I think all the posts have proved my point. It is all about the money. But I would like to clarify my position as a parent and a tax payer.
1) I don't believe the academy is in the business of producing Olympians and/or national and world champions. What I believe is they could capitalize upon having such stellar athletes. It could be a public relations dream. But if they cut the teams those athletes competed in, it removes the effectiveness of publishing their achievements. (Though it should be noted that the military does have a special program for those military members who are considered Olympic contenders.)
2) Why gymnastics, boxing, fencing and rifle? Why not water polo, lacrosse, golf or tennis? Those are also some of the other "niche sports" at the USAFA. But they could be next if things continue as they are. (I am not suggesting they should be cut instead of the other 4. I am merely pointing out it could be a future possibility if budgetary issues continue as they are.)
3) Historically speaking, many "niche sports" get cut because of over runs in the football budget. Cut back spending in football next year or cut another smaller sport? Football can generate money and the other sport can't, thus that sport has to go. Did football over run its budget? Football is one of the most, if not the most, expensive sport any school (high school, junior high school, college) can have. I am not saying it happened in this case. But it is a problem that all schools/universities face at some point or other. Again, it's all about the money.
4) Perhaps the academy has weighed the pool of applicants these types of "niche" sports attract, and has decided that the pool isn't really necessary. Perhaps it attracts a far better pool of candidates through football, basketball and hockey. The pool of candidates in water polo, golf, tennis and lacrosse may tend to be deeper than other "niche" sports. These extra pools may be seen as superfluous. I have no idea, as there is no criteria out there which to go by. Once again, I am not advocating cutting those sports instead. But the questions do come to mind as there is no specified criteria.
5) As nice as it would be to say attending the academy is entirely the candidate's decision is rather short sighted. Any one attending a rigorous university requires family support. Support isn't necessarily about money, nor is it about being a helicopter parent. It is about encouraging them, letting them know people believe in them during those moments they question themselves. Almost every person on the planet has faced a moment of doubt which was over come in part by the encouragement and support provided by family members and friends. How many candidates would have pursued attending the academy without the support and encouragement of their parents? How many candidates at one point or other needed to hear "we believe in you, you can do this?" The final decision is the candidates, and no one should have to attend a university against their will or better judgement. Having said that, I do know of people who attended a university they didn't initially want to, but then ended up loving it and thriving.
6) My son is interested in the academy because he wants to make the air force his career. The fact it had his sport was a dream. He is willing to give up years of development (time, travel, lessons, practice, turning in papers early, taking tests before the rest of the class, missing family events and parties, studying instead of going out, etc.) if accepted to the academy and it has cut his team. He also realizes if he is accepted and his sport is no longer included, then he will lose his ability to compete as effectively in the future. Anyone who has dedicated years of their life to a sport or activity in the hopes of competing in college will understand what my son is willing to give up. This decision is not a simple one for any of the dedicated "niche" athletes who are looking at the academy.
7) It takes more than just "students storming" the building to keep something in a university. The students represent the here and now. While parents and the public represent the future. It takes a concerted effort by all parties. It is why I asked for people to contact their congress members. After all, it is congress who establishes the budget which drives the USAFA. If enough voters starting hollering about spending cuts and their impacts, it could cause congress members to allocate more funds. Or if enough publicity is generated, it could cause people to make donations directly to the USAFA in support of these sports.
8) I see this as a teaching moment for my son. An insight into what it is like in the military. How budgetary issues impact day to day experiences. Admittedly, not being able to participate in a sport pales in comparison to not being able to fly or having the proper equipment, etc.. But it is a tangible, here and now, microcosm of what is to come. The importance of being able to accept and adapt to whatever vagaries of life are thrown your way. How much does being in the military mean to him? Is it worth the sacrifice? Any time he has spoken to a military member, he has asked what is the most difficult challenge they faced. Many of them spoke of being far away from home, not seeing family, of giving something up, etc. Now he has an idea of what they were talking about.
Again, good luck to all the candidates looking to attend, and to all the cadets in their future endeavors. I hope for my son's sake he is given the opportunity to become a cadet.