That would be asking to see individual applicant's scores. You're not going to get that information. But I can assure you, because not only was my son a recruited athlete, but I got to know the majority of the football player in the class of 2012; two things:
1. The entire athletic department only has a very few "Slots" that they can make available for a "Star" athlete. The majority of the "Recruited" athletes had to get into the academy on their own merits. They had to get the nominations and get appointed just like everyone else.
2. Even those few who were able to receive an appointment through the athletic department slots or superintendent, had to meet the "Minimum Requirements". If not, this would be totally counter productive. It does no one any good at the academy if an individual can't maintain the minimum NCAA or academy's minimum GPA. Especially when the academy doesn't have any "BIRD" classes/degrees. They all have to take the same engineering, science, math, etc... classes that ALL students must take.
The problem I see is with perception. Most everyone agrees that a 3.85 gpa student should receive more points on the application than a 3.70 applicant. A person taking 5 AP classes should receive more points than a person who took no AP classes. A person who did the 4 year IB (International Baccalaureate) program should receive more points on the application than the person who only took 5 AP classes. The person who was class president, boy's state, eagle scout, etc... should receive more points in the leadership section of the application than the person who was simply a "Member" of a club, team, organization, etc... Unfortunately, many don't believe that the star athlete who was "All State", nationally ranked, Star Quarterback/kicker/receiver, etc... who was also the "Team Captain" etc... shouldn't receive more points on the application than the individual who simply participate and lettered in a varsity sports and had regular leadership experience. But the truth is, they SHOULD receive more points. The "Excelled" beyond the normal applicant in the areas of leadership, physical fitness, teamwork, etc... compared to the average applicant.
The rebuttal to my argument is that the academy puts "More Weight" on the star athlete's accomplishment than the average applicant who also had experience in sports, leadership, etc... Well, athletics is part of the "Well Rounded" applicant and also part of diversity. Just like they see the "Eagle Scout" higher than a person who was simply a Boy Scout. Or a "Mitchell Award" holder higher than a person simply in CAP. And yes, there are a few; Very Few; athletes that may have been given extra consideration because they were the top 1% of all recruited athletes. But again, this is a very small amount. The majority of "Recruited Athletes" still had to receive an appointment on their own, 100%, just like everyone else. The only difference is that they don't have to "Try Out" for the team. They are on the team. And then, that's only guaranteed for a short period of time. Many of these athletes are cut from the team in the first season, second season, and even third season. Walk-ons on the other hand, who weren't recruited, have to "Try Out" for the team. And there's even less of those that are accepted.
Bottom line is: All of these athletes, even the "Special Ones", meet the minimum standards. Unfortunately, the minimum standards for the academy aren't really that hard to achieve. You only need a 24 English and 25 Math ACT for the "Minimum". 580 Verbal and 560 Math in the SAT. GPA is subjective depending on whether it's High School or College; School profile and whether you are taking regular classes or AP/IB classes; etc... But again, if the individual is not capable of passing the academy's curriculum, then it's totally counter productive if they are a great athlete or not.
Anyway; I'm sure that this didn't satisfy some people's concerns. There are going to be those who think that if even 1 athlete got in with academic scores lower than a non-selectee/non-IC Athlete, that that is wrong. Well, the same can be said for ANY diversity group. The individual who was given preference because they came from the inner city poverty, single parent, worked 2 jobs to help his mom financially, raised his baby brother and sister, and their mother is an immigrant who doesn't speak english, etc.... over the individual who had higher scores. That's the thing about diversity. It's subjective. It's purpose is to bring in cadets and future leaders who they themselves are diverse, or they will be exposed to diverse fellow cadets; so as to familiarize them with the "REAL MILITARY" which is made up of this "Diverse Population". Anyway; sorry for being long winded. Mike....