<p>Navy doctors and lawyers certainly do contribute to the military's efforts. But so do recruiters. High profile athletes who got their start at one of the services academies reflect favorably on both the academy and the service that is represented.</p>
<p>Let's be realistic about this. Do we really expect a flood of students/graduates bailing out in droves because they are becoming professional athletes or will be making 6-figures as an executive at some major corporation? Absolutely not! We're hardly opening Pandora's Box here.</p>
<p>It's going to be a very rare occurrence.</p>
<p>I know it sounds as if I'm arguing the point. We've strayed from my initial inquiry regarding service obligation. I'm actually somewhat ambivalent on this point. I don't feel strongly one way or the other. I guess I'm inclined to not see the harm in allowing somebody who ended up being an extraordinary athlete with tremendous potential to pursue a dream not afforded to many.</p>
<p>I would feel the same if somebody ended up being exceptionally brilliant - like an Einstein - be allowed to be exempt from military service in order to pursue constant research and development in some area. Imagine if a Naval Academy graduate found a cure for cancer -or- definitively proved the String Theory -or- was able to figure out a way to transport matter great distances. I wouldn't have a problem with that.</p>
<p>Exactly. Therefore, rather than opening a floodgate for everyone, don't open it for anyone. If we started with pro athletes, where would we stop? With the corporate salary offer of $169, 699 and above??</p>
<p>As long as we realize that the Naval Academy's perspective on this is unique when compared to the other service academies. I'm wondering why the Army and Air Force seem to be so deficient in make these same lofty realizations. And, in the past, even the Navy was striking "deals" with these talented athletes. So it's not as if the Academy has been steadfastly consistent with its policy.</p>
<p>Do we really see any harm done back when they were more lenient in this regard?</p>
<p>USNA69 is correct, USNA has never struck deals. Everybody likes to point to David Robinson as an example. When he entered Navy he was 6' 4". When he graduated he was 7' 1". Although he exceeded all height standards, he did serve 2 years, even though he was the number one pick of San Antonio. He was a good enough player that they were willing to wait for him. Bottom line, you attend, you start your third year, you graduate, you do 5 years and you resign, or continue. Simple system to understand. There have been succesful stories in sports where people have followed this process: Staubach, McConkey and Chad Hennings (USAFA).</p>
<p>
[quote]
I guess I'm inclined to not see the harm in allowing somebody who ended up being an extraordinary athlete with tremendous potential to pursue a dream not afforded to many
[/quote]
</p>
<p>69 is correct, what about the person who is a computer genius, should they be allowed to leave?</p>
<p>They raised their hand knowing that there was an obligation. End of subject, period, dot. Anyone attending the SA has the ability to walk away b4 yr 3. Nobody would hold it against them for following the dream, but if you stay after that it is expected you will serve out your obligation.</p>
<p>69 gave great examples earlier about 3 different scenarios for current mids. Lets expand off of that...</p>
<p>They graduate, take a flying slot and owe 8 yrs...3 yrs into it, an airline approaches them and offer a handful of money, the precedant has been set, why can't they argue that the service allowed the athlete out, thus they shouldn't be required to fulfill their obligation. Or how about the doc, (they surely can make more $$$ in the civilian) isn't a doctor more important to our society than an athlete?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's be realistic about this. Do we really expect a flood of students/graduates bailing out in droves because they are becoming professional athletes or will be making 6-figures as an executive at some major corporation? Absolutely not! We're hardly opening Pandora's Box here.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I disagree...you are opening Pandora's box...heck, legislation would have to be made about who qualifies to step out...Would the law state if you pay it back than you can leave?</p>
<p>Two years at a SA should be plenty of time for someone to look at their options and leave, if it's best for them. Heck, ROTC students only get one year to decide. Wouldn't policies allowing Mids/Cadets to back out of their commitment also have to include ROTC Mids/Cadets?</p>
<p>Isn't this as much a question of personal honor as anything else? The rest of our society is replete with people who sign contracts and make commitments, but then back out of them. We don't need to encourage those types of actions at our SAs, IMO.</p>
<p>I still do not understand the logic that having a high profile baseball player will increase recruiting. People who look at him are ones that say, "I would like to go to the Naval Academy so I can be a pro baseball player"...not I want to go because I want to be an officer. Do you expect him to do commercials for the Navy or something? Here is a good recruiting slogan. The reason the other high profile pro players that went to the academy are well known is because they did their time honorably and then went onto their pro careers. He took an oath on graduation day. He knew what could happen. If he was so sure he wanted to be a pro baseball player and not an officer why did he raise his right hand? All he would have had to do was pay back the academy.</p>
<p>I do not know what having a good football team and attracting good officers has to do with one another. I have never heard someone wanting to go to the Naval Academy because they had a good football team. Through the 90s Navy was terrible. Those officers are the ones that are field grade now and have led our military in OIF and OEF. I am pretty sure our bad football team did not make them bad officers. </p>
<p>If anything, publicity about a baseball player who was let out of their contract would be bad publicity. Enlisted Marine and Sailors are there because they want to do their duty. So how would putting him up as a "shining star" for the Navy help that. It would put a bitter taste in their mouths.</p>
<p>The Navy has three options. First, set up some program similar to Army where the individual spends a few years doing both and then an extended Reserve commitment. This plan is nothing but a feeble rationalization. An athlete is going to get paid a Govt. salary to ‘recruit’ while being a full time athlete. navy07 brings up two very good points. Is it effective recruiting? and is it an effective active duty commitment for a Naval Officer? Personally, I think that any exposure of the Academy can be beneficial. One of our largest obstacles is that a lot of people do not realize that USNA is a 4 year college. When I mentioned to my MD, an Ohio State grad, that we were going to start playing them year after next, he was surprised that OSU would play a service team instead of a college. Our minister for 26 years, knowing that both myself and my son were grads, when I tried to explain my obtuseness as being that of a trained engineer, stated that he did not realize I had gone to college. So, USNA grads in the pro ranks would increase this awareness. No doubt. At what expense? They will not be carrying their share of the load as an active duty sailor or Marine. It is contrary to good order and morale. It will breed resentment. SecNav this year disallowed Special Forces and EOD to apply for the astronaut program Everyone has to be on board for an organization to show commitment. This will not happen and,therefore, I am opposed to the Army ‘scam’ and anything the Navy might do to emulate it.</p>
<p>The second option would be to let them out of their military commitment. Again, from the examples I mentioned earlier, to the corporate, scholastic, etc examples raised by others, why allow one special interest and not the others? Any preferential treatment, again, would be contrary to good order and morale. Also, the buyout for a professional athlete would be ‘chump change’ while it would not be for the other categories. So, it also won’t work.</p>
<p>Thirdly, do nothing. which is the only thing that will work. Fortunately, at present, Navy is more established than Army. Army, continually rebuilding, plays more young players. They are having a problem retaining those who excel early after two years. Navy, with a few exceptions, does not. If you will check the Mountain West school’s rosters however, you will note that NAPS seems to be a major prep program for them. If one remains after two years and has signed the commitment, honor it.</p>
<p>However, all things considered, this is a very interesting conversation.</p>
<p>Navy07 also touched upon the enlisted, if we allow officers to buy their way out than we need to do it for the enlisted too. This thought reminded me of the singer from American Idol who was a Marine, I believe he was Joshn Gracin. During the season his unit was on alert and he was asked what he would do if he got called up during the season. He said they call I go. He had a yr left to his committment, he eventually left the Marines, but not until his committment was served. Josh Gracin is a popular country singer and making a ton of money, the record producers could have bought out his contract, especially since he was enlisted, however they didn't and he didn't ask for it.</p>
<p>To me it really is about duty, honor and commitment. It is every members' duty to honor their committment.</p>
<p>The minute we forget that, is the minute we start going down the slippery slope.</p>
<p>IIRC - the Marines agreed to keep him stateside until his American Idol stint was over. The publicity was just too good.</p>
<p>The military does support athletics for enlisted, and officers alike. Those who have exceptional athletic ability are allowed to compete in high level and international events - i.e. the Olympics, and represent their service.
Athletics and athletic achievement has always been important to the military.</p>
<p>We actually had a friend who competed to get on the Olympic team back in the 90's. He was also the service's winner. (The military also has high level competitions).That being said, the AF did not give him time off to train. He flew just like everyone else and used his leave days to compete...also paid for travel on his own dime, unless it was a military event. He was a long distance runner and his training was to run to the squadron (@15 miles) and he would run home after his duty day was over and run some more. He always put the service first.</p>
<p>I think there is a difference of allowing a military member to compete in the Olympics or national trials, it is a short time frame, compared to allowing anyone to reneg on their commitment for 5 yrs AD.</p>
<p>As for Josh Gracin, after coming in 4th place, he did stay stateside and was not allowed to participate in the Idol Tour. Instead the Marines did send him on a tour for recruiting purposes. He was horably discharged after fulfilling his committment. </p>
<p>To me that's the whole point, American Idol could have try to buy out his contract, and they very well may have tried to, but the Marines said no. The Marines didn't allow him to do the tour, instead he was used as a recruitment tool. What's good for the goose must be good for the gander. We have to keep the policy the same to maintain good order. Where would you draw the line? Is it athletics? IS it $$$? What happens to the Atlete who is recruited for the Yankees, but they send him to the minors 1st, should they be allowed to leave? Do the Yankees have to sign a contract that they will guarantee he plays in the majors for 5 yrs? What if he can't cut in the majors, does he now have to fulfill the time left on his obligation...remember it is a sport, he could injure himself in the 1st game bad enough to ruin his career, but not bad enough to Medically DQ him for the military.</p>
<p>Military athletes train pretty much full time for the Olympics. There are 60 or so members of the Army Marksmanship Unit at Ft Benning who train full time year round. The Army World Class Athletic Center at Ft Carson, Colorado, allows 50 or so Army personnel to train full time year round for Olympic sports. Some world class athletes even enlist in order to have an income while training full time. While the AF and the Navy is not as organized, they, along with the Army also, PCS personned to the Olympic Training Center for full time athletic training. There are senior enlisted Army members who have done nothing else their entire military career. It is a lot more than giving them a few days off to go to the Olympic trials and to the olympics themselves.</p>
<p>I am not saying it is a few days off...def. much more than 30 days leave they can accrue, what I was trying to state is that it is not as if they said we will allow you to leave because you are an athlete. Isn't that what we are talking about a baseball player who wants to leave to play sports!</p>
<p>I do not know about the Army and will not pretend I do. I know of the runner in the AF since he was in our squadron, actually Bullets assistant flight commander, so Bullet was very aware of his scheduling needs.</p>
<p>Let's also realize the military does this for musicians too. I personally know someone who was recruited to play for the Army, she will never PCS from the DC area since her only job is to play trumpet at White House functions. However, she still signs her re-enlistment papers and will owe time...would it be okay for her if Harry Connick Jr wanted her and she left? </p>
<p>The 82nd has the most beautiful acapella band, they sing around the world, (if you ever get the chance to hear them GO, especially for their entrance song) Yet, every singer in the band is assigned for 18 mos, and they return to their brigade after that. What if 1 singer is found at the 1st concert, should they be allowed to leave...again they aren't in a combat unit, they are there for morale and recruitment purposes!</p>
<p>Where will the line be drawn and how will they determine where to draw it?</p>
<p>There is a difference. I doubt that the baseball player will wear his uniform to games, do TV spots for the Navy, and actively recruit people. Will he go directly to the major league? Maybe but what if he doesnt. Is a triple A player really going to create that much publicity, and will this publicity outweigh the sacrifices the rest of his class who raised their right hand with him? Sounds like the publicity thing is a rationalization. The military is based on a brotherhood, a family who fights and dies for each other. Wanting out to play baseball seems pretty selfish to me. Maybe he should resign his commission and go where his heart is, on the baseball field. I would hate to have Marines/Sailors under somebody who's heart is somewhere else and is not giving 100% for them.</p>
<p>Did I miss something? I thought Mitch Harris was just looking for a reassignment where he could pursue a possible professional career while still serving full time as an active duty personnel?</p>
<p>I guess my only question would be if he can do his job and pursue a professional career. If he can do that and it doesnt affect his ability to take care of his people and accomplish the mission then it works, let him do it. If he cant do both of the above then I think he has to make a decision. </p>
<p>I was wrong to make the assumptions above, I do not know a lot about what is going on with him but based much of it on a former football player who is no longer in the Navy.</p>
<p>The former football player and the present baseball player are polar opposites. But don't apologize. No need to. Memphis was presenting a more hypothetical scenario using Harris as an example. The discussion begged to go on tangents.</p>