Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by Stevewar2, Dec 3, 2013.
Wow. What the hell is happening at the Air Force Academy?
If my recollection is correct, they did this very thing last year or the year before for their QB. He was allowed an extra semester to complete his degree because of a medical issue...
wait for it...
a sprained wrist.
Also, does AFA not have a red-shirt program, oops I mean Preparatory School?
If so, that would mean a cadet would be in for 6 years before commissioning. Unless they really want to be like the big time FB schools and are thinking about dropping the requirement to graduate too.
Big picture, what's the problem with a 5th year? If done right, it could be a very good thing.
-Add 2 more years to the service obligation for anyone taking a 5th year (1 per semester)
-Football players (really all athletes) cannot play during their 5th year - that time is dedicated to catching up on academic requirements that they might not be able to meet as a result of their schedule or physical requirements (height/weight) from their sport.
-NARP's can take a 5th year too, same additional service obligation, if taking a double major, etc.
-Extra year has additional courses focusing on AF leadership development
I don't see the issue with one extra year - is it really that much different than an enlisted soldier/airman who serves for 5 years before commissioning via OCS?
I guess the issue for me is "what am I paying for?" An extra year isn't cheap. What's the benefit. Remember, the reason academies exist is to produce officers.
The side issue is, now that they have seven years obligation, if they're for some reason forced out, they have to be provided a severance package.... not the case for "5 and divers."
But again, why should the taxpayer fund this extra year when the military is heading toward downsizing anyway? This is beyond a "we're just a college, lets us be a college."
I don't know what is going at USAFA- but this is a transparent scam and as a taxpayer and as a retired military officer- I am really outraged. Even at regular colleges the whole 5 year Red Shirt thing is a travesty to begin with- college as a support mechanism for the football program. If, in order to be competitive in D1 football, the Academies (or at least USAFA) are now truly adopting or at least advocating for this (along with the prep school scam in which sadly the prep schools have in large part become a Redshirt program in all but name), then there needs to be some serious review of the Academies mission because this is exactly what LITS is describing as "we're a college" mentality. This is transparent baloney - but e's not lying though with his prediction that it will "basically remain a 4 year institution"- but that will be because as a % of the Cadet population, the football and basketball teams are relatively small (and rest assured that these are the special needs he is trying to meet).
The fact is NCAA athletic program is a part of SAs, regardless of our likes or dislikes. How many athletes do SA lose for academic reasons? When SAs recruit athletes to play sports, perhaps send them to prep schools, than lose them sophomore year or junior year for academic reasons they just wasted appointments that could have produced military officers. If we simplify it, giving an extra semester to 4 cadets to allow them to graduate equals to a cadet getting separated after two years. Pretty good return on investment.
Military schools do it all the time, instead of sending students home when they fail a phase, they get recycled. But ultimately, if you don't meet the standard you don't graduate. Had a friend of mine that recycled every phase of Ranger school and didn't graduate at the end.
We had debates on merits of some SAs competing at Div I level. If we have to compete at NCAA DI/DIII, why not compete smartly
Exactly. If there is one thing the academies are known for it's the academic rigor. Some college students do five years because they spend too much time BSing, are double majoring, etc. Four years at one of the best institutions in the country is plenty to prepare one for military service, which is the purpose of the academy. Waste of taxpayer dollars, and as stated, the mission of the academy is NOT to support the football program.
The coach is asking for a 5th year of playing football.
Answer: Who cares?
Answer: Zero. There are more qualified, non-D1 athletes who would be fine officers. Get rid of the dumb 5-year students, you'll still have plenty of qualified folks (who don't need Prep) to graduate in four years and become officers (you know.... the very purpose of service academies).
The last year or so, with all of the issues out in Colorado Springs, has really knocked the school down a peg or two in my mind. It's a shame.
That would be against NCAA eligibility rules (only allowed to play for four years). What I'm saying is that if the purpose of the 5th year is academic, make it solely academic. You play during years 1-4, 5 is all school.
I don't disagree, without SA participation in NCAA athletic programs your points make perfect sense.
The reality is NCAA athletic programs are integral part of SA (as stated before regardless of we think of how "qualified' or "unqualified" recruited athletes are) and cannot be changed, better to find a way to make best of the situation.
Being a FFR for 10 years or so I have seen my share of what I think is not right on how West Point appoints certain cadets, but I ignore those as I don't have all the facts and I can't change them. Suppose I could stop being a FFR is protest, but I do think I do more good by staying on to keep helping deserving kids.
So the AFA coach is asking for NCAA rules to be broken? That doesn't sound honorable.
No, he's asking to bench them for one of their 5 years. If the program is truly designed to promote academic success, the 5th year should be football-free
Having a 5 year program as you described would be useless to a Football Program.
The whole purpose of the 5 year Redshirt program is that the player does not play their first year. The player practices with the team their entire first year learning the program and system, adding strength and skill. The player then starts playing their second year while having the remaining 4 years of eligibility. This means the team will now have a player that has had 5 years with the program, one all practice and four playing.
To have a player get a 5th year that they can't play and only use for academics does the football program no good at all.
Personally I would not want any of the SA's to adopt this program, taxpayers should not have to pay for another year at an Academy just so the football team can win a few more games, Last I heard, that wasn't their mission.
I ask this partly in jest, partly as a serious question...
What cadet would want to do five years?
according to the article, the purpose is academic, not athletic. The point I'm trying to make is that if the football team is truly concerned about academics, they'd take that deal. if not, I agree and call bs
Okay...I've been trying to stay off my soapbox..I'm a moderator...I'm an ALO...I'm a professional officer...
But this just sends me over the edge!
I'm sorry (not really) but since when was the purpose of the United States Air Force Academy to compete in BCS football, bring in grossly overweight, over the AF standards for fitness, cadets to play a sport and to literally snub their noses at not only the military standards of the academy, but the mandated air force fitness standards?
I've had to sit on a board of officers to deny re-enlistment to NCO's with more than 10 years of active duty, all because they had trouble losing weight, getting their body fat below the AF standard, etc...etc...THEY were not offered a "football waiver" for being FAT. They were handed their walking papers: "Thanks for your service, now take your corpulant frame out of our air force, you don't look good in uniform!" That's basically what they were told.
So why, WHY, WHY should we be giving appointments to folks like this when amazing young men and women are denied those same appointments, because they're not great football players? Are those football players going to make better officers? While I can't answer that (and neither can ANY of us here) I can speak to several examples in my career: One is a classmate and he had a fabulously successful career!!! However I remember having to carry him to class our firstie year because he had to lose over 60 pounds in the second semester to meet standards; football was over. He lived on water, vitamins, and fruit juice. I thought he'd die. But he didn't and the rest is history. But he was unique in my experience. I have several classmates that played football and they had great careers...but none of them were "grossly over standards" like the ones I've seen in recent years as an ALO.
5 Years for a football player? I think that is a GREAT IDEA!! I really do! But do it as an ROTC cadet at a regular university, not at the Air Force Academy where we should be focusing upon producing the finest OFFICERS, not football players.
Okay...climbing off the soapbox...gonna take a breath...
(And yes, I was an IC athlete)
My guess is that the Football program would pass on a deal like that, it does nothing to help the program.
As far as giving and extra semester or year so an athlete/cadet can catch up on academics, well I would certainly hope none of the SA's take that deal. The Academies are 4 year institutions, if a cadet can't make being an athlete/cadet in 4 years then it's time to pick priorities.
From what I heard today, we're all thinking about this too much. Maybe this was inflated a bit by the reporter. From what I heard, the Air Force Academy is not serious about this.
Separate names with a comma.