Navy Football D1 Recruits

Doubtful.

Being good at sports is a great ticket as far as having a SA want you. And it will remain that way as long as the SA play sports.

But anyone that thinks that I will go to the USNA as a great way to get my dream job in the NFL is not bright enough to be a pleb.......IMO.
 
USMA and USAFA have been more lenient about athletes who have distinguished themselves during their academy years to pursue professional sport careers than USNA. To be fair, the service academies do not make this call. It's up to the Army, Air Force and Navy - not the academies. The Navy has been very inconsistent in this regard. Sometimes they are quite lenient and, at other times, are quite strict about graduates having to serve their obligation. Sometimes they compromise and find a way for the athlete to both pursue professional sports and still serve in the Navy in some capacity. Personally, I think this latter option is the best. Academy graduates who play professional sports are often great representatives of the academy and their branch of the military to the public. It frequently gets mentioned when they are on the field. I think the interest created in the academies by that dynamic outweighs whatever benefit there is by having a single, additional officer in the ranks.

This doesn't happen that often. I also think it increases the quality of recruits when the recruit knows (no matter how unlikely) that if he/she really does well at the academy in their sport that going professional is not necessarily out of consideration.
 
A6E Dad said:
Joe Cardona, long snapper for NE Patriots is a good example. He graduated USNA and served in some capacity in Newport, and commuted to Foxboro while active.

Click to expand...

And Malcolm Perry graduated from the USNA in 2019 and is currently on the Miami Dolphins roster.

Then there's the unfortunate story of Mitch Harris, who was an outstanding baseball pitcher for Navy and was drafted by the St. Louis Cardinals. The Navy wouldn't budge for Harris. He served as a SWO and tried the best he could to keep his skills up by playing catch on the ship. He finally got out of the Navy and went through the Cardinal farm system and eventually made it to the big club. But, sadly, he was a bit old by rookie standards and his career ended shortly afterwards. He was a great representative for the Navy, too! They talked incessantly about how he attended the United States Naval Academy. He was always signing autographs and talking with the kids before each game. He was very popular and deserved better.
en.wikipedia.org

Mitch Harris (baseball) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
the difference is, Malcom Perry didn't commission when he graduated, and is deferring his service till he's done playing.

Cardona commissioned and served as an officer while also playing in the NFL. Not sure how practical that is, but I think it's better than deferring
 
A6E Dad said:
the difference is, Malcom Perry didn't commission when he graduated, and is deferring his service till he's done playing.

Cardona commissioned and served as an officer while also playing in the NFL. Not sure how practical that is, but I think it's better than deferring
Click to expand...

Not receiving a commission, to me, seems to be the ultimate release from service. If Perry has a lengthy career, my bet is that they will wave his service when the time comes. If he has a short career, he'll probably get some kind of sweet (i.e. cush) recruiting gig. I'll bet all those who served in the Navy concurrent with their professional sports career would love to have the deal Perry got.

Keenan Reynolds was allowed to "serve" in the reserves after graduation while pursuing his professional football career. That's a concession, of sorts, the Navy made as the Naval Academy does not typically commission officers into the reserves. I'm confident that whatever his Navy responsibilities were, they never conflicted with his football responsibilities.
 
Perry wont have a "lengthy career" . He's a journeyman at best and this whole notion about the SA's as D-I schools for sports is absurd. They should be playing in the Ivy League and get back to to recruiting candidates to become naval officers and not to entertain those whose pipe dream is to play pro sports. The sad reality of it all is that about about the money the SA's get and nothing more.

If this offends those that would deny this, so be it. We spend millions on those who have any much desire to be officers as the average slug.
 
Sydney C. said:
Perry wont have a "lengthy career" . He's a journeyman at best and this whole notion about the SA's as D-I schools for sports is absurd. They should be playing in the Ivy League and get back to to recruiting candidates to become naval officers and not to entertain those whose pipe dream is to play pro sports. The sad reality of it all is that about about the money the SA's get and nothing more.

If this offends those that would deny this, so be it. We spend millions on those who have any much desire to be officers as the average slug.
Click to expand...
You're right. It's unlikely Perry will have a lengthy career. My only point is that if he did, I'm sure the Navy would wave the commissioning. Roger Staubach had a lengthy career. Imagine if he got the same deal as Perry (which he didn't). After his Hall-of-Fame career, at 38 years old, do you really think the Navy would've handed him a naval uniform and said, "Suit up, Roger! Raise your right hand"?

Oh, I absolutely agree with the D-1 thing. The Naval Academy's mission and competing at the D-1 level are contradictory. Let's face it, you can't have a competitive D-1 football team based on high ACT scores and taking AP courses in high school. The academy makes compromises in this area in order to be competitive on the football field. To be fair, all schools make this compromise. Do you think the Vanderbilt baseball players who routinely play in the College World Series had the academic credentials to get into Vanderbilt? Scholar-athlete is a term that is hardly even used today. It's rare when they actually are a scholar and an athlete. It's not a coincidence that the majority of the football team attended NAPS.
 
I am always reminding my high school students they have the opportunity to be athletes because they are scholars. Thus the ‘scholar athlete’ ethos is primary.
 
Heatherg21 said:
I am always reminding my high school students they have the opportunity to be athletes because they are scholars. Thus the ‘scholar athlete’ ethos is primary.
Click to expand...

I think service academies give athletes who are talented but, perhaps, not really high-level D-1 material, an opportunity to play at the D-1 level and compete against high-level D-1 programs, like Notre Dame and others. It's a great opportunity! Some of these athletes distinguish themselves during their academy years and prove these high-level D-1 colleges wrong for not seeing their potential. The service academies are always looking for those overlooked athletes with tremendous potential.

Let's face it, any super-talented high school athlete who has visions of playing in the NFL, NBA or MLB is never going to consider a service academy.

In general, I don't think it's true that students get the opportunity to be college athletes because they are scholars. They get the opportunity to be college athletes because they are extremely talented athletes, sometimes, despite their lack of scholarly achievements. If they have demonstrated high academic achievement, that is just a bonus. Colleges are not looking for running backs with high ACT scores nor wide receivers who were in the National Honor Society. As far as service academies are concerned, they only need their blue chip athletes to be smart enough to survive the curriculum at the academy. Most are not quite ready for the rigors of that curriculum. This explains why a majority of them go to NAPS. When they get to the Naval Academy, many of them pursue a Group 3 major (Humanities & Social Science) and start many of the technical courses at a lower starting point whereas many midshipmen validate the earlier Calculus, Physics and Chemistry courses. There's nothing wrong with that but it is possible to pursue a slightly less challenging academic track at a service academy if that's what a midshipman wants/needs.

I am not one who is critical of the academy in this regard. If I was the Athletic Director at a school with a D-1 program, I would do exactly what the Naval Academy does. All colleges do it. Those who are surprised by this have been living under a rock for the past 30 years as college sports have become a big business. What is sometimes debated is, "Should a service academy be in that business?"
 
Last edited:
Memphis9489 said:
I think service academies give athletes who are talented but, perhaps, not really high-level D-1 material, an opportunity to play at the D-1 level and compete against high-level D-1 programs, like Notre Dame and others. It's a great opportunity! Some of these athletes distinguish themselves during their academy years and prove these high-level D-1 colleges wrong for not seeing their potential. The service academies are always looking for those overlooked athletes with tremendous potential.

Let's face it, any super-talented high school athlete who has visions of playing in the NFL, NBA or MLB is never going to consider a service academy.

In general, I don't think it's true that students get the opportunity to be college athletes because they are scholars. They get the opportunity to be college athletes because they are extremely talented athletes, sometimes, despite their lack of scholarly achievements. If they have demonstrated high academic achievement, that is just a bonus. Colleges are not looking for running backs with high ACT scores nor wide receivers who were in the National Honor Society. As far as service academies are concerned, they only need their blue chip athletes to be smart enough to survive the curriculum at the academy. Most are not quite ready for the rigors of that curriculum. This explains why a majority of them go to NAPS. When they get to the Naval Academy, many of them pursue a Group 3 major (Humanities & Social Science) and start many of the technical courses at a lower starting point whereas many midshipmen validate the earlier Calculus, Physics and Chemistry courses. There's nothing wrong with that but it is possible to pursue a slightly less challenging academic track at a service academy if that's what a midshipman wants/needs.

I am not one who is critical of the academy in this regard. If I was the Athletic Director at a school with a D-1 program, I would do exactly what the Naval Academy does. All colleges do it. Those who are surprised by this have been living under a rock for the past 30 years as college sports have become a big business. What is sometimes debated is, "Should a service academy be in that business?"
Click to expand...
I see your point. Big difference between high school and college athletics so my thought process is geared more to what I see everyday in high school students. NCAA is certainly big business and will continue to be I would imagine.
 
Memphis9489 said:
The Naval Academy's mission and competing at the D-1 level are contradictory.
Click to expand...
Not only is this not true, but competing in Division I *enhances* the mission. When a school decides to play football at the FBS level, it's part of a larger strategic vision. Athletics, especially football, are how regional schools gain a national profile. There are lots of examples of this... Consider some of the schools that are familiar to avid college football fans, like Boise State, Appalachian State, or UCF. If not for football, how many people would even be aware that these schools exist? That's not a knock on those schools, either. The same could be said about Notre Dame. There are 200 Catholic colleges and universities in the United States, and Notre Dame is the flagship. It is not the oldest of those schools, nor is it the largest. It does, however, have a long legacy of football success that made it a household name. Participation in Division I athletics conveys a certain sense of quality and legitimacy. It puts schools in the mainstream, which is what makes them vital to the service academies. It helps them cast the widest possible net in reaching possible admissions candidates. The wider the net, the better the candidate pool.

There is also a misconception about what makes for a "better" or "more qualified" candidate. Service academies are not like other colleges. The education is not the point; it is a means to an end, with that end being the production of naval officers. Because of this, "more qualified" is not synonymous with "has better grades." The straight-A student doesn't also have to be a world-class athlete; he or she just has to be capable of fulfilling the physical mission. Along those same lines, the athlete doesn't have to have perfect grades; he or she only needs to have the ability to handle USNA's academics with a passing grade. High-level athletes are exceptional people and should be sought after, not disparaged, as they often are.

It would be easy if there was one archetype that all applicants could be measured against, but that is not the case. Who would make for the better officer: the nerd with the perfect SAT scores, or the jock capable of playing his or her sport at the highest level? The answer, quite possibly, is both.
 
phatphelix said:
Not only is this not true, but competing in Division I *enhances* the mission. When a school decides to play football at the FBS level, it's part of a larger strategic vision. Athletics, especially football, are how regional schools gain a national profile. There are lots of examples of this... Consider some of the schools that are familiar to avid college football fans, like Boise State, Appalachian State, or UCF. If not for football, how many people would even be aware that these schools exist? That's not a knock on those schools, either. The same could be said about Notre Dame. There are 200 Catholic colleges and universities in the United States, and Notre Dame is the flagship. It is not the oldest of those schools, nor is it the largest. It does, however, have a long legacy of football success that made it a household name. Participation in Division I athletics conveys a certain sense of quality and legitimacy. It puts schools in the mainstream, which is what makes them vital to the service academies. It helps them cast the widest possible net in reaching possible admissions candidates. The wider the net, the better the candidate pool.

There is also a misconception about what makes for a "better" or "more qualified" candidate. Service academies are not like other colleges. The education is not the point; it is a means to an end, with that end being the production of naval officers. Because of this, "more qualified" is not synonymous with "has better grades." The straight-A student doesn't also have to be a world-class athlete; he or she just has to be capable of fulfilling the physical mission. Along those same lines, the athlete doesn't have to have perfect grades; he or she only needs to have the ability to handle USNA's academics with a passing grade. High-level athletes are exceptional people and should be sought after, not disparaged, as they often are.

It would be easy if there was one archetype that all applicants could be measured against, but that is not the case. Who would make for the better officer: the nerd with the perfect SAT scores, or the jock capable of playing his or her sport at the highest level? The answer, quite possibly, is both.
Click to expand...

Excellent post.

The same can be said about basketball. The Catholic schools like Seton Hall, St John’s, and St Bonaventure are vastly enhanced by their basketball programs’ success.

USNA made the sweet sixteen and elite 8 in 1986. Last appearances were 1997 and 1998. Had a real chance this past year.
 
Don’t know who said it — a college president, I believe — but the quote is apt: Sports are a university’s front porch. And I add: Football extends out to the lawn.

We’d all like to be purists and believe that academics is all that matters. But that’s just not so. I was at Northwestern, a consensus top-20 school, when its once-dismal football program had its breathtaking breakthrough in the mid-90s. Following that magical Rose Bowl season, applications nearly doubled! Already a very well known, respected and prestigious institution, Northwestern needed shocking gridiron success to achieve that level of student interest.

Football can and does enhance a school’s image and reputation. And doing so at the D1 level doesn’t have to mean selling one’s soul, when done the way it is at Northwestern, Stanford, Vanderbilt and Notre Dame.
 
phatphelix said:
When a school decides to play football at the FBS level, it's part of a larger strategic vision.
Click to expand...
It seems that your point is that the "strategic vision" is as you've stated below...

phatphelix said:
It helps them cast the widest possible net in reaching possible admissions candidates. The wider the net, the better the candidate pool.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right that there is a certain percentage of candidates who apply to the Naval Academy because they first heard about the football team; but I would guess you're overestimating this. If anything, it casts the "widest possible net" for football recruits, not non-football applicants. The Naval Academy generally doesn't have a problem finding highly qualified candidates as they only admit about 8% of those who apply. Many highly qualified candidates are left in the dust through no fault of their own. They are often a victim of the mandate for geographic diversification. After all, somebody has to be appointed from Wyoming or the most rural district in Nebraska; whereas they cannot possibly appoint everybody who applies from California's 52nd congressional district which includes San Diego or Virginia's 3rd congressional district which includes Norfolk; both, big Navy towns.

I'll bet if a survey were conducted (and maybe it has) where all the applicants were asked, "How did you first hear about the United States Naval Academy?" - those not aspiring to play on the Naval Academy's football team (which is the vast majority) would not say, "Because of their football team."

The Naval Academy has never had difficult attracting quality applicants and I don't think that is because of their football team. They do have difficulty (as do all the other service academies) of attracting candidates from "under represented areas" which is admissions code for "diversity" which is another code for "minorities."
 
I’ll never forget coming across a social media post, where the football player accepted his appointment and was joining USNA. Transferring in his college credits and graduating early. And majoring in something not offered (I THINK I recall it was Criminal Justice) 🤦‍♀️ Wish I had noted his name. Curious if he still is there. It was on Twitter and IG, and deleted rather quickly.

Eyes wide open!
 
The relationship between major athletics success and college applications is very well documented. There is no reason to believe that the Naval Academy is an exception. The school does not operate in a vacuum. It's not that people choose USNA *because* of football. But if someone's looking for a good math department, it's only natural to start with, "well what about those schools I saw on Saturday?" Like it or not, the country is introduced to its mainstream colleges and universities primarily through athletics. If the Naval Academy doesn't have trouble attracting applicants, it's because it is seen as a mainstream institution. Athletics, including football, is a large part of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top