How does D1 equate to better military?

LineInTheSand said:
The issues with D1 sports, I think from past or current cadets/midshipmen, is not that athletes should be considered (they absolutely should), its that the programs provide incentives for school leadership to give second thoughts to the performance of students because they're D1 athletes, that a normal student migth not receive. And if we extraporate that out, it puts the normal student at a disadvantage, not because he is less capible, but because he does not provide the same advantage to an academy's public image and $$ as a big star D1 athlete.
Click to expand...

Also well said :thumb:
 
And I apologize for all of the typos and spelling errors in my last two posts!
 
BigBear said:
Have you ever been involved in the recruiting process? D1 and D3 are worlds apart when it comes to the general talent level of the athletes and their competition for limited scholarships. There is a corresponding difference in the effort put forth by coaches, the money spent to bring athletes on tours, the facilities built to attract athletes, etc.
Click to expand...

It is so much more complicated than you are even making it sound. 1st: The NCAA dictates how many "Visits", "Time of Year", "Correspondence", etc... that a school can have with someone they are trying to recruit. 2nd: The general talent level is definitely worlds apart, but as I said in the previous post, choice and option are 2 different things. The CG and MM don't have a choice. They aren't D1 and they never will be. HOWEVER.... The majority of athlete/cadets who play IC sports at the academies, did NOT come there to play sports. They came for the same reasons every other individual who applies to the academies come for. Remember; 85+% of all cadets are varsity letter athletes. This is like a traditional school where about 15-20% of the student body MAY have been varsity athletes.

I believe there are some athletes at CG and MM that are of the caliber to play D1 at Air Force or many other D1 schools. But like most, they chose CG for NON athletic reasons. Doesn't mean they still don't play sports.

As for the money spent; the majority of the athletic budget doesn't even come from the government or taxes. It comes from ticket sales, merchandise, bowl games, playing big name teams, alumni, donations, etc... That is a big circle. Spend money to may money so you can spend more money, etc... There is no doubt that the Big-3 D1 academies want to compete. And because of the caliber level of their competition, they need to train harder and have better caliber athletes than the D3 schools. I understand that. My point remains; academy recruiting is not the same as civilian school recruiting. At ANY LEVEL!!! We are NOT going to get the 5 star athlete. I don't even remember the last time we got a true nationally ranked 3 star athlete. The majority of our athletes probably wouldn't make D1 at a traditional school. And everyone knows this. Yet, we have teams all over the country wondering HOW Air Force can be so competitive. That answer lies in the work ethic, team mentality, determination, of "The Cadet Corp". Cadets are team players 24/7. What they lack in athletic ability, they make up for in intelligence, teamwork, and determination.

And yes, I have been involved in the recruiting process. As an ALO, I've talked with most of the coaches at the academy and have done scouting for them on potential recruits. Especially in my area where normally no one would ever get national attention.
 
I would add that while

I think many here have fantastic posts, nothing is absolute. In a previous post it is suggested that AFA Recruited Athletes while D1 at AFA would not be recruited at other D1 schools program. I assure you that is not the case in many instances. There are many levels to D1, not everyone is ND, USC, UC, and the like. There are many great institutions that have D1 sports in the lower first or second D1 tier. DS is an AFA recruited athlete for Class of 2018. We know many of those recruited at AFA share a preference to Serve, and if strong enough, are recruited by all Big 3, and many other D1's. DS turned down many D1 offers up to and including ACC, Big East, Atlantic 10 schools and just walked away from $45K per year all 4 years scholarship to pursue his goal of Serving. SA's don't get many, but they do get some, top tier athletes in certain sports, surely more than none. That he trains with his top 3 nationally ranked team 1.25 hours away 3-5x's a week with games on the weekend God knows where in the USA, he can't spend time after school to be part of those wonderful School Clubs or Student Govt or Scouts, etc. That is why some allowance is made for the elite players. It isn't that elite athlete's aren't capable, one has only so much time. Doing homework and eating in Vans nightly, and missing out on a kid social life since 10 years old is quite the character builder I assure you all. They may not be at the top of their Class, but they're not categorically deficient in intellect, integrity, or character just because they happen to be gifted some athleticism, and strong will. After all, for me, I think 'will' comes wrapped in many packages, and can be a most important trait for all who aspire to be Officers. I rarely post anything but an occasional question, but the repeated inferences that D1 athletes are or perceived to be 2nd class students or potential officers is tough to absorb.
 
Well said Point guard.

To clarify; I men-A tioned how many recruited athletes at the academy probably wouldn't have gotten recruited at other D1-A (Football FBS). That is true. But that is definitely not absolute. There are also plenty of recruited athletes at the academy who could of; and many HAD other athletic opportunities. I mentioned that too. Many who turned down athletic scholarships to higher and more prestigious athletic programs/schools. You are quite correct.

But it is true that the academies are different. For instance. A normal D1-A school will recruit between 20-25 players/scholarships in a year. The academies, because they aren't actually giving out a scholarship, will recruit approximately 50-60, in the HOPES that they can get 25 who can contribute to the team. Another to remember is; with a traditional school offering a scholarship, when the individual accepts the scholarship (Signing day or similar), they are committed to that school. If they change their mind later, they can be forced to sit out an entire season. (Waiverable). For the academies, there is no REAL SIGNING DAY. That's because it's not a legal scholarship. We have a ceremony on signing day just like other schools, but that's just to make the student feel part of the ceremony. Truth is; the recruited athlete can change their mind at any time. Even during BCT without any reprucussions. In other words, they aren't committed to the academies like they are a traditional school.

So yes, there are definitely some athletes who are elite D1 caliber who could easily be recruited at other schools. But that isn't the majority. Especially in the big two sports. (Football and Basketball).

But something I want to keep pressing..... The majority of the cadets who are also IC athletes at the academies, were also very competitive in the appointment process. They had the gpa, class rank, difficult classes, competed for a nomination, etc... There are very few that fall into the category many complain about.
 
Again, I think people have less of an issue with recruiting athletes, but DO have an issue with how those athletes are handled at the D1 academies. I tried to outline what I thought were contributing incentives with the "separate but equal" treatment of recruited D1 athletes v. their classmates.
 
It only takes a few to keep this type of discussion going. Stereotypes are easily perpetuated but difficult to kill. My circle is pretty small but I know two cadets (one now a officer) that were recruited for a non-revenue generating sport and were "blue chipped" by the coach to get them in. Both barely met the minimum test scores and were average gpa/class rank students. They would not have gotten in without their sport. Should they have gotten in? I don't know.
I also know another now 3C at AFA that was recruited for the same sport that was a 4.0 gpa, valedictorian, national merit scholar, 4 sport varsity athlete (state and national level competitor for 2 years in 2 sports), multi-club president, etc. I believe he finished his 4C year with a 4.0 at AFA.

Which ones keep the stereotype going?

Oh and the one that is now an officer told my son and I that his 4C year at AFA was easy as an IC athlete.
 
There are definitely "SOME" athletes at the academies who abuse their priviledges. But I've also seen many of the athletes just as involved with Squadron activities as others are. I've seen quite a few athletes holding the same leadership positions as non-IC cadets.

As far as how the academy "Treats" them. i.e. a 2nd or 3rd chance for an athlete that they may not give to a non-IC cadet. I'm sure that happens. Just like I'm equally sure that the academy may be more lenient on the cadet who is in the top-10 academically, holds a high leadership/command position, etc... compared to the cadet who tries to disappear in the background. That's "Real Life". Elementary jr high, high school, work, etc... There's teacher's pet, favorite employee, etc... Not saying it's right or fair. Just that it's the way things are.

But I will say again; the integrity level of academy cadets are high. Even among "MOST" of the cadets who are IC athletes. Most of them are just as involved with their squadons as the non-IC cadets are. I have seen some that abuse their priviledges, but more have honor and integrity to look at the big picture.
 
Christcorp said:
As far as how the academy "Treats" them. i.e. a 2nd or 3rd chance for an athlete that they may not give to a non-IC cadet. I'm sure that happens. Just like I'm equally sure that the academy may be more lenient on the cadet who is in the top-10 academically, holds a high leadership/command position, etc... compared to the cadet who tries to disappear in the background.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not sure I agree with that. It that were true, you would have the same at USCGA or USMMA. As a cadet I saw more than one 4-stripe 1/c cadet either removed from his/her position or kicked out.

I also don't weigh the examples the same. Good students are recruited, sure. There is likely SOME benefit to recruiting top performing students. But there is a difference. Every student starts their cadet/midshipmen careers on the same academic footing... GPAs of 0.0. From their it is up to them to sink or swim. I would see my classmate in the top 10 academically as someone who "earned" that spot. He or she studied and worked, just like me. In fact, the better they were at it, the more likely they were to talk the most difficult classes. The top students in my class WORKED hard to get there.... and they started at the same spot as me. Academics is about the individual. If you sink, you're gone and every student knows they are in a better positition to success the better they do in school. Academics is also self selecting for a school. The kids that can't do it will eventually be forced to leave.

Leadership positions were also earned... not as freshman or sophomores, but later in cadet/midshipmen careers as their strenghts became more evident. Yes, some people "worked" the system and the people they were friends with, but the positions generally went to fine people. Leadership was about the group.


So, we have leadership and academics, one that is very much about the group, and one that is achieved as an individual. Both, however, start at a baseline of 0.

Athletics is different, not for all athletes, but for recruited ones. While having a good sound leadership program is a point of pride, and academics matter, recruited sports provide incentive for a school, specifically in the way of face and $$. I don't think leadership does that, and I think academics does it in a different way, with a self-selecting population.
 
I agree with a lot you say LITS. But I also have to say, that air force has had quite a few individuals, who were also athletes, who graduated top of the class and went on to grad school. So obviously, not all athletes are dumb jocks who squeak by. Just like there are plenty of non-IC cadets who graduate at the bottom of the class and barely make it.
 
Christcorp said:
I agree with a lot you say LITS. But I also have to say, that air force has had quite a few individuals, who were also athletes, who graduated top of the class and went on to grad school. So obviously, not all athletes are dumb jocks who squeak by. Just like there are plenty of non-IC cadets who graduate at the bottom of the class and barely make it.
Click to expand...

I 100% agree.

My point has always been, it's not about the athlete, it's about how the academy handles the athlete. The two top cadets in my class had three stars, for academics, military, and physically fitness. They graduated with high honors but they were also good at sports.

I have no issue with athletes being recruited. There should be a minimum standard that everyone must meet, athletes, sons of senators and nerds. What SHOULD NOT happen is cadets being approached differently based on athletics. Cadets should complete the entire summer training, not majority complete on time, while football players finish two weeks early. Similarlly, academics or diciplinary issuers should be handled the same for D1 athletes are they are for everyone else. Top Navy QB has issues? Who cares, send him packing. Top Air Force forward (hockey) has issues? Who cares, send him packing. The needs of the team and the crying of the coach should have no weight on it. In fact, I prefer not even hear from the coach as a character witness. The coach is far more biased (I need my star QB...). Of course he does, because without that star QB he's also sent packing, but without his $800,000 paycheck. And if the school loses its star QB, and head coach, well, who wants to go there. And if good athletes avoid such instability, what happens to the program and the funds it brings in? None of these are questions if LITS at CGA gets in trouble. LITS's departure would make no difference to the athletics of his school (probably not even on his JV soccer team).
 
Power corrupts.
Money = Power
D1 Football= Money
D1 Football corrupts.

I think this is the logic that LITS is describing and I agree with it.
 
pathnottaken said:
Power corrupts.
Money = Power
D1 Football= Money
D1 Football corrupts.

I think this is the logic that LITS is describing and I agree with it.
Click to expand...

Haha, "corrupts" may be too strong.... I would tone it down to "influences", and I believe that influence hurts non-D1 athletes by not applying to them. Does the D1 program corrupt absolutely? No. But I think it does add additional conditions that do not exist for the less popular sports (including non-mainstream D1 sports) and cadets/midshipmen who were not recruited for popular and profitable D1 sports.
 
LineInTheSand said:
Haha, "corrupts" may be too strong.... I would tone it down to "influences", and I believe that influence hurts non-D1 athletes by not applying to them. Does the D1 program corrupt absolutely? No. But I think it does add additional conditions that do not exist for the less popular sports (including non-mainstream D1 sports) and cadets/midshipmen who were not recruited for popular and profitable D1 sports.
Click to expand...

Power corrupts
absolute power corrupts absolutely (I believe is how it goes)
D1 football isn't absolute money (at SA at least)
therefore D1 football does not corrupt absolutely

I agree corrupts is little strong but the quote required it.
 
The problem is, there are minimum standards and the recruited athletes are meeting these stands. The arguments arise because the average cadet receiving appointments are way above the minimum standards. E.g. average GPA of the new class is 3.86. That is much higher than the minimum standard. The complaints come from those who didn't get an appointment, and feel their package and scores are higher than the athlete who did get in, primarily because of sports.

Thing is, athletes aren't the only ones. Because of diversity, which is also important to the military, to have an officer corp as diverse as the enlisted they are leading, there are minorities and some other diverse applicants who get special consideration and appointed over someone with higher scores.

And let's not forget that about half the appointees are slated against mocs. This is also diversity, but the #1 nominee on 1 slate might not even have been in the top 10 of another senators slate. And every individual is treated individually at the academies. Because there aren't as many girls, its possible that a girl might be given a 2nd chance where a guy might not. Just an example. Point is, I understand the frustration from those who feel they were a better candidate than some, yet they didn't get the appointment and the other did. But this isn't just with athletes. Most just don't want to talk about minorities and affirmative action type decisions.
 
True enough, CC. And I happen to agree that as long as a minimum criteria is met, the SAs can... nay SHOULD... solicit those candidates that further the core mission.

The difference is this... A case can be made that specifically recruiting for diversity candidates furthers the mission of creating the best officers corps to lead our military.

However, no one seems to be making the case that specifically recruiting for D1-caliber athletes furthers the core mission. Instead some are even arguing that it detracts from the core mission in many ways.

And note that it is not just "sour grapes" for some folks. For example I'm raising this point and my DS is already at the Academy. And as stated earlier, we love, participate in, have coached, etc competitive sports for years. Both kids were varsity standouts, team captains, all-state, etc. I only mention this because it is often too easy to dismiss differing opinions because of stereotyped motivations we may perceive; they are not always the case.
 
MedB, I agree with you. However, the big 3 academies are D1-A schools, and as such, any recruited athlete will be considered a D1-A athlete. While some recruited athletes are definitely D1-A caliber and may have been recruited even by other schools, a large percentage; I would even say majority, were not and wouldn't even be looked at or recruited by a D1-A school. Maybe a AA or D2 school.

Point is, while there are exceptions to everything, I don't believe the concerns about academy athletes are the norm or amajor problem. The cadets that can be used as examples are a very small percentage of total athletes. The majority of athletes did not go to the prep school. They didn't receive a superintendents nomination. Their application competed with all others in their state and district for nominations and appointments. They earned their appointment.
 
Christcorp said:
The stats doen't disagree with me at all. I simply said that the majority of athletes recruited to the academy, do not attend the Prep school first. That is true. I never disputed that about 1/3 of the prep school are athletes.
Click to expand...
Looks as though it might be closer to half of the prep school students are recruited athletes.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...an-relations-incident.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl
"The school drills students -- about half of whom are recruited athletes -- on math and English."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top