... Then, they will rank the individuals WITHIN those categories, and take the appropriate percentage from each of the groups. Unfortunately, giving appointments strictly based on gpa/sat/act/achievements, etc... is not practical and will never be done.
 
Last edited:
I can think of four reasons for football players to receive LOAs:

1. Having a strong Div I football program helps the public visibility (image) of the SAs and assists with recruiting applicants to the SA
2. Who doesn't love football? SA alum and current students enjoy having a nationally competitively program to cheer for..
3. The USNA football staff has a difficult enough time competing with civilian colleges for athletes without also needing to recruit only those that could receive appointments competitively. Plus+ How do we know that these recruited football players aren't bringing some "special" intangible leadership skills to the table that lowly non-recruited HS varsity football players don't posses?
4. To teach the other Mids that life is not always fair and that you should help out your classmates regardless of what back door they used to get into the USNA.

Now you tell us. Which SA...or both?

Doesn't Numbers 1,3, and 4 contradict what you've been saying on how you don't think minorities, who might be less qualified then their white counter parts, deserve admittance.

1. Admitting minorities helps build public image, because if you didn't you wouldn't get much of anyone.

3. These minorities do have something special to bring thats why academies strive for diversity.

4. Don't need to explain this one.
 
Why have you chosen to substitute the word minority for athlete/football player? While many football players might also be URMs, how many URM Mids are also Div I athletes? My answering a question about why the SAs feel the need to recruit athletes in no way suggests that I think the best way to produce professional officers is by lowering standards (regardless of race) enough to maintain a competitive Div I sports program. It is as wrong IMHO to allow white recruited athletes in the back door as URM recruited athletes.
1. Admitting minorities helps build public image, because if you didn't you wouldn't get much of anyone.
You don't think the SAs would "get much of anyone" without Div I football or much of anyone if they don't lower the standards to admit enough minorities?

3. These minorities do have something special to bring thats why academies strive for diversity.
If you have some how moved away from football again, what "special" quality does just being a minority bring to a SA that warrants allowing borderline students to enter the Naval Academy by a back door ahead of their more qualified peers?

4. Don't need to explain this one.
You sure? It might have some relevance to the others.
 
Does the academies lower the standards for minorities IF there aren't enough applying that exceed the standards compared to all other applicants? I'm sure they do.
It would seem at least in the case of the USNA that you are correct. I'm just not sure if the Navy is attempting to have a percentage of it's officers that is the same as the minority percentage in the US, or the same as it's enlisted percentage. Clearly those number are not the same.
 
Why have you chosen to substitute the word minority for athlete/football player? While many football players might also be URMs, how many URM Mids are also Div I athletes? My answering a question about why the SAs feel the need to recruit athletes in no way suggests that I think the best way to produce professional officers is by lowering standards (regardless of race) enough to maintain a competitive Div I sports program. It is as wrong IMHO to allow white recruited athletes in the back door as URM recruited athletes.

You don't think the SAs would "get much of anyone" without Div I football or much of anyone if they don't lower the standards to admit enough minorities?


If you have some how moved away from football again, what "special" quality does just being a minority bring to a SA that warrants allowing borderline students to enter the Naval Academy by a back door ahead of their more qualified peers?


You sure? It might have some relevance to the others.

I'm comparing minorities to perhaps lower qualified athletes because you think athletes are okay while minorities aren't based on you older posts.

1. I think minorities matter much more then football and if the academies didn't have its fare share of them I would hope congress wouldn't support them, while football, is not as near relevant.

3. Goes back to answer 1 on how think minorities are more important the good old football and how that trumps publicity. In the end of the day the service academies are supposed to make officers not football players.

4. What this sounds like me (please forgive me if I'm wrong) is that you feel that you were unjustly wrong but the government, a service academy, or some other source and are using this forum as a vent, but as you said it life isn't fair.

The service academies are looking for leaders and as I explained myself early in the forum, minorities that preform well in school are PROBABLY more likely to be leaders then their counterparts. I didn't decide this myself that is just the way it is and service academics know this.
 
Unfortunately, it's a numbers game. And those numbers are part of a larger circle. In 2009, there were approximately 41 million blacks in the united states. That makes up approximately 13-14% of the population. Not very large. Of those 41 million; approximately half live in Urban areas. Due to poverty, economics, social pressures, etc... (Both for blacks, whites, etc...); inner city/urban educational systems are usually inferior to schools and the social importance of education outside of the urban areas. So strictly based on numbers, there's going to be a lot less blacks applying to the academies than whites. And many of the blacks who are standouts and exceed their urban peers academically, and want to break the chain of urban poverty, tend to be heavily recruited to other schools. Recruited doesn't mean athletics.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are plenty of top quality individuals of all minority demographics to meet or exceed the academy standards. Unfortunately, trying to get them to apply to a military academy, is a totally different issue all together. So, if the academies want to attract more minorities, of whatever class and demographic, they most times will have to lower certain standards in order to enlarge the pool of possible candidates.

This is a topic of discussion that will never be totally agreed upon. It is one that will never become completely fair. Do I blame the Navy? No, not at all. Not for what they are trying to achieve. But our country is expanding. More and more individuals are finding non-urban areas to move to. The military has actually helped in this. There are many blacks in/were in the military who after serving; whether 4 or 20+ years, tend to remain outside of the urban areas that they grew up in. Little towns in North Dakota, Idaho, New Mexico, Nebraska, etc... are watching their populations become larger in their own diversity. This will produce better educated children of all racial demographics.

But for now; colleges, military, academies, employers, etc... will continue to unfairly recruit students and employees. They will have good intentions and motives, but it will be unfair, even to the level of reverse discrimination, on some groups of individuals. But for most schools and employers; that's the commercial market. They can try all they want to attract a certain type of employer or student, but there's still certain elements that will sway certain people towards a particular school or occupation. They can justify their motives for whatever reasons they want.

But the military is different. Only a very small percentage of Americans will ever enlist or seek a commission in the military. And the individuals who do seek out the military, do it for many different personal reasons. To be enlisted, only requires a high school degree and basically no criminal record. (At least not an active or serious criminal record). Even the standards of OTS isn't much different except for the addition of a college degree. (It helps if it's In an area the military considers useful). But the academies have the highest standards of the entire military. And higher than many/most universities. It's standards alone prevent them from attracting the diversity it is looking for. It's not possible. You can't take 14% of the population; have 50% of them living in areas that by nature spawn educational mediocrity or even failure; then expect there to be a large enough selection of applicants.

We'll leave the athletes out of this discussion. That's a whole different topic with it's own motives, importance, some injustices, and solutions. But as for the rest of the applicants and potential appointees, there is going to be a lot of injustice in the appointment process if the military is trying to include racial/ethnic diversity in their appointments. As mentioned by a lot of people, this diversity definitely brings in it's own positives and benefits to the military. It's just a matter of how standards must be lowered, and thus unjustly leaving more qualified applicants out. Many of the "Lower Qualified" applicants have done quite well at the academies. Many graduate at all levels of the class's GPA strata. Some of these may have been individuals who weren't the best coming in, but became one of the best. According to West Point's 2013 class profile, (I use west point, because they have more minorities applying than air force does); their SAT stats "FOR THE CLASS of 2013" are:
SAT Scores*
Range Verbal Math
700-800 .......................19% ................... 20%
600-699 .......................44% ................... 57%
500-599 .......................33% ................... 22%
400-499 .........................4% ..................... 1%
300-399 .........................0% ..................... 0%
Mean .............................623 .................... 642

Only 4% had a verbal less than 500. But it's possible that THAT PARTICULAR CADET, could have had a 600 in math. Same with only 1% of cadets have below a 500 in math. They could have had higher in the other areas. Same with the 500-600 scores. These aren't composite scores. They're individual test scores. So, even if we added the 4+1 and said "Inaccurately" that 5% of the class of 2013 had SAT scores below 500, that would be about 65 cadets.

Point is; unless you're the 1st person on the final wait list that didn't receive an appointment, I don't think it's a major problem if increasing diversity (Which I think is important, as long as it's ALL DIVERSITY and not just skin color and sex), means that some standards are bent or lowered sometimes.
 
My answering a question about why the SAs feel the need to recruit athletes in no way suggests that I think the best way to produce professional officers is by lowering standards (regardless of race) enough to maintain a competitive Div I sports program. It is as wrong IMHO to allow white recruited athletes in the back door as URM recruited athletes.
I'm comparing minorities to perhaps lower qualified athletes because you think athletes are okay while minorities aren't based on you older posts.
Which older posts did I say that I think athletes are OK? Reading comprehension is an important skill.
The service academies are looking for leaders and as I explained myself early in the forum, minorities that preform well in school are PROBABLY more likely to be leaders then their counterparts. I didn't decide this myself that is just the way it is and service academics know this.
We disagree on this point. When you say you didn't decide this yourself...then who decided it for you? Do you have a link where an official of an SA says that "minorities that preform well in school are PROBABLY more likely to be leaders then their counterparts"?

4. What this sounds like me (please forgive me if I'm wrong) is that you feel that you were unjustly wrong but the government, a service academy, or some other source and are using this forum as a vent, but as you said it life isn't fair.
I forgive you for being wrong. Just because life is not fair doesn't mean we shouldn’t attempt to make it better. IMHO...discrimination because of race is not only unfair but it should also be illegal.
 
So, if the academies want to attract more minorities, of whatever class and demographic, they most times will have to lower certain standards in order to enlarge the pool of possible candidates.

This is a topic of discussion that will never be totally agreed upon. It is one that will never become completely fair.

..They will have good intentions and motives, but it will be unfair, even to the level of reverse discrimination, on some groups of individuals.

But as for the rest of the applicants and potential appointees, there is going to be a lot of injustice in the appointment process if the military is trying to include racial/ethnic diversity in their appointments.

It's just a matter of how standards must be lowered, and thus unjustly leaving more qualified applicants out.
I agree with the above statements.

Do I blame the Navy? No, not at all. Not for what they are trying to achieve.
What specifically is the Navy attempting to achieve? Do they want as large a percentage of AA male officers as they have AA male enlisted, or as many AA males as are in the general population? If the general AA population is 13%, then wouldn't half (male) be 6.5%? According to the article that initiated this thread:
Currently, about 18 percent of Navy enlisted personnel are African American, but only 8 percent of the officer corps
Considering women represent only about 20% of the officers...the Navy should be close to about 6.5% AA male officers currently.

Question: If racial diversity is important to the Navy and they want the Navy to mirror the US population...what do you think they will do to reduce the AA enlisted population down to 13%?
 
Back in the early 2000s, when Adm Mullen was CNO, he led a seminar on the state of the Navy in the 21st century. He brought in experts from many fields and they anayzed every facet of the future of our Navy. Of course, one of the most important discussions was manpower. They acknowledged that the demographics of the US was changing and that by the middle of the 21st century, the 'face of the Navy' would definitely look different. No longer enough white males to go around. To obtain the 'best and the brightest' in the face of changing demographics, the larger the selection base, the better the odds of success. The largest untapped base for the Navy is our inner large cities.

By 2007, it was determined that to assist in meeting these future manpower goals, that within thirty years (2037) the officer corps should reflect the enlisted racial makeup at that future point. That from bottom to top, O-1 to O-10, Ensign to Admiral, the racial makeup of the officer corps should reflect the enlisted ranks. Those O-10s in thirty years commenced checking in at the Academy a year or so ago. While Hispanics seem to flow right along with the majority, Asians tend to 'five and dive' and Blacks tend to 'twenty and dive'. These issues are also being addressed.

Hispanics and Asians are not an issue in being admitted to USNA. With Blacks, there has always been a certain percentage of suburban kids competitive with their majority classmates. USNA has also always attracted a number of black athletes who along with the above competitive candidates met any perceived goal or 'quota'. However, the above mandate has caused USNA to fall short of its goals. First off, to work completely within the framework of existing law, completely above board, the forty or so Congressional districts which had historically not provided candidates to the Academy were targeted. Qualified candidates were located, recruited, and admitted as their district's most competitive candidate. This has been the source of the majority of the increase. Nothing two tracked at all about it.

NAPS is a Navy asset, funded by the Navy with its own discretionary spending and managed by the Navy. Its primary purpose is to help the Navy meet its needs, not necessarily to give an unfocused high school kid another year to get his act together. For the Navy not to use it as it does to help meet the minority demands of the future, would be the waste of a valuable asset. Again, nothing two tracked. There has never been a first track. Things such as this is its sole purpose. Simply the Navy using its own assets as it sees most fit in order to meet its own requirements.

A dirty little secret about USNA. There is a reason that history majors are the most likely academic major to make the Navy a career, they cannot find a job on the outside. In general, the better one does in a technical field, the more likely they are to at least investigate another career after their initial obligation. NAPSters normally don't have this temptation. And I do hope we all realize that the purpose of the Academy is to provide officers to the fleet, not to reward some suburban white kid for doing well in high school.

Lastly, yes there are those Professor Flemings who want to do the job they envision, not the one at hand. Of course, teaching classes filled with potential Rhodes scholars is nice, but it is obvious from Fleming's writings that he doesn't have a clue as to the makeup of a good officer. And a midshipman unwilling to help his classmate academically does not deserve to be commissioned.
 
Last edited:
I can't speak for the other academies or even for the other sports, but I can speak for air force football.

1. Of the 50-60 recruited players in a particular year; VERY FEW came from the Prep-School

LOL.

2010 AF Football Roster - 14 plebes listed

13 of them went to AF Prep, according to this 2009 AF Prep Football Roster

The plebes not listed on the roster are probably less likely to have gone to AF Prep, but still...

Should I even bother to look up the sophomores, juniors, and seniors?

The numbers at USNA and USMA are probably similar, I just find it funny that anyone would claim that very few AF football players go through AF Prep.
 
Last edited:
Mongo: 1st - Excellent post. Thanks for the background and insight.

NAPS is a Navy asset, funded by the Navy with its own discretionary spending and managed by the Navy. Its primary purpose is to help the Navy meet its needs, not necessarily to give an unfocused high school kid another year to get his act together. For the Navy not to use it as it does to help meet the minority demands of the future, would be the waste of a valuable asset.
This is where disagree. According to the USNA:
"The mission of the Naval Academy Preparatory School is to prepare selected candidates morally, mentally, and physically, with emphasis on strengthening the academic foundation of individual candidates for officer accession through the U.S. Naval Academy."
That's what they say. Evidently it's true purpose is to help the Navy meet its URM needs, not necessarily to give an unfocused high school kid another year to get his act together.
Right or wrong, I understand what the Navy is attempting to do and why they are attempting to do it. I admit that I am disappointed the USNA has abandoned the concept of the "Best and Brightest" but considering the discrimination that has always existed perhaps it has either never actually been true or perhaps should be changed to the "Best and Brightest of the races and ethnicities we currently want and can recruit".

Thanks again for the background and insight.
 
Last edited:
And a midshipman unwilling to help his classmate academically does not deserve to be commissioned.
These Mids would have to be quite exceptional.
If the USNA is using NAPS to backdoor under qualified URMs and athletes and they are (according to you) recruiting lower performing poor white kids...then who are the Mids that need (and are able) to help their classmates academically? The same white kids that need 700+ SATS to be appointed and then are going to have a more difficult (higher standard) for promotion during their carers in order for the Navy to meet it's racial quota goals? On top of this they don't deserve their commissions if they aren't willing to tutor the under qualified in addition to their other responsibilities?

Any BGO's out there counseling these 10,000 white applicants about the "real" Navy, or is this one of the reasons it required a Freedom of Information Act request to pry these numbers from the USNA?

Actually, commencing about four years ago, 570/530 themselves no longer quaranteed a number and preliminary qualifications were creeping upwards. However, this year I have had at least a half dozen candidates who did not meet the 570/530 but were allowed to progress with the application process. Some were in the 400 range, both math and verbal. Admissions is spending a lot of extra time pursuing these candidates, combing their "whole person" for indicators of probability of success. None are black. None are Hispanic. And more than their fair share is red-headed, ruddy-faced, and freckled.
 
LOL.

2010 AF Football Roster - 14 plebes listed

13 of them went to AF Prep, according to this 2009 AF Prep Football Roster

The plebes not listed on the roster are probably less likely to have gone to AF Prep, but still...

Should I even bother to look up the sophomores, juniors, and seniors?

The numbers at USNA and USMA are probably similar, I just find it funny that anyone would claim that very few AF football players go through AF Prep.

First of all; air force doesn't have PLEBES. If you're going to "TRY" and argue back, at least get it right. Next; when you see 14 Freshman on the roster, 13 of which came from the prep school, that is totally understandable. These are freshman (Doolies) who are a year older, spent a year at the prep school, and have another year of football behind them. But what you don't see is that that is 13 out of 60. The rest of the 60 are right out of high school; didn't go to the prep school; and are playing on the "JV" team. This is normal for most freshmen. Just like a normal college doesn't normally start true freshmen. They make them red shirts. The academy only has 4 years, not 5. But, a prep school athlete has the advantage of having that extra year of football. So I stand by what I said; and happen to know. Out of the 60 freshmen, very few went to the prep school. According to your stats, 13 of them.
 
Okay, I don't speak the lingo of USAFA.

Out of the 60 freshmen, very few went to the prep school. According to your stats, 13 of them.

Nope, 13 of the 14 on the roster went to AF Prep. I hypothesized that the rest of the freshman wouldn't be so heavily weighted to prepsters, but I SERIOUSLY doubt that it's a small number. I'd be quite surprised if there weren't at least 7 more, which would make them 1/3 of the 60 you cite.

Heck, even if the ONLY ones who went to AF Prep are the 13 on the roster, that's still more than 20% of the freshman football players.

As for the rest of the roster, at least 10 of the 24 sophomores, at least 8 of the 27 juniors, and at least 7 of the 19 seniors went to the AF Prep school. (It would be a lot easier to count these guys if AF was up front and mentioned whether or not they went to AF Prep on the roster [like Army does] or at least in their bios [like Navy does].)

So, that's at least 38 of the 84 -- or 45% -- on the roster who went to AF Prep. Again, nothing wrong with that.
 
Off topic, if you talk football rosters, the VARSITY is the one of import. Carry on. (Hope I used the right lingo).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top