Recruiting vs. Blue Chip?

What is more difficult is to stand out as an all state or nationally ranked athlete.
How much more time do football and basketball players have to put in to be All State or nationally ranked vs those that are "just" lettering in that sport during high school? Those seem to be the sports that most critics of the prep school seem to have the greatest concern with their HS academic accomplishments.
 
For my part, I have worked diligently to clarify my position. Specifically because often times folks that disagree with one another believe there must be a hidden agenda or that someone is "dissing" someone else when they ask for accountability. So once again...

* I don't see anyone here devaluing the role prepsters. In fact, prepsters bring experience and perspective that the SAs should be loathe to forfeit.

* I don't see anyone devaluing athletics or athletes. In fact, the lessons taught through serious athletic competition are tremendously important; possibly irreplaceable. The SA's should continue to have athletic achievement as an integral part of the WCS and offer athletic competition at the SAs.

* I don't see anyone here calling for the closing of the Prep schools. In fact, their mission is as important today as ever; perhaps more so as our military continues to increase in diversity and alternate paths to commissioning become restricted.

What I do see a call for (and personally believe is valuable), is an honest look at the how the prep schools are currently used in regards to recruited D1 athletes.

It's pretty hard to argue that there has been a "realignment" of mission for the prep schools in recent times. From the words of SA staffers themselves, to numerous independent studies, and to investigative reports, the facts are there to see.

We all have strongly held beliefs; as is our right of course. And for some of us, no matter how many facts are offered we will chose to believe what we wish; again our right. But let's agree to disagree without assigning intentions/agendas to those that believe differently than we do.
 
It is "relatively" easy to be a 3 letter athlete on your local high school team..
That depends on the student. Getting straight A's in high school and college is "relatively' easy for a subset of students as well. But not for the bulk of the student body (getting A's or lettering in three sports).


For my part, I have worked diligently to clarify my position. Specifically because often times folks that disagree with one another believe there must be a hidden agenda or that someone is "dissing" someone else when they ask for accountability. So once again...

You are logical MedDB. We agree.
How much more time do football and basketball players have to put in to be All State or nationally ranked vs those that are "just" lettering in that sport during high school? Those seem to be the sports that most critics of the prep school seem to have the greatest concern with their HS academic accomplishments.

I see where you are going with this aglages and we also agree. In many situations, the difference of a D1 athlete versus a very good high school athlete is normally a God given talent. Let's credit it to the gene pool. Same-same for academics. Some just have it. No matter how much another fellow SA student pours it on, others simply do not have the same brainpower. Good luck for the average SA student trying to compete with our newly minted Rhodes Scholar.:wink:

My DS could have dropped out of high school and focused on hockey 24-7. He wasn't going to be a D1 hockey player. But rest assured he went to a number of summer camps, spent hundreds of hours working his hardest on muscle memory (stick handling), thousands of pucks we shoot into a net in the garage, countless hours of conditioning, weight lifting, midnight practices, etc. Same-same for the entire hockey team. It's dog-eat-dog. The end game was he played 3rd line varsity as a senior while others played were recruited on the same team. It wasn't for a lack of trying or that someone worked harder. With that said, he won the lottery in other categories in life. That's how it works.

I only mention it because to automatically assume there is another level of dedication that happens because someone is a D1 athlete isn't often true. Nor is it that a dedication to academics is necessary to yield superior brain power. Or putting it another way, it doesn't necessarily mean the B+ student didn't try hard enough.
 
Last edited:
There are definitely some "Gifted" athletes. Just like there are gifted musicians and naturally born math geeks. But even these gifted individuals who come from a gifted "Gene pool" have to work hard at perfecting their skills. They don't naturally walk onto a basketball court or football field and run their plays and score with perfection. They have to work very hard at it. Just like the musician, while having a natural disposition to pickup music easier than others, still has to work hard at their skill.

Because I look at the "Whole Person" when I am interviewing, evaluating, and scoring applicants, I look at athletic exceptional achievement similarly to those who have exceptional achievement in academics, leadership. and many other attributes. It's just one part of the individual. And as hard as it to believe, I know first hand many applicants who's athletic abilities was much higher than those who played D1 sports at the academy who were "Turned Down" by the coaches and the academy because they either didn't meet the other minimum standards or the coach/academy felt the individual would not be able to make it at the academy. It does the academy no good to have the superstar 5-Star athlete at the academy if they become academically ineligible or can't even stay enrolled. And unlike many other universities, the academy athletes aren't majoring in basket weaving and Fris-bee. They are taking the same engineering, math, and science classes that the rest of the student body is taking.
 
There are definitely some "Gifted" athletes. Just like there are gifted musicians and naturally born math geeks. But even these gifted individuals who come from a gifted "Gene pool" have to work hard at perfecting their skills. They don't naturally walk onto a basketball court or football field and run their plays and score with perfection. They have to work very hard at it. Just like the musician, while having a natural disposition to pickup music easier than others, still has to work hard at their skill.

Absolutely ^^! My point was in response to another poster who said D1 athletes had another level of commitment and discipline over typical HS 3 letter athletes. Maybe or maybe not. It depends on the sport and the level of competition.

My example was the land of hockey where some districts have 300 kids trying out for traveling hockey which starts at age 5. Getting to a varsity spot (even the 3rd line) takes an incredible amount of commitment. In many schools, the dedication is measured in years of camps, year round playing, and thousands of hours of off dryland (stick handling, puck shooting, etc). But at the end of the day, some guys see the ice better than others, were born at to fill out at 6'4" while others have a lower center of gravity and over all athletic gifts. Those are the players that move on many times with equal effort. Cut, paste, and repeat in a different sport or for that matter, academics.

This forum is full of parents and academy attendees that know what I am referring to. God given skill in itself isn't good enough. Incredible perseverance may not be enough either. Not all sports or areas of the country are the same so there will be a huge variation of what it takes to be a 3 sport athlete as well.
 
Considering MOST of the complaints about "red-shirting" of cadets entering the prep school revolve around the football and basketball programs and NOT gymnastics, tennis, Olympic sports, golf and many primarily non "team" sports.....how much more time does an All State or nationally ranked football or basketball player invest in his sport than the other members of his high school team?

My experience 45 years ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth was.....none, at least for football. The one athlete in our HS that was being recruited by the top colleges didn't spend any more time lifting weights or anything else than the rest of us. In fact he may have spent less. Great player with drive and natural ability and also a bright kid with top grades.

Fast forward 40 years later and the one All-state football player that was recruited from my children's HS also didn't do anything additional besides attend some Summer camps. Great player with drive and natural ability. Not so great grades....but with the same amount of study time available to him as the rest of the team.

My point is why would athletes from sports that do not require much additional training time (compared to their team mates) require "special" consideration because of their grades? How will these "specially" gifted athletes benefit the other cadets at USAFA and how will this God given talent help make them good officers?
 
Aglages I see your point but couldn’t the reverse also be true? Why would a student with high academics that do not require additional schooling (compared to their classmates) require “special” consideration because of their lack of athletic ability? How will these "specially" gifted academics student benefit the other cadets at USAFA and how will this God given talent help make them good officers?

My answer? I have no clue, to either your statement or mine. I’ve been on these boards for 4 years going from lurker to half-baked poster and this always seems to come up every year several times. More so in recent years especially on the AFA section as they drew down the number of students to 4K like the other SA.

What I think happens with the Preppies (outside of the Priors in my opinion they are the exception to this entire Prep School discussion:biggrin:) is that people see them as “backdoor” entries into the SA. They didn’t make the cut the first time around but have a “golden ticket” or “easy” way in the following year, therefore bumping someone that is “qualified”. This may come from the perception that Parents and Applicants think that they or their child is more qualified than the next guy/gal and it causes bad blood on both side of the fence.

From what I read (thanks MedB:thumb:) there are issues with Preppies once they hit the SA when compared to the directs. Is it a sense of entitlement since they’ve been in the academy life for a year already or they play D1 sport? Or is it because they already forged lifelong friendships that the directs have yet to develop with their classmates making cliques? Do they act out more because they have been in the suck for a year already and have to do it again and get mischievous? Is it due to unclear mission statements or true measurable goals for admittance from the Prep?

The list can go on and on and on. In my opinion the SAs shouldn’t stop using the Prep school to recruit athletes at all, call it a red shirt program if you like:biggrin:. What needs to change is how they prepare these young men and women for life at the SA not just academics. I don’t think they are having issues because they are athletes. They are ALL having issue when they reach the SA so the Prep school should find out where they are having issues as they move through the SA and build programs to address the major holes.
 
How much more time do football and basketball players have to put in to be All State or nationally ranked vs those that are "just" lettering in that sport during high school? Those seem to be the sports that most critics of the prep school seem to have the greatest concern with their HS academic accomplishments.

A boy from my sons' high school was a standout all state basketball player. He played high school as well as AUG (I think that's the abbreviation for premiere basketball league, not sure if that is the correct name, as we aren't a basketball family). So I know the kid was doing more than his average HS Varsity team mate.

All the teenagers I know who have made all state did extra training year round even during the high school season. Most of them belonged to a premiere or club team during the off season. None of them were "just go to school, participate in the school sport activity and then go home" athletes.

Without commitment, dedication and development, no talent can reach its full potential.

Because some sports seem to have a significant percentage of players who are preppies, it does cause people to question the system. Why does basketball and football seem to have so many more prep students than the other teams? I would imagine if the percentage of preppie players were only about 10% per team, then it would not come up so frequently.

The real issue comes down to the vetting process used for IC prep school athletes. How deeply do they examine the proposed IC prep school athlete's background and grades? What is the "bar" used, and does it differ from the "bar" used for the non-IC prep students? Does the "bar" differ depending on which IC sport the athlete participates in?
 
aglages: While I am at least as old as you, I can't really agree that the All-State, All-Conference, Recruited type athletes don't put in significantly more time working on their sport than the rest/average players on the team.

I won't say "All", but I also won't agree to "None". I know many of the "All-State" caliber players, my son included, who spent "Off Season" time going to "Camps". They spent hundreds of extra hours, especially in the off season, in the weight room and conditioning. I know the Gatorade Player of the year QB-1 who spent many non-practice hours of his own time in the film room watching films of his performance and that of his receivers; as well as watching game film of the upcoming team's performance.

Is any/most of this required? Maybe not. But the athlete who is at the "All-State", "Gatorade Player of the Year", 4/5-star, etc... level and will mostly be the one being recruited, does seem to put in the "Extra" time compared to the "Other" team players. And I know that the 4 high school seniors in my son's graduating class who were ALL Recruited players for 4 different schools, also all had STELLAR GPA's. Of the 4, one graduated his undergraduate in 4 years, is a full time high school teacher, and half way through his Masters. 2 others graduate their undergraduate in 4 years, (One from the air force academy and one from a large university who turned down sports); BOTH have finished their Masters, one is finishing up his PhD. The 4th recruited football player finished his undergraduate in 5 years and is in graduate school.

Now that was just our high school. Point is; not every stellar athlete is a 2.0-2.3 gpa student. Also; the prep school isn't just about recruited athletes. That's what this thread is about, but the same arguments can be made about minorities or other diversities that the academy feels are a good fit for the air force, but because of circumstances in their lives that they couldn't control, they weren't quite ready for direct entrance into the academy.

Again, I've seen too many recruited athletes direct entry into the academy; and I've seen too many stellar athletes REJECTED and not given an appointment, to agree with some that the prep-school has an agenda of making it a red-shirt position for their athletes. Is their some convenience of having an athlete/cadet have a year of additional conditioning at the prep-school? Yes, but ALL preppies are encouraged to play sports at the prep school. And the preppies don't get to practice with the academy D-1 team, so there's not really a red-shirt environment.
 
Aglages I see your point but couldn’t the reverse also be true? Why would a student with high academics that do not require additional schooling (compared to their classmates) require “special” consideration because of their lack of athletic ability?
Are you aware of cadets that are academically qualified but not physically qualified being given a prep school slot in order to get them up to physical standards?

As far as I know the prep school primarily focuses on improving the academic abilities of their students in order for them to hopefully succeed at USAFA. The question many are asking is who is being given this "leg up" and why are they chosen. Also how well do the prep school IC athletes do once they are in USAFA.

The decision to send prior enlisted to prep school is not controversial or AFAIK being debated. It is what the prep school was primarily designed for.

The controversy or debate usually revolves around the URM candidates and the football/basketball players. Hopefully we can relegate the URM discussion to one of the MANY previous threads that have discussed that topic ad nauseaum and instead stay focused on WHY IC football and basketball players deserve a back door entry into USAFA. Some have posted that to compete at the lofty all-state or national level requires such an additional time commitment that academics will "naturally" suffer. And while I may agree with that for SOME IC athletes....I'm not sure that is true about football and basketball players. Of course I could be wrong...and hopefully someone will step up and help me understand how those players have less time to study and pursue academics than their non star team mates or why they would make better officers than HS students that managed to letter in a couple of sports AND maintain high academic standards.
 
aglages: While I am at least as old as you, I can't really agree that the All-State, All-Conference, Recruited type athletes don't put in significantly more time working on their sport than the rest/average players on the team.

It depends on the sport and level of competition. In hockey and in MN, every single high school player in a larger schools has to spend more than a decade of intense training to have a shot at playing varsity hockey.

It's the same way in basketball. With football, I've seen kids become varsity players who tryout for the 1st time in 9th grade. I'm talking about a football program in a school with 3000 students. I'm assuming D1 football player puts in more effort. But that won't be happening in some sports like hockey. You won't have a snowballs chance in H_ell of becoming a varsity player in that same school unless you play hockey year round with intensity. Hence, it depends.
 
My point is why would athletes from sports that do not require much additional training time (compared to their team mates) require "special" consideration because of their grades? How will these "specially" gifted athletes benefit the other cadets at USAFA and how will this God given talent help make them good officers?

Your point goes beyond athletics.

How do you differentiate between a kid with a rich parent that spent thousands on SAT/ACT prep course against a kid that had to work part time to support his family.

How do you differentiate between a kid that attends a good high school vs a kid that attends a bad high school.

How do prior enlisted candidates benefit the other cadets or make them good officers? Is a candidate better automatically because he or she spent some time in active duty.
 
I won't say "All", but I also won't agree to "None". I know many of the "All-State" caliber players, my son included, who spent "Off Season" time going to "Camps". They spent hundreds of extra hours, especially in the off season, in the weight room and conditioning.
In the "Off season". How did that impact their ability to study or pursue academics during the school year compared to their "regular" varsity team mates?
And I know that the 4 high school seniors in my son's graduating class who were ALL Recruited players for 4 different schools, also all had STELLAR GPA's.
Exactly. Being a recruited player does not necessarily prevent you from also being a scholar. Many football and basketball players accomplish both. Why would USAFA recruit those unable to "balance" academics and athletics in HS for the prep program?

Other than URM goals and prior enlisted, I'm not sure what else the prep school is being "used" for. I will say that some of the numbers we've seen in this thread don't paint a pretty picture of how well prep IC football and basketball players do at USAFA. Perhaps those "leg up" slots might be better used for candidates that would have a higher level of success at USAFA or more direct entry candidates.
 
That depends on the student. Getting straight A's in high school and college is "relatively' easy for a subset of students as well. But not for the bulk of the student body (getting A's or lettering in three sports).




You are logical MedDB. We agree.


I see where you are going with this aglages and we also agree. In many situations, the difference of a D1 athlete versus a very good high school athlete is normally a God given talent. Let's credit it to the gene pool. Same-same for academics. Some just have it. No matter how much another fellow SA student pours it on, others simply do not have the same brainpower. Good luck for the average SA student trying to compete with our newly minted Rhodes Scholar.:wink:

My DS could have dropped out of high school and focused on hockey 24-7. He wasn't going to be a D1 hockey player. But rest assured he went to a number of summer camps, spent hundreds of hours working his hardest on muscle memory (stick handling), thousands of pucks we shoot into a net in the garage, countless hours of conditioning, weight lifting, midnight practices, etc. Same-same for the entire hockey team. It's dog-eat-dog. The end game was he played 3rd line varsity as a senior while others played were recruited on the same team. It wasn't for a lack of trying or that someone worked harder. With that said, he won the lottery in other categories in life. That's how it works.

I only mention it because to automatically assume there is another level of dedication that happens because someone is a D1 athlete isn't often true. Nor is it that a dedication to academics is necessary to yield superior brain power. Or putting it another way, it doesn't necessarily mean the B+ student didn't try hard enough.

(one of these days I hope to be able to do the multi-quote thing successfully every time I try)

My post was addressing the recruited D1 athlete who is placed in the prep school: their dedication impacted their academic achievements. I realize that there are those who may put in the same amount of time but will never go as far because they don't have the "natural gift" for that sport.

It comes down to fairness.......lets assume John and Mark have practiced and put in the same amount of time/dedication/development etc. into water polo. Both have a B+ gpa and average SAT/ACT. The difference is John has been touched by the "polo gods" and is pure magic in the water, where as Mark is decent, but doesn't stand out. They both apply to the academy, but the coach is only interested in talent and recruits John. John is accepted into the prep program and Mark is rejected and not even considered for the prep program. Is this fair? No. Is it right? That depends on the view point and the answer to "how important are D1 sports teams to a SA, and what role does the teams play?"

As I mentioned in another post, the question comes down to the vetting process for the prep school IC athletes. Do "we" trust the system, or do "we" believe there are problems that are overlooked/ignored? Are "our" questions or doubts based upon reality or upon preconceived ideas?
 
In the "Off season". How did that impact their ability to study or pursue academics during the school year compared to their "regular" varsity team mates?
Exactly. Being a recruited player does not necessarily prevent you from also being a scholar. Many football and basketball players accomplish both. Why would USAFA recruit those unable to "balance" academics and athletics in HS for the prep program?

Other than URM goals and prior enlisted, I'm not sure what else the prep school is being "used" for. I will say that some of the numbers we've seen in this thread don't paint a pretty picture of how well prep IC football and basketball players do at USAFA. Perhaps those "leg up" slots might be better used for candidates that would have a higher level of success at USAFA or more direct entry candidates.

I think this is exactly the point. The Academy is full of D1 athletes that are also great academically. These athletes did not go the Prep school route. They would get into the academy regardless of their sport which is fantastic.

So what does the D1 athlete that cannot keep up academically bring to the table that another athlete (Perhaps not D1 level) that CAN also handle the Academics does not bring? Does the fact that they are "Better" at their sport somehow make them better officer material?

There are MANY athletes out there that work very hard at their sport and will NEVER play D1 athletics. Many of those athletes are also very good at Academics etc. Just look at the D2 and D3 programs and you will see this clearly. You cannot tell me they are at those programs because they didn't work as hard....

You will only be so big or so fast. No amount of training in the world will make the average human 6' 6" tall, weigh 300 pounds or run a 4.2 second 40yd dash. So how do those things make you a better officer?
 
Your point goes beyond athletics.
No...it doesn't.
How do you differentiate between a kid with a rich parent that spent thousands on SAT/ACT prep course against a kid that had to work part time to support his family.
How do you differentiate between a kid that attends a good high school vs a kid that attends a bad high school.
This seems to be an attempt to muddy the waters by introducing issues that are often presented in support of URM recruitment. They have no bearing on why IC football and basketball players should receive a pass on academics. Or are you suggesting that this is actually a race issue and NOT an issue with football and basketball players having enough time to pursue academics? Amazing how far we've come from IC athletes don't have enough time to be all-state and to study.
How do prior enlisted candidates benefit the other cadets or make them good officers? Is a candidate better automatically because he or she spent some time in active duty.
Good questions! If the answer is that there is no benefit to USAFA or the AF....then the original purpose of the prep schools is brought into question....and we can once again debate the need for them. Personally I think the cadets at USAFA benefit far more from the experience a prior enlisted brings to the table than a recruited athlete....just my opinion.
 
(one of these days I hope to be able to do the multi-quote thing successfully every time I try)

My post was addressing the recruited D1 athlete who is placed in the prep school: their dedication impacted their academic achievements. I realize that there are those who may put in the same amount of time but will never go as far because they don't have the "natural gift" for that sport.

Why did it affect their academic achievements? There are MANY D1 athletes at the academy who also handled the Academics. Why are we making an exception for them?

It comes down to fairness.......lets assume John and Mark have practiced and put in the same amount of time/dedication/development etc. into water polo. Both have a B+ gpa and average SAT/ACT. The difference is John has been touched by the "polo gods" and is pure magic in the water, where as Mark is decent, but doesn't stand out. They both apply to the academy, but the coach is only interested in talent and recruits John. John is accepted into the prep program and Mark is rejected and not even considered for the prep program. Is this fair? No. Is it right? That depends on the view point and the answer to "how important are D1 sports teams to a SA, and what role does the teams play?"

What about all the candidates who were great athletes (But not D1 level) who worked very hard at their sports AND were also great academically etc. There are many who are turned down each year that fall into this category. Why does the D1 athlete who is NOT ready academically deserve a spot over this group?
 
As I mentioned in another post, the question comes down to the vetting process for the prep school IC athletes. Do "we" trust the system, or do "we" believe there are problems that are overlooked/ignored? Are "our" questions or doubts based upon reality or upon preconceived ideas?
My answer has already been posted
One could say that most of red-shirted athletes that come through Prep wind up being qualified for the SA and to become an officer. That's probably true.

The "problem" however some folks might have is that, statistically speaking, red-shirt prepsters graduate at a lower rate overall, account for more honors/conduct violations, and even when they make through the SAs they are less likely to go into Operational roles or stay beyond the minimum 5 year commitment. Certainly not true of every individual of course, but those overall statistics come from different government agency / commission studies.

In a time when thousands (literally) of other qualified candidates are turned away, some might question if this practice makes sense. Perhaps it does, but you have to admit that it's a fair question to ask.

********************
For the record... I am personally not one of those "best test score, period" folks. I am fully supportive of the SAs (and military's) ongoing attempts to create a rich and diverse officer corps. But when such a high percentage of SA candidates already have years and years of athletic competition at the club, HS, and regional level under their belt, do we still want to carve out specific space in the prep school system just to bolster our D1 athletic teams' win percentage? I am not convinced.
 
Are you aware of cadets that are academically qualified but not physically qualified being given a prep school slot in order to get them up to physical standards?

Yes my very own DS:thumb:. I have been pretty open about that in other post when I give advice about doing a sport in HS. He did not play a single sport in HS.

My DS had all the other boxes checked in what we would call the no brainer category. High SAT/ACT check, High GPA check, Leadership check, Boy State check, etc. but no sports, and CFA slightly above average on all scores. He did not get a nomination therefore no appointment.

He was offered a AFA Prep slot and is there now. Failed his first two PFT but is now killing it. Academically he's pulling A's in all his classes and is the Training NCO for his squad and tutors his CC mates and will more than likely be taking Physics and Calc at the Hill next semester.

So in my opinion yes, he is one of those cadets that are academically qualified but not physically qualified. It does happen, no where near the scale of the reverse I agree with you there but there are those types of CCs in the Prep.

While I agree with you 100% that the numbers don't look good for the recruited athletes but they don't look good for the diversity and Priors either.

Now is it because of the vetting process before they get to the Prep school or is it because of how they're trained while at Prep that affects their chance at the SA? I tend to lean to the latter.

Hell I wouldn't call myself an ideal Airman before I enlisted many moons ago but the AF sure knew how to mold me the way they wanted to and I can honestly say I'm a better man today because of it.:biggrin:
 
I have to admit Boozebin that your son is the first example I've heard of the reverse at USAFAPS. Congrats to you both.....I'm sure he'll be a great airman.:thumb:
 
Back
Top