<p>"It's my duty to play in the NFL..." - Huh? I'm a lot less sympathetic to the young man and his decision than I was before I saw this.</p>
<p>E:60</a> - Call Of Duty - ESPN Video</p>
<p>At least Jeremy Schaap seems to "get" it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As is the argument that eliminating ASO equals or will result in less troops having their duty involuntarily extended.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As is the argument that eliminating ASO equals or will result in less troops having their duty involuntarily extended.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That assessment/counter argument is, quick frankly, irrelevant to the issue under discussion. Essentially you are using the argument that an action will not have any impact on an outcome as a justification for it’s continued existence. </p>
<p>I would have no problem or objections with graduates playing pro ball and used as recruiting tools so long as the individual given that opportunity remains in the service until their commitment is satisfied and is paid the same as his/her counterparts on the ground in Iraq. If he/she signs for 3 million a year I can think of lot’s of places where that money could be used to benefit those that took the same oath, agreed to the same commitment and are now in harms way. </p>
<p>Given those conditions is the next Heisman trophy winner likely to sign up? Probably not…At the end of the day what is more important; the kind and quality of soldiers, sailors and marines you produce or your record in football? I cannot see how this program has a positive impact on the ultimate goal and mission of our service academies. More than anything it reinforces the divisive and potentially corrosive “animal farm” – “we’re all equal but some of us are more equal than others if you play football” mentality.</p>
<p>You have to all understand that this outstanding Cadet did not make the rule, who our we to judge his decision!
There was a story in SI that stated: when this Cadet was a 3C he was approach by several college to transfer. At that point his West Point Football coach explained this rule to him and convinced him to stay.
He seems like a honorable person and will sever his country with honor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don't think this is exactly the issue. I feel that good leadership demands that prior to asking others to take extraordinary measures such as involuntary extensions or asking the Navy or AF to Individually Augment deployed Army units, that the Army should ensure that it's house is totally cleaned up, that there are no loose ends. A single officer slipping through the cracks decreases the effectiveness of asking others to do more.</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wait - are you saying that if we were not in a ground war situation where the Army was seriously deficient of personnel or the Army was in a force reduction (as the AF is)- this policy would be ok?</p>
<p>So - it's not the policy, per se that you object to but the fact that the Army is involved in a war?</p>
<p>^^^^^^^^^^^^ Huh?? It is the war and the personnel deficiency which has been used by one and all as a rationalization for the policy.</p>
<p>Yes, the fact that the Army is at war makes it even less palatable.</p>
<p>JAMO said:</p>
<p>
[quote]
"Wait - are you saying that if we were not in a ground war situation where the Army was seriously deficient of personnel or the Army was in a force reduction (as the AF is)- this policy would be ok?</p>
<p>So - it's not the policy, per se that you object to but the fact that the Army is involved in a war?"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not saying that. The policy is wrong in peacetime and in time of war. It's just wrong, period.</p>
<p>It's got nothing to do with Caleb Campbell personally, any deep-seated fear that Army will start beating Navy because they use ASO to "outwit, outlast and outplay" Navy in the recruiting game for FB recruits, nor do I harbor anything but the deepest respect for the Army and West Point.</p>
<p>Let me put it to you this way: if you have a close friend or family member who is doing something that you're pretty certain is not in their best interest - even if they think it will help them or at least not harm them - do you sit silently by and watch them flounder, or do you say, "Hey, do you really think that is a great idea?" It's not always a "fun" conversation, but I'd rather do that than say or do nothing.</p>
<p>Those in support of the ASO still think it will have a positive impact on enlisted recruiting. I don't believe it - and I won't until somebody can show a positive correlation between the policy and filling the ranks. I'd change my mind in an instant if it could be proved to me. The policy has been in effect for three years. Where's the beef?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Luigi said: As is the argument that eliminating ASO equals or will result in less troops having their duty involuntarily extended.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not making that argument. It's unfair to order a 22 year-old staff sergeant who's honored her contract in Iraq to extend involuntarily and give a 22 year-old 2LT who hasn't yet honored his commitment - not through any fault of his own, mind you - a free pass to buy out of his.</p>
<p>Something that has been bandied about on this thread is that the ASO folks will have to serve 6 years of reserve time after the initial two of recruiting. That's not necessarily true. They also have the option to "buy out" the remaining three years of their obligation. My gut tells me that the "buy out" will probably be the preferred option - if we're still engaged in a shooting war.</p>
<p>If you are a pro athlete and can afford to buy out, why wouldn't you?</p>
<p>Call of Duty (ESPN's E60)--ESPN takes a look at Army's new policy letting athletes play pro immediately</p>
<p>By Sheldon Y.</p>
<p>It's a big weekend for Army football and the Black Knights aren't even taking the field for a game. Still, history can be made by strong safety Caleb Campbell. Campbell could become the first Army player selected in the NFL draft since the Green Bay Packers took quarterback Ronnie McAda in the seventh round of the 1997 draft.</p>
<p>Three other Army players, fullback Mike Viti, wide receiver/punt returner Jeremy Trimble and punter Owen Tolson could sign NFL free agent contracts after the draft.</p>
<p>"The faculty, my tactical company, my classmates, everyone has been so supportive," Campbell said. "It's been exciting. I'm thankful the Army has given me the opportunity to pursue this career. I don't know where I'm going to go (in the draft), but I'm just excited to go to a camp." McAda, who helped Army to its last winning season in 1996, also played for Denver. But he never played in a regular-season game. Things were different back then.</p>
<p>McAda hung around the Packers' training camp until last cuts in 1997. Then it happened. He didn't get release, but McAda had to leave the Packers to serve two years active duty in the Army.</p>
<p>Making an NFL roster will be a little easier for this year's group of hopefuls because of a new policy introduced by the Department of Army in 2005. It's called the alternative service option program.</p>
<p>Cadets accepted into the program "will owe two years of active service in the Army, during which time they will be allowed to play their sport in the player-development systems of their respective organizations and be assigned to recruiting stations. If they remain in professional sports following those two years, they will be provided the option of buying out the remaining three years of their active-duty commitment in exchange for six years of reserve time."</p>
<p>Navy and Air Force don't have that type of program in place. Both academies require two years of active service after graduation before allowing the option of switching the final three years of active time for six years in the reservesCampbell's been projected anywhere from a fourth round pick to a free agent sign. He's talked to more than a dozen teams. At 6-foot-1, 229 pounds, he's on the board as a safety, but could be moved to linebacker in the NFL. Maybe Campbell can another version of Cato June. June, of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers starred, played safety at the University of Michigan. The Indianapolis Colts took him in the sixth round of the 2003 NFL draft and moved June to linebacker. He made the Pro Bowl in 2005 and led the Colts in tackles in their Super Bowl win over the Bears. "Teams that run the Tampa Bay defense (Cover 2) have talked to me about playing outside linebacker," Campbell said. "That just gives me more options."</p>
<p>While Campbell is the headliner of Army's NFL hopefuls, Viti, Tolson and Trimble have all talked to NFL teams about possible free agent deals. Tolson joined Campbell at the NFL combine in February.</p>
<p>"Everyone has been coming up to me (on campus) and asking which team are you going to," Tolson said. "They are taking a lot of pride in our success. I just tell them 'Guys, I'm just one of ya'll. I just want to make it and represent all of you.'"</p>
<p>Extra points: Army wanted no part of Ohio State, but Navy does. The Midshipmen and Buckeyes announced that they will play in 2009 and 2014. That hole was left on Ohio State's schedule after Army backed out.</p>
<p>Navy will visit Columbus on Sept. 5, 2009 and the Buckeyes will return the favor in five years, playing Navy somewhere near its campus in Annapolis, Md., on Aug. 30, 2014.</p>
<p>My Detroit Lions picked up Mr. Campbell in the 7th Round!!!!!</p>
<p>The Navy is at war. They are commencing to limit alternatives for personnel. The following is discontinuing to allow 10 different designators to go to NASA:</p>
<p>Actually, it is something I had rather read about Army and the pro athlete option. Glad to see at least one of our services which realizes where the priorities are.</p>
<p>I am an Army mom and I suggest you all go back and read post #7 by Shogun one more time. Please consider ending this conversation. It is embarrassing.</p>
<p>Great post usservicemom. I agree</p>
<p>I'm a Navy dad with two kids at USNA - I would be ashamed of them if they chose the NFL (or any other ASO) over real, active Navy/Marine service - especially when we're ordering others to extend involuntarily.</p>
<p>What's embarrassing is the sophistry employed by West Point, the Army and the supporters of West Point football who are drinking the koolaid and trying to convince themselves and everyone else that this policy is fair and in keeping with West Point's mission and values - especially when those listed on "post #7" have paid the ultimate price.</p>
<p>"Inconvenient Truth", perhaps?</p>
<p>The</a> Huge Blog - MLive.com</p>
<p>Another county heard from - and he's in Detroit Lions country. The idiots who posted replies seem to think this is a combination of "Rudy" and "Invincible" where some poor schmuck has been picked from obscurity and will avoid Iraq and Afghanistan. The responses to the article show just how ill-educated most of America is when it comes to the mission of nation's military academies.</p>
<p>I think everyone's pretty much had their say on this topic. Cadet Campbell will make his decision, the Army will make their's. If anyone in the other service academys feels this is so detrimental to the war effort, Iam sure the Army is more than willing to accept an inter-service transfer so they can strap on a pair and hit the sand in his place. Till then, I think the Army and West Point have shed enough blood to have earned the right to determine what's best for both.</p>
<p>Ludicrous...</p>
<p>Folks,
It appears that for some, I have out-stayed my welcome on this board. I certainly don't want to foster any ill will amongst posters here. I will keep my posts limited to the USMA discussion group going forward.
Best wishes to all of you.</p>
<p>Hey, don't go. What does disagreement have to do with being 'welcome'. I agree with grad & dad that somehow trying to equate war deaths with a football policy is 'ludicrous' but that doesn't mean I will not listen to your opinion. Each war has a different service in the forefront in harm's way. When I graduated, the Rotunda at USNA displayed midshipman photos of missing and KIAed graduates. They were 8x0 photos on 4x8 boards, probably 32 pictures on 8 or so boards. Do the math. Does that give USNA the right to do anything they want based on these sacrifices. I don't think so.</p>
<p>There is only one day a year that USNA grads don't recognize USMA grads as their closest brothers. We, through a common background, share more common ground than differences. Most alumni clubs will have one or two joint meetings each year. Some clubs are actually joint clubs. I always get their input on things that are happening, to compare the two academies.</p>
<p>This new policy for WP is huge and it will affect USNA. Yes, we are interested. No, it will not go away. Discussion across boundaries is good. Stick around.</p>