The Military Prep School Scam

[FlyBoy1993]

Depends on your definition of dominating (I am just pointing out athletic accomplishments)

Navy football has been pretty successful last several years
Within last 10 years, Navy men's lacrosse made it to the NCAA final

Army Lacrosse qualified for NCAA tournments a few times in last 10 years.

Air Force was football program was good.

Army has won one Bowl since 1985.
That was the last year Napolean McCallum played for Navy, their most recent College Football HoF inductee. There was one Middie inductee from the 70's.
Navy has won 1 of its last 6 bowl games, none of which were major bowls.

Air Force has 3 bowl wins( 4 losses) and 6 All Americans since 2000.

Have you seen any of the SA teams making noise in March basketball tournies?

Army baseball made news because they scrimmaged the Yankees.

I don't say that to disparage the athletic programs of the academies. They are competing with major disadvantages with their selective enrollment, even if they have been "loosened" like the author suggests.

I respect the heck out of those athletes for getting on the playing field and making it happen, while also fulfilling their other commitments. The fact remains, Doc Blanchard and Roger Staubach aren't walking through those doors for the Academy sports teams any time soon. They're hardly stockpiling talent at the expense of their standards.

If the Academies need to get out of DI athletics, then lets have THAT discussion.

 

[iceman2018]

When another four degree in my squadron from the prep school is a recruited football athlete from the prep school is on Academic Probation and struggling through Calculus 1, plus has gotten in trouble for being over the fence at USAFA, and has gotten an alcohol hit at the Prep School.... well, I don't think he's "highly qualified." His other buddy on the football team chose to leave after the first semester because he had I think a 1.3ish GPA.

I also spoke with a preppy who is now a three degree, I hope I get his numbers right. He said of the 250 or so that started at the Prep School, 200 entered USAFA. 3 Semesters into USAFA, there were 80 left. The overall graduation rate is about 80%, depending on where you get your numbers.

The Academy can't make you an "officer of character" if you don't graduate...

Getting an appointment is one thing. Graduating and commisioning to be an officer is another. Just because you spent a year to be taught how to study and be prepared for the academy doesn't necessarily guarantee anything. There have been notable prep school graduates in the past and it serves a purpose of preparing athletes and prior active for the rigors of the academy but not to cuddle reapplicants that did not make the cut while qualified applicants get QNS.

 

[Christcorp]

.......If the Academies need to get out of DI athletics, then lets have THAT discussion.

The problem with with discussions like this, are "stereotypes" and 'Generalizations". The truth is: The overwhelming majority of recruited athletes; we'll use football because it's the largest recruitment and most profitable; the majority of those recruited athletes are direct entries and very highly qualified applicants. Of approximately 50-60 NEW freshman C4C football players, the vast majority did not come from the academy. The vast majority had the high GPA, high ACT/SAT, got their nominations, etc... just like everyone else applying to the academy did.

The same goes with the other sports. While this forum is not indicative of all applicants, there are so many applicants/appointees on this forum with really high scores, who happen to also be recruited athletes. This is NOT UNCOMMON.

So yes, there are some that are given special treatment in receiving a prep and/or academy appointment. But that isn't the majority. As for the D1 topic, the military academies are one of the FEW UNIVERSITIES that have basically ALL available sports. Air Force has 27 sports. And contrary to popular belief, it isn't tax payer dollars that's paying for a lot of the athletics. It's football and basketball. it's ticket sales, bowl games, conference money (For air force), etc... This keeps the other 26 sports afloat. Dropping below D1-A, would drastically reduce funds for many of the other student athletes. And before anyone gets into the: "The academies are here to train officers, not develop athletes"; that's a crock of shiite and we all know it. The same reason the academies like High School Varsity Athletes; (NO, IT'S NOT TO DEVELOP THEM INTO D1 ATHLETES), it's because the military is the "Ultimate TEAM" environment. Where team work, working towards common goals, etc... are intrinsic in an athlete, so does competitive athletics develop cadets. Same with drum and bugle, honor guard, jump team, AND all the spectators and fans of those activities. Including the student body. To eliminate such activities and believe that you will have a BETTER or more EFFICIENT school because of emphasis on academics, is totally naive. College athletics is a lot more important to a university than many people realize. Unfortunately, most people simply look at metrics, statistics, numbers, etc... and think they have the answer. That's GREAT in academia, but history has shown that it is not necessarily true in human nature. That's why those who CAN..... DO, and those who CAN'T...... Teach. 2 different worlds.

But I agree that there is a fine line that has been crossed too often whereby an athlete or minority has been given TOO MUCH PREFERENCE in being accepted to the academy. Especially when there are PLENTY of highly qualified athletes and minorities who are making it to the academy on their own. Prior to the last couple years, when a lot of appointments and LOA's were given prior to Thanksgiving, there was lots of proof of recruited athletes with 3.9-4.0gpa, 30+ACT, Class Rank Top-10, etc... receiving appointments. And for what it's worth, there are a good share of IC athlete graduates from the academy who got accepted to and attended/ing grad school.

 

[Luigi59]

The truth is: The overwhelming majority of recruited athletes; we'll use football because it's the largest recruitment and most profitable; the majority of those recruited athletes are direct entries and very highly qualified applicants.

Check your data again.

According to the article, 66% of the football players attended the prep school.

 

[Luigi59]

As for the D1 topic, the military academies are one of the FEW UNIVERSITIES that have basically ALL available sports. Air Force has 27 sports. And contrary to popular belief, it isn't tax payer dollars that's paying for a lot of the athletics. It's football and basketball. it's ticket sales, bowl games, conference money (For air force), etc... This keeps the other 26 sports afloat. Dropping below D1-A, would drastically reduce funds for many of the other student athletes.

USCGA has 23 intercollegiate sports team, 20 at the D3 level. Rifle, pistol,and sailing are the only D1 sports.

They seem to do fine without D1 and the problems that come along with it.

And before anyone gets into the: "The academies are here to train officers, not develop athletes"; that's a crock of shiite and we all know it. The same reason the academies like High School Varsity Athletes; (NO, IT'S NOT TO DEVELOP THEM INTO D1 ATHLETES), it's because the military is the "Ultimate TEAM" environment. Where team work, working towards common goals, etc... are intrinsic in an athlete, so does competitive athletics develop cadets. Same with drum and bugle, honor guard, jump team, AND all the spectators and fans of those activities. Including the student body. To eliminate such activities and believe that you will have a BETTER or more EFFICIENT school because of emphasis on academics, is totally naive. College athletics is a lot more important to a university than many people realize.

All of those things can be accomplished at the D3 level.

 

[Christcorp]

Check your data again.

According to the article, 66% of the football players attended the prep school.

I have first hand experience with it. In 2008, there were approximately 60 recruited football players coming into the air force academy, and the vast majority were not from the prep school. I don't believe that all of a sudden 2/3 of the team came from the prep school.

I will concede that not all 60 players stay all 4 years. By the time the senior class is in session, only about 20 of the original 60 are still on the team. And it's possible that 13-14 of those might be originally prep schoolers. But that shows that they were able to handle the academics and such, so there isn't a problem. But from the incoming class, it's definitely no where near 66%

 

[BigBear]

As someone said earlier, the failure rate at the academy is the most telling statistic. I do not have exact figures for this, but my class's prepsters have already lost more than 30%. Everyone who has attended a service academy in the last decade knows there are kids there who would not have gotten in had they not been recruited for sports or (gasp) minorities - the other "group" that recieves a bulk of slots at the prep school. Many of these kids struggle because for most people, a year of underwhelming prep will not make up for a lifetime of underachieving education.

The bigger question is whether this is really a problem or not. Is it better to have a decent football team to bring in money to pay for other sports, many of which are played by kids who did not need USMAPS to get in? Is it worth it to meet certain levels for minorities? If so, then the prep schools are doing their jobs. If not, it is time to change the admissions process at the academy and by extension, the prep school.

 

[Christcorp]

USCGA has 23 intercollegiate sports team, 20 at the D3 level. Rifle, pistol,and sailing are the only D1 sports.

They seem to do fine without D1 and the problems that come along with it.



All of those things can be accomplished at the D3 level.

I disagree. D3 doesn't get anywhere near the money that D1 gets. Just being in a conference, nothing else, air force get's around $1.5 Million. We then get additional money for certain separate tv deals; bowl games; etc... It's not uncommon to get $2-$3+ million a year. I don't think you're going to get that in D-III ball.

 

[Christcorp]

Let me clarify something. When I said that not all of the 60 recruited football players stayed........ I MEANT stayed on the team. For the most part, they stayed at the academy; finished successfully; and went on to become fine commissioned officers. Quite a few even went on to grad school. The point is; the IC/Athletic Department at air force isn't made up of a bunch of DUMB JOCKS who have no business being at the academy. Maybe at some of the other academies, but not at air force. Are there some?..... Yes. But that's not the majority.

 

[Packer]

And before anyone gets into the: "The academies are here to train officers, not develop athletes"; that's a crock of shiite and we all know it. The same reason the academies like High School Varsity Athletes; (NO, IT'S NOT TO DEVELOP THEM INTO D1 ATHLETES), it's because the military is the "Ultimate TEAM" environment. Where team work, working towards common goals, etc... are intrinsic in an athlete, so does competitive athletics develop cadets. Same with drum and bugle, honor guard, jump team, AND all the spectators and fans of those activities. Including the student body. To eliminate such activities and believe that you will have a BETTER or more EFFICIENT school because of emphasis on academics, is totally naive.

I am under the impression that very few ROTC cadets are division I athletes. How is it that they go on to be effective leaders in the "ULTIMATE TEAM" environment?

 

[Packer]

I disagree. D3 doesn't get anywhere near the money that D1 gets. Just being in a conference, nothing else, air force get's around $1.5 Million. We then get additional money for certain separate tv deals; bowl games; etc... It's not uncommon to get $2-$3+ million a year. I don't think you're going to get that in D-III ball.

The USCGA does fine at producing great officers. Isn't that what the academies are supposed to do?

 

[Christcorp]

I am under the impression that very few ROTC cadets are division I athletes. How is it that they go on to be effective leaders in the "ULTIMATE TEAM" environment?

The rebuttal wasn't D-I vs D-III. The rebuttal was because there are some people, and MANY UNIVERSITIES who have no respect for athletics AT ALL. They think the entire athletic department should be closed. Simply saying SPORTS/ATHLETICS is very important. Especially at the academies and developing officers. Doesn't matter if it's D1 or DIII.

As for your 2nd post. The coast guard doesn't even come close to the same number of cadets as the air force, army, and navy. There is no way the Bigger-3 can live on the budget of the coast guard. Again; it wasn't a D1 vs DIII as for quality. My response on this part, was that there is no way DIII can produce the type of money that D1 pays us; which in turn, goes to the other 26 sports at the academy. When the coast guard has about 20% as many students and such as the Bigger-3, it's a little easier to work with less money.

 

[raimius]

I disagree. D3 doesn't get anywhere near the money that D1 gets. Just being in a conference, nothing else, air force get's around $1.5 Million. We then get additional money for certain separate tv deals; bowl games; etc... It's not uncommon to get $2-$3+ million a year. I don't think you're going to get that in D-III ball.

That's all well and good. I can certainly say I enjoyed having access to nice gym facilities...even though the main cadet weight room was one of 3, and 2 were reserved for ICs. That didn't sit well with some of the NARPs.

The question is, is it worth having a good football team with great football facilities if the standards for academics are marginally lower for recruited athletes? This of course also raises the questions of "are the standards lower and if so, by how much?" It's not likely to be a debate "solved" anytime soon!

The much more annoying thing to me was recruited athletes who didn't know what they were getting into and/or "came to the academy to play ____."

 

[Packer]

Simply saying SPORTS/ATHLETICS is very important. Especially at the academies and developing officers. Doesn't matter if it's D1 or DIII.

As for your 2nd post. The coast guard doesn't even come close to the same number of cadets as the air force, army, and navy. There is no way the Bigger-3 can live on the budget of the coast guard. Again; it wasn't a D1 vs DIII as for quality. My response on this part, was that there is no way DIII can produce the type of money that D1 pays us; which in turn, goes to the other 26 sports at the academy. When the coast guard has about 20% as many students and such as the Bigger-3, it's a little easier to work with less money.

I agree that sports and athletics are important but how is it that ROTC does so well at producing officers (unless you think they don't)?

USCGA doesn't generate as much per capita but I don't believe they spend as much either but they still produce fine officers.

It is really difficult to get clear numbers that demonstrate that D1 athletics are a net positive for the academies from a financial perspective.

I think what many question is whether or not the dollars and prestige of D1 sports causes the academies to lose perspective of what is really important. There are plenty of examples of this happening in civilian schools so it is a legit concern. Whether or not it is founded, I don't know.

 

[BigBear]

Let me clarify something. When I said that not all of the 60 recruited football players stayed........ I MEANT stayed on the team. For the most part, they stayed at the academy; finished successfully; and went on to become fine commissioned officers. Quite a few even went on to grad school. The point is; the IC/Athletic Department at air force isn't made up of a bunch of DUMB JOCKS who have no business being at the academy. Maybe at some of the other academies, but not at air force. Are there some?..... Yes. But that's not the majority.

I find this hard to believe. Do you have any stats to back that up?

 

[iceman2018]

There are a number of prep school attendees who have just received appointments but weren't recruited athletes and many still awaiting theirs. I'm surprised they haven't chimed in to debunk this stereotype. Besides being taught military drill, and a refresher on academics, I'm curious about what's their opinion on why they should they be given an appointment over a fully qualified 1st time applicant that gets a TWE that says; "you're qualified but we don't have a slot for you".

 

[AcademyFriend1]

I've read a fair amount of Nocera's other columns -- his mission is to take down the NCAA, an organization that he clearly loathes. I guess this is a spin-off.

The column has garnered a fair amount of interest -- 270 comments, which is a lot for a NYT column. I do wonder if this article will jumpstart any sort of Congressional scrutiny -- with the sequester, the idea that the prep schools have a major role in redshirting athletes may be one of those things that catches the public's interest and anger.

Lastly, the columnist happens to link right here to Service Academy Forums! It is in the section about the student who was asked to pay back his Foundation money -- you'll see a hypertext link and if you click on it, it takes you to a 2010 thread. (I'm not sure how the Nocera has made the leap that the poster who started the thread was an athlete, though -- he might have made a non-supported inferential leap on that one.)

 

[FlyBoy1993]

There are a number of prep school attendees who have just received appointments but weren't recruited athletes and many still awaiting theirs. I'm surprised they haven't chimed in to debunk this stereotype. Besides being taught military drill, and a refresher on academics, I'm curious about what's their opinion on why they should they be given an appointment over a fully qualified 1st time applicant that gets a TWE that says; "you're qualified but we don't have a slot for you".

Speaking for my DS, he was that candidate that was QNS and received the TWE last year. He also received a slightly larger brown envelope from AoG offering him a sponsored prep opportunity- with some risk attached.

He turned down a full ride at a SMC in Texas( you do the math) to have a shot at earning his appointment to USMA. That is what he wanted and he was willing to work for it, even for that extra year. When you were 18 did you ever call someone and say, "Thanks, but no thanks!" to $80k+ in schollies? Me neither, but he did.

At no time has he ever felt inadequate, weak as a candidate, or otherwise less qualified than any other candidate. Word on the street was that the primary in our district was a Nat'l Merit Scholar among other things. That's neither here nor there, but folks earned appointments for the Class of 2016 due to geography that had weaker resumes. I am not complaining, but stating a fact.

His resolve never wavered and he has continued to work his ( rear) off to improve himself in this prep year. If the selection board wanted to see more, he was determined to give them that. He absolutely belongs in the Class of 2017, and West Point thinks so as well.

 

[iceman2018]

" folks earned appointments for the Class of 2016 due to geography that had weaker resumes. I am not complaining, but stating a fact.

Can you cite proof to this?

 

[FlyBoy1993]

Can you cite proof to this?

Without getting too personal, no. I have proof, through the process of elimination. Unless the averages dramatically increased from previous classes, his academics were well above average. His ECs were excellent in multiple fields. He worked about 15 hours/ wk. His community service hours for all 4 years of school were insane. His resume was beyond solid.

Obviously SOMETHING was there, or he would not have received the AoG sponsorship or other ROTC and state schollies.

Is there a desire to discredit prepsters, or what? If the program did not work, why does it exist?

Are there stats regarding non-athletic prepsters?

Do you feel he is unworthy of the appointment?