(07-13-2016 08:41 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  It will be on a case by case basis still and need a secure pro sports contract, but due to Navy's Keenan Reynolds, this will open up some more recruiting options for the service academies.

http://m.gazette.com/seismic-policy-shift-frees-air-force-academy-grads-to-pursue-pro-sports-without-2-year-commitment/article/1580109

This will open up some recruiting options for them not only for football but also for basketball and baseball.

(07-13-2016 12:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  What about the case of someone who never dreamed of being a professional athlete, and had the opportunity present itself they never envisioned? Why should the be barred. Now I would agree they should still honor the commitment, but if the commitment is delayed to allow them a chance to paly pro sports (a chance that may not be there after the commitment) I see no problem with it. Same thing if they were up for something like a Rhodes Scholarship, I think allowing them to delay their commitment to pursue something unexpectedly being presented, allows the flexibility to get the most qualified individuals they can, men and women who previously would never have attended because they did not want to be tied up for the next nine years in the event an unexpected opportunity arose.

(07-13-2016 08:52 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  vandiver,

I respectfully disagree.

Major college football can be used as marketing for the Navel Academy. Kids who grow up following Navy football may aspire to join the academy, who otherwise would not have thought twice about it. And if not the academy, then the reserves or the main service.

I think Navy (and Army, and Air Force) having nationally ranked football teams can only be a good thing, for college football, the academies, the morale of the armed service men and women, and the country.

To gain that by allowing, say, a dozen recruits to bow out of their commitment each year, is not an unacceptable cost, in my opinion.

(07-13-2016 12:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  What about the case of someone who never dreamed of being a professional athlete, and had the opportunity present itself they never envisioned? Why should the be barred. Now I would agree they should still honor the commitment, but if the commitment is delayed to allow them a chance to paly pro sports (a chance that may not be there after the commitment) I see no problem with it. Same thing if they were up for something like a Rhodes Scholarship, I think allowing them to delay their commitment to pursue something unexpectedly being presented, allows the flexibility to get the most qualified individuals they can, men and women who previously would never have attended because they did not want to be tied up for the next nine years in the event an unexpected opportunity arose.

Quote:What about the case of someone who never dreamed of being a professional athlete, and had the opportunity present itself they never envisioned?

(07-14-2016 07:36 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  Is this really a change? The military has always had a policy of allowing personnel out of their contracts for financial reasons. The example most cited is inheriting a business. David Robinson graduated from Navy in '87 and was the #1 pick in the '89 draft. His first contract was $26 million over 8 years. It was widely believed that he could have gotten out of the 2 year commitment. He chose to honor his commitment and serve the 2 years.

(07-14-2016 07:52 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  vandiver,

Of course, you're entitled to an opinion (even a rigid one). I think you at least understand the logic I'm attempting to use, even if you reject it on principle.

I would just say, so then have 1212 new members in the class. Let football be special ... because it's so highly visible and Navy actually has a great thing going with its program. Let that program take the next step. Perhaps even get an ACC invite in football, to offset ND non-football?

(07-14-2016 07:52 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  vandiver,

Of course, you're entitled to an opinion (even a rigid one). I think you at least understand the logic I'm attempting to use, even if you reject it on principle.

I would just say, so then have 1212 new members in the class. Let football be special ... because it's so highly visible and Navy actually has a great thing going with its program. Let that program take the next step. Perhaps even get an ACC invite in football, to offset ND non-football?

(07-14-2016 09:08 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 07:52 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  vandiver,

Of course, you're entitled to an opinion (even a rigid one). I think you at least understand the logic I'm attempting to use, even if you reject it on principle.

I would just say, so then have 1212 new members in the class. Let football be special ... because it's so highly visible and Navy actually has a great thing going with its program. Let that program take the next step. Perhaps even get an ACC invite in football, to offset ND non-football?

Just...No. Everyone seems to think that Navy in a P5 league would be a great thing, but it wouldn't. Being highly visible doesn't matter when you have constrained enrollment. Trying to get CFB players that can survive a P5 schedule could lead to a compromise of the academic and military rigors that are intrinsic of Academy life. Some would argue that such an erosion has already occurred.

I know many find my position is rigid but this is one area where I'm going to channel my inner TerryD; I would have preferred that Navy remain independent, but more than anything I don't want any service academy to become a football program with a school attached to it. Doing so would IMO make the military component no different than an ROTC program.

At that point, why bother with SA's anymore? Notre Dame is only surpassed by USNA in terms of putting officers in the fleet. There isn't a noticeable difference in the quality of officer nor do you have academy grads staying in the service longer. A ROTC grad is also cheaper for the taxpayer. In a era where people are looking to enact major cuts in the military, having a CFB that ties to emulate minor P5 programs threatens the mission, relevance and ultimately, existence.

(07-13-2016 01:00 PM)NYCTUFan Wrote:  Just as a frame of reference I have a cousin who played football at West Point, he choose West Point over a number of G5 and P5 programs. For me some things are bigger than winning and losing sporting events, it’s only my opinion but I tend to side with these comments:

There will inevitably be pushback from those who don't feel time spent in the reserves is an adequate return on investment for putting a cadet through the taxpayer-funded academy, where an education is valued around $400,000.

"(Service academies) exist to instill young men and women with a mindset of selfless service to the country," wrote retired Army Lt. Tom Slear in a Washington Post editorial last month. "There is no other justification for the significant public expense that supports them.

"Professional football, on the other hand, is about service to oneself. It has its place, but not for academy graduates who haven't fulfilled their obligations to their fellow citizens. Each time one of them leaves early, the ethos diminishes a bit, and the taxpayers are cheated."

(07-14-2016 09:32 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Well, if people want to start cutting the academies, they should start with the branch that should never have been elevated to equal status with the Army and the Navy.