It will be on a case by case basis still and need a secure 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-shif...le/1580109

Not only this will help for football, but at for the Air Force it will help in recruiting for basketball and baseball. It could make them more competitive in the MW conference.

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."

this will turn out to be a disaster

they are now going to end up with athlete students that have no intention of fulfilling their service and when those morons are not drafted they will be suing to get out of their service commitment for all types of stupid reasons

it will probably get as bad as some moron telling everyone they did not go to the Service Academies to "military" they went there to play sports

the athlete student is already killing college sports and needs to be eliminated from college sports as much as possible and this is not a positive move in that direction at all

it will also almost certainly end up harming the Academies as well when they get athlete students in there that find they cannot even cut it for the 4 years in the Academy to see if they can get drafted and they drop out or transfer and they end up with huge holes in their program that cannot be filled because of recruiting limits and because of Service Academy yearly enrollment limits

there are already many that go to the Academies that are not playing sports that decide it is not for them and leave and when you combine that with the sports rigors and the lack of desire to really be an Academy graduate it will only hit the sports harder

(07-13-2016 12:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  this will turn out to be a disaster

they are now going to end up with athlete students that have no intention of fulfilling their service and when those morons are not drafted they will be suing to get out of their service commitment for all types of stupid reasons

it will probably get as bad as some moron telling everyone they did not go to the Service Academies to "military" they went there to play sports

the athlete student is already killing college sports and needs to be eliminated from college sports as much as possible and this is not a positive move in that direction at all

it will also almost certainly end up harming the Academies as well when they get athlete students in there that find they cannot even cut it for the 4 years in the Academy to see if they can get drafted and they drop out or transfer and they end up with huge holes in their program that cannot be filled because of recruiting limits and because of Service Academy yearly enrollment limits

there are already many that go to the Academies that are not playing sports that decide it is not for them and leave and when you combine that with the sports rigors and the lack of desire to really be an Academy graduate it will only hit the sports harder

Its student athlete, not athlete student lmao!

I'm trying to argue how asinine this is in the main board but people don't seem to understand how this policy change undermines the mission of the service academies.

Agree with Lt. Slear and all the others that this is a bad idea. But it's just one more bad idea in a long line of bad ideas that the military has implemented in the past 40-50 years, all in an attempt to make military-culture as similar as possible to civilian-culture.

(07-14-2016 07:06 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I'm trying to argue how asinine this is in the main board but people don't seem to understand how this policy change undermines the mission of the service academies.

I agree. The military academies have a mission. I don't think the new rules enhance the mission.

The rule may help Army recruit better. It may help Navy win a few more games because they can get better skill positions. Air Force may have a better basketball team.

First of all, I appreciate all the comments from the people who are being vocal about being against this. Your comments have made me respect the academies more than I already did, and I see how this looks like it could undermine the mission of the academies.

That said, is there a chance that this could be filed under marketing? Maybe more competitive sports teams will increase the profile of the academies enough where the benefits (an increased applicant pool) outweigh the costs (a handful of guys it serving their time)? Just a thought.

Also, is there a chance this change could lead to Navy being an all-sports AAC member?

(07-13-2016 05:06 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 12:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  this will turn out to be a disaster

they are now going to end up with athlete students that have no intention of fulfilling their service and when those morons are not drafted they will be suing to get out of their service commitment for all types of stupid reasons

it will probably get as bad as some moron telling everyone they did not go to the Service Academies to "military" they went there to play sports

the athlete student is already killing college sports and needs to be eliminated from college sports as much as possible and this is not a positive move in that direction at all

it will also almost certainly end up harming the Academies as well when they get athlete students in there that find they cannot even cut it for the 4 years in the Academy to see if they can get drafted and they drop out or transfer and they end up with huge holes in their program that cannot be filled because of recruiting limits and because of Service Academy yearly enrollment limits

there are already many that go to the Academies that are not playing sports that decide it is not for them and leave and when you combine that with the sports rigors and the lack of desire to really be an Academy graduate it will only hit the sports harder

Its student athlete, not athlete student lmao!

Is it really? How naive can you be? Athlete-Student is far more appropriate.

Just because you are adept athletically shouldn't place you on a track for instant REMF status. A blatant double standard based solely on athletic ability shouldn't be applied while others are compelled to lay down their lives.

(07-14-2016 04:50 PM)Chappy Wrote:  Also, is there a chance this change could lead to Navy being an all-sports AAC member?

No, there isn't. You wouldn't really want us and it would be a detriment to what the AAC is trying to do monetarily. Navy only puts resources behind football because it bankrolls the entire athletic department. Being in the Patriot League for Olympic sports puts Navy at a competitive and financial level that is equitable with the other members.

(07-14-2016 04:50 PM)Chappy Wrote:  First of all, I appreciate all the comments from the people who are being vocal about being against this. Your comments have made me respect the academies more than I already did, and I see how this looks like it could undermine the mission of the academies.

That said, is there a chance that this could be filed under marketing? Maybe more competitive sports teams will increase the profile of the academies enough where the benefits (an increased applicant pool) outweigh the costs (a handful of guys it serving their time)? Just a thought.

Also, is there a chance this change could lead to Navy being an all-sports AAC member?

FWIW, when I was applying to USNA I remember specifically being told repeatedly a story similar to:

Quote:Do not to come here if you want to be an engineer, or a doctor, or a lawyer, or whatever. The purpose of this place is to develop leaders who will then lead men and women in combat. The Navy has plenty of money and can hire lawyers from the best law schools. This place is for developing combat leaders.

I contend that the Navy has plenty of money for marketing and the story loses some luster when the service component is removed.

Regarding all-sports AAC member, I highly doubt it. Navy is a good fit for the Patriot League for everything outside of football.

(07-14-2016 04:50 PM)Chappy Wrote:  First of all, I appreciate all the comments from the people who are being vocal about being against this. Your comments have made me respect the academies more than I already did, and I see how this looks like it could undermine the mission of the academies.

That said, is there a chance that this could be filed under marketing? Maybe more competitive sports teams will increase the profile of the academies enough where the benefits (an increased applicant pool) outweigh the costs (a handful of guys it serving their time)? Just a thought.

Also, is there a chance this change could lead to Navy being an all-sports AAC member?

You make a very fair point when bringing up marketing, but the same way Princeton, Harvard and Yale's names speak for themselves, it's the same with the academies.

Because of my family connection to West Point I keep an eye on them, but I will admit I don’t follow the USNA or AFA nearly as closely (with the exception of Navy’s football program).

West Point (and I’m guess it’s the same for Navy and AF) doesn’t need help in recruiting top quality applicants. Their latest class stats are below:

Applicants Filed: 13,827 (That’s a steady increase from 10,000 in 2012)
Admitted: 1,257 (9%)
Mean SAT Score for Applicants: Reading 627, Math 645, Writing 608.
1157 of the admitted were varsity athletes, 1087 were letter winners, and 771 were team captains.
221 were class or student body presidents.

Cadets peruse bachelor’s degrees that many say are on par with the Ivy’s. The academies are about creating leaders, not pro athletes and the kids who attend should know that.

(07-15-2016 08:43 AM)wave97 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 05:06 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 12:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  this will turn out to be a disaster

they are now going to end up with athlete students that have no intention of fulfilling their service and when those morons are not drafted they will be suing to get out of their service commitment for all types of stupid reasons

it will probably get as bad as some moron telling everyone they did not go to the Service Academies to "military" they went there to play sports

the athlete student is already killing college sports and needs to be eliminated from college sports as much as possible and this is not a positive move in that direction at all

it will also almost certainly end up harming the Academies as well when they get athlete students in there that find they cannot even cut it for the 4 years in the Academy to see if they can get drafted and they drop out or transfer and they end up with huge holes in their program that cannot be filled because of recruiting limits and because of Service Academy yearly enrollment limits

there are already many that go to the Academies that are not playing sports that decide it is not for them and leave and when you combine that with the sports rigors and the lack of desire to really be an Academy graduate it will only hit the sports harder

Its student athlete, not athlete student lmao!

Is it really? How naive can you be? Athlete-Student is far more appropriate.

No it's student athlete do some research. I thought Tulane was suppose to be for smart people. Athlete student makes no sense, and makes you sound unintelligent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_athlete

(07-15-2016 10:58 AM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 08:43 AM)wave97 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 05:06 PM)Westhoff123 Wrote:  

(07-13-2016 12:04 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  this will turn out to be a disaster

they are now going to end up with athlete students that have no intention of fulfilling their service and when those morons are not drafted they will be suing to get out of their service commitment for all types of stupid reasons

it will probably get as bad as some moron telling everyone they did not go to the Service Academies to "military" they went there to play sports

the athlete student is already killing college sports and needs to be eliminated from college sports as much as possible and this is not a positive move in that direction at all

it will also almost certainly end up harming the Academies as well when they get athlete students in there that find they cannot even cut it for the 4 years in the Academy to see if they can get drafted and they drop out or transfer and they end up with huge holes in their program that cannot be filled because of recruiting limits and because of Service Academy yearly enrollment limits

there are already many that go to the Academies that are not playing sports that decide it is not for them and leave and when you combine that with the sports rigors and the lack of desire to really be an Academy graduate it will only hit the sports harder

Its student athlete, not athlete student lmao!

Is it really? How naive can you be? Athlete-Student is far more appropriate.

No it's student athlete do some research. I thought Tulane was suppose to be for smart people. Athlete student makes no sense, and makes you sound unintelligent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_athlete

You keep polishing those rose colored glasses...

(07-14-2016 07:06 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I'm trying to argue how asinine this is in the main board but people don't seem to understand how this policy change undermines the mission of the service academies.

Its not that big a deal. First--how many kids from the academies have the opportunity to go pro?

Second---it already happens---it just takes more of an effort to allow it.

Third, these kids that go pro will become nightly recruiting posters for the US Army/Navy/AF. Just because the guy doesn't fire a weapon doesn't mean the recruiter on Main Street isn't a vital part of the military effort.

Forth--they indicate this wont be made available easily. My guess is you aren't going to get the opportunity to go pro if you get drafted in the 82nd round of the MLB draft. Its probably only going to be available for very high profile kids that are likely to make a splash on the pro scene.

IMHO---Lots of panties in wads for very little reason on this. Probably will affect a few people in a year at most. I suspect most years, it will affect nobody.

Athlete students are why you watch so you are part of the problem.

(07-15-2016 05:39 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Athlete students are why you watch so you are part of the problem.

I have no problem with it. I only care about sports. What the students do off field is none of my concern.

(07-15-2016 05:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 07:06 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I'm trying to argue how asinine this is in the main board but people don't seem to understand how this policy change undermines the mission of the service academies.

Its not that big a deal. First--how many kids from the academies have the opportunity to go pro?

Second---it already happens---it just takes more of an effort to allow it.

Third, these kids that go pro will become nightly recruiting posters for the US Army/Navy/AF. Just because the guy doesn't fire a weapon doesn't mean the recruiter on Main Street isn't a vital part of the military effort.

Forth--they indicate this wont be made available easily. My guess is you aren't going to get the opportunity to go pro if you get drafted in the 82nd round of the MLB draft. Its probably only going to be available for very high profile kids that are likely to make a splash on the pro scene.

IMHO---Lots of panties in wads for very little reason on this. Probably will affect a few people in a year at most. I suspect most years, it will affect nobody.

You don't feel commitments are that big of s deal, so be it. But the Academy does need to recruit, 10,000 applications are submitted yearly.

(07-16-2016 04:24 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(07-15-2016 05:34 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-14-2016 07:06 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  I'm trying to argue how asinine this is in the main board but people don't seem to understand how this policy change undermines the mission of the service academies.

Its not that big a deal. First--how many kids from the academies have the opportunity to go pro?

Second---it already happens---it just takes more of an effort to allow it.

Third, these kids that go pro will become nightly recruiting posters for the US Army/Navy/AF. Just because the guy doesn't fire a weapon doesn't mean the recruiter on Main Street isn't a vital part of the military effort.

Forth--they indicate this wont be made available easily. My guess is you aren't going to get the opportunity to go pro if you get drafted in the 82nd round of the MLB draft. Its probably only going to be available for very high profile kids that are likely to make a splash on the pro scene.

IMHO---Lots of panties in wads for very little reason on this. Probably will affect a few people in a year at most. I suspect most years, it will affect nobody.

You don't feel commitments are that big of s deal, so be it. But the Academy does need to recruit, 10,000 applications are submitted yearly.

It's more about recruiting for the Navy/Army/AF than about recruiting for the academy. Btw--nobody is shirking thier commitment. They will still serve thier time in the arms forces. They will just fulfill thier commitments in a different way.