I find this hard to believe. Do you have any stats to back that up?
What do you find hard to believe? That there are some smart athletes that could go on to grad school; or that those that don't stay on the team, actually stay at the academy.
One of the biggest problems with this topic, is that many things have to be repeated many times, because new people keep asking the same questions over and over again. Sort of like the questions of "What are my chances"? How many times do we have to answer that question. But the question in this topic that has to keep being addressed is to define the word: "RECRUITED ATHLETE".
It does NOT MEAN what it means at a traditional university. On average, there are approximately 50-60 RECRUITED ATHLETES each year for the air force academy football team. But in no way, is the team going to keep 50-60 players. Also, because the academies don't offer SCHOLARSHIPS like a traditional school, they aren't going to keep a player on the team if they don't want them; but it doesn't mean they lose their appointment to the academy. All the term "RECRUITED ATHLETE" means at the academy is: "You DON'T have to TRY OUT for the team". In other words, you aren't a walk on. But that in no way means you are going to STAY on the team. Of the 50-60 football player coming in freshman year, who are recruited athletes, approximately 20 of them will be let go by the end of that first season. Between spring practice and the end of the 2nd season, another 15-20 will also be let go. By their senior year, there will be 15-20 seniors still on the football team.
Now; those who were let go or QUIT; and yes, a LOT of them quit the team because they either don't like it any longer or can't do all the training AND academics at the same time; those no longer on the team, are not kicked out of the academy. They are still cadets. I even know some recruited athletes, first hand, who when BCT was over, told the coach they weren't going to be on the team. They continue on just like all the other cadets. They had the grades for the academy; they had the test scores; they had the application an appointee should have. They simply went at their application from ALL ANGLES and also went the athletic path because they were very good athletes and to HELP their application. But what they really wanted was to go to the academy, be commissioned, and serve. They had no intention of playing the sport. Again; they don't have a scholarship attached to their playing a sport. And again; ALL 50-60 are "Recruited Athletes".
But that brings up the 2nd part of the confusion that many people don't know. While there are some superintendent nominations, and some of these go to athletes, the vast majority of those 50-60 football players competed for nominations and appointments along with everyone else in their district and state. I've seen plenty of "Recruited Athletes" applying to the academy who did NOT receive a nomination and thus didn't receive an appointment. I personally have had recruited athlete applicants who didn't get to the academy. Either because they didn't receive a nomination, or if they did, they didn't get the appointment.
Many of these recruited athletes also received their appointments PRIOR to even being recruited. In other words, there aren't 50-60 football players all being "Recruited Athletes" in their junior year of high school. People really have to stop using the term "Recruited Athlete". This is not a traditional university, and that term does NOT MEAN the same thing. Even in February, when my son had his official "SIGNING DAY" for athletics; football; that was simply a feel good ceremony for the kid at his high school. It meant absolutely nothing when compared to REAL Signing Day for those "Recruited Athletes" with scholarship to a traditional university. Those kids have a legal binding contract to the school. If they change their mind, they can't play sports for another school without getting a release or waiting out a year. The academies are 100% NON-BINDING!!! But for the 17-18 year old kid, and for the sake of "MARKETING", the academies use the terms "Recruited Athlete", "Signing Day", "Blue Chip Athlete", etc... so they can compete with the Traditional Universities for "Student Athletes".
So; are there some "ATHLETES" and "MINORITIES" (Going to put that in there too, because it is just as prolific); that are given preferential treatment or consideration during the appointment process??? Yes, I won't lie. Do I think they should? No. I think there are plenty of highly qualified athletes and minorities available, that standards don't have to be lowered and special consideration given. But I will continue to argue; because I know first hand; that the majority of "Recruited Athletes" (Because that's the term many here are using), are NOT applicants who have substandard applications. (Meaning, they aren't given superintendent nominations and such). They are NOT given preferential treatment in the appointment process, other than athletics and physical fitness, are areas they happen to excel at. No different than the individual who is given added points for taking AP/IB classes, extra points for leadership positions, and added points for any area you excel at over your peers. They are not academic probation type students. Again; are there some? Yes. But I won't back down when the stereotype keeps being promoted that the majority of IC Athletes at the academy are NOT WORTHY of their appointment. This forum alone has shown way too many "Recruited Athletes" who are top of their class in high school.
1. Are some of the athletes at the academy/prep-school, individuals who without their sport, probably wouldn't have a chance in hell of receiving an appointment??? (YES!!!)
2. Do I think it's fair if standards are compromised or preferential treatment is given? (NO!!!)
3. "MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION". Do the majority of Inter-Collegiate Athletes at the academy fall into this group? (NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)