OT: Military ordered to allow cadets to postpone active service if they enter pro sportd
There has already been precedent for this (see link), but a rule was later put in place that cadets had to put in 2 years of active duty before going into pro sports - now that rule is being recinded.
It doesn't seem right to me that a select few can be allowed to put off their active service to spend a few years living the high life - while their fellow classmates and comrades must serve immediately (possibly putting their lives at risk). The point of a volunteer military, and especially those that go into the academies, is that personal sacrifice and commitment to service is a choice shared by all.
Maybe I'm making too much of this; I toyed with idea of joining up when I went to UM but ultimately passed - still have the utmost respect for those that serve. I know there are many vets, active members, and their families on the board - and also a number of pro players and their families too. As such, I would be very interested to hear there take on this all.
No politics - just talking about sports and military service here, thanks.
Mods, please fix typo in title - thanks!
The real reason probably isn't the reason mentioned in the article. It's probably because that way these professional athletes can serve as living mascots for joining the military to kids watching them. Not trying to get into the "no-no" zone of topics -- just pointing out that different reasons can be at play as well. That said, this is an awesome decision for athletes already interested in attending a service academy.
I suppose the biggest issue (for me) is only granting the deferment to those going into pro sports. If the deferment was available to all cadets, it would seem more appropriate.
Could it be that such a deferment already exists for academically minded students? I can't imagine that they would force deployment on a high IQ kid who wants to go get a PhD in nuclear engineering or some other useful applied field.
If that is, indeed, the case the sports deferment seems a lot more reasonable. Of course, I think they're just doing it for sports because it will make it easier to recruit high level athletes to their football teams.
I think they offer deferment for other special cases. I swear I read somewhere that if you go into, say, law school you don't have to actively serve until you're done. I might be wrong, but this isn't an option that only exists for athletes.
Correct. You need to first pass the bar for any of the 50 states, and then you get activated. For JAG, you go to a modified reintroduction school of military basics and bearings, and then go to a JAG crash course which is a few months long. Then onto your duty station. One note though is that if you don't pass the bar exam, the Army will place you wherever they desire. Or if the needs of the Army require more officers in other branches than let's say JAG, they'll place you in another branch, with a "promise" you'll go to JAG in 2-4 years.
West Point, Annapolis and the USAFA have something called an educational delay. This delay is also offered to ROTC cadets as well across the country. Should a cadet inspire to go to law school, vet school, medical school or become a Rhodes scholar, they can submit a packet to the Armed Service that they currently are in, and request that there is a deferment in their active duty service date. First, they get approval for the delay, then they get accepted into the medical service corp., JAG corp., Vet corp. etc. However, the difference is that they still have to serve on active duty in some capacity and their length of service is prolonged.
When I was in, it was for every year of grad school that the military paid for, was 2 additional years of active duty service. The caveat to that though is that doctors, lawyers, and other specialist that are in the military get paid retention bonuses on top of their base pay, hazard pay (if needed), BAH, and BAS. So there are perks to taking this route.
This is different from the sports exception since the additional education is preparing you to provide better service. It's similar in that both are "for the benefit of the Service."
But, as someone above mentioned, a professional athlete could provide "better service" to the military in general as a marketing tool.
That's why I concluded with "It's similar in that both are 'for the benefit of the Service.'"
Bingo.
See: Famous soldiers in WW2 being pulled from combat to go on war bond selling tours.
Yes, but that was just a different type of duty. That was not deferring active service to pursue private career.
That’s exactly what it is. As an Army Recruiter, one of the things the Army is doing is focusing on some of the more outside of the box ideas (e-sports and fitness teams) and less on traditional concepts. This is a way to garner additional interest from a younger generation.
As a vet I am pretty ok with this, it is a tough life and I would like to see these people be able to take full advantage of all opportunities they can.
Same.
This is likely their primary chance to make the largest amount of money. Even a 2-year layoff can damage any career potential. Shift to reserve duty until their careers have ended, then they can finish off their service.
Also, how is it any different than folks in the service's world class athlete program? I would say it's not.
It’s hard to avoid politics on this one given it is purely a political decision. That being said, I generally agree with your point of view. But I also can see some benefit in it from a military recruitment perspective. Giving academy grads an option to become famous would raise the profiles of the armed forces and might lead to increased enlistments.
" It’s hard to avoid politics on this one given it is purely a political decision."
How so?
caution: vomitous tribal party speak incoming
Without getting into what will inevitably be a shit storm, the fact this policy decision merely reverses the reversal by the current POTUS of existing policy by the last POTUS, and was done basically in the span of a year and a half, does feel more politically motivated than thoughtful policy analysis.
I wish there was a way to make your post the first post.
Why? It's meaningful perspective but not the point of this discussion. It won't make anyone like your guys and dislike the guys who aren't yours.
For example, knowing nothing more than what's stated above, a rational person might view the events described - current POTUS reversed decision of prior POTUS and then reversed himself - as current POTUS changing his mind and agreeing with view of prior POTUS. There's probably more to it than that, just as there likely was political motivation for prior POTUS to take the original action.
But they ended up in the same place, apparently. No one wants to hear a debate why your guy had good intentions and the other didn't. The (very clearly stated) topic here is whether people agree or disagree with the policy (which your guy and the not your guy shared).
Trump was probably focused on more important things than this when DOD changed the policy that allowed an immediate pro career. My guess is that this was almost entirely internal and Trump heard complaints about it afterward, leading to the reversal.
"It's meaningful perspective but not the point of this discussion."
It is not a perspective, it is what happened.
"It won't make anyone like your guys and dislike the guys who aren't yours."
It's meaningful perspective but not the point of my post.
"No one wants to hear a debate why your guy had good intentions and the other didn't."
No need for a debate, there is enough of a sample size to already have a conclusion.
"The (very clearly stated) topic here is whether people agree or disagree with the policy (which your guy and the not your guy shared)."
I see, I will keep a look out for your posts in future topics when people for off topic...
blech
Just another great reason to go to a service academy.
Should be up to the heads of the military academies and/or the heads of their military branches, as I don't think any of us not in one of those positions knows enough about this to say definitively if it's a good or bad thing. I can't imagine this would affect a huge number of kids one way or the other as the service academies don't churn out a lot of pro-potential talent to my knowledge.
POTUS made the decision and, while I did not major in Governement, I'm pretty sure he is the head of the military and therefore by default, the head of the military academies.
Also, I may be entirely incorrect.
I'm not that bothered by the decision.
I agree with the President on this. From the article: That requirement, Trump wrote in his memo, deprives some student athletes of "a short window" they have to take advantage of their athletic talents.
It is a short window. Imagine being a running back having an already short window that gets even shorter if you have to serve immediately upon graduation.
They'll still serve their time.
Disclaimer: I was in the Wolverine Battalion and served 5 years active duty right after graduation. Didn't get shot at as the only conflicts we had going at the time were the Grenada invasion (my first jump at airborne school was the day of the Grenada invasion), and the shit storm in Beirut and I wasn't stationed anywhere near either place. So my experience/perspective doesn't involve a combat tour that some grads today would face.
'Postponing' is a non-starter. Say David Robsinson got a postponement, does anyone think he would have gone back to the military as a multi-millionaire, world champion, retired player? Just to be placed on active duty as an O-1 in some shithole first timer assignment? Not a chance... And he would have won his court case in a landslide.
There was already a process in place to allow service academy grads an out, should they be professional level good at sports. But Trumps Pentagon selections cancelled it. This seems like nothing more than (another) ham-handed attempt claiming to be the hero by fixing something he broke earlier.
I sorta agree, though I am not going to criticize any president too harshly for fixing something they broke. If only [Enter personal bugbear here] was fixed by [Offending President], our country would be much better off.
Yes I hear ya, but 1) this is the only thing he's fixed that he previously broke 2) he;s doing it to look like a big shot 3) in other similar cases, he usually acts like it wasn't his fault in the first place or it was his brilliant idea to reverse the policy.
(he pulled the rule in the first place because it was a policy of his predecessor and he announced the 'new' rule in front of a gathering of Army football players at the White House to kiss their asses)
'...but 1) this isn't the only thing he's tried fixing that he previously broke ...'
FIFY...
True, it was his Defense Department that changed the rule, but that doesn't mean he directed the rule be changed in 2017.
He talked to the coach. The coach told him about the 2017 rule and the President told the Department of Defense to change the rule.
Taking "credit" for fixing something that had already been fixed by the previous President (and then ended when he took office because he wanted to torch all of the previous President's work). Sigh.
I honestly don't remember the current President personally ending this. Every day, new policy is drafted, reviewed, approved and enacted by the Department of Defense. Not all of this is approved by the President.
Honest question, can you point me to a reference that states the current President ended this policy?
The story has the reference - the DoD changed the policy in 2017. Was POTUS personally involved? Probably not... Nonetheless, it's pretty clear that the policy was changed during the mad rush to undue Obama-era regulations and policies. Was it actually sought out to be part of that mad rush? Doubtful. Probably just got caught up in the bureaucracy.
"it's pretty clear that the policy was changed during the mad rush to undue Obama-era regulations and policies"
Could be true, but that is simply a guess.
So I did read it and it turns out it was then Secretary of Defense Mattis' decision. Imagine that. Thank you.
If the rule was to forgo (instead of defer) those years of active duty, I'd have a problem with it. But as long as the cadet puts in their time just like anyone else, I see no problem
I agree, but issue I see is that the deferment is only being allowed for pro athletes. Why not open this up to all cadets?
It is. Read above.
Most of those exceptions are for situations to where the professional development is going to directly benefit the military in some fashion (and it is essentially a deferment for school, not for a completely different job unrelated to military service).
If someone wanted to be a professional model (just as an example) and claimed that not being able to be in the industry while still in their early 20s and comely (and before active service could potentially disfigured them), should they also get a deferment?
I would say probably not. West Point, Annapolis, and USAFA all allow cadets the option to leave after their sophomore year with no repercussions, if the cadet deems it to be a poor fit for them, or if it's something they just don't want to do. After that threshold, the burden is on them to serve in a capacity one way or another. Athletes have that option, as well as intellectuals, let's say that if there was a gifted nuclear engineer student at West Point, they can branch Ordnance or Chem, and then get stationed in Los Alamos.
The whole point is to benefit the military. The military needs to recruit top talent for these institutions and retain the talent. Showing athletes hope of playing professional sports is one way where both win. Also, there are professional models that dual-serve and serve after the military service. Disfiguration is a stretch.
https://www.gijobs.com/marine-maxim-model-shannon-ihrke/
and more...
True. If it is allowed for pro athletes, it should be allowed for anybody. I agree with you.
You, and 1VaBlue1's comments below, have moved my needle a bit, but yet not to the point where I'd flip my position, so long as this rule is indeed changed to apply to any cadet. That should absolutely be done.
As it stands now, though, I have changed my mind and would disagree with this rule if it applies only to pro athletes. UNLESS the US Government gets a cut of the pro athletes earnings over this period. That would be interesting. It would give the US Government, as the holder of the commitment keys, the choice to either allow you to defer and take a cut of your earnings, or force the immediate commitment. Hmmmmm.
On the surface, I agree with you - complete the commitment you made. But in practice, I don't see where this would be workable. Deferring military service as an O-1 to go play pro sports will end up meaning that no military service will be performed. If a player in the NFL/MLB/NHL/whatever makes a few hundred thousand (let alone millions) in pay for a few years, that person will not want anything to do with going back to an entry level military position. If forced to do so, there will be morale and discipline problems, which directly translate to performance problems - in a role for which performance can be literally life and death (for you, or for others).
Nor can you tell someone to stop play pro sports because the deferment timeline has exhausted. Tell David Robinson that he can no longer compete in the NBA because his 2 year (or 5 year, etc) deferment ended, and (again) he's winning that court case easily. And making the gov't look like schlepps in return!
I disagree with any deferment - just let them go and turn their student debt into a loan to pay back. Problem solved.
Your whole argument rests on the claim that players will be able to easily win court cases that absolve them of their service responsibility, yet you provide no evidence to support this crucial claim. Are you even a lawyer? From reading your other comments, you sound incredibly stupid so I would hope you are not.
Nope, not a lawyer. Do you think David Robinson, as a retired, multi-millionaire, HoF basketball player of, what, say 45 when he retired, would be any good as an O-1 (Ensign) on a combatant ship? You think he wouldn't claim 'hardship' to get out of a 2-year commitment after he paid back the Navy for the schooling, room/board, and salary he obtained over 4 years at the Naval Academy?
If you think it would be a smart and good move for the Navy to fight that, than you prove yourself to be dumber than me.
The only point I have is to forget deferment and let them go - but make them pay back the money they received while in school.
Interesting. I don't think this will apply to very many athletes to begin with, but I really don't have an opinion one way or the other. I appreciate and respect anyone willing to give their lives for this country.
I disagree with this. The rigors of pro athletics can be very taxing on the body. Coming into the service with preexisting maladies puts everyone else already serving under additional duty to make up for someone who might not be deployable. As a 10-year service member I have seen this too many times from people who have never played a sport in their life, and yet the rest of us have to carry the extra burden. Hard pass.