<p>With all the talk in this most competitive year of everyone currently on the NWL waiting to hear about a slot, I would like to know more about how many slots are reserved for recruited athletes. Lists of recruited athletes are released throughout the spring each year on the athletics website, with the notable exception of the football team, whose list is always released on R-Day. If you add up the number of individuals on these lists (with football coming in at about 80 alone), it appears that well over 10% of the incoming class already had slots set aside for them by virtue of their athletic prowess. Can this be right? Athletes do need to obtain a nomination like everyone else, right? It sounds like if an academy really wants you for sports, the coach and the brass will make that happen. I am most familiar with USMA, but am also curious about how this works at the other academies.</p>
<p>With blue chips, probably none. With ‘soft’ recruits, considering that in excess of 90% of incoming candidates have high school letters, who knows? Athletics is a part of the mission of the Academy to develop midshipmen physically.</p>
<p>Yes, athletes must meet all the nomination/appointment parameters as everyone else.</p>
<p>I can tell you that recruited athletes definitely need to get a nomination from wherever they can, they are held to the same academic standards that all other candidates/appointees are and earn their appointment the same as other candidates. The reason the SAs look to athletes as good candidates does fall, as stated above, in developing midshipman physically, but most of the athletes have demonstrated the ability to earn good grades, manage their time very well, work as a TEAM toward a common goal and present themselves as physically fit. </p>
<p>Does the original poster think that special dispensation is made for the dumb jock? They still have to pass the tests and the schools do want to report a decent average SAT or ACT score for the incoming class so are they going to let in a bunch of dummies just to win a game, I don’t think so!</p>
<p>
This is a misleading, untrue statement for many recruited athletes. Mids know this well.</p>
<p>Conversely, there are many recruited athletes who are extremely bright, academically on par with the Brigade, and would be competitive candidates regardless of being recruited. And as noted earlier, there are a great many recruited athletes who would stand zero chance of apporintment absent their status. Suggesting otherwise is simply disingenuous.</p>
<p>Indeed, while many do not need it, many receive ample “special dispensation.” Simply because they are not in the same category as perhaps some poor scholar-athletes at secular, civilian institutions. Many benefit from NAPS and foundation schools to better prepare them. This is one of those “needs of the Navy” categories where the standard expectations need not apply.</p>
<p>And again, this is NOT an enditement of all or perhaps even most recruited athletes.</p>
<p>
Very true. And it transcends into their careers after graduation. Statistics have shown that USNA Division I athletes, especially team athletes, and, yes, even football players are more likely to make the Navy a career and also are more likely to be more successful than their non-athlete counterparts.</p>
<p>not meaning to antagonize, but i would most certainly love to see these statistics</p>
<p>“Naval Academy Athletic Programs as Predictors of Midshipmen Academic and Military Performance,” Gregory M. Zettler, 2002. Googling should find it, but if not PM me your email and I’ll send it to you. I haven’t read the entire thesis, but the abstract supports Mombee’s statement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>in referring to …
</p>
<p>Now let’s look precisely at what the precise reports …</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thus this study provides NO information or research to support mombee’s point. In fact, the study is not ABOUT success as an officer in the NAVY. Rather it examines miltary grades and athletic participation …all @ USNA.</p>
<p>Can we see that data mombee? All Zettler’s study says is that if a Mid lettered in either a varsity or club sport, his/her military ranking improved @ the Academy. Academic performance was undetermined.</p>
<p>This study says NOTHING about a Mid’s future probability of success as an officer being enhanced vs. his fellow plebes. </p>
<p>So, knowing some can be inclined to stretch the truth and proclaim “statistics” …mombee, I’m with hopeful. Love to see those you’re using. And broken down by sport, as you’ve alluded to, please. Looking forward with no anticipation of the hard evidence … 
</p>
<p>Stringmom, thanks for posting. There are quite a few studies out, mostly PG school dissertations, which point out the value of athletics at USNA. Some bog down in the definition of ‘success’. Here is my favorite. Very basic and straightforward:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.usna.edu/IR/htmls/lead/database/cohort2/c02_leskovich.pdf[/url]”>http://www.usna.edu/IR/htmls/lead/database/cohort2/c02_leskovich.pdf</a></p>
<p>If you are ever required to give a presentation on why USNA values athletics so highly, I recommend it. Both Gen MacArthur and Adm Lawrence knew what they were talking about. Adm Lawrence’s perspective is humorous in that he was a great baseball player as was several near and dear to me and baseball players seem to take a hit on all the reports, no matter how they define the parameters of success.</p>
<p>These forums are humorous in that both candidates, mids, and their parents often want to define success in their own terms, usually a snapshot of their own attributes, not what the Navy has found successful in achieving their own goals.</p>
<p>Additionally, anyone who has been around the Academy any length of time(read beyond the mandatory service obligation period) will be overwhelmed of the anecdotal evidence of stars-wearing six stripers who serve their minimum obligation and resign and grubby old football players whose necks no longer fit in their one set of half presentable uniforms, who never was to be found in Bancroft Hall after Plebe summer, who end up as an Admiral or Undersecretary of the Navy or some such position.</p>
<p>I see two major problems with this thesis.</p>
<ol>
<li>The data is drawn from USNA Classes 1981-1985 – 20 years ago – a little outdated for today’s times.<br></li>
<li>The study is based upon PROMOTION to LCDR. In my opinion, to judge performance and promotion, as well as a “career” Navy officer, you must analyze at least up to O-5 paygrade. O-4 is still considered a “junior officer” grade and the board for O-5 is going to be much more competitive and detailed. I think Navy’s definition of success would be for an URL officer having the ability to command. After all, isn’t that USNA’s mission? “assume highest responsibilities of command, citizenship, and government.” Very few opportunities to have command at O-4. If I was doing this research, I would have picked O-5.</li>
</ol>
<p>Does sports have a direct impact on teamwork, competitiveness, and committment – most definitely. Is a Division I athlete more likely to stay in the Navy or be more successful (in performance/promotion) than any other MIDN or officer candidate; I don’t think there is anyway to quantify it until the senior officer level – those officers who have taken (and survived) command.</p>
<p>On a side note, this study didn’t include USMC.</p>
<p>This is a nice paper and does give some correlation between being a letter-winning athlete and exhibiting modestly inordinate early-to-midcareer USN progress. It’s a short-term view of a very limited sample size. And says zilch about a successful Navy “career,” as you’ve rightly noted. Nahda on that point.</p>
<p>But more precisely, the study does not indicate what it proclaims: That athletic letter-winning EFFECTS promotion to LCDR. As you’ve noted, jadler, there is no way it could. </p>
<p>In fact, it merely exposes correlation, i.e. that successful athletes are early successful USN officers; but in no way provides any information as to HOW or even IF being a successful athlete contributes to these early advances. It merely indicates that more often than might be expected, letter-winning athletes get to LCDR quicker than their counterparts. Read the study if in doubt.</p>
<p>What it does indicate: Successful athletes become inordinately successful USN officers, at least in the early going. </p>
<p>Now think about this …would you expect that highly competitive, type A personalities inclined to compete and “beat” those in their game …would do anything BUT lead the race. Of course not. This is common sense.</p>
<p>But again …it provides NO INDICATION that the fact of competing and succeeding on the athletic field/court has anything to do with USN success.</p>
<p>What is much more likely? That these people were successful (remember “blue chip”?) coming into the USNA “computer” and guess what they were going out? Disproportionately successful. Simply a different game. It has little to do with physical fitness though and everything to do with personality type.</p>
<p>But agan …ZERO INDICATION that the act of participating had anything to do with this success. </p>
<p>Lastly, about this study …let’s be very clear, and this in no way demeans the effort …it is not a “dissertation” in the academic sense of that term. It is a masters degree thesis. No more, no less …</p>
<p>Unless one considers the student’s institution and advisors. Most researchers would caution its validity, or at least its credibility as a premise for any conclusions. Why?</p>
<p>What was the status of the author? Right, a U.S. Naval officer. Being paid to produce this paper by the Navy for the benefit of the Navy. </p>
<p>What was status of the advisors? Right, U.S. Naval officers and/or officials paid by the Navy for the benefit of the Navy. Understandably. </p>
<p>And finally, who governs the institution that has published the results? Right. The U.S. Navy.</p>
<p>And one more caveat: Could there have been any “risk” in finding otherwise? You answer that one. </p>
<p>Now, I’m not saying anything beyond the overwhelming case that might be made about the premise and consequent bias of the study. And it is overwhelming from an academic research POV. Add to that the reality that it was not a scientifically based study …it was for completion of a degree in HR and Leadership, neither of which would be deemed credible or sufficient as precursor graduate study for a rigorous, legitimate Ph.D. program.</p>
<p>Ask Michigan or MIT how much they’d transfer for a candidate wanting to do a Ph.D. in lets say industrial psychology. Engineering of some type. History. English lit. Even higher education. </p>
<p>Most certainly, an interesting, worthy masters paper in HR though. But let’s not draw erroneous, or misleading in this case, conclusions. I beg to say both the author (in suggesting athletics “effects” rather than correlates to early USN “success”) and mombee attempt to do so here.</p>
<p>And if one is sufficiently doubtful? or perhaps enormously bored? Read it. I was both and did.</p>
<p>One final thought on this …let’s take a couple real-life “what ifs” to illustrate the common sense of this. Let’s use several ultimate USN cases …</p>
<p>Let’s suppose Roger Staubach was a fresh ensign and you are the captain of the ship. What do you think the pressure will be to make Roger a HUGE NAVY SUCCESS? Or would you be more inclined to show this football-playing punk the Navy way …no favors, kick his butt. You and I know the implicit bias and what the powers that be would have inkled or more to the Captain. What about Joe Belino? sp? How about “the Admiral” himself, David Robinson? Do you really believe it would be in the best interests of the Navy to expose these great jocks as anything other than great Navy men? So, do you thinkg there might be, could be any potential bias in the data used for this study??? We all can figure this one out, an all-time no-brainer, whether we’ve ever done a “dissertation” or even a masters paper. </p>
<p>mombee …can you show us, as you’ve stated, where that research is, broken down by sports?</p>
<p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>jadler, you aren’t making sense. First you bemoan 20year old data and then you suggest command performance be the better criteria. In order to capture all the above-zone O-4 promotions, a 15 year benchmark would be required. A cross section of enough classes to ensure credibility would necessitate 5 or so years, ergo 20 year old data. In order to evaluate success as a commander, as you suggest, the O-6, not the O-5 board results would be required, and you would be looking at a minimum of 35 year old data.</p>
<p>To support Leskovich, I would propose the following:</p>
<p>As you may be coming aware, many, if not most, careers are made or broken by the end of the first assignment. Therefore, the more junior data will probably not be that different from more senior results, and as you pointed out, will be available much sooner and will be more relevant.</p>
<p>Since we are evaluating USNA influence, the more junior the sample, the more indicative it will be of USNA and the less influenced by outside sources. Promotion rates for O-2 and O-3, however, are such that meaningful results would be problematic.</p>
<p>The more senior the promotion board, the greater outside influences other than pure performance affect promotion rates. I would go so far as to state that the O-4 board is the most senior one that performance plays pretty much the entire role in promotion.</p>
<p>And you cannot make O-5 or O-6 without first making O-4 so I fail to see your point of its lack of relevance.</p>
<p>Based on memory alone but almost certain that it is valid, these year groups were especially pertinent in that their O-4 promotion boards were during the post cold war downsizing, and their promotion statistics would be more significant.</p>
<p>jadler, as you are well aware, there are three distinct arenas at USNA, academics, professionalism, and athletics. Anyone can excel in one, many in two, and the ones who excel in all three usually get an all expense paid trip to Great Britain for the first couple of years after commissioning. All bring value to the fleet. All serve their country.</p>
<p>The more one digs, the darker …and sillier this becomes. </p>
<p>Let’s look @ just 2 contentions to see how silly it is.</p>
<p>Remember what’s being put forth: Succeeding in athletics, in itself, is a significant influencer (the study says “effect”, i.e. that doing what was required to win that letter somehow transformed the individual sufficiently to catapault them to mid-career success more quickly than other athletes (remember ALL Mids compete) who failed to letter) on career success of USN officers. Success in USNA athletics is defined specifically as winning a letter in a varsity sport. Career success is defined as getting promoted to LCDR more quickly than others.</p>
<p>And now mombee contends …
</p>
<p>This suggests the majority of future flag officers can be button-holed. And non-admirals likewise. And all following on the heels of one’s initial 2 year cruise. Can’t you see it? As they’re disembarking, shipmates are saluting these officers w/ a “Congratulations Ensign/Admiral Pulver! Well done!” …or “Tough luck, sir! If you’d only lettered in golf. See you at the Fleet Club in 3 or 4 years and buy you a brewski.”</p>
<p>Wow! That’s powerful if not totally persuasive. Any data to back that up??? That is some crystal ball. Or might it be cracked?</p>
<p>And then readers are informed …
</p>
<p>In other words, he’s saying that one can’t look at the actual end game, i.e. the senior flag officers to study this because of politics! Now wait a minute. A big part of Leskovic’s contention is that letter-winning jocks get it done …on the Yard, in the Fleet. But now mombee’s contending well, there’s too much politics …and too many seasons past to suggest that admirals and USN Secretaries might be evaluated? And that 20 years out guys become less competitive and/or poorly conditioned? And/or somehow that becomes less important in making flag rank?
</p>
<p>I told you the longer this goes, the sillier it gets.:eek:</p>
<p>Some on here proclaim to be expert in so many things. Thank God not brain surgery.</p>
<p>
Never said any such thing. Never implied it. Never thought it. Pure speculation on the part of this poster. I am relatively certain that there is absolutely no truth in this allegation for O-6 and below boards. O-7 and above are far outside my realm of expertise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>mombee, if you are evaluating O-5 or O-6, then you would be correct in needing to go back that far. However, when I was mentioning the data was a little outdated, that was implying the use of O-4 data, which can go back to Classes of 1994-1998. It shouldn’t take more than 12 years to make LCDR.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh really, on what presumption are you saying that most careers are made or broken during the first tours? I would like to see that data. A career isn’t made or broken until a Dept. Head. I don’t know on what premise you can relate a DIVO tour to a Dept. Head tour. If that is the case, why have the ranks and responsibilities of ENS, LTJG, and LT? You are saying that an ENS can be as responsible, thoughtful, and forward-seeing as a LT. On the SWO side of things (I can’t speak for aviation/subs), there are quals – TAO. Not too often do you see an ENS/LTJG qualify TAO, one of the most important jobs on a ship. So your statement above, is way off the wall. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems like the topic has changed from “career” officer and successful officer…to…who is more likely to promote to LCDR. What is your definition of Navy success? Once again, I would hope it would involve the officer at least having command of a ship, sub, squadron – which 95% of the time happens at the O-5 grade; as I mentioned earlier, there are a very few exceptions. The reason we have O-1 to O-4 is to TRAIN and PREPARE officers to assume the responsibility of COMMAND! This may not be every officer’s goal, but for those seeking a truly successful Navy career, I think they would want command. My last CO kept talking to the JO’s about how he wanted all of us to ultimately command a ship.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably correct, but that was a handful of years ago and I don’t think this study reflects what is going on today! Therefore, how can we accurately say that these stats are correct?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. I couldn’t agree anymore. But once again, if we talk about promotion to O-4 and O-5, then going to grad school, overseas, or not, isn’t going to play a major effect. To make O-5, you pretty much have to go to grad school and have JPME I – everyone will have had to sacrifice about 1-1.5 years for a Masters. </p>
<p>My bottom line – there is inconclusive evidence that suggests that Division I athletes are more successful or Navy-career oriented than their counterparts until O-5. Politics really start becoming a factor at O-6 and above – but definitely O-7 and up.</p>
<p>"Indeed, while many do not need it, many receive ample “special dispensation.” </p>
<p>Not all athletes get “special dispensation” for just nominations or grades. Recently met a mom whose son received a waiver for color-blind. I have followed these forums for over 2 years, and haven’t heard of this before at USNA, so I guess it’s a “special dispensation.” He is a state record holder in his sport. She is thrilled that he will never be on a ship, plane, or sub after graduation.</p>
<p>Getting back on the topic of this post…</p>
<p>To think that the football team and the basketball team do not have slots reserved for their recruited players is ridiculous. Any attempt to get anyone to believe otherwise is, at best, disingenuous, and at worst, a bold-faced violation of the Honor Concept (i.e. - pants on fire).</p>
<p>Of course they have slots. This is Big Time Sports (follow the money). Don’t be naive.</p>
<p>No Division 1 team is going to just “hope” that the normal student enrollment of varsity letter winners is going to be enough to win at that level, and winning is the ONLY thing that matters at the D1 level. Even at Navy. </p>
<p>The football coaches recruit football players, the basketball coaches recruit basketball players. They do not recruit Navy officers. They want sports talent, because that’s what wins, and winning is what keeps them in a job. </p>
<p>And one only needs to look at the favorable disciplinary treatment given to the star player who smoking marijuana, was caught, tested positive, and is still averaging 7.3 yards per carry at the United States naval Academy) to realize that Division 1 star athletes are not only given admission preference (they often do not go through the Congressional nomination process, but instead use a Superintendent’s of SecNav nom) bu they are also given preferential treatment when they commit felonies as well.</p>
<p>FYI - How many members of the Class of 2009 are still at USNA trying to graduate? Only one I know of is a former star football player. [Critics</a> say some athletes might skip service - MarineCorpsTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/03/marine_academy_academy_032810w/]Critics”>http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/03/marine_academy_academy_032810w/)</p>
<p>:rolleyes:</p>
<p>You nailed it. 9.9, 9.9, 10, 10, 10 ! 
You are America’s idol!</p>
<p>Yes, there are designated slots for recruited athletes, ample/most slots at NAPS and foundation prep schools to make it once they’re IDed, recruited, but unappointed, special dispensations to enable some of those recruited athletes to be eventually appointed, and even perhaps (as you suggest …not sure I buy this, but it seems the Brigade does), more special dispensation for academic, military, and behavioral missteps once those recruited athletes matriculate. </p>
<p>Again, no need to think this is anything underhanded or dishonest, simply addressing special needs of the Navy. No more, no less. Winning athletics is important to the “face of the Navy.” We all like affiliating with the victors.</p>
<p>And more broadly, mombee’s conclusions are suggesting that this is in fact, a good practice. Why? Because it enables the Navy to attract, appoint and retain Midshipmen who would otherwise be unable to be appointed and/or would henceforth go elsewhere and more importantly would not become that iceberg-tip of shining stars, aka flag-ranking officers in the Fleet. Oh, but first one needs to make it to LCDR before his peers, but for some reason, not politics mind you, the progression post-LCDR then falls apart at that point. Still there are just loads of broken down old jocks manning the Admirals’, Sec of Whatever, and other high-ranking political appointments. Huh, go figure. </p>
<p>Now, beyond our known sample of 1 …who on the planet earth believes this progression? </p>
<p>I see no hands. hmmmmmmm. C’mon, don’t be shy. There’s one in the back! Yes maam, and could you tell us who you are? Oh, mombee’s mommee. :eek: ;)</p>
<p>By the way, I DO believe there are probably many high-ranking USN and USMC officers and govt. officials who in fact were sufficiently fine USNA athletes to win a letter. But it was the elements that made them successful in that arena …NOT the arena …that led them to further success in other arenas. And furthermore …as mombee rightly notes …these are anecdotal. The vast majority of successful USN and USMC officers, it is highly safe to say, never wore the varsity N* on their sweater.</p>
<p>“Mombee’s mombee” Now THAT is a classic.
Perhaps, rather, it was mombee’s uncle: Uncle69!</p>
<p>
Yes, the Supt has the authorization to admit a few each year who are color blind. I think the quota last year was 20. Tell mom that she is correct that they are not allowed to go unrestricted Navy line and that most end up going Marine Corps.</p>