<p>From the College Confidential home page:</p>
<p>Welcome to College Confidential!
Welcome to the best source of college information on the Web! Here you'll find hundreds of pages of articles about choosing a college, getting into the college you want, how to pay for it, and much more. You'll also find professional college consulting services, the Web's busiest discussion community related to college admissions, and our College Visits section!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I commenced this latest rebirth because, due to the war and providing Individual Augmentations to the overstrapped Army, the Navy has declared that certain critical rates such as EOD are not eligible for NASA and the space program. Does this temper your pride for an Army graduate playing in the NFL and causing the void that the Navy has to fill? </p>
<p>Do you agree with the impression that, to me, implies that the NFL is more important than our space program?</p>
<p>
[quote]
As an Army parent I am proud that one of the players was drafted into the NFL
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'd like to ask in all sincerity what exactly do you mean by that? Are you more proud of the Army or West Point now that a Cadet has been drafted than you would have been had that not occurred? Does the drafting of a Cadet somehow elevate or enhance the stature of the USMA beyond where it stood yesterday or the day before? </p>
<p>When I think of about the sacrifices made by the USMA graduates listed by Shogun in his post #7 I can't think of a single thing that a NFL draftee brings to the equation and I'm not even sure it will have any impact on the football program or recruiting at the end of the day.... </p>
<p>Obviously this is a discussion about a subject that has generated strong feelings, some of which have been unfortunately interpreted to be critical of the institution and it's members. For me the policy is only issue of contention.</p>
<p>It would also be interesting to hear how this is playing out among the cadets at the USMA, what do they think about it?</p>
<p>U.S. Naval Academy Sports:</p>
<p>NavySports.com</a> - Official Athletic Site for Navy Athletics</p>
<p>US Naval Academy Alumni Association and Foundation:</p>
<p>President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500</p>
<p>Secretary Robert M. Gates
United States Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20301-1000</p>
<p>The Honorable Pete Geren
Secretary of the Army
101 Army Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20310</p>
<p>The Honorable Peter C. Winter
Secretary of the Navy
1000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20350</p>
<p>FWDAD, Thanks for the link. However, I know the NAAA well, My contributions to them over the years is in the five digit range. Money that caused them to hire an outstanding Athletic Director, a person with foresight, who knew how to put a football program together. We could paraphrase the old Smith Barney commercial here. "Navy built a football program the old fashioned way, they earned it". Army is attempting to put one together with the stroke of a pen, with no more substance than the paper on which it was written.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd like to ask in all sincerity what exactly do you mean by that? Are you more proud of the Army or West Point now that a Cadet has been drafted than you would have been had that not occurred?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does the drafting of a Cadet somehow elevate or enhance the stature of the USMA beyond where it stood yesterday or the day before?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>All I was trying to say is that no matter what people say about this policy I am still proud of USMA. You don't have to agree with me I was only stating my opinion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When I think of about the sacrifices made by the USMA graduates listed by Shogun in his post #7 I can't think of a single thing that a NFL draftee brings to the equation and I'm not even sure it will have any impact on the football program or recruiting at the end of the day....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I guess that remains to be seen.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It would also be interesting to hear how this is playing out among the cadets at the USMA, what do they think about it?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'll get back to you on this...I am checking with my cadet.</p>
<p>The Army is not the first academy to modify its service requirement for NFL draft picks. See this article about former AFA Cadet Bryce Fisher written in 2006:</p>
<p>From: <a href="http://www.csmng.com/images/academyspirit/academyspirit_2006-02-03.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.csmng.com/images/academyspirit/academyspirit_2006-02-03.pdf</a></p>
<p>Air Force Academy graduates usually
commit to five years on active duty followed
by three more in the active reserves.
When Cadet First Class Fisher graduated,
he was a seventh-round pick, 240th overall,
by the Buffalo Bills in the 99 NFL draft.
His Bills career was put on hold while
he served his first active-duty year at the
Academy working as a recruiter, junior
varsity football coach and varsity assistant.
Fishers second year on active duty was
spent as a vehicle operations officer at Pope
Air Force Base, N.C.
When Bryce played, the policy was, if
you signed a professional contract, you could
apply for an early out after two years,
Academy Sports Information Director Troy
Garnhart said. You then had your remaining
three-year commitment tripled as reserve
time.
The policy was later modified so a graduate
could leave active duty early if he made
an active player roster within months. If not,
the player returned to active duty. Currently,
there is no policy releasing graduates from
their commitment early.
The Air Force agreed to transfer Fisher
to a unit close to the team he was playing
for. But, before he could join the New York
Air National Guard, Buffalo cut him from
their roster, despite a productive rookie
campaign in 2001. He recorded 33 tackles
and three sacks in 13 games.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All I was trying to say is that no matter what people say about this policy I am still proud of USMA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i can understand that- this decision reflects more on the leadership than the institution of USMA itself!</p>
<p>
[quote]
All I was trying to say is that no matter what people say about this policy I am still proud of USMA.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think there is a single individual that has posted on this forum in favor or against the policy that would suggest you should be anything but proud. </p>
<p>My nephew graduated from the USMA as a member of the class of '03. My youngest son still has his cover from graduation sitting on a shelf next to his bed. </p>
<p>He's already completed one tour in Iraq and once his special forces training is completed will probably head right back. </p>
<p>I guess what this comes down to, at least in my mind is why do you need roles models that play football to encourages others to join up when you have the kind of men and women that we are so very fortunate to have serving our country at this time of war? Is that not enough?</p>
<p>USNA69 expresses the sentiment that I so greatly admire among all Service Academy parents and alumni:</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."</p>
<p>When we forget this bond and begin to so openly criticize one Academy's policy change - a policy change not so different from one tried at the AFA a few years ago - and when this criticism by one group of parents so obviously insults another group - then it becomes embarrassing that the argument continues unabated. </p>
<p>My limited experience with the Army and West Point is that both are constantly evaluating what works and what does not and then changing to make things better. Perhaps this new ASO is part of that process. I, for one, plan to take the wait and see attitude.</p>
<p>Okay - sermon over - see you on the USMA forum or better yet, at a tailgate at the Army/Navy game in Phillie this year.</p>
<p>Here's a WP grad that you just have to admire...story tonight on NBC News</p>
<p>Wounded</a> vet plays lacrosse after losing limbs - Other sports - MSNBC.com</p>
<p>PS - I hope Army goes 11-1 next year, losing only on the first Saturday in December. ;)</p>
<p>FYI - just heard back from my cadet. Regarding the cadet that was drafted by the NFL...he said there hasn't been much buzz but the little he has heard has been postitive comments.</p>
<p>Rzrzoom57: "I guess what this comes down to, at least in my mind is why do you need roles models that play football to encourages others to join up when you have the kind of men and women that we are so very fortunate to have serving our country at this time of war? Is that not enough?"</p>
<p>Unfortunately these numbers would suggest that it is not enough. According to a recent USA Today article, the Army has met its recent recruiting goals by:
1. Raising the enlistment age from 35 (in 2006) to 40 and now 42
2. Increasing the number of misconduct waivers (doubled since 2004 – waivers are now needed for 1 in 8 recruits)
3. Paying enlistment and retention bonuses (In 2006 the Army spent $1 billion in bonuses to attract and retain soldiers and the Army reserve spent $315 million – a 46% increase over 2005)</p>
<p>Ann</p>
<p>a few points; I thought we were discussing the SA's and not the state of enlistments? </p>
<p>Last I checked USMA slots were not wanting for candidates....and the mission of the USMA is not to produce or directly facilitate the retention of enlistees. </p>
<p>Will this policy have an impact on the caliber of football players the Army can bring into the USMA? Perhaps. Will this policy have any impact on the part of this equation that matters? Recruitment and retention? I sincerely doubt it. </p>
<p>To me this is just another example of a nation and it's leaders at all levels preoccupied with a quick fix. We don't want to roll up our sleeves and get down and dirty, we want to "fix things" by passing a law or by changing the rules, shuffling the faces and the chairs they sit in, give them new titles and "hey we fixed it".... </p>
<p>If we want to really address retention and recruitment than we can start by taking care of the soldiers we already have, particularly those that return from war making more than a sacrifice of time. We can start by keeping our word to these young men and women and stop the mandatory extensions of tours. We can make sure there will never be another story about conditions at Walter Reed or any of the hundreds of veterans services offices. </p>
<p>Did you see the latest story about the conditions of barracks at Fort Bragg? At a military base no less, we're not talking about the conditions at some bivouac in the mountains of Afghanistan. </p>
<p>Please tell me how many football players we will have to allow the NFL to pick up to offset the damage a story like that does to the creditability of our armed services and their recruitment efforts? </p>
<p>What would encourage a young man or woman to enlist? Maybe some leaders and role models that reinforce the concept of service and contribution to ones country instead those that spend their lives asking "Where's my check"</p>
<p>
[quote]
a few points; I thought we were discussing the SA's and not the state of enlistments?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>actually while this no doubt will bring publicity to Army's Football program - the recruiting assignment, from what I understand is not necessarily to recruit for West Point but for all of the Army. That would include recruiting enlisted soldiers as well.
If you are a high school kid thinking of enlisting and Detroit Lion Campbell shows up at your house to meet with mom and dad - do you think that might tip the scales a little bit?</p>
<p>USMA - has indeed "suffered" from a downturn in the number of applications since the war. I looked back to numbers before the war and while applications from females have risen or held steady there has been a rather sharp decline in male applicants to West Point since 2001.
The class of 2002 had 10559 male applicants and the class of 2011 had only 8658 male applicants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What would encourage a young man or woman to enlist? Maybe some leaders and role models that reinforce the concept of service and contribution to ones country instead those that spend their lives asking "Where's my check"
[/quote]
nope. Kids generally do not enlist to "serve their country". Most enlist for far more altruistic reasons: no job, no skills, get away from the family, get away from home, get outta town, realize they need to grow up. They enlist to get health care and benefits, enlistment bonuses, money for college.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Kids generally do not enlist to "serve their country". Most enlist for far more altruistic reasons: no job, no skills, get away from the family, get away from home, get outta town, realize they need to grow up. They enlist to get health care and benefits, enlistment bonuses, money for college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, ASO and West Point football players playing in the NFL is going to fix that. No way, no how. </p>
<p>D&G out...</p>
<p>Our country and the current thinking regarding the importance of making a contribution did not change overnight, nor will things turn around in an instant. Now I do realize this approach does not feed into our instant gratification society but....at some you have to make a stand and try and move things back from where we are today. </p>
<p>I can't find fault with your assessment regarding many of the reasons kids sign up, though I assume you meant that most enlist for far less altruistic reasons as Altruism is roughly defined as a selfless concern for the welfare of others....and I'd like to think that is indeed the case with many of our young men and women serving today.</p>
<p>Fix what? The reasons for enlisting - those reasons are not going to change.<br>
They are the same reasons given by kids for generations - </p>
<p>What the Army is betting on (besides a good football recruiting class) is -
Increased publicity to encourage male applicants at West Point. More applicants equals more competition and a overall "better" class.</p>
<p>Increased exposure to recruit enlisted soldiers.</p>
<p>Of course, whether or not that "works" remains to be seen. All the services have an advertising and marketing budget. They have to - advertising is very very expensive. Each time the media makes an association between Campbell (or Nick Hill) and the US Army, or West Point that is advertising.</p>
<p>rjrzoom - sorry the brain got ahead of the fingers....</p>
<p>rjrzoom57: you are shooting the messenger. I am not defending the policy merely stating the background to it. If you want the policy changed, I suggest you contact one of the "powers that be" that actually have a say in the matter. It is understood that you and many others disagree with it....</p>
<p>Army, Navy and Air Force still rank among the top 20 of all US Colleges and universities in the lowest admission rates. In fact, USMA was ranked as the most popular "liberal arts" college in the US, and Navy was second. </p>
<p>Link:
USNews.com:</a> America's Best Colleges 2008: Liberal Arts Colleges: Most Popular Colleges</p>
<p>For last year, and in terms of selectivity</p>
<ol>
<li>Navy - 14%</li>
<li>Army - 15%</li>
<li>USAFA - 19%</li>
</ol>
<p>Only the Ivies, Stanford, MIT and a couple of specialty schools ranked higher than Navy and USMA.</p>
<p>So, are you trying to say that the caliber of people admitted isn't good enough, and that Army needs to do better? Seems like they're doing fine, according to the statistics.</p>
<p>This is all about Army Football, pure and simple.</p>