NAPS

Personally, I don't have a problem with NAPS. I totally get the need to recruit quality athletes if the Naval Academy expects to have even a modicum of success at the Division I level. All colleges make these type of concessions. The Naval Academy is no different in that regard. Neither is USAFA nor USMA. I'm certain that the athletes (for the most part) at schools like Duke, Stanford, Vanderbilt, etc are not held to the same admission standards as the general student body. How could they? You can't compete in the SEC (Vanderbilt's conference) with a team comprised of SAT/ACT whizzes and rocket scientists. You need people who are quick, strong, and agile - if they happen to be academically astute, well, that's just an added benefit.

My only objection is when somebody tries to blow smoke up my butt about NAPS. I refuse to accept that a group of candidates who were desirable primarily because of their athletic abilities, yet academic deficient in some way, once they get to the academy, either out perform or achieve on a par (academically) with those who entered with much higher academic credentials. I reject that absurd notion - yet I have no way of proving it because there is no data that is accessible in this area, one way or the other. There is excellent circumstantial evidence of the truth of this, however.

Of course I realize that academic achievement is not EVERYTHING. That's usually the next argument that is made - a tacit admission that their previous argument of outstanding academic achievement is untrue. Yes, I'm sure that many of these recruited athletes go on and make fine officers. I'm sure that many people could be great leaders without the need to do well in Differential Equations, Chemistry, Electrical Engineering, or Thermodynamics ... or even take those courses at all.

Of course, the next argument usually goes like this: "What does it matter? Anybody who graduates from the Naval Academy has what it takes to be an excellent leader."

I agree! But don't try and tell me that they're academically out-performing their peers during their four years.

The final argument is usually, "So, what do you care about how NAPSters perform at the Naval Academy?" (the ultimate in frustration)

I don't! Like I said at the beginning, I have no problem with NAPS. I get it. I only engage in these type of discussions when somebody tries to blow smoke up my butt (and that of others) about the "high" academic achievements of the NAPSters. Absolute baloney!

This is where somebody says, "My son has a NAPS roommate and he has a 4.0 and is majoring in Mechanical Engineering", as if this data point represents the norm in the database. It does not.
 
2 thoughts ...

#1 ... AMEN X 250 or so! On the NAPS blowing smoke! Pure PR/PC spin for all the obvious (if mostly ignored and defended) reasons.

#2 ... For those blessed with the gift of their lifetime, i.e. offer of assignment to a year at NAPS, take it as fast as you can sign your name, and thank the USNA gods! For in every likelihood, for whatever reason, they have just received an invite to enroll at one of the world's great institutions, pending maintaining and completing with a "C" average among a collection of below-average fellow students, and keeping the nose clean. Period. It's a guarantee where none might have been expected or possible in the absence of NAPS. So for those blessed, a minor miracle. And were I one of those, I'd be most thankful, no matter how I got to USNA.

But as Memphis said, don't go blowing smoke about how miraculously that experience prepared otherwise unprepared or unequipped candidates for Midshipmanship. Save that spin for your kids and grandchildren. Telling fibs on the Yard might be an A-train to a confrontation with the Honor Council and even home and the community college.
 
Last edited:
I was placed in all advanced classes at NAPS for this year. Yes, the percentage of NAPSters excelling academically is small. Out of 250 NAPSters, only about 25 are in advanced chemistry. My only point is that NAPS is often talked about as though everyone here is stupid. There are some, but not everyone is here is academically deficient. One girl is here because she failed the CFA multiple times. One guy is here because he has high blood pressure and is supposed to be treated regularly for that. I'm here because I didn't get a nomination to USNA. All of those I mentioned are in advanced courses and doing fine.
 
No, you are missing the mark. None ever said "everyone here is stupid." In fact NONE ever said anyone is stupid, to my recollection. This is about ranking, not determining "smart" or "stupid."

That noted, not "some", rather "most" are academically deficient relative to the pool of candidates, including MANY who are outright rejected.

Again, you are correct, that "not everyone here is academically deficient." But all are in one way, shape, or subject(s). Or you would not be there. You've given 2 anecdotes ... one girl who can't do pushups or run ... one guy with high blood pressure ... another was deemed unnominatable by his sources. You've illustrated virtually all the points you contend are not accurate. You 3 out of how many? 250?

Be sure you've been given a monumental gift. With no intent to demean or diminish you, appreciate it, do well, and good luck at USNA. And be mindful, there were MANY nominated candidates with equal or better records than yours, females who passed the CFA and other 2 parts of 3Qed, and lots of people w/ good bloodpressures who did not receive that gift. And that's the truth. Give thanks to your lucky charms, your God, or the USNA NAPS assigners.
 
No, I suggest that is you, Mr. Whistle Pig, that are off the mark. Your posts on this thread are insulting. You have used the term "Jocks" in a negative way. You argue that athletes receive favor and don't recognize they must work harder than the average Mid due to practice, away games and injuries. You have packaged the entire NAPS concept as a "gift" -- with the clear underlying theme that it was handed to someone without their effort, skills or accomplishments. These candidates did earn their place in some way, shape or form: through hard work and accomplishments that someone in USNA admissions views as important.

Fortunately, the folks making the decisions and policies about NAPS, recruited athletes, minority representation and the training and education of future Navy/Marine Corps officers see things differently than you. They recognize, based upon decades of experience, what many of us who served alongside NAPS/USNA/recruited athletes recognize: leadership is more art than science. Intangibles matter - they matter alot more than you recognize, I suspect because you have never served as an officer in a combat unit. You can't fit these intangible qualities into a formula; leadership is far more complex than SATs/GPA/Class standing/club membership.

I posted in another thread that athletes from academies/ROTC typically perform as well and in many cases better than non-athletes. They are leaders who have excellent time management skills and the innate ability to persevere when others quit. They inspire their subordinates. I stand by my observations, which includes combat tours in Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan AND as instructor of 3000 Marine Lts at Quantico during evaluations.

Here is a great example of the type of American hero that may, given the chance of NAPS or just as a recruited athlete straight to one of the Academies, serve our great nation with distinction. There are hundreds more based upon personal observations of officers who have served alongside USNA, USMA, USAFA and ROTC graduates who also happen to have played a Division I sport.

Read about this hero:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A._Zembiec


And try to live by his words:

"Be a man of principle. Fight for what you believe in. Keep your word. Live with integrity. Be brave. Believe in something bigger than yourself. Serve your country. Teach. Mentor. Give something back to society. Lead from the front. Conquer your fears. Be a good friend. Be humble and be self-confident. Appreciate your friends and family. Be a leader and not a follower. Be valorous on the field of battle. And take responsibility for your actions. Never forget those that were killed. And never let rest those that killed them." > Major Doug Zembiec
 
Whistle Pig said:
No, you are missing the mark. None ever said "everyone here is stupid." In fact NONE ever said anyone is stupid, to my recollection. This is about ranking, not determining "smart" or "stupid."

That noted, not "some", rather "most" are academically deficient relative to the pool of candidates, including MANY who are outright rejected.

Again, you are correct, that "not everyone here is academically deficient." But all are in one way, shape, or subject(s). Or you would not be there. You've given 2 anecdotes ... one girl who can't do pushups or run ... one guy with high blood pressure ... another was deemed unnominatable by his sources. You've illustrated virtually all the points you contend are not accurate. You 3 out of how many? 250?

Be sure you've been given a monumental gift. With no intent to demean or diminish you, appreciate it, do well, and good luck at USNA. And be mindful, there were MANY nominated candidates with equal or better records than yours, females who passed the CFA and other 2 parts of 3Qed, and lots of people w/ good bloodpressures who did not receive that gift. And that's the truth. Give thanks to your lucky charms, your God, or the USNA NAPS assigners.
Click to expand...

Pilot2b answered all your questions re: size of the advanced chem class. From his answer, you can extrapolate that those at NAPS with very strong math/science backgrounds make up about 10% of the class at a minimum. (That sounds about right from my USNA recollection, as does his mention of nuke school folks from the Fleet spending a year at NAPS.) I don't know why you seem to be arguing with him -- he's already said that he is not a big fan of the athletes at NAPS who don't have a desire to serve. Lastly, your "thank everything for your NAPS spot" line of patter is indeed, to this observer, very condescending to a guy who, according to his posting history, got an appointment to USAFA and still wanted USNA enough to delay his Officer's commission by a year.

Are there people who assume everyone at NAPS has sub-par academics? Yes. (I've heard such conversations.) Is it therefore reasonable for pilot2b, a strong academic candidate, to make the point that not everyone at NAPS needs an academic boost, even if most do? Yes. Has he been honest, even critical, in his assessment of the make-up of the NAPS student body? Yes. Is it good for the forum to have a current NAPSTER who posts? Yes again.

Hey pilot2b, you're an excellent writer. Good luck at NAPS this year. If aviation doesn't work out consider Marine Ground, home to many humanities majors and some fine warriors!
 
Rebel91 said:
No, I suggest that is you, Mr. Whistle Pig, that are off the mark. Your posts on this thread are insulting.
Click to expand...

I'm not insulted. It's only insulting if you are defensive on this issue.

You have used the term "Jocks" in a negative way. You argue that athletes receive favor and don't recognize they must work harder than the average Mid due to practice, away games and injuries.
Click to expand...

It's true that the athletes work hard. But the academy is very cognizant of that and does a very good job of making that up to them in many areas. There are many requirements for which the athletes are exempt. Ask any midshipman if the athletes do not get their fair share of "perks". I think they earn those perks as they certainly do work hard. Plus, as a group, the athletes seldom engage in the more challenging academic majors. Now, that's a fact that cannot be disputed. And, I don't have a problem with that either. (I'm not talking about varsity sailing, pistol or squash.) They would be foolish to get involved over their head in a Group I major. Perhaps even a Group II major would be too much.

You have packaged the entire NAPS concept as a "gift" -- with the clear underlying theme that it was handed to someone without their effort, skills or accomplishments.
Click to expand...

I think it is well understood and recognized that they are assigned to NAPS, with a certain appointment to USNA, because of their "effort, skills, and accomplishments". But those would be athletic accomplishments. If they were academic accomplishments, they wouldn't be going to NAPS.

These candidates did earn their place in some way, shape or form: through hard work and accomplishments that someone in USNA admissions views as important.
Click to expand...

Why be so cryptic by characterizing their earning a place in "some way, shape or form"? They earned their spot, primarily, because of their athletic acumen, despite their academic deficiencies.

Again, as I've made clear, I have no problem with that. You can't have a competitive Division I sports program without making these type of concessions. All schools do it. I consider it disingenuous to complain about the athletic shortcomings of the Naval Academy and, at the same time, complain about the academic shortcomings of the athletic recruits. I complain of neither.

What I do have a problem with, however, is this perpetrated fantasy that the NAPSsters excel academically at the Naval Academy.

I watched ship selection, live over the internet, the past few years. It was a parade of football players walking on that stage. Statistics are clear, SWO is one of the least popular of all the service communities. Maybe NFO runs a close second in undesirability - maybe more so. Those that weren't in that parade, mostly went Marine Corps where the only thing you have to really excel at is Leatherneck. Very few of them get the coveted service assignment positions. Not by choice - but necessity. Most of them resign themselves to that fate very early on. Why do you think that is? It's because, in the final analysis, order-of-merit and aptitudes weigh heavily - areas in which this group does not particularly excel.

Fortunately, the folks making the decisions and policies about NAPS, recruited athletes, minority representation and the training and education of future Navy/Marine Corps officers see things differently than you. They recognize, based upon decades of experience, what many of us who served alongside NAPS/USNA/recruited athletes recognize: leadership is more art than science. Intangibles matter - they matter alot more than you recognize, I suspect because you have never served as an officer in a combat unit. You can't fit these intangible qualities into a formula; leadership is far more complex than SATs/GPA/Class standing/club membership.
Click to expand...

Don't be naive. Do you really think that candidates are sent to NAPS primarily because of these intangibles for future leadership? Sure, they're good kids that have kept their nose clean through high school - just like all the other candidates who earn appointments. They go to NAPS, primarily, because the academy sees them as contributors to their sports program. They also feel that they can survive the academic rigor. I'm saying SURVIVE, not excel.

I posted in another thread that athletes from academies/ROTC typically perform as well and in many cases better than non-athletes. They are leaders who have excellent time management skills and the innate ability to persevere when others quit. They inspire their subordinates. I stand by my observations, which includes combat tours in Somalia, Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan AND as instructor of 3000 Marine Lts at Quantico during evaluations.
Click to expand...

That rolls off the tongue well ... it may be true ... but I have no idea how you can quantify something like that.

You don't think an Aerospace Engineering major who also sings in the Glee Club (and travels year round) does not have time management skills? His academic load (while still attending all formations, parades, intramurals, and company activities) is probably just as onerous, just in a different way. And I'm sure your typical football/basketball/lacrosse player would choose their time management challenges over the Aerospace Engineering major's.

I know the moderator has been tolerant of this thread. And I know she hates these type of exchanges. I anticipate this thread will be closed very soon.

I'm not anti-athlete. I was recruited for baseball when I went to the Naval Academy, although I did not attend NAPS. But baseball is no where in the league as the "marquee" sports as far as recruiting and perks are concerned.

And, I don't even have a problem with those perks. I think they're earned!

But, please, do not insult my intelligence by asserting that a group of academic underachievers (relatively speaking) - although talented athletes, somehow excel academically at the Naval Academy. And the notion that they make superior officers is completely bogus. Why? Because they played sports?

The quality of an officer is a personality thing for the most part that has very little to do with whether they were an athlete, majored in a Aerospace Engineering or History, or whether they graduated with a 3.8 or a 2.1. It is an intangible, as you've said. But the incoming class at NAPS is not primarily selected because the Naval Academy saw these "intangibles". They were primarily selected because they are good athletes who are not ready for the fast-paced, academic intensity of Plebe year.

... waiting for the moderator to close this thread. :smile:
 
Last edited:
WOW!

Very well said, Memphis. As one who hopes to attend USNA one day, I understand how there will be those who will be recruited because of athletics. While I am on my school`s track team, I`m nowhere near as good an athlete as one who would be recruited. And as a high school student who comes from one of those schools that puts the athletes on a throne of sorts, I completely get where you are coming from. Wow. Very well said.
 
Memphis, I couldn't have agreed anymore with your post. +1000
 
Memphis, I don't think Rebel (or anyone else on this thread) has said that Napsters (or recruited athletes in your football/basketball/lax type sports in particular) do as well academically in the aggregate at USNA as the average non-varsity athlete/non-NAPSter. (I've actually never heard anyone say NAPS grads in aggregate matched the Brigade Academic mean but maybe you have.)

What people like Rebel (and Hurricane, on a related thread) have said is that athletes (even those who did not have strong academic showings at USNA) can go on to be great officers, and that in Rebel's opinion they often did quite well in the USMC. Given that USNA's mission is to produce officers, this seems a relevant viewpoint if not quantifiable.
 
The quality of an officer is a personality thing for the most part that has very little to do with whether they were an athlete, majored in a Aerospace Engineering or History, or whether they graduated with a 3.8 or a 2.1. It is an intangible, as you've said. But the incoming class at NAPS is not primarily selected because the Naval Academy saw these "intangibles". They were primarily selected because they are good athletes who are not ready for the fast-paced, academic intensity of Plebe year.
Click to expand...

GoSox, see above. I don't think memphis is saying athletes aren't great leaders. I think what he is saying (and I'm sure memphis might chime in) is that you don't have to be a DIV I athlete to make a great officer. Each path through USNA has its own challenges and rewards. Don't forget 90% of entering classes all participated in athletics and there are other sports at USNA (not at DIV I level) that also exhibit similar leadership/character qualities.

Let's use an example....how can you compare someone who competes in a triathlon (not a DIV I sport), to someone who is on a varsity team? Are you telling me they don't train as hard or don't have the mental qualifications, as someone who plays DIV I, to be a good leader?
I don't think you can compare and contrast and that is the point.

Some might imply on here that athletes aren't good enough and some are saying athletes are the best leaders. I don't think you can categorize one and say they are more qualified leaders.
 
Dittos 10 squared Memphis.:thumb:

For some edification ... a cursory look at football team of all junior and senior players, 5 oceanography majors identified, 2 systems engineers. 3 letters among this group. NO NAPSTERS among this handful of student athletes. All the rest are econ, English, poli sci, history, gen science. No other engineers (aero or even general), chem or physics majors, architects, or other Group Oners or even Group 2s beyond the oceanography boys. Now, wait until we're told, "well they're too busy for such rigorous academic study." :wink:

I know this can be a tough pill to swallow for those who prefer to believe in their dreams even when those cannot be validated, simply because they are myth.

btw, one important clarification ... there are MANY MANY outstanding student-athletes at USNA. Let me repeat ... MANY. Most of those do not participate in varsity athletics ... and still many DO participate in varsity athletics. There simply are not many if any who've come via NAPS. Very few NAPSTer athletes are relatively high performing STUDENTs. The evidence is not always clear, especially for those who prefer the mythology several are seeking to perpetrate here. It is myth that the 250 NAPSters are merely latent Rhodes Scholars, who only needed one more chem or calc course to compensate for the past 4 or 5 scholastics missteps. Again, a NAPSter experience is twofold ... get 'em in and give 'em a redshirt that just isn't called that.

Now what is the point? No matter what a few suggest, perhaps because of thin-skin or some other decision to reject the apparent, if not the fully obvious, the point is that this forum is about being honestly, genuinely informative. Some seem to think "nice" must trump the truth. If one is insulted in lieu of being informed, then that is a choice to ignore the latter in preference to the former. That is not a good mode of operation here or at USNA.
 
Last edited:
I feel like some straw man arguments are being made. I certainly agree with Memphis and with you, Jadler03, that (a) not all varsity athletes are great leaders or will be great officers; and (b) of course many superb officers were not varsity athletes. A friend and classmate who by all accounts was legendary during BUDS and never played a day of varsity or high level club sports at USNA fit this category. Amazing mental toughness, great leader, great guy.

At the same time, I just haven't heard people making the argument that NAPsters in the aggregate do as well academically at USNA as the direct admits. (I'm not saying nobody has ever said that, just that I've not heard it and I don't think that is what is being said on this thread. If it is an argument commonly made, I too would disagree with it.) I have heard people point out that not everyone at NAPS is average or below average as a student once they hit USNA, and yes, sometimes this is in the form of "my company-mate who did NAPS is a Trident Scholar" or something similar. I think these statements are a reaction to those inside or outside USNA who do make sweeping negative statements about NAPSters (I've heard some of those).

Finally, I'm not Rebel and I can't speak for him. I can say that, like my fellow Marine officer Hurricane, I have met my share of "bad Mid/great officer" types, including former USNA football players. (And I've met some who saw academic success and held rank at USNA who don't impress as officers.) If, as I read him, Rebel posits that the SAs think they get some great officers from varsity athletes (who may start out at NAPS), that seems reasonable enough to me. God forgive me, I'm reading a book about Army football now (Ellerson sounds like a great leader, btw) and the WWII era quotation from George Marshall was featured early on: "I want an officer for a secret and dangerous mission. I want a West Point football player." Different times, different mores in athletics, I know. I cite it by way of analogy that it is not outside the realm of possibility that the military sees big-time athletics, academy-style, not just as a necessary evil, but as a possible additional source of some great potential officers. (And maybe they don't, and it is about tradition and staying in the public eye--I don't know.) But I do know that USNA is not the destination, that it is part of a journey towards the Fleet or the Corps. And I think it is at least fair to entertain the possibility that those who command the Fleet and the Corps think that varsity athletics in the Brigade is a good thing when it comes to the mission of producing good officers and good combat leaders.

I've said my piece on this, and I'm not trying to pick or prolong a fight. Good night.
 
GoSox said:
I cite it by way of analogy that it is not outside the realm of possibility that the military sees big-time athletics, academy-style, not just as a necessary evil, but as a possible additional source of some great potential officers.
Click to expand...

Would they not get equally "great potential officers" by eliminating "big-time athletics" and instead moving to D3?

Those "great potential officers" shouldn't care one bit, as football/basketball would not be their primary reason for attending USNA, right? Yes, they may lose some recruit candidates who are using football/basketball as their primary reason for attending, but why should that matter, as they would be replaced by candidates who see a commission as the primary goal.

"The Division III experience provides for passionate participation in a competitive athletics environment, where student-athletes push themselves to excellence, build upon their academic success with new challenges and life skills, and are encouraged to pursue the full spectrum of opportunities available during their time in college.

These young men and women are different finally in participating in an environment where the overwhelming focus of athletics is the educational value and benefit provided to our student-athletes. All NCAA institutions pursue this focus, but the approach in Division III is unique. In particular, revenue generation and entertainment for broader audiences are not a priority for us."

James Schmotter, Chair of the Division III Presidents Council
Click to expand...

One branch of the military seems to produce great officers without the money, expense, recruiting/admissions issues, and shortcuts that seem to pervade D1 athletics.

Yes, I also realize they do not bring in the money that USNA, USAFA, or USMA generates.

But that's really what D1 athletics is all about anyway - one thing - money - even at the service academies, and no red herrings about leadership will change it, since D3 can provide those same "leadership" lessons without the problems that were exposed via the FOI releases from a few years ago.
 
Luigi59 said:
Would they not get equally "great potential officers" by eliminating "big-time athletics" and instead moving to D3?

Those "great potential officers" shouldn't care one bit, as football/basketball would not be their primary reason for attending USNA, right? Yes, they may lose some recruit candidates who are using football/basketball as their primary reason for attending, but why should that matter, as they would be replaced by candidates who see a commission as the primary goal.



One branch of the military seems to produce great officers without the money, expense, recruiting/admissions issues, and shortcuts that seem to pervade D1 athletics.

Yes, I also realize they do not bring in the money that USNA, USAFA, or USMA generates.

But that's really what D1 athletics is all about anyway - one thing - money - even at the service academies, and no red herrings about leadership will change it, since D3 can provide those same "leadership" lessons without the problems that were exposed via the FOI releases from a few years ago.
Click to expand...

Agree fully ... but for one thing. Money. If the accounting were done openly, completely, there is no way USNA football nets money. None. Were ALL associated expenses accounted for, it's a net loser.

Unfortunately huge egoes get caught up in this stuff, and there is no stopping that train once it gets going. Undoubtedly $$$ is the cause d'etre being posed as the reason to spend a bundle for stadium expansion. And "the conference made me do it" perhaps. But we'll see those seats, possibly sold but starkly empty, I'm afraid.
 
Memphis9489 said:
I have no problem with NAPS. I get it. I only engage in these type of discussions when somebody tries to blow smoke up my butt (and that of others) about the "high" academic achievements of the NAPSters. Absolute baloney!
Click to expand...

I have not claimed, nor have I seen in this thread, any reference to "high" academic achievements of NAPSters, so by your own admission, there should be no reason for you to engage in this discussion or offer your negative diatribe.

On the contrary, I have stated that academic performance (GPA/Class standing) is not nearly as important in the Fleet as the intangible leadership qualities, which are often very strong in varsity athletes. I stated that USNA Admissions does a fine job of selecting a Brigade that fulfills the many important requirements of the Navy and Marine Corps, from Nuc Sub officers to pilots to Marines to Surface Warfare, etc. In essence, the system works and NAPS is a part of that system. I agree that NAPS is primarily an athlete red-shirt program, but it also still helps to prepare enlisted men and women and others who may be deficient in academics, didn't get a primary Nom, etc. to prepare for a successful four years at USNA.

I do find comparisons of varsity athletes' demands to an engineering major who is a member of the glee club as laughable. As well as equating that there are "MANY" great student-athletes at USNA, as if the demands on a rugby club player comes close to the intensity/travel/practice schedule of a wrestler, gymnast, lacrosse player or any other varsity athlete.

I applaud the academically gifted, they are blessed and accomplish great things in their chosen field of study. A Rhodes Scholar is a credit to any Service Academy. I never suggested NAPSters transition to Rhodes Scholars, I only stated that the UNSA admissions should continue to strive to select a strong class that balances the needs of the naval service.

Finally, there has been a distinct negative tone by some regarding recruited athletes in general. Not necessarily from Memphis who tacitly accepts the reality. But certainly by Whistle Pig who has yet to offer a single instance of personal experience of service in the Armed Forces. I just don't see this criticism as positive in terms of exposure to future Mids who may be tainted by this narrow perspective. And the lack of recognition by current Blue and Gold officers that recruited athletes have many important qualities that make them competitive for admission, as well as the potential for exemplarly future service to our great nation, is a concern.

The system works fine and doesn't need tweaking or criticism from arm-chair quarterbacks.
 
Here's why I think this discussion is important.

Many of the candidates who apply to the Naval Academy have dreams of how they are going to serve their country. Some have visions of themselves flying F/A-18 Super Hornets off an aircraft carrier. Some have visions of themselves at the tip of the nuclear spear in a ballistic missile submarine. Some see themselves as a SEAL or in the elite EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) community. Maybe they want to go Nuke Surface. The Navy offers a wide array of very interesting and very different communities.

Very few come to the Naval Academy with a shrug of the shoulders and say, "I just want to serve. I really don't care what I do in the Navy or Marine Corps."

There's nothing wrong with having those dreams and having goals. Yet, candidates must understand that they have to be willing to serve in whatever capacity and in whichever community the Navy deems best. It's the old "needs of the Navy" argument. That is a reality.

Class standing and overall performance at the Naval Academy goes a long way toward achieving whatever dreams the candidate has for his/her future. At no time in one's naval career will they have more control over their future than service assignment prior to graduation.

I live in Memphis, Tennessee. This is the home of Naval Support Activity Mid-South located in Milliington, Tennessee - just north of Memphis. This is where all the detailers work. For those of you who do not know, detailers are the individuals who make the future assignments. I know a lot of these guys. They have repeatedly told me that service assignment at the Naval Academy is the best it ever gets in your career as for as controlling your own destiny. Imagine picking your community ... picking where you want to serve ... and even picking the specific ship on which you want to serve. It'll never get that good again.​

Those who attend NAPS need to understand that they are already behind the 8-ball in this competition. There is a reason they are going to NAPS. They have some kind of deficiency in their academic history that needs to be addressed prior to entering the Naval Academy. The Naval Academy sees something desirable in them and is convinced that the extra time spent in a preparatory environment is a good investment. Usually, the payback for that investment is the infusion of quality athletes for an underdog Division I sports program. Competing at the Division I level, especially in the marquee sports, is always an uphill battle for the service academies. This is why some of the football team's great achievements in recent history are all that more remarkable.

Yet, these recruited athletes who attend NAPS have difficulty getting these more competitive (i.e. desirable) service assignments. If they are content with the easy-to-get assignments, well, then this isn't much of an issue. Like I said before, many of them resign themselves to this fate early on.

This is something that these candidates need to understand.

Now, of course, I realize that this is not true for each and every one of them. Yes, I know that last year there was an offensive lineman who majored in Mechanical Engineering and graduated with a 3.91. He wanted to be a Marine but ended up going Subs. By the way, he did not attend NAPS. Yes, I also know that last year there was a fullback who was selected for SEALS - although he did not go through the traditional, arduous, screening process that all the other SEAL candidates had to go through. (An exemption, I understand, that will not exist in the future.) He was a General Science major at the Naval Academy. He did attend NAPS.

Believe me, these are mostly anomalies. They get a lot of press for the very fact that such assignments are so extremely rare.

Foremost, any athlete who gets to USNA via NAPS needs to understand that they are going to serve their country as an officer in the Navy or Marine Corps. (All the candidates need to understand that!) However, it's highly unlikely they will end up in the NFL. They also need to face the reality that they will probably not have much control over their destiny. It will be an uphill battle for them to qualify for the more competitive service assignments. That's because academics play a huge role in order-of-merit. Certainly there are other factors like physical fitness, aptitude and conduct. But, by far, academics weighs the most.

This is why a vast majority of these individuals end up going Marine Ground or Surface Warfare - the two service assignments where academic excellence has very little impact. Like I said, if that's what you want - then you probably won't have any problems. That's the reality!
 
Last edited:
Thank you for an insightful and informative post that was not condescending. Refreshing!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top