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.
I upvoted you because you bring up a good point.
But let me suggest that while some athletes would get worn down by athletics after a couple years, the average athlete that's able to go pro is, even after a couple years of athletics, probably more fit and deployable than the average cadet. So, I would think this rule encourages fit people to enlist in the military, thus raising the pool of overall deployable people in the overall; despite a few athletes that get maladies in this process. (And if those maladies are confirmed prior to joining the military, I would think the US taxpayer isn't paying for those specific medical bills later after military retirement.)
I think you're confusing the issue - when you mention 'enlisting', you stray from the relevant conversation. This is about whether a service academy student can finish his/her education, graduate, and then not perform the contracted military service and instead go play professional ball. There is a minimum 2-year service commitment after graduation - it is this commitment that is in question.
This 'policy' will have zero affect on whether some high school graduate decides to enlist, or not.
Cadets commission to be officers.
They do not enlist, unless they first were prior service. (NCO, E4 or below) Or went to OCS, then they commission to 0-1 or sometimes O-2/3 with a general order.
Speaking as a grad and a vet, I say let 'em go play pro ball.
It's good for recruiting, it's good for overall morale, and frankly, they get more use out of these guys being out and about and acting as mascots than anything else. They still get public service and other types of things out of it. Frankly, it makes a lot more sense than getting someone into uniform and making him serve out his time when he basically has a lottery ticket waiting on him.
Life isn't fair. Also if you're upset about them not serving right away, then shouldn't you be mad at most of the population who doesn't serve at all?
I have no issue with this being that the amount of athletes that have pro potential from the Service Academy's are minimal at best (not trying to be disrespectful but its true). We are most likely looking at less than 1%, if that.
Question, because I honestly don't know, but do Service Academy grads actually see front line combat? My assumption (again please correct if I am wrong) is that enlisted soldiers were more likely front line combat prepared where as Academy Graduates were more destined for leadership/non-combat type roles (IT, Strategy, Tactics, Operations, etc).
Do you think that they just drop off a bunch of enlisted grunts and tell them "go kill something"? Units need leaders...
No, that O-1 (2nd Lieutenant or Ensign) is right there with the troops and NCOs.
"the amount of athletes that have pro potential from the Service Academy's are minimal at best "
Ah yes, but you're not accounting for the fact that the service requirement plays a large role in that. Change the requirement, coupled with the outstanding education, and I (comfortably) bet you that changes drastically.
Maybe. But not with 5-star players... I mean, you actually have to play skool at a service academy. You also have a shitload of non-school and non-sport requirements (military drills, workouts, summers embedded with combat units, etc) that no P5 school in its right mind will ever make you do!
Two things:
1. Air Force/Navy/Marine Pilots are all officers. Army Pilot are a mix of Commissioned/Warrant Officers.
2. Yes, Officers in combat units are embedded with their units and see combat as well.
leadership/non-combat type roles
What do you think gets people through combat? Leadership. LTs and Capts see just as much shit as corporals and sergeants do.
That is correct.
The service academies are full scholarship opportunities that entail a physical regimen that is not mirrored in any other college experience. The number of students involved in athletics in the academies is much larger than the rosters allowed in the rest of the NCAA. There isn't a student that the coaches can't see in some sort of PT.
Hmm... IDK. I'm much more concerned with military readiness than athletics. That would be the only yardstick. I thought the reserve role was fine. Reservists could even do their time recruiting if the military could see their way clear.
Nothing is being rescinded (another typo - OP please fix as well.) This is a memo and not a tweet which is better than the transgender debacle. I don't think this implies much improvement in the administration of policy but there is some learning going on there. Expensive learning that is unfortunately still not consistent.
I don't mind administrations changing course. I'm just having a hard time separating this from politics in this discussion. It would seem sport itself is being politicized when a President comments that he wouldn't send his own son to the gridiron due to post-concussion syndrome and CTE risks which both Obama and Trump have. It seems odd that we need to modulate this policy so much when the fundamentals haven't changed in that time span.
The DOD is not short of policy wonks to get this done well. They have the old reservist policy to lean on. I think this is a non-story until the policy is actually rolled out. Until then I might just take a knee on this.
I agree that this should be a non-issue. The amount of people able to play pro sports coming out of the academies are negligible. If they can, let them go - providing they repay the cost of tuition, board, salary, etc that was provided to them during their time in school (which is why there is a minimum military service term included in the school contract).
I doubt that the service's manpower planning would be affected in any meaningful manor if 5 or 6 kids across three academies don't perform military service in the end. Hell, I have money that says far more than that drop out of the individual academies each year, and don't have to pay back a dime!
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 -
A few thoughts...
1. What is this notion of "right" of which you speak? If you're looking for fairness across the board, that's not the way the world works.
1a. Cadets bust their ass in 4 years (5 if prep school) more than most people do in their entire lives. I think a cadet with pro sport potential isn't welching on any agreement.
2. I went to school at the same time Tom Brady was playing. Is it "right" Tom is living the high life and I'm not???
3. As a vet (8 years) I have zero problem with this. If anything the media runs with these stories over and over again and it reflects well upon an Academy.
AND... this rule has been in place in some variation since at least the 80s. I wanted to go to the USAFA when I was a kid and Chad Hennings got a pro deferrment before anyone knew what that was -- my take is you're just politicizing it because of the current administration.
Firstly - thanks for your service! Mind sharing more about what your branch and duties were?
Not bringing this up for political reasons - I expressly wanted to avoid that aspect and was hoping it wouldn't matter since both Obama and Trump administrations enacted these exemptions, but people will politicize anything.
By "right" I meant that, since all these cadets are putting in the time, effort, and sacrifice for their country, they should all get the ability to defer their service for a few years in order to pursue private careers - not just the pro athletes.
The comparison to university life isn't quite the same here (even though both involve taking classes - UNC and SEC schools apparently excluded). Your comparison to Tom Brady is not relevant since there was never a common pledge of years of national service in exchange for your time in the academy, let alone the argument about how/when those years cam be taken.
Thank you for the perspective though.
they should all get the ability to defer their service for a few years in order to pursue private careers - not just the pro athletes.
I guess we'll just disagree on this; which is perfectly okay. Slippery slope as well -- should the Army, by way of comparison, just scrap the World Class Athlete program for its Olympians, because not *all* soldiers have a "right" to participate in it?
After all, WCA soldiers get cushy assignments to and benefits in Colorado Springs that other soldiers don't get while pursuing private interests outside of the profession of arms. How is that fair to the grunts loving life in Trashcanistan?
Your comparison to Tom Brady is not relevant
It's completely relevant. You suggest that a certain population of cadet is receiving extra benefits that the general population of cadets aren't and that's not fair.
Well using that stretch of reasoning, as a graduate of Michigan, I should be entitled to all the benefits of attending Michigan too. Just like Tom Brady. Or are you confusing equal opportunity with equal results -- which is exactly the response my comparison was meant to expose!!!
I do see your point about pledge and commitment... but as I wrote, if a cadet goes through 4 - 5 years of life at an Academy, and can go on to be a pro athlete, I'm all for it... and so were other Presidents even before Obama. Again, and as most people are missing in this discussion, this is NOT something new. Obama had a policy -> Trump took it back -> Trump re-instated a near facsimile of the previous policy in his own likeness.
Regarding the WCA program deferment exemption, it can certainly be argued that this deferment is allowing for an additional form of national service, which should certainly be permitted. Remember that my position here is not that cadets should be denied deferment to enter pro sports, but that the deferment should be opened up to anyone that similarly wants to pursue their private career for the first few years out of the academy and then go do their active service.
I never said anyone has a "right" to do something (i.e. allowed), but was saying what was "right" to do (i.e. fair).
Different people in service can get differing degrees of difficulty/pleasantness in their job assignments. That has always been true in the military but it is also their duty to follow orders - especially in today's military which is all volunteer (and we are talking about educated officers coming out of service academies here, not enlisted men/women at the bottom of the ranks - these people know exactly what the responsibilities are when the join).
The Brady comparison is still not appropriate: Tom Brady could have been seriously hurt playing for UM, but the University was not going to the general students to put their body on the line. Every single one of the members of the academies chose to forego the privileges of civilian life and were informed that active duty right after the academy is expected. And every one of them could potentially be asked to lay down their life for their country - so yes, I think they should receive the same privileges as well. Also, their choice to sacrifice a few years of their private lives for service is not contingent upon whatever they choose for their private careers - it should not matter of they want to a pro athlete (not just football), musician, actor, scientist, banker, or anything else unrelated to their direct military duties.
Again, I am all for giving military members all benefits and privileges they deserve for their service (and then some), but it doesnt seem fair (to me) to effectively penalize the majority of them because they don't have big paydays awaiting them simultaneously (and there are many examples of pro athletes have great careers after their active service finished).
Clearly what this does is provide a competitive recruiting pathway for the academies to attract high ceiling athletes with pro aspirations, who would otherwise be turned off by the fact that they would have to seek an exemption to have the pro pathway. I suppose I get the equity point about the other cadets, but at the same time it opens a real opportunity for the academies to recruit on a level playing field and actually be, you know... actually be elite level good at sports like football and basketball again.
My politics are decided for me (business owner, can't really feel the Bern) and my feeling on the military is somewhat the same way (Vietnam vet's kid, Go Army, beat everyone but Michigan!). So with that being said, Trump admin is wrong on this one. These guys know they are good at sports way before they enlist (full scholarship, I might add) in a service academy. If they are good enough to have a fulfilling pro career, choose a civilian life and pursue it with a scholarship to a regular university.
It does the taxpayer no good to have these guys flounder around training camps for 2 years, get banged up, and show up behind the eight ball as officers 2 years older than their colleagues and with 2 years less military experience than their classmates. Training camp invites, G-leaguers and short season A-ballers don't really sell war bonds.
If they are good enough to have a fulfilling pro career, choose a civilian life and pursue it with a scholarship to a regular university.
Then you may as well make all military academy sports D3 or scrap them all together and make them club sports.
It does the taxpayer no good
... but how many cadets go professional athlete?
There have been 4 professional athletes from military academies since 2000 -- all NFL. I don't know how many Annapolis and West Point graduate every year but the AFA does 1,000. So just using that number, that's .02% of the cadets who turn pro athlete. The taxpayer is missing out on .02%????
Also, of the 4 since 2000 that made the transition, 3 have served part of their commitment and the other one has been on active duty since 2010. He is a receipent of the Bronze Star with "V" for actions (saving his buddy's asses) in combat.
You can only play at the highest level for a short time.
You can always kill and/or push paper later.
As a Naval Academy grad, I have no issue with this. In reality, this will affect only a handful of people at most per year. The military has been looking at ways to give people more flexibility with work life balance. For example, they introduced a career interruption program (CIP) to give career service members an opportunity to take time away to start a family or go back to school by allowing a one-time, up to three year temporary transition from active duty to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). Users sign an agreement to return to active duty in the same component from which they separated. In exchange, they must double their service commitment, serving two months of active duty for every month spent in CIP. Not sure if professional athletes would incur an increased service commitment as well.
Allowing it for the PR value.
It's a good decision that frankly shouldn't have been necessary in the first place (this merely reverts POTUS's previous reversal of Obama-era policy). But glad the couple of athletes affected will get a chance to maximize their potential while still serve their country. A win all around.
I won’t tip my hat regarding my political leanings, but I feel as though the divine and glorious god-emperor Trump made the correct decision in this case. As always.
Fuck all you liberals, not everything is political!!! Only thing I will say!
Well this is enlightened... Thanks for joining the discussion with such a level-headed and eloquent statement.
/s
(I added the /s because I don't think cornndblue is smart enough to figure it out without help...)
Not to get political, but I don't think something like this should be the president's call. I'd say that regardless of what party ruled the White House. If the powers-that-be in West Point, Annapolis or Colorado Springs want to make that call for their athletes, then that's their business. They know what's best for their schools better than anyone else does. Including a sitting president.
I'm no military man, but for those who say this will boost the academy's ability to recruit, I think that impact will be minimal at best. If not non-existent. The US Military is an established, powerful brand. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine that most men and women who go to the service academies do so with a higher goal/purpose in mind than going on to play pro sports. If going pro is their primary goal upon walking onto campus, then I personally think they're there for the wrong reasons.
Its also not like Army, Navy and Air Force are going to start competing for national championships again anytime soon, so the odds of this expanding their recruiting footprint enough to start luring top players who actually have decent chances of making it to the NFL/NBA/MLB are probably minimal too.
The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, if it's NOT his call, who the hell's call is it?
Also there are plenty of cadets who are there because playing for an academy was the best way for them to play at a D1 level in their chosen sport. They still become officers and it becomes a pretty valuable way to get a pool of officers who may not have ever considered military service in the first place. Given that most of my most talented pilot training students were ex-baseball players, there's benefits both ways.
Not sure you know how rank structure works.
Its also not like Army, Navy and Air Force are going to start competing for national championships again anytime soon, so the odds of this expanding their recruiting footprint enough to start luring top players who actually have decent chances of making it to the NFL/NBA/MLB are probably minimal too.
Right, so there's not going to be a major impact by letting the few fringe cases happen. Tie it to a contract to appear in so many recruiting ads, to conduct some events, etc. If it even draws in one or two candidates who wouldn't have considered it otherwise, it more than balances it out.
I would like to note that the service academies offer deferments for post graduate study because the military needs doctors, lawyers, and Ph.D.s. And, if you wanted to get a Ph.D., it would have to be in a subject area that was of value to the military. The military does not "need" a professional athlete except potentially as a PR vehicle. You couldn't get a deferment because you wanted to open a restaurant, for instance.
It is important to keep in mind that the purpose of the service academies is to train the next generation of military officers. Cadets do not have a normal college experience by any means. One should only attend a service academy if one wishes to serve as an officer in that branch of the military. They are not a way to get a "great education" for free while you keep your options open in case something more lucrative comes along.
I don't care about this issue except to note that the service academies are a serious business and a significant commitment. College sports may be very lucrative and popular but they are not a serious business.
I don't like it...... If I got a really sweet job offer from a great employer while I was serving the first year of my enlistment, I couldn't "defer my service".
Enlisting in the service, for many, is about putting something ahead of yourself, making a sacrifice for something you believe in. Not conditional "if there's a big $$ pro sports contract in front of you"
It's kinda like getting married, but letting your wife know that if a hotter chic shows interest, you reserve the right to 'defer your marriage' for a while.
This is fine. The number of cadets who would actually be able to turn pro would be so small that it isn't going to lead to some mass deferment of military service, and could help recruit that extra athlete or two that helps beat Army/Navy/Air Force.
I guess you could make the argument that someone like Alejandro Villanueva can serve in a combat arms role after playing at a service academy and still have a good NFL career, but he's obviously an outlier.
As it stands right now, service academy grads can already defer active military service for a year or two in order to pursue advanced studies and Rhodes/Marshall scholarships at civilian universities, so why not let those who can play a pro sport for a few years do so as well?
I don't know if it has been brought up yet, but what if these cadets are recruited by a fortune 500 company? Shouldn't they be allowed to have their 'career' first?
I'm a veteran, so I support the cause. I think it's only fair to let cadets decide future as long as they complete their service time they signed for.
Look how attractive military academy graduates are after leaving active duty to Fortune 500. It’s not a life sentence. There’s the Olympic athlete program too. Essentially bobsled for 4 years making $80k. If they opened it up to private sector drop outs, attrition would skyrocket and that $500,000 investment by the Pentagon was all for nothing.
Former enlisted soldier, here. I can certainly see it both ways, and maybe I'd view it differently if I were still in, but presently I don't begrudge these young men for capitalizing on their talents. There's a barracks myth that financial windfall can get you administratively separated from the military on account of withholding of pay not being a deterrent for bad behavior, or that having much higher finances than your chain of command could be disruptive. It's not true, but it makes a certain level of sense, and probably happens on a case-by-case basis.
So, someone who knows they have a multi-million dollar contract waiting for them after their commission is resigned may not blossom into the most dedicated or present officer anyway.
I would like to see these releases given in conjunction with an agreement to serve in a recruiting or public relations capacity while playing professionally, continue to rep the service and attend events, sell "war bonds," etc.
Marine Vet and former UM Naval ROTC here (please note, this a first time-long time situation)
Why this could make sense?
-Military manpower models could be over-projected for service size caps in upcoming years due to a changing strategy (simply mentioning that political strategy drives service size)
-Thus, this could serve as a way to reduce future service sizes without arbitrarily defining new requirements to rapidly kick humans out of the service that don't deserve to be kicked out (saw this happen in 2014 post Afghanistan)
Why this could suck?
-Service Academy scholarships are all-inclusive unlike many other types of scholarships. Taxpayers are now essentially contributing to professional sports pipelines unintentionally.
Way to fix policy if ultimately accepted/approved?
-If drafted and a contract is awarded/signed, develop a plan for former Service Academy athlete to pay back scholarship.