Pentagon: Academy athletes must serve before going pro

#2Gopher

Well-known member
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
9,207
Reaction score
3,080
Points
113
That changes things a bit when it comes to recruiting making it to the pros.
 


"Our military academies exist to develop future officers who enhance the readiness and the lethality of our military services. Graduates enjoy the extraordinary benefit of a military academy education at taxpayer expense. Therefore, upon graduation, officers will serve as military officers for their minimum commitment of two years," Pentagon chief spokesman Dana W. White said Monday in a statement.


http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/pentagon-academy-athletes-serve-pro-47142917
 

That changes things a bit when it comes to recruiting making it to the pros.
 

I dont like it. You already own the individual why not let them play in their best years?
 


Makes sense and nothing new. I know Roger Staubach and David Robinson had to serve before their athletic careers. I'm sure their are many many others. Especially if they all have too.

They both had great pro careers, but served their country first.
 



What? Understand the academies? History?

Wow.

Yes I do understand the history. The academies are academic powerhouses in addition to that. I can see the argument either way, I get it. My point was since we are giving opinions...there is no right or wrong, is that when they commit, they commit to the service. There is no getting out of that...nor should they (hence my "own the individual" comment, perhaps a bad choice of language?) However in a sport such as football if they have an opportunity to play in the NFL where careers are so short I think it would be great if they were able to delay their service until after their professional sports career were over. You could make the argument that they only serve a short time and then can resume their professional sports career just like the athletes mentioned (I also think of David Robinson in the NBA). I see both ways. I just think that for many it would be quite a fairytale ending to go pro and do that for a few years then go back to their service. But that's just me.
 




I am surprised it is only 2 years. I thought it was 4.

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
 

I dont like it. You already own the individual why not let them play in their best years?

I think it's pretty well established that the purpose of the academies is to produce military officers. The young men and women who attend them aren't confused about why they're there, so why bend the rules?
 

The individual student makes the decision to attend the academy and a part of that is the decision to serve. Whether the student plays football, lacrosse or is in the choir they need to fulfill their requirement to serve. I didn't go to an academy, but when I completed Officer Candidate School I had no other option, but to serve. If 3M had offered me a great job, I still would have to serve.
 



I dont like it. You already own the individual why not let them play in their best years?

Own the individual? The individual volunteers to serve our country for 6 years after graduating in exchange for a free education and the tax payers are footing the bill to educate the individual. If you goal is to be a professional athlete, the academy is not for you.
 

I think it's pretty well established that the purpose of the academies is to produce military officers. The young men and women who attend them aren't confused about why they're there, so why bend the rules?

This. The military academies want to do well in sports but it is not a driving force for them. If a player signs on to play ball at one of those schools they know what they are getting into and where the priorities are.
 

Yes I do understand the history. The academies are academic powerhouses in addition to that. I can see the argument either way, I get it. My point was since we are giving opinions...there is no right or wrong, is that when they commit, they commit to the service. There is no getting out of that...nor should they (hence my "own the individual" comment, perhaps a bad choice of language?) However in a sport such as football if they have an opportunity to play in the NFL where careers are so short I think it would be great if they were able to delay their service until after their professional sports career were over. You could make the argument that they only serve a short time and then can resume their professional sports career just like the athletes mentioned (I also think of David Robinson in the NBA). I see both ways. I just think that for many it would be quite a fairytale ending to go pro and do that for a few years then go back to their service. But that's just me.

This confirms it.
 

If the military deemed there were high PR value in having the players in the NFL then they would be waivered. If most are projected as a backup or fringe roster guy there is little PR value. In reality these decisions dependon who's in charge, just like any workplace.

One problem with allowing them to go to the NFL for 2+ years is deterioration of occupational skills. The military itself is highly regimented and then there are the highly technical aspects of one's specialty area, ability to perform well in follow-on schools, etc. All those skills would deteriorate while out of the military, even with drill time.

To his credit this player isn't complaining loudly as he understands his obligation. He may still get a chance in a couple years.
 

Two years is not a long time. It's basically just one year longer than if you had redshirted for a year. One of the things the military makes abundantly clear is that the needs of the service come first. Putting off service until you're done with professional sports would not be to the benefit of the military. It's like assignments. You might like to be assigned assigned to Guam, but if the military needs someone in Minot, and they pick you, you're going to Minot.
 

Don't really have a position on this but my memory said that David Robinson would not have gotten in the Naval Academy without his basketball skills. Not because of academics, but he was too tall to "serve". They waived regulations to keep him in, not to let him out. Memory was pretty good, but not perfect.

The regulations were overlooked to get him into the Academy, not so much to get him out.

They needed basketball players, not necessarily Officers.

"Navy has never had a basketball player like Robinson. The height limit for an entering midshipman is 6-6, but Academy regulations allow waivers for a limited number of entrants to be 6-8.

When Paul Evans, the Navy coach at the time, recruited Robinson from Osbourn High School in Manassas, Va., the center was 6-7 and had only one year of high school experience, He grew 2 inches as a freshman and added 2 more inches and about 10 pounds betweens his sophomore and his junior years. He continued to grow, to become the tallest student in Navy history...

Robinson, perhaps the most dominating center in college basketball, received word that he was ''not physically qualified as an unrestricted line officer in the United States Navy.'' Instead, the directive, issued by John Lehman, the Secretary of the Navy, said Robinson ''will be commissioned as a restricted line or staff corps officer.'' He will be required to serve only two years of active duty.

All of which means he is too tall to serve on ships or airplanes and thus would have to serve his commission ashore, giving him an opportunity for a pro career sooner than anticipated. The change also affords him the possibility of becoming a first-round draft choice in June for any team willing to wait two years.

The normal height for regular unlimited naval duty is 6 feet 6 inches. Had it not been for the height barrier, Robinson, upon graduation, would have had to serve five years of active duty."


http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/10/sports/navy-to-cut-robinson-s-tour-to-2-years.html
 

All those skills would deteriorate while out of the military, even with drill time.

It's a miracle how the Reserve and Guard can even exist at all, you know, with all those deteriorated skills.

I don't have a problem with reverting back to the required initial 2-year commitment but the quoted part is ridiculous.
 

Not at all ridiculous.

The state of readiness of reservists and national guardsman, in general, is not as high as active duty. Not arguable. We'll agree to disagree.
 


Not at all ridiculous.

The state of readiness of reservists and national guardsman, in general, is not as high as active duty. Not arguable. We'll agree to disagree.

I served with guardsmen and reservists in Iraq. They were just as capable as their active duty counterparts and certainly didn't do themselves or others any disservice with "deteriorated skills".
 

As the father of a serving officer and retired Army reservist, with significant active Army time, I can assure you that a fresh academy graduate is not a fully qualified officer. They need to learn their occupational specialty, another 12 to 22 weeks (Army), plus the possibility of additional specialized training. Two years is about the minimum amount of time to get trained and serve in both a leadership and staff role. My experience with academy grads is that they need troop time to transition to the real world after the rigors of the academy setting. I see the two year active service requirement as an acknowledgement of that.
 

I served with guardsmen and reservists in Iraq. They were just as capable as their active duty counterparts and certainly didn't do themselves or others any disservice with "deteriorated skills".

You're taking this the wrong way or I'm not making myself clear, or maybe both. Anyone not actively plying their trade is going to require some remedial time or retraining after a several year hiatus. If the players are actively drilling in their specialty area then that obviously helps to keep them sharp. I'm not implying reservists are less capable or competent.
 

If you go to a Military Academy, you are committing to military service. Now, in those very rare cases where someone attends a military academy, and has the athletic talent to play professionally, a two-year wait may be an inconvenience, but the military service has to come first.

What if you let an academy grad try his luck at pro sports, and they wreck their knee or shoulder - thereby limiting their effectiveness for military service. Should they have to reimburse the US Gov't for the price of their military education?
 

Being a professional athlete is not what the academies are about. The commitment should be for 6 years minimum of active service or there is no return for the dollar put into those officers. This isn't a debate at all. If an officer came into my office asking for time off to play pro sports, I would laugh and find a nice mission for the officer to perform because there are certainly enough missions to perform right now.

We are still fighting the war on terror and fending off larger threats from becoming active wars. Any armchair quarterback worth their weight or volume might consider the value to the nation of being an active officer solving real world problems to maintain American sovereignty issues. Shooting hoops is not the same as keeping a foreign army from shooting at us. It just isn't a needed occupational skill. In fact, there is even very little entertainment in ball based recreation. If you want testosterone driven excitement, all you have to do is be stationed along the DMZ in Korea to know that your job is extremely serious.

This isn't a debate at all. The only time the military releases service members to do promotional work like professional sports is the return on recruiting, nothing else even matters than doing the job very well with very few service members. Every soldier counts right now.
 





Top Bottom