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-shif...le/1580109

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

Yes, this will be huge for the academies. Expect Navy to start winning the AAC on a regular basis...

...and the Big Ten to stop scheduling Army!

(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-shif...le/1580109

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

Ridiculous. If you want a shot at the pros then don't attend a Service Academy. Otherwise, do the commitment. This was a stupid move on the SECNAV's part.

Billy Hurley III just got his first PGA tour win. But before he became a golf pro he served he 5 year commitment. In fact I was stationed with him on USS GETTYSBURG.

When people ask why I'm cool on Navy being in the AAC, this is an example of why. I don't want the mission of the service academies altered to allow a few exceptions to what is supposed to be universally applied to all.

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.

That's a big policy shift if an athlete can use any pro sports contract to change their service commitment from active duty to the reserves. In that article, they use as an example an AFA pitcher chosen in the 31st round of the pro baseball draft. A player chosen in that spot in the draft would start in A ball, spend several years in the minors (if he stuck it out in baseball) and have only a slim chance of ever playing in MLB. If a service academy athlete in that situation can get out of active duty, that's a giant loophole. That's like a football player using an arena-league contract or a basketball player using a contract with a second-division Australian basketball league to shift his service commitment to the reserves.

But maybe the article is trying to make this loophole seem far larger than it really is.

I do want to point out, I was speaking in general the idea of being able to delay the commitment, as opposed to the actual ruling presented. I don't think being flexible is a bad thing. But there is being flexible, and creating gaping loopholes

(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.

We have something call 2 for 7. You come back for your JR year and you're on the hook for that 5 year commitment. Scholarship opportunity is not comparable to becoming a pro IMO. If you get the pro contract, you are effectively being asked to be let out of your obligation. If you didn't want to be inconvenienced by military service then there is an easy solution; don't seek an appointment.

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."

I dont like this.

Attending one of the academies is about serving your country first last and always and sports should NEVER come before that.

I can see the Good Idea Fairy behind this:

"Hey, what if we could make Army and Navy the football powers they were before WW2!? Think of the recruiting benefits!!!"

And even if it solved all of USAREC's problems forever, I would still see a huge problem with this.

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 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.

MplsBison,

Many have disagreed with my position. It is after all quite rigid, but I would same the same thing for someone who went to school on the ROTC scholarship and discovered they were an athletic talent in college. It's about the ones word and the commitment to it.

You stand and pledge an oath your 2nd Class year but now because a better opportunity exists you want the military to release you? That doesn't sit well with me and exacerbates the elitism that many enlisted personnel perceive about Academy grads.

The major Service Academies only have an incoming class of about 1200 plebes. Each one routinely rejects about 700-1200 applicants every year, they aren't hurting for talent.

Finally, enlisted personnel don't give a damn about how well Army, Navy or AFA are doing in football. They might revel in how bad the team is if an officer is really passionate about their fandom, but that's about it.

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.

(07-13-2016 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.

It isn't the same thing. The service academies already have programs which allow for post graduate study & the services encourage all career officers to pursue post graduate education. Feel free to Google "USNA Rhodes Scholars" and you can see that we have had 45 Rhodes Scholars. The services even have their own post graduate schools (i.e. Naval Post Graduate School or AFIT).

The difference is that post graduate education provides the military with an improved officer to the benefit of the service. Professional sports does not do that.

To your question

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

All midshipmen & cadets have the option to quit at any time before attending their first class as a junior. You know this deal during the application process in high school. You are informed of that when you sign your paperwork upon induction into the summer training program. You know that every day of your life for the first two years while at a service academy and EVERYONE considers that at some point during those 2 years. You know that when you sign your paperwork and have a party that most call 2 for 7 (two years at the service academy plus two years remaining and five years active).

If the opportunity presents itself, well, you had years of understanding the deal and the commitment you made in exchange for the education and experience of a service academy. They had a choice in the matter.

Obviously I am not a supporter of the chance in policy but I have no qualms with the players who are conducting themselves within the policy.

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 07:36 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.

Yes, it is actually a dramatic change. David Robinson is a little complicated. He was technically too tall to remain at USNA or serve in the Navy due to his growth while attending. David's younger brother also played basketball at USNA but never got the growth and graduated in 1993 (I played pickup ball with him).

So David played at USNA & served in the Navy for 2 years with a waiver for his height. But you are correct that he followed the policy, served 2 years on active duty then applied for the release & continued in the Reserves.

(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?

No. The mission of the service academies is to develop leaders. It is contradictory to the purpose & mission of leadership development institutions to have different standards and expectations of those attending.

Believe me, there are plenty who already think that the football team (and athletes in general) have different standards. That's nothing new.

(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.

(07-14-2016 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.

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.

From the standpoint of the individual cadet are there other perishable commodities that a cadet has at 22 or 23, that he would not have at 28 or so?

Having read the article I was surprised at the enthusiasm expressed by folks up the line, moreover there seems to be a sense that this is needed to advertise both the academies and the service. I can see how this could be exploited even at in individual level with some type of insignia on the players professional uniform.

It will all be great until the inevitable scandal erupts.

(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."

Agree....great post

(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.

That is a whole 'nother conversation. But someone has already written a pretty authoritative analysis of that subject.

Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the AF