Sports should not define Academies

[parentalunit2]

(giving appointments to athletes solely based on their athletic merit, and nothing else)

If you think this is happening, then I would venture to guess that you have not spent much time around academy athletes recently.

 

[kappapa]

If you think this is happening, then I would venture to guess that you have not spent much time around academy athletes recently.

A USAFA Prep school appointee at my school has only taken one AP Class and has no leadership/community service. He got recruited for wrestling, and he told me how the coaches persuaded the admissions committee to give him a slot. Do not be so naive to think it doesn't happen, I have seen it with my own eyes!

 

[kappapa]

This will be my last post on this subject. Kappapa, you sure seem to know what is best for our military and academies when you haven't even started at one yet. It is fine to have opinions, but take a deep breath and step-back.

You are making assumptions about what makes the best officer. Don't you think that someone that is at a very high level of athletics (not varsity high school, but national level) translates pretty well into the grind and mental toughness that a combat arms officer needs? Also, there are many grads that don't do great at an academy academically, but then go on to fantastic military careers. It's not all about stats.

Seeing as how my post is about athletes not actually going active duty, your last point is irrelevant to this topic. This post is about those athletes who scam their way into the academy and out of their commitment. To think that you need to go to an academy and be an officer already to have a valid opinion on what makes a good officer/providing a good military for the citizenry is insulting; it only perpetuates the Good Ole Boy system that emotionally connected alums/sports faculty hold onto. Moreover, you could be a 12 year old or a 92 year old WW2 vet and have the same logical conclusion that emotions and anecdotes do not justify this policy. Referencing the athlete mental toughness/grind is great for Combat arms officers, my point is not about your typical athlete at the academy, but the ones recruited based more on their athletic merits more than anything else.

 

[unkown1961]

"giving appointments to athletes solely based on their athletic merit, and nothing else"
Not solely on athletic merit, but because of it. Athletes get in with lesser standards than the non-athlete applicants. This is true at all schools. The SA requirements are still higher than the typical D1 school, but athletes still get a break - just like they do at Stanford, ND, the Ivies, etc. On an earlier thread, a cadet posted that he knew a fellow cadet with a 25 ACT. When I mentioned that to the cadet we host, he replied that the person must be an athlete (or someone who's dad has pull.
And I wouldn't say that athletes scam their way in to avoid service. They follow the rules (albeit relaxed rules). And the new policy only applies to athletes who actually get signed. All parties are fully aware that if a recruited athlete gets signed, then he's gone. No scamming here.

 

[kappapa]

"giving appointments to athletes solely based on their athletic merit, and nothing else"
No scamming here.

Scamming the taxpayer.

 

[unkown1961]

@kappapa Got it now.

 

[Old Navy BGO]

“On the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds that on other days, on other fields will bear the fruits of victory.” Douglas McArthur

 

[unkown1961]

“On the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds that on other days, on other fields will bear the fruits of victory.” Douglas McArthur

I agree and I don't think people are arguing for getting rid of sports. They're commenting on the change in policy that now allows graduates who got pro to get out of their service requirements.

 

[Jcleppe]

A USAFA Prep school appointee at my school has only taken one AP Class and has no leadership/community service. He got recruited for wrestling, and he told me how the coaches persuaded the admissions committee to give him a slot. Do not be so naive to think it doesn't happen, I have seen it with my own eyes!

So let me get this straight, you flat out chastise someone for using anecdotal comments but it's fine if you do it, just want to understand the rules.

To think that you need to go to an academy and be an officer already to have a valid opinion on what makes a good officer/providing a good military for the citizenry is insulting

Not insulting, just some good advice.

I have to give it to you kid, you have some strong opinions and you seem to like expressing them. My guess is that this forum is not the only place you choose to educate all us neophytes. A little more advice, you may want to slow it down, if by some chance you do make it to the USNA, having a paper trail of your "Essays" may not be something you want everyone to see. Some of those Athletes will be very much your senior and the outcome won't be pleasant.

By all means have opinions, just get a bit more experience in the areas you opine before you try and educate everyone else.

And just a comment about a couple post about the Reserves. Stating that a Reservist deserves no respect because they have not been Active is absurd. While the Army has the highest percentage of Reservist/National Guard that have not been Active Duty, the other services have this option as well. There are many that have full 4 year Scholarships in ROTC that choose to go directly to the Reserves. These athletes are not being relieved of a service obligation, they are simply not being required to serve that obligation on Active Duty.

I would love to hear your wise comments about those cadets that have been given full scholarships sometimes worth well over 200K that have chosen to fulfill their obligation in the Reserves, tell them that they scammed the taxpayer and that they deserve little to no respect.

So yes, give it a few years, finish school, serve along side Active and Reserve soldiers, sailors, and airmen, then your "Essays" may carry more relevance.

 

[USAFA10s]

I don't care about "inspiring" random athletes if they do not meet the high standards the academy demands, no exceptions. Yes, being further educated to serve as an officer is COMPLETELY different from going and playing a pro sport for an individuals own personal ambition. Total false equivalence. No amount of "press" is needed for the academies, those who are naturally drawn to leadership and higher commitments naturally are attracted to the academies.

I agree that there is WAY too much of a focus on success in sports at the academies, however I don't think this particular policy is the problem/even likely to make a difference. In general the athletes of the caliber to make it at the pro level are also excellent cadets/officers and there is nothing wrong with serving in the reserves. As for advertisement, your statement above about press is just wrong. Unless you live in an area with a half decent military presence, knowledge of the academies is pretty low. I hadn't given a thought to a military academy until I was recruited to play tennis, and my high school couldn't remember the last time they had a graduate go to a service academy. In areas like where I grew up, a short bit about and athlete who went to an academy has immense value.


Some of the most together cadets/officers I knew/know were also amazing athletes, including several who competed at the olympics. The things that make great athletes often also make great officers.

The problem is when sacrifices are made when it comes to training/the academic program, and I saw some when I was there. Not every officer needs to be an academic super star, but sports should not be a way of getting out of training, as they often are.

I think the best solution is to make USAFA DIII (as I believe someone suggested) and if I am ever in a position to have input there, it will certainly be a priority. The cost of trying to compete at the DI level is just not worth it.

 

[usna1985]

I have no issue with an "exception" granted to the "once in a generation" athlete. In the last 50 years, USNA can (largely) name those athletes on one hand: Roger Staubach, Phil McConkey, Napoleon McCallum, David Robinson, Bill Hurley (can only speak to USNA grads). Let's face it . . . those folks have done much more as professional athletes and ambassadors/supporters of the USNA and the USN than they would have being career military officers or, in some recent cases, serving their full obligation -- and some of them did serve their full obligations. The time and effort they give to supporting the military (and the impression they make) IMHO more than makes up for the 5 years of service as an officer.

Let's face it . . . was it better for the USNA and USN for David Robinson to have the life/career he had or to have served 5 years as in the CEC and then probably not have had the same career (not to mention that, had he NOT been David R, he would likely have graduated with no service obligation due to his height).

I will grant that it's not always possible upon graduation to know who will make it as a pro and who won't. I have no issue with giving someone a break if they're drafted. BUT, if their professional career peters out, they should have to complete their full military commitment. Not entirely sure how to effectuate this -- for example, what to do with the person who has a couple of years in the pros and then is cut.

Sadly, I think it has to be an individualized determination. I don't like a "blanket" approach that suggests going to a SA and excelling athletically in certain sports means you could get out of your obligation. SAs are 100% funded by the taxpayers with the expectation that one's service obligation is "payment" for the full ride they received. If a kid really wants to be a pro athlete (and is good enough) there are dozens, if not hundreds of civilian colleges that would love to have him/her. If they choose to attend a SA, they should expect to serve their full obligation as an officer.

The default should be fulfilling one's service obligation; the opportunity to go pro before that commitment is completed should be the VERY , VERY rare exception. Just MHO.

 

[parentalunit2]

SAs are 100% funded by the taxpayers.

This is not entirely true. Millions of private dollars pour into the academies every year. USMA's 'Margin of Excellence' programs pulled in quite a bit of alumni dollars. These programs cover experiences that tax dollars do not, in order to provide a more rounded education for cadets. The Kimsey Center was built with Kimsey's donation dollars. And let's not forget that each academy has a private athletic arm that raises funds as well. Alumni demand, and fund, the D1 athletic programs. To the tune of millions each year.

Do not be so naive to think it doesn't happen, I have seen it with my own eyes!

Please forgive me for my naivete. I have only been around the SAs for 32 years now, so obviously I am still learning.

 

[kappapa]

So let me get this straight, you flat out chastise someone for using anecdotal comments but it's fine if you do it, just want to understand the rules.



Not insulting, just some good advice.

I have to give it to you kid, you have some strong opinions and you seem to like expressing them. My guess is that this forum is not the only place you choose to educate all us neophytes. A little more advice, you may want to slow it down, if by some chance you do make it to the USNA, having a paper trail of your "Essays" may not be something you want everyone to see. Some of those Athletes will be very much your senior and the outcome won't be pleasant.

By all means have opinions, just get a bit more experience in the areas you opine before you try and educate everyone else.

And just a comment about a couple post about the Reserves. Stating that a Reservist deserves no respect because they have not been Active is absurd. While the Army has the highest percentage of Reservist/National Guard that have not been Active Duty, the other services have this option as well. There are many that have full 4 year Scholarships in ROTC that choose to go directly to the Reserves. These athletes are not being relieved of a service obligation, they are simply not being required to serve that obligation on Active Duty.

I would love to hear your wise comments about those cadets that have been given full scholarships sometimes worth well over 200K that have chosen to fulfill their obligation in the Reserves, tell them that they scammed the taxpayer and that they deserve little to no respect.

So yes, give it a few years, finish school, serve along side Active and Reserve soldiers, sailors, and airmen, then your "Essays" may carry more relevance.

Interesting, I don't recall ever saying that Reservists deserve less respect? I simply stated that the taxpayer gets more bang for their buck when they are active duty, or is that somehow emotionally incandescent?
I also find it interesting that you think that my personal opinions might bring out the spite of my possible future seniors or other officials... I would hope they are not vindictive over disagreement in opinions but who knows?
I used the kid from my school as direct evidence about how some athletes get in without fulfilling many requirements, whereas others were using anecdotal evidence to claim that athletes going out in the pro world were somehow beneficial to the academies because... press and inspiration? The entire reservist tirade you are on is not sound whatsoever. If you want to claim that reservists are just as essential in military readiness and daily functions, that's your axe to grind. Reservists deserve the same amount of respect, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about day to day use that the taxpayer/citizen benefits from, and that is obviously not equal to active duty officers.

Also where are you getting this condescension from? Or are you just triggered that I called out the Collegiate sports obsession problem America currently has?

 

[CA_USNA_Dad]

I used the kid from my school as direct evidence about how some athletes get in without fulfilling many requirements

kappapa, SAs, like many top schools, are looking for people who excel in variety of ways, some academically, some athletically, some as leaders, some as some combination of these. Those who are truly excellent in athletics with high likelihood of going pro is few and far in between and these exceptional athletes are not going to SAs for a free education. These exceptional athletes can probably get a full athletic scholarship at a normal college. Of all the recruited athletes at SAs 99% will fulfill their service. Those rare athletes who do get the exemption will end up bringing more value to the military overall than the other 99%. That's the reason that exemption are granted.

Have you received your appointment already? You sound like a person who is angry because you perceive that athletes are getting a "free admission" to SA and, as a result, keeping you out.

 

[kappapa]

kappapa, SAs, like many top schools, are looking for people who excel in variety of ways, some academically, some athletically, some as leaders, some as some combination of these. Those who are truly excellent in athletics with high likelihood of going pro is few and far in between and these exceptional athletes are not going to SAs for a free education. These exceptional athletes can probably get a full athletic scholarship at a normal college. Of all the recruited athletes at SAs 99% will fulfill their service. Those rare athletes who do get the exemption will end up bringing more value to the military overall than the other 99%. That's the reason that exemption are granted.

Have you received your appointment already? You sound like a person who is angry because you perceive that athletes are getting a "free admission" to SA and, as a result, keeping you out.

I am CPR for Navy, received an appointment to USMMA, and waiting for USAFA. You are basing your entire argument on emotional connection to the echo chamber that thinks recruiting athletes somehow is a good thing. I am not going to repeat this point, because you are just going to shill for athletes. I am not mad at the athletes, I am mad at the Good Old Boy system that @unknown1961 pointed out clearly exists that makes a concerted effort to maintain a "competitive" athletic program solely to consolidate their pride-fullness. "Those rare athletes who do get the exemption will end up bringing more value to the military overall than the other 99%", I can't believe you just said that. This is madness. It seems that someone has a recruited athlete in their family, eh? Full disclosure?

 

[kappapa]

Some of the most together cadets/officers I knew/know were also amazing athletes, including several who competed at the olympics. The things that make great athletes often also make great officers.

The problem is when sacrifices are made when it comes to training/the academic program, and I saw some when I was there. Not every officer needs to be an academic super star, but sports should not be a way of getting out of training, as they often are.

I think the best solution is to make USAFA DIII (as I believe someone suggested) and if I am ever in a position to have input there, it will certainly be a priority. The cost of trying to compete at the DI level is just not worth it.

I completely agree. My problem, as I have stated multiple times, is not with athletes but rather the Sports obsessed hacks. You can't rag on athletes because everyone at the academy is an athlete (like previously stated, I am a 3 sport athlete) and I know multiple SA appointees who are committed to play a D1 sport at the academies, but they also do not lack academic fortitude or other bedrock characteristics that define officer-ship. I think making the academies D3 is great common ground.

 

[CA_USNA_Dad]

I am CPR for Navy, received an appointment to USMMA, and waiting for USAFA. You are basing your entire argument on emotional connection to the echo chamber that thinks recruiting athletes somehow is a good thing. I am not going to repeat this point, because you are just going to shill for athletes. I am not mad at the athletes, I am mad at the Good Old Boy system that @unknown1961 pointed out clearly exists that makes a concerted effort to maintain a "competitive" athletic program solely to consolidate their pride-fullness. "Those rare athletes who do get the exemption will end up bringing more value to the military overall than the other 99%", I can't believe you just said that. This is madness. It seems that someone has a recruited athlete in their family, eh? Full disclosure?

Yes, my DD is a recruited athlete. She will not be one of those exempted super-athletes. There is 99.99% chance that she will serve for minimum of 5 years after her time at USNA. Yes, she is a recruited athlete but she also has a 4.0 unweighted GPA from a top 100 high school in the country (according to the US News). Just because she is a recruited athlete, you somehow seem to think that she is less qualified to become naval officer than you.

I do not understand why you think my position is "madness." If a midshipmen was somehow able to win the Nobel and be in a position to help the navy in some greater capacity other than as an officer, you don't think an exception would be made? Every midshipmen know that "needs of the navy" is a priority. If you don't understand this concept, maybe you're better off not going to the USNA.

 

[eljay60]

My 2 cents. Sports is entertainment. Should the SAs excuse a gifted drama student from service because he might be the next Hollywood star? Should they excuse a brilliant engineer because she has actionable ideas more suited to the civilian world? Then why make an exception for sports? Every candidate has sports experience; I think over 95% have a varsity letter. Love football? Try out when you get there. For the SAs, in particular, 'recruiting' for sports is nonsensical. They don't need alumni donations, they don't need the publicity (the Army-Navy football game is broadcast every year regardless of the quality of the teams), and a candidate who is marginally qualified but good at a marquee sport is taking the place of a better rounded candidate.

 

[usna1985]

This is not entirely true. Millions of private dollars pour into the academies every year. USMA's 'Margin of Excellence' programs pulled in quite a bit of alumni dollars. These programs cover experiences that tax dollars do not, in order to provide a more rounded education for cadets

I'm intimately familiar with private funding for the SAs. However, the fact is that, if private funding didn't exist -- and for many years it did not -- the SAs would still continue on solely with public funding. This cannot be said of most colleges/universities, where tuition is an important part of funding.

Alumni clearly help support the D1 athletic programs. That doesn't change the fact that the SAs are taxpayer-funded schools. The return for having one's education funded entirely by the taxpayer (private funding enhances that education, doesn't pay for it) is a service obligation. If athletes can have an exception, what about someone who is a great singer? Or a great actor? Or musician? Once one starts making blanket exceptions, the premise of the SAs is undercut.

That said, if there is the once-in-a-generation athlete (or musician), then it probably makes sense for them to go into that field. If you're just a decent player . . . well, you could have gone to Alabama and, upon graduation (or not), done anything you wanted. It's a personal choice to attend a SA, with all the obligations that come with that choice.

 

[CA_USNA_Dad]

and a candidate who is marginally qualified but good at a marquee sport is taking the place of a better rounded candidate.

Again, if a midshipmen is able to contribute in ways other then being on a ship or flying a plane (or whatever the service line) that is more valuable TO the Navy then they allow that. That is the reason that a handful of mids go off to medical school so that they can put in 12 years afterwards as a doctor.

As to your statement that "a candidate who is marginally qualified is taking the place of better rounded candidate," do you have any stats to support that the Navy as a whole has been disadvantaged by these midshipmen going into service in place of someone who is a well rounded non-athlete? We all have anecdotal stories about how someone who we thought was super qualified but did not get in. But do you have overall stats? I do not, but I'm sure that the SAs and the DoD do and I would like to think that if the quality of the officers are being degraded by the recruited athletes then something would have been done.