How does D1 equate to better military?

This thread really points out how many assumptions we all make when we hear D1 athletes. Are we talking about the money making D1 sports (fooball) or the high level of competition D1 sports (fencing etc.)

Christcorp makes very goods points on the type of high school studnets that make good cadets. The one question I have is do you need to be an olympic quality athelete or can you just be highly competitive D3 level athelete. Some of us played 5 sports (yes 5 all four years) in high school maintain a 4.0 , eagle scout, etc. and knew we would never make it on D1 team due to our competition (small rural setting) and genetics. would we be a good cadet? (Most acamedies have club sports for them)

The D1 money sport (football) or as I call big time programs NFL minor leagues I find is where the issue lies. Th SA can't recruit players who want to go pro period...Something about a 6 year commit turns them off (please don't bring up Roger). So trying to be competitive is not something the SA can do but they are trying and it is hurting (my opinion) the rep. of the school because they are having different rules to keep enough high caliber atheletes. Fortunitily this will not be an issue in a very few years when the minor league colleges (SEC, ACC, Big 10 ) break from the NCAA and form a new level of football. I believe the SA will realize that that don't belong with them and compete at the lower level. This alone will fix most of the perception problems the SA are having with D1 sports. But I don't know about the money issue.

Union College showed that one can compete at D1 level (hockey) without giving scholarships, so I am sure that the SA can compete in D1 sports and maintain quality of the students if they don't try to compete against minor league teams.
 
Last edited:
But what I think is still being said here, is athletics and not unique to D1 programs.
 
Pathnottaken: I don't think this has anything to do with D1 vs D3 athletes. I only brought that up, because in the past, many have mentioned that they think the Army, Navy, and Air Force care too much about their D1 sports; and the CG and MM are D3 and don't have the same problems. (No, I'm not picking on LITS. Others have mentioned this too). My point on the CG and MM being D3, ISN'T because they care MORE about their cadets and academics than they do athletics. It's because there is no way that either school, with the small enrollment of cadets, could garner enough skilled athletes to compete at the D1 level.

That's the only reason D1 and D3 are compared "IN MY POSTS". The original poster may elude that if Air Force, Army, and Navy were also D3, that they wouldn't put as much emphasis on athletics, prep school, etc... That's probably true, but when a school as large as the 3 big academies, have 85% of their students coming in as varsity athletes, the caliber of their athletics program would be way too high to be at the D3 level. I could possibly see the D1 AA level; but even then, we'd probably be the top of the conference every year and wind up working our way back into D1 A again.

This shouldn't be about D1 at all. It should simply be about Intercollegiate-Athletics in general.
 
Thanks for the tone of the discourse thus far.

It seems unquestionable that athletics, especially competitive athletics, produce tremendous benefits far beyond the sport itself. Never more so than for those seeking to become leaders, and those seeking to join the military... Obviously cadets at a SA fall into both camps.

So the question is not whether there should be true competitive athletics at the SAs; that answer has always been crystal clear. Rather, it's whether the trappings, compromises, and mixed blessing that is D1 athletics (I think we all know it is a mixed blessing) serves the core mission of the SAs any better than other levels of competitive athletics would.

And if D1 level athletics really is better for the core mission and recruiting for the very top echelon of athletic talent is right for our SAs, then again.... why don't the AD services actively recruit for top athletes specifically? And why don't ROTC units have a budget to go scout high school games? etc etc
 
MedB said:
Thanks for the tone of the discourse thus far.

It seems unquestionable that athletics, especially competitive athletics, produce tremendous benefits far beyond the sport itself. Never more so than for those seeking to become leaders, and those seeking to join the military... Obviously cadets at a SA fall into both camps.



I would not go that far. Atheletics (defined by physical fitness) is important to the mission. Notice that the PFT's don't look at how well one preforms in an atheletic event just how fast they can run 1 to 2 miles, how many push up, how many sit up. etc. The ability to play a given sport well is NOT a criteria. Playing sports is a good indictactor of being FIT. As for competitiveness, varsity sports people have nothing on students competing to get into med schools, vet schools, or even the SA. They learn what ones needs to do to get in then they go out and out complete everyone. (to the SA candidates that means - getting an eagle badge, becoming team captain, getting great grades...Not becoming the best that they possibaly could at anyone thing to the exclusion of all else.
Click to expand...
 
Very much newtoallthis...

Newtoallthis, that is a very myopic view of the service academies. It is very clear you pushed your child in a sport in hopes of attracting the best educational opportunities and scholarships in combination. This is very typical of parents of athletes who are talented but not gifted athletes. There is a huge difference. I'm sure if your DS was offered a full ride to UCLA, you would have selected that before Annapolis.

Many gifted athletes gravitate toward athletic program that will excel them to the next level of professional sports. These types of athletes typically do not view SAs for their ambitions. SA by design produces front line officers in our military.

Athletics is important in SAs, for many reasons, but it is a very small part. Academics are what consume their stay at any SA. If cadets/mids don’t have a strong foundation of math and hard science developed in high school then any SA will be a very real struggle. Then adding their military studies and athletic program responsibilities, time management skills must be mastered well before.

You must understand, it’s the well-rounded, student that finds success. The combination of academics, leadership and athletics. A resume of student who worked hard as 4.0 student, Eagle Scout, EC, athletics pulls ACT/SAT scores of 32/700 range are truly the targets of SA, the gifted ones.
If you think your high school heroes in the center at Annapolis, think again, he is surrounded by the gifted.

You were just lucky.

Good luck with Plebe Chem.
 
fencersmother said:
My kids were D1 athletes in a non-revenue sport (I'll let you guess which one).

So, why have Service Academy cadets/mids participate in intercollegiate athletics at the Div1 level? First off, there is the exposure for the cadet to other college students his/her age. This keeps the kids from being so isolated and enables them to maintain healthy relationships with fellow athletes.

also, it does bring recognition to the Academies, and the conduct of the athletes both on- and off- the field is often remarked upon by the other teams/coaches.

In addition, the fact that they participate in Division I athletics means that, presumably, the students at the other schools are among the best athletes in that particular sport (note: not necessarily the best students. All S.A. athletes are not only athletic but among the best students as well). To pit oneself against a tough opponent builds character, strength, determination, perseverance... all qualities espoused by our officer corps. Could they get the same level of competition from Div II or III athletics? Probably not.

Here I spoke primarily of non-revenue sports. Those sports which make money are a whole different ball game.
Click to expand...


My daughter also competes in a non-revenue sport and we were very lucky that the team came to Texas last year to compete. Before the event the Star Spangled Banner was played and the team, in warmups, stood at attention and in a perfect line saluted the flag. THEY were then honored by a round of applause by the crowd. I got a great picture. (wish I knew how to share it.)

Fencersmother's comments ring true. The cadets and/or teams actions are often noted by the other athletes and spectators. Why? Because of who they are, what they represent and where they came from. In my opinion that makes the monetary investment money well spent.

And a quick response to Tug Boat. When all four of my children began playing sports I never dreamed of pushing them for the educational and scholarship opportunities. I guess that I was not farsighted enough when they were five years old. I just wanted them to be involved in sport for the competition, teamwork, sportsmanship and discipline and to be involved with other good kids. Boy, was I misquided.
 
Last edited:
Christcorp said:
And I would totally disagree with this. I admit that there are "some" athletes that get into the academy who probably shouldn't get there. Especially for academic reasons. But in no way is that "Most of them". The football team for example has approximately 50 recruited athletes per year. Reallize, the word "Recruited Athlete" doesn't mean the same thing for the academy that people relate it to with a college athletic scholarship. Point is; the overwhelming majority of these "Recruited Athletes" do NOT go to the prep school. And the majority of them competed with everyone else in their state/districts for nominations and admittance to the academy. The majority of these recruited athletes have the 3.86 type GPA and high act/sat scores.
Click to expand...

Well, the stats would tend to disagree:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/opinion/nocera-the-military-prep-school-scam.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
There is some pretty well documented research into NAPS specifically if you would like to look it up.

Now, I'm not saying that recruiting athletes who aren't stellar in the classroom is a bad thing. There are a ton of great officers, some athletes, that did not do well at the Academy. I just want to show that it isn't exactly an equal playing field when it comes to admissions, and to extent the academy experience.
 
tug_boat said:
Newtoallthis, that is a very myopic view of the service academies. It is very clear you pushed your child in a sport in hopes of attracting the best educational opportunities and scholarships in combination. This is very typical of parents of athletes who are talented but not gifted athletes. There is a huge difference. I'm sure if your DS was offered a full ride to UCLA, you would have selected that before Annapolis.

Many gifted athletes gravitate toward athletic program that will excel them to the next level of professional sports. These types of athletes typically do not view SAs for their ambitions. SA by design produces front line officers in our military.

Athletics is important in SAs, for many reasons, but it is a very small part. Academics are what consume their stay at any SA. If cadets/mids don’t have a strong foundation of math and hard science developed in high school then any SA will be a very real struggle. Then adding their military studies and athletic program responsibilities, time management skills must be mastered well before.

You must understand, it’s the well-rounded, student that finds success. The combination of academics, leadership and athletics. A resume of student who worked hard as 4.0 student, Eagle Scout, EC, athletics pulls ACT/SAT scores of 32/700 range are truly the targets of SA, the gifted ones.
If you think your high school heroes in the center at Annapolis, think again, he is surrounded by the gifted.

You were just lucky.

Good luck with Plebe Chem.
Click to expand...

Well, there goes that hope on keeping this thread civil.

Lot of assumptions and a tad bit of condescending attiude, there tugboat. How are you so certain newtoallthis's son ISN'T a "gifted athlete" who places his priority of service and sacrifice hgiher than a short career in a sport? How are you so sure new pushed him through his HS sports? How are you so sure he is just as gifted in academics and Plebe Chem will be a breeze for him?

Like I said, a lot of assumptions....
 
BigBear said:
Well, the stats would tend to disagree:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/opinion/nocera-the-military-prep-school-scam.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
There is some pretty well documented research into NAPS specifically if you would like to look it up.

Now, I'm not saying that recruiting athletes who aren't stellar in the classroom is a bad thing. There are a ton of great officers, some athletes, that did not do well at the Academy. I just want to show that it isn't exactly an equal playing field when it comes to admissions, and to extent the academy experience.
Click to expand...

The stats doen't disagree with me at all. I simply said that the majority of athletes recruited to the academy, do not attend the Prep school first. That is true. I never disputed that about 1/3 of the prep school are athletes.

MedB said:
.........
And if D1 level athletics really is better for the core mission and recruiting for the very top echelon of athletic talent is right for our SAs, then again.... why don't the AD services actively recruit for top athletes specifically? And why don't ROTC units have a budget to go scout high school games? etc etc
Click to expand...

What would AD do with recruited athletes. There's COLLEGE Sports and there's PROFESSIONAL sports. An active duty individual isn't allowed to participate in EITHER sport. As for ROTC, the athletic program isn't part of ROTC. It's part of the university. And for what it's worth, there are quite a few athletes at universities who are also in ROTC

Bullet said:
Well, there goes that hope on keeping this thread civil.

Lot of assumptions and a tad bit of condescending attiude, there tugboat. How are you so certain newtoallthis's son ISN'T a "gifted athlete" who places his priority of service and sacrifice hgiher than a short career in a sport? How are you so sure new pushed him through his HS sports? How are you so sure he is just as gifted in academics and Plebe Chem will be a breeze for him?

Like I said, a lot of assumptions....
Click to expand...

I agree 100%. I know plenty of "Recruited Athletes" for air force, that was also accepted and even recruited, to some pretty impressive schools in the country; and they turned those down for the air force academy appointment. School like Michigan state, USC, and a number of MWC schools like Utah, BYU, Colorado State, and others. So assuming that every recruited athlete at the academies, took it because they weren't good enough to go to a "REAL D1 athletic Program" is pretty ignorant.

And for what it's worth, I've seen many of these individuals who are indeed GIFTED athletes, turn down a very good scholarship to accept an academic scholarship to a BETTER school. I know an individual personally, who turned down 2 football scholarships to D1 schools, to accept acceptance and outside scholarships to Harvard.
 
Christcorp said:
What would AD do with recruited athletes. There's COLLEGE Sports and there's PROFESSIONAL sports. An active duty individual isn't allowed to participate in EITHER sport. As for ROTC, the athletic program isn't part of ROTC. It's part of the university. And for what it's worth, there are quite a few athletes at universities who are also in ROTC
Click to expand...

Perfectly said and exactly the point I think.

Here's the logic chain I can't get past...

1) To CC's point above, what would AD do with recruited athletes? They are no better or worse for fulfilling their mission as military officers. So OCS does not solicit for them naturally.

2) Further, ROTC itself does not solicit for them. Presumably again because there is no inherent benefit of having a top-tier athlete in that commissioning program either.

3) And we all know that the core mission of the SA's is to produce military officers. And that it is just one commissioning source.

4) So... if the other commissioning sources, have decided that being a top-tier D1-type athlete is not worth specifically soliciting for.... why is that the SAs think having D1 athletes will produce better officers?

If there is a valid answer to #4, then surely that would be shared with the other commissioning sources yes?

Afterall, ROTC for example has an interview criteria in place with the soft costs associated with that because they feel it produces better candidates (and hence officers). Why wouldn't they have a budget to find and attract D1 athletes if they felt that produced better candidates too?

So again... how is it that only of the three commissioning sources finds that having top-flight athletes makes for better officers?
 
MedB said:
Perfectly said and exactly the point I think.

Here's the logic chain I can't get past...

1) To CC's point above, what would AD do with recruited athletes? They are no better or worse for fulfilling their mission as military officers. So OCS does not solicit for them naturally.

2) Further, ROTC itself does not solicit for them. Presumably again because there is no inherent benefit of having a top-tier athlete in that commissioning program either.

3) And we all know that the core mission of the SA's is to produce military officers. And that it is just one commissioning source.

4) So... if the other commissioning sources, have decided that being a top-tier D1-type athlete is not worth specifically soliciting for.... why is that the SAs think having D1 athletes will produce better officers?

If there is a valid answer to #4, then surely that would be shared with the other commissioning sources yes?

Afterall, ROTC for example has an interview criteria in place with the soft costs associated with that because they feel it produces better candidates (and hence officers). Why wouldn't they have a budget to find and attract D1 athletes if they felt that produced better candidates too?

So again... how is it that only of the three commissioning sources finds that having top-flight athletes makes for better officers?
Click to expand...

I completely disagree with your assessment that ROTC does not solicit athletes. Last I checked with my daughter, her cadre are always talking to every coach looking for recruits. They contact the athletes and try to get them to join up. No Cadet Command doesn't contact HS coaches, but CC is not a recruiting organization. It is the units that do the recruiting. No they don't go to HS football games, but when they present the big checks at schools, they put out the word that they like athletes. No it isn't the same as getting them into prep school, but they don't have those resources.
 
Hi Goaliedad,

Sure ROTC likes athletes. So does AD. As mentioned earlier, competing in athletics has undisputable benefits for leadership and militlary lifestyle. No question.

I just didn't realize that ROTC units at D1 schools actively scouted and recruited top flight athletes for the school's sports teams.

Or that there was a partnership between the coaches and the ROTC commander so that if the coach wanted to make an offer he/she could influence the ROTC process to some degree.

Or that there were extra points given on your ROTC application if you were a recruited D1 athlete.

Or that if the shool wanted the top tier athlete, but they needed a little polishing/academic help, that ROTC would fund sending them to a prep program for a year.

Clearly some version of all those things happen at the SAs. And again.... if they happen at SAs because it serves the mission of creating better officers, great. We should always invest in what makes our military better. But... then shouldn't those activities be happening at the other commissioning sources too?

As stated up front, as a family we have been involved with, coached, etc competitive sports for many years. Our children were varsity athletes, team captians, on travel teams, etc. So please know that we value sport and all of the numerous benefits it has to offer. But we also understand that companies today will not show a hiring preference because you played D1 college ball... nor should they. So unless there is a direct relationship to making better officers, why should our SAs actively recruit for top tier athletes and all that goes with D1 sports... especially when the other commissioning sources do not?
 
MedB, I think you need to take the word "D1" out of the discussion. You are implying; as many others have; that there's some difference between what Air Force, Army, and Navy academies are doing vs Coast Guard and Merchant academy.

It "Just So Happens" that the big 3 are D1 schools. I think it's safe to say that ALL parts of the military; whether it's ANY of the 5 academies; ANY of the ROTC; as well as "Active Duty", prefer applicants/recruits who have an athletic background. We already discussed the benefits of that. You're making it sound like the Big-3 academies are recruiting "D1 Athletes". EVERY Athlete at the Big-3 academies are D1 athletes. That's because that's the division the academies are in. There's absolutely no difference in recruiting; in my opinion; between the big-3 and the CG and MM.

Substitute the word "D1" with "IC" (Intercollegiate-Athlete), and base your argument on that. The original poster should not have used the term D1 and really; neither should anyone else trying to argue pro/con on this topic. It has NOTHING to do with D1. It just so happens that the Big-3 academies happen to be D1 schools. There's ROTC schools out there that are D1. Some are AA. Some are D2 and D3. Discuss recruited athletes capable of playing at the college level and not focusing on which division they play in.

P.S. Sorry; you WERE the original poster. D1 is not the topic/issue. Not if you want to argue preferential treatment or anything else about academy recruited athletes. Don't harp on the D1 part. If you want to debate, the debate the IC not D1
 
Last edited:
But I believe the "D1" part IS important, that, as far as recruiting is concerned, USMA, USNA and USAFA do recruit for someo fo the D1 athletes differently than USCGA or USMMA might (for top athletes or otherwise). Why? Because some of those big D1 sports, football specifically (but I would guess hockey brings some $$ in at AFA). And the big sports bring in televised games.

USCGA and USMMA.... their surrounding communities don't care about their games. But Army/Navy... they do. If they're playing D3 football people aren't tuning in, but the games a big deal. We can pretend like that's because the country is patriotic, but it's not. There are plenty of long-standing rivalries that don't see the light of day... because they aren't D1.
 
Christcorp said:
There's absolutely no difference in recruiting; in my opinion; between the big-3 and the CG and MM.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been involved in the recruiting process? D1 and D3 are worlds apart when it comes to the general talent level of the athletes and their competition for limited scholarships. There is a corresponding difference in the effort put forth by coaches, the money spent to bring athletes on tours, the facilities built to attract athletes, etc.
 
LineInTheSand said:
But I believe the "D1" part IS important, that, as far as recruiting is concerned, USMA, USNA and USAFA do recruit for someo fo the D1 athletes differently than USCGA or USMMA might (for top athletes or otherwise). Why? Because some of those big D1 sports, football specifically (but I would guess hockey brings some $$ in at AFA). And the big sports bring in televised games.

USCGA and USMMA.... their surrounding communities don't care about their games. But Army/Navy... they do. If they're playing D3 football people aren't tuning in, but the games a big deal. We can pretend like that's because the country is patriotic, but it's not. There are plenty of long-standing rivalries that don't see the light of day... because they aren't D1.
Click to expand...

But there's a difference between having a choice and having a lack of options. CG and MM don't have the choice of being D1. No matter how much they'd like to be, they cant be. And considering that 99.999% of academy cadets know that there's no way they'll ever go "PRO" via Air Force, Navy, or Army; it's not like a bunch of 3-5 star athletes are trying to go to the academy. Matter of fact, while there are a very few at the academies who could have played at another D1 school, most of the recruited athletes would have probably only made it to the AA or D2 level.

There's no doubt that being we are a D1 school, that we'd like to maximize our potential on the field/court/etc. But the academies, coaches, players, and fans are realistic. Air Force (In Football), has one of the best winning season records in the entire country. Over the last 31 years, we're like 25-6. But rarely are we going to be a conference champion, national champion, or even win at a mega-bowl game. We'll always be 7-5, 8-4, 9-3. 10-2, type seasons. And those being recruited know that too. The overwhelming majority of athletes who come to the academies; recruited directly, prep-school, or otherwise; know this. They also didn't accept the appointment to the academy because they want to go pro. They want the academy education, serve their country, and all the other person reasons that everyone else applies to the academy.

That I think is the biggest concern and argument happening about academy sports. There's a stereotype that the majority of athletes who ply IC sports at the academy NEVER would have received an appointment had it not been for sports. That's simply not true. stories, artlcles, annecdotal evidence, etc... can be brought up about those very few; but it is not the majority. The NCAA tracks athlete/academic performance throughout ALL colleges. The academies always rank very high among their athletes and their performance academically.

The truth is; the big-3 academies would not be as good as they are without their athletic programs. And being they are going to be D1 schools, it's only natural because of the pool of candidates, that they'll naturally have better players as a team than say CG or MM. But that doesn't mean that the academy itself is suffering because it cares about athletics.

The problem I've seen and heard, usually comes from those who didn't receive an appointment or don't feel they are given as good a chance because of athletes. In other words, they don't think athletics should be part of the consideration when giving appointments. But my question back is:

If people agree that the person taking AP or IB classes should be given "Some" preference over those taking regular classes because they've excelled academically; and the #1 class ranked should be given higher consideration because they've excelled over their peers; and the person who was class president, club presidents, CAP, JrROTC, etc... should be given preference points because they excelled in leadership areas over those who simply "Participated"; and all these other areas where an individual "EXCELLED" above their peers......... Then why, with the military being so physically and team oriented, and where athletics has been proven to be a major contribution to the success of a military person as a leader and team member........ Why then shouldn't the person who excelled in THAT AREA (Athletics), be given some sort of preference or extra points for them excelling above their peers and others who simply participated.????

Remember; the normal recruited athlete, whether they are being recruited by the academy or a traditional school; is NOT the average Varsity Letter player. These are the ones who excelled past their peers. Just like the AP/IP/#1/Valedictorian excelled past their peers. Granted, the average recruited AF/WP/ANA athlete would probably only have made it to a AA or D2 school in the civilian world; but they have still, none the less, excelled past their peers. As such, they too deserve to have some extra consideration. And for what it's worth, I've seen some very highly recruited athletes for the academy, who DID NOT receive the final appointment. Grades, SAT/ACT, CFA, and other reasons. And NO, they didn't get a prep school slot either. I know the coaches at the air force academy. If Troy Calhoun doesn't believe that the individual can make it through the academy; graduate; and become an outstanding officer; he WON'T recruit them. I've seen Troy Calhoun BENCH starting players because of grades; even though they were high enough for NCAA standards. His #1 priority has ALWAYS been producing "OFFICERS",
 
Christcorp said:
The problem I've seen and heard, usually comes from those who didn't receive an appointment or don't feel they are given as good a chance because of athletes. In other words, they don't think athletics should be part of the consideration when giving appointments. But my question back is:

If people agree that the person taking AP or IB classes should be given "Some" preference over those taking regular classes because they've excelled academically; and the #1 class ranked should be given higher consideration because they've excelled over their peers; and the person who was class president, club presidents, CAP, JrROTC, etc... should be given preference points because they excelled in leadership areas over those who simply "Participated"; and all these other areas where an individual "EXCELLED" above their peers......... Then why, with the military being so physically and team oriented, and where athletics has been proven to be a major contribution to the success of a military person as a leader and team member........ Why then shouldn't the person who excelled in THAT AREA (Athletics), be given some sort of preference or extra points for them excelling above their peers and others who simply participated.????
Click to expand...

:thumb: well said
 
We seem to be talking about two different things.

Understanding athletics are important at any of the five academies, and that fitness is factored into candidates schools, we can "zero out" that. Athletics, like academics and leadership, should be considered. It already is. I don't disagree with that.

The question then becomes, does the level of athletics matter? Maybe, maybe not. You say they (larger three academies) benefit from it, but the smaller two academies don't. Not sure how that logic works.

Assuming the larger three academies benefit, they have an incentive to keep it alive and well. The programs are based on the athletes. If they can't play, eventually people realize that and don't go to watch them (the reason no one comes to my hockey games but will pack the house for a Nashville Predators game). If the larger three academies have an incentive to keep competitive programs, they also have an incentive to have good players. Maybe those players aren't the best in the crop to drive a ship, shoot a gun or fly a plane, but they can throw a ball, and they will continue to produce, at some level, a good sporting product. If LITS is a bad leader, poor athlete and par student, what reason is there to fight for him to stay? But if a great football player, in a less than impressive D1 program (that DOES bring in $$) is a bad leader, sub-par student but can still play the game, I can think of one reason to keep him around...

The issues with D1 sports, I think from past or current cadets/midshipmen, is not that athletes should be considered (they absolutely should), its that the programs provide incentives for school leadership to give second thoughts to the performance of students because they're D1 athletes, that a normal student migth not receive. And if we extraporate that out, it puts the normal student at a disadvantage, not because he is less capible, but because he does not provide the same advantage to an academy's public image and $$ as a big star D1 athlete.
 
Christcorp said:
I know the coaches at the air force academy. If Troy Calhoun doesn't believe that the individual can make it through the academy; graduate; and become an outstanding officer; he WON'T recruit them. I've seen Troy Calhoun BENCH starting players because of grades; even though they were high enough for NCAA standards. His #1 priority has ALWAYS been producing "OFFICERS",
Click to expand...

I believe Joe Paterno used to have a pretty good reputation too...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top