<p>Up until this statement, the thread was NAPS specific. The six reasons I posted is what the Academny states as the reasons they send candidates to NAPS. But, heck, what do they know. Perhaps, if those you talk to have a different reason, it is because they have "invented" a reason more palatable to their tastes.</p>
<p>Most candidates I have worked with do not see the reason for NAPS and need convincing to go there. It is usually mid year before they decide that it is the best thing that ever happened to them.</p>
<p>If an athlete were 3Qed, why would he be sent to NAPS?</p>
<p>I think that perhaps what we have here is a failure to communicate. When talking in the context of subpar SATs, class standings, and course loads, it is in relation to those candidates entering USNA directly from high school, not the general high school population as a whole. SATs: The average NAPSter is around 1130. The average Foundation student is probably close to 1200. This year, the average for candidates entering the Academy directly from high school was well in excess of 1350, probably in the 1375 range. The numbers speak for themselves. My guess is that class standing percentiles is probably 20% lower. The average NAPSter may have taken honors chemistry, probably hasn't taken physics, and may or may not have taken PreCalc. The average candidate entering directly probably has a high grade in AP Calc, AP Chem, and AP Physics. The average candidate entering directly from high school would probably validate most of the chemistry and calculus offered at NAPS and would be bored to death.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an old urban legend that will never die. Should it be true to any extent whatsoever, the NCAA would be imposing sanctions on Navy to fast it would not be funny. Navy sports loses a lot of NAPSters annually. Midn Candidates can play a year of high level sports, not lose a year of eligibility, owe the Navy nothing, and transfer at the end of NAPs to another school and play 4 years of Div 1 and be eligible for the draft. Happens all the time. Too often. Coaches are taking a huge gamble sending a quality athlete to NAPS.</p>
<p>While I apreciate all that has been posted, I am still of the opinion that decisions are made re: candidates that fall above the stated guidelines as described. There are kids who not only meet, but exceed the "mean" that are offered foundation..... can't speak for NAPS....but I am not sure it as "urban legend" as one might think. </p>
<p>Redshirting is done all the time in many, many D1 programs..... and while I understand the academies don't venture in that direction (not so much the redshirting- because athletes do get redshirted for injury, leaving them with eligiblity)....but the "added time" is not something the academies do at taxpayer dollars, unlike at civilian schools where 5th years can be the "norm."</p>
<p>Anyway- I am wondering if there is something else that may influence these decisions.... because there are candidates that meet, and even exceed, the "mean" of stated benchmarks, yet are offered foundation..... do you think it might be because they are "triple q'd" late in the process, or perhaps the admissions board is unfamiliar with a particular program or school?</p>
<p>Redshirting and NAPS is totally apples and oranges. Redshirting is sitting out a season. NAPS is an additional year, post high school, of free competitive sports. If it were redshirting, the midn candidates would not be allowed to play interschool games. NCAA agrees to allow NAPS sports since the athletes are not academically qualified for the Academy, need the extra instruction, and should not be in the position for their athletic skills to decline, so they can play their sport. To send an academically qualified athlete to NAPS and allow him to play his recruited sport would violate the spirit and intent of NAPS and their relationship with the NCAA. It would further cause NCAA sanctions. AFA got in trouble several years ago with football over this very situation and were sanctioned. I do not rembember the particualrs and google is failing me. Perhaps someone else can enlighten us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A caveat of NAPS/Foundation selection is a scholastic disqualification. I am sure there are exceptions. The CGO is very good at holding on-the-line packages as long as possible, not allowing them to go before the board until no more changes can possibly be made. Remember though, that the bottom 3Qed 300 or so are not eligible for NAPS because they 3Qed and are not getting an appointment because they are at the low end of the quals. So, becoming 3qed would be a show stopper. And what I tried to say that got totally misstated above is that the majority of these candidates have very strong EC packages and overall, they are right on the Qual/Unqual line, a very nice place to be.</p>
<p>2010, I am very familiar with NAPS but have only had 2 Foundation kids over the years. NAPS is federal taxpayer money and falls under the sole NCAA purvue of USNA. Foundation, supposedly, is the same but it does not involve taxpayers and NCAA rules for the Foundation school apply. They could be perhaps maybe a little more lax. I have no reason to make this statement, just after discussing it with several people over the years, recognize the possibility.</p>
<p>69-thanks for the clarification.... I am more familiar with the foundation end of things as opposed to NAPS....</p>
<p>In discussing the "redshirting" issue, would agree that it applies directly to athletes in-season who are sitting out, presumably for injury or some other reason. I guess what I was getting at was the arrangement where one can do an "extra year" of prep (for whatever reason), continue with their sport, and not "lose" a year of NCAA elegibility. "Redshirting" I can see is not an appropriate term, but for lack of a better one.....and I do recall hearing about the USAFA situation with football...</p>