<p>I just read at the USMA website that the Army is about to change its policy re: active duty service commitment of athletes. Starting in a few weeks, after the apparent already set approval of this new policy, athletes at USMA who are drafted by professional teams can put in two years active duty and then 6 years of reserves doing "recruitment" work. </p>
<p>I have strong feelings about this but I'd be very interested in opinions on this, especially around fairness issue and what the role of the Academy should be.</p>
<p>I'll bet that many people can really see both sides of this issue. I believe that USNA implemented a similar policy a few years ago and a goal may be to become more competitive. </p>
<p>If any college wants to compete in the glamour sports (football and basketball) at the Division I level, they have to recruit the quality athletes who are being recruited by other Division I colleges. Could the service academies compete at the DIII level? Sure, but then I think there would be quite a few people who would protest such a decision and messing with tradition.</p>
<p>Should these athletes be responsible for completing their commitment to serve? Absolutely! Somehow - either in years of service or paying back the financial obligation ($250k?).</p>
<p>I also think many of the candidates who WP can now compete for will still not be interested in the cadet lifestyle. But, if they look for the right athlete/scholars they may find some terrific future officers. </p>
<p>Another questions they may have considered: How will it improve morale for current cadets to have winning teams (if it actually works - sure hope so)? How will alumni react? Will more donations come in for the new rugby field? Will they be able to fund additional sports? The new tv deal should help.</p>
<p>Fair? Probably not, but it may be the best compromise they could construct.</p>
<p>Fabulous and topical discussion. I predict heated debate. Go Army!</p>
<p>This will just lead to athletes going to the Academies for the wrong reasons. You go to an Academy to serve and be a leader first. Being an Army Varsity athlete may carry along with it a great deal of pride, but it should be a DISTANT second. While I don't know of a heavy degree of animosity between athletes and cadets, I know that athletes already get out of doing many mandatory duties and such due to their status. This will only encourage the belief that they are somehow better than those who go to USMA simply to serve and not to play a sport. Athletes who choose an Academy do so with the thought of serving their country foremost in their mind (or at least they should). If they have dreams of NFL or NBA glory, they should go to UNC or Notre Dame. I have 2 close friends who turned down offers from USAFA and USNA to play football at Princeton and a D-III school, respectively. This, in my mind, was the right thing to do, seeing as how they admittedly care about football first. There's nothing wrong with this at all, its just not the type of attitude you want at the Academy.</p>
<p>Putting aside the blantantly unfair aspect of the new rule, I think West Point is going to be very disappointed with the impact that the new 2-year service rule makes on its competitiveness in Division 1 sports such as football, baseball and basketball. Realistically, an athlete focused on pursuing a professional athletic career(or any non-military carreer) shouldn't be in the academy in the first place.</p>
<p>In my opinion, USMA should find the competitive level of college sports that fits the athletic skill level of its "qualified" cadets rather than try to change its cadet qualifications/requirements so that USMA can recruit athletes that are competitive in all Division 1 sports. </p>
<p>But then again, no one at USMA has asked my opinion on the matter. </p>
<p>Sometimes it is better to relegate certain cherished memories to the "good old days" list rather than to our "things to do again" list.</p>
<p>"In my opinion, USMA should find the competitive level of college sports that fits the athletic skill level of its "qualified" cadets rather than try to change its cadet qualifications/requirements so that USMA can recruit athletes that are competitive in all Division 1 sports."</p>
<p>My opinion is to leave the standards alone and continue to compete at the highest level. At West Point, athletics takes on a nature totally apart from that at civilian schools---sure, everyone wants a winning record, but teaching our cadets to compete as a team at the highest level, regardless of their own individual talents is just a part of the West Point experience. Dumbing down entrance standards or service requirements isn't the answer, but neither is dumbing down the level at which the future leaders of our Army compete.</p>
<p>Hey, maybe the answer is to let the women play football!!!
Sorry, couldn't resist!! :)</p>
<p>What a wicked sense of humor! I sure can't wait to discuss women in sports. Should the female professionals be making as much money as the men pros? We can talk about it after another discussion about women in combat. I'm just kidding - really!</p>
<p>The more interesting fact to point out is the marvelous success of this year's baseball team. They had a great season and are actually still very much alive in the playoffs - with a game tonight. And I don't think there was any compromise for service commitments.</p>
<p>Some summary points:
- USMA is now on par with USNA and USAFA in relationship to this issue
- USNA has had this rule in place since Nov. 2000 but no athelete has used it (so likely limited applicablility at USMA also)
- there is still a service commitment (2 yr. active / 6 yr. reserve)
- the pro team would likely have to reimburse the Academy for the education cost
- look at the recognition that Navy has gotten through David Robinson's pro career</p>
<p>In professional sports pay is directly related to how much the fans are willing to spend to see you compete. From that standpoint professional athletes are really just entertainers, the ones that draw the best crowds get paid the most, so in that sense as long as a woman athlete can draw the big crowd she should get the big bucks. Whether it's right or wrong that she does or doesn't get paid as much as a male counterpart doesn't come into play until she draws the same crowds paying the same ticket prices and then still doesn't get paid as much as a male counterpart.</p>
<p>Now as far as women in combat.... Last night my daughter told me she doesn't mind the male officers getting paid as much as she does as long as they pull their own weight and are pointing their weapon in the same direction as she is! :)</p>
<p>Hmmmm. . . .actually pretty good advice for women in general.
As long as those boys are pointing their weapon in the same directions as her's, i.e. their weapons are not pointed toward each each other, lots of problems can be avoided.</p>