<p>… in the idea that Navy football “pays” for other activities. It cannot even pay for itself. That math may prove true @ Michigan or Penn State, but if one does genuine accounting, and accounting for ALL expenses, ain’t no way. </p>
<p>The mechanisms for generating revenue are either not present, unavailable, or inadequate. Not a snow balls chance in West Point.</p>
<p>So let’s get beyond the idea that Navy football is an income generator. That is totally ludicrous.</p>
<p>I think attempting to compare USNA to Michigan or Penn State may contribute to your misconception. First off, it is apples and oranges. The USNA athletic budget does not pay scholarships. Since every USNA Div I varsity athlete has exactly the same post graduation military commitment as that of his non-athlete classmate, the responsibility for picking up the tab for tuition goes to the American taxpayer, as it should.</p>
<p>Direct ticket sales, TV revenues, donations, the Blue & Gold ticket upgrade program, any of which could probably pay Coach Ken’s underpaid salary and buy a few sets of USMC commeration uniforms. WP, where does the remaining millions go?</p>
<p>In addition to the direct revenues, one cannot discount indirect contributions to USNA brought on by football. Look around any home-game Saturday afternoon. Most classes have a tailgate area. Same core people every week, every year even. The class movers and shakers. It is at these informal gathereings where USNA needs and class participation is brought together. The better the football team the larger the gathering. The larger the gathering, the greater the ideas. The greater the ideas, the more money that flows into the USNA coffers. Just call the alumni association and ask them what the quality of the football team does to overall annual contributions.</p>
<p>PhatPhelix is correct. Tax dollars will not pay for the squash team to travel to Harvard for a weekend match. Nor the glee club to Atlanta for the weekend.</p>
<p>WP, you do raise an interesting scenario. NAAA pays the $170,000 direct cost to the taxpayer and “buys” out all football players’ service commitments. Therefore, at graduation all football players would be eligible for the NFL draft. USNA, Penn State, and Michigan might not then be ‘apples & oranges’.</p>
<p>Let me put it a more appropriate way. Avoiding or NOT comparing it to other D I programs is a complete deception. You’re correct …there are no scholarships. However, the football players, most of whom it would be safe to say would NOT be at USNA were they not recruited as such. But whatever you wish to call that expense, and whatever budget it comes from, it is an athletic expense because in most cases, those monetary resources and the “spot” are devoted to a recruited athlete.</p>
<p>So, call it what you wish. But it is a huge expenditure not close to being recovered by football revenues. Totally silly to suggest it does. And let’s not forget those recruited athletes spending an additional year at NAPS. I’m confident those are not designated as athletic expeditures either. Let’s get real …and honest about this. </p>
<p>And don’t label me as one opposed to athletics or D I football. I’m all for it. But …I don’t buy into the pure baloney that football carries its own and more for USNA. No way. </p>
<p>And in addition, there is the other cost …of those young men and women who would otherwise receive those spots were they not allocated for pigskinners. But, in the real sense, the same old argument can be made …“needs of the Navy.” What about lost school and training time necessary because of requirements of the team? These real “costs” that are not easily translated into monetary terms are huge. But it’s a choice. But not one that is made because it makes money.</p>
<p>Your comparison is only valid if compared to other Div I schools where all graduating athletes are required to pay back eight years of service for their scholarship. Or are you attempting to state that the quality and quantity of football players’ service is such that they are not worthy of the time and effort invested in them?</p>
<p>Meanwhile, in the real world, with real dollars, real budgets, and real revenues, football, with GAO’s blessing, carries the remainder of the sports at USNA.</p>
<p>Song, your point has merit and I get it. Indeed there is no “payback” at PSU or UM. </p>
<p>Still, the essence of our different POVs on this one …and I’m fully confident the USNA keeps its books in line with yours… as crediting the expenses where they’re due would be politically exposing something they’d prefer not …would seem to be …</p>
<p>*You believe expenses of educating football players is not an athletic expense, somehow because there is a payback required, i.e. they have an obligation. I’m not sure what that has to do with the cost of putting a team on the field, though.</p>
<ul>
<li>I believe the cost of educating recruited football players is indeed an athletic expense. Why? Because the vast majority of those men would either not have matriculated absent DI football or would not have been appointed, absent being a football recruit in either case. They are not merely “replacement” parts. They are significantly different parts. </li>
</ul>
<p>So perhaps reality is somewhere in the middle. But I’ve looked at many accounting ledgers for athletic programs in higher education, and I’d bet you a new pair of tube sox, your allegation that Navy football funds the others … is bookkeeping magic. Hocus pocus to serve an end that has nothing to do with economics. It’s politics. And the major deception is not allocating student athlete costs where they belong. </p>
<p>But in that case, any who’ve heard the hum of this on the Yard, recognizes while there are some very fine football athletes who coud and do carry their academic weight, a great many are not necessarily the “best and brightest” but rather “best and the fastest” …or biggest …or … </p>
<p>The days of recruiting a Roger Staubach, Napoleon Mc, or Admiral Robinson are long gone … </p>
<p>So know that I value and appreciate your point, and concur that a comparison is complex. But this is not about comparing USNA. It’s about genuine, honest and transparent accounting practices that’ll never happen for obvious reasons …and those who feel need to defend Navy football against those who’d malign or denigrate it (I don’t …it’s great,but a huge expense, and recognize it at that.) will simply be allowed to embrace and perpetuate the myth that Mid pigskin pays for the rest. Silly.</p>
<p>If football didn’t fund NAAA, then the organization couldn’t exist. I don’t see why it’s so hard to believe that. Clearly none of the other sports make money. Conversely, football averages 25-30K per game at $30 per ticket, not counting the suites, or the split of the Army-Navy gate, or the 70K sold every other year for Notre Dame. Then there’s the millions in television revenue from Army, Notre Dame, and each home game. And that doesn’t include smaller bits like bowl games or the $100K that NAAA receives each year from the BCS, or the indirect revenue in donations that are driven primarily by football. That isn’t “bookkeeping magic.” That’s reality. NAAA isn’t getting money from the government. It also isn’t bankrupt. That means that it’s supporting itself, and it’s football that does it. </p>
<p>Concocting some derivative to claim that educating football players is some hidden athletic cost is what’s silly. You could cut the football team, but the hundred or so spots occupied by football players would just go to someone else. In other words, cutting the football program doesn’t cut that cost, so you can’t hold the program responsible for them. There are any number of programs, majors, activities, etc. that could be cut which would drive away applicants. USNA isn’t just some naval training center. It’s a college. When you take away the things that make it a college, you’ll find that the bright 18-year olds who want a college experience will find it elsewhere; and, as Fleming loves to point out, they can still become Naval officers.</p>
<p>Turbo, of course you are correct. Additionally, don’t forget ther Blue & Gold ticket upgrade program. When it was initiated, I remember someone stating that it alone should produce enough revenue to fund the football program. And it has been wildly successful.</p>
<p>WP, I have had enough accounting to understand double entry bookkeeping. For each credit there must be a debit. Presently, as Turbo pointed out, we debit football revenues and credit to all other sports. How would this work in your ‘real’ system? Where would the money go? Would we buy out the military service agreements for all athletes? Would the fallout from this not raise a firestorm in the Brigade? You ask what one has to do with the other? I see no other way for your bookkeeping system to work. At Big State University, when a football player is either injured or loses his desire to play football, he normall loses his scholarship. Since NAAA would be ‘paying’ these contracts, they would of course have more input into the admissions process. When a football player quits the team, would he be disenrolled? Would he be required to suffer another admissions process? When a football player graduates and becomes a pretty good officer, as Phat Phelix points out, would the Navy be required to repay the athletic program? Your ‘real’ bookkeeping system certainly raises a lot of questions, at least to me.</p>
<p>My point is not about football, specifically. As I have said previously, I am a seven (almost eight) year season ticket holder, and I love going to Navy football games. But I go as much for the tailgating and meeting up with old friends and current ones as I do for the game itself.</p>
<p>I get the math and the economics of Navy football funding all the other sports. That’s been the mantra at least since I was at USNA 30 years ago. I don’t know or care if it’s really true or not, either. It’s always been used to scare people into the idea of perhaps moving out of the FCS/Div I. “OMG, the other sports programs will DIE if we go down!” </p>
<p>In fact, the only program that was “self-sufficient” other than Navy Football was Offshore Sailing - or so we were told - because of the donations of boats that were made to the program. Not sure if that was or is still true, but that’s what we were led to believe. In any case, the fear-mongering that goes on whenever someone has the temerity to express the opinion that Navy Football isn’t the be-all, end-all of recruiting is ridiculous. Most kids don’t pick Navy because of the football team. There. I said it.</p>
<p>So, I don’t want to make this about football; it’s about admissions standards and fairness. If a poor, white kid is denied an opportunity to get a look in favor of a more well-off kid who happens to be of a racial minority, I am saying that the practice is wrong, or that we should use socioeconomic status as part of the selection criteria.</p>
<p>SONG72, you are right that a candidate number is not a guarantee to get in, but in the last three admissions cycles I have had two kids with sub-par scores and class standing - is class standing racially biased like you allege the SAT is? - who not only got candidate numbers, they got LOA’s at Thanksgiving. A kid competing with one of them who was in the top 4 of his class, letter-winning athlete, perfect 800 on his math SAT got waitlisted. He went USAF ROTC at UVA and is the math program there. No LOA for him. Great decision on our part, huh?</p>
<p>BTW, neither of those two aforementioned LOA recipients was a recruited athlete. If you’re a BGO, you’d know that the BGO handbook says in at least three places that LOA’s are only for “exceptional scholastic merit”. Please explain to me where class standing outside the top 20% and mid 500 SAT’s fit into “exceptional scholastic merit”.</p>
<p>Furthering my point, the young lady receiving the LOA had all the markers for an unsuccessful candidate. </p>
<p>Me: “Why do you want to go to USNA?” Her: “Because it’s free, and the campus is close by.” Uh-oh…she said the “F” word, which we all know is not the right reason to go to USNA.</p>
<p>Me: “What career field do you want to go into after graduation?” Her: “I want to be a research scientist.” Uh-oh…she didn’t know that the majority of grads go line after graduation.</p>
<p>Me: “Are you playing any sports?” Her: “No, but I am on the Step Team.” Uh-oh. Not athletic, and not team-oriented.</p>
<p>Me: “Are you involved in any leadership roles in school or in the community?” Her: “No.” Uh-oh. Not stepping up to take on a leadership role.</p>
<p>Me: “Do you have a job, or do you work in the summer?” Her: “I worked at Subway for a couple days, but it just wasn’t my thing. It didn’t work out, and I quit. I don’t need to work, so I don’t.” Uh-oh. My presumption here is/was that she finds it hard to do things she doesn’t want to do, or to take direction, or to earn her own money. But, that’s an inference I drew from the rest of the interview.</p>
<p>She quit before her 1st semester Plebe Year, and had an Honor violation, was in academic trouble and conduct trouble. It wasn’t because of her gender or race; it was because she wasn’t the right kind of candidate for USNA and we ignored all the warning signs and gave her an LOA anyway. That’s what upsets me.</p>
<p>Phat’s piece was good, but a few examples of exceptional football players as officers don’t make the case proving Fleming wrong. And my beef isn’t at all about football, it’s about different rules for different groups, depending upon ethnicity. It’s patently unfair. If you’re denied an opportunity to compete because of race or ethnicity, isn’t that against what most of us have been conditioned to believe over the past 46 years since the Civil Rights Act became law?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Isn’t that what OCS is for? It takes 4 years to make a USNA grad, and about 13 weeks to make an OCS grad. </p>
<p>All anyone wants of the process - particularly the applicants and their tax-paying parents - is that the “goal posts” are the same for all playing the admissions game. And this isn’t about making USNA back into an all-white, male dominated bastion again. It’s about fairness, to me, plain and simple.</p>
<p>It ain’t about football, honest. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL - that’s about as relevant to the discussion as saying, “Let’s open a brothel in Annapolis to fund USNA so the taxpayers don’t have to foot the bill for those 170k educations.”</p>
<p>I find it hard to believe that it isn’t about football for you when the words you use to describe any case made in support of football are “scare” and “fear-mongering.” The connotation is obvious. Arguments in favor of football are no more fear-mongering than the essays Fleming has had published over the last 10 years.</p>
<p>Nobody said that anyone picks Navy because of the football team. What they said was that the football team gives that initial exposure to people who might not otherwise be aware of the place. It’s a gateway that encourages people to learn more. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They weren’t supposed to. They were supposed to show that a few examples of football players screwing up don’t make Fleming right. You can’t reduce the enitre argument in that piece to nothing but those few examples.</p>
<p>Out of curiosity, what is the “right” reason to attend USNA? Nothing said about the football team is more ridiculous than thinking that the fact that USNA is free to attend isn’t its biggest attraction.</p>
<p>You’re just gonna have to take my word for it - or not. I don’t really care one way or the other. To me, they are two separate issues, football and the multi-tracked admissions process. There’s overlap, sure, but football players are not specifically what upsets me about the admissions process.</p>
<p>I’m not saying “free” isn’t a good reason to attend USNA. USNA says “free” shouldn’t be the primary reason. It certainly factored into my decision when choosing USNA 30 years ago, but it wasn’t the biggest reason I decided to attend, if that is at all relevant to this discussion, and I suspect it isn’t. It’s a factor, but shouldn’t be the factor.</p>
<p>USNA talks out of both sides of its mouth on the “free” question. On the one hand, they tell us (BGO’s) that when we ask the question, “Why do you want to go to USNA?” and if the primary answer is “Because it’s free,” then that answer has a high correlation to the kid not wanting to go there for the right reason, and potentially being unsuccessful. On the other hand, the free tuition, room, board, etc., is prominently used in the briefing/recruiting literature.</p>
<p>My point in the example I gave is that it wasn’t just one indicator that I picked up during the interview, it was almost all of the indicators that USNA tells us are markers for unsuccessful, non-graduating candidates. In that specific case, it seems to me that we ignored what the data were telling us in pursuit of a landing a candidate with the right profile to brag about on the Class of 2012 literature. In the words of Dr. Phil, “How’d that work out for you?” Not well. And to the point that this isn’t about football or recruited athletes, I say again, she was neither.</p>
<p>One of the very good points in Phat’s counter to Professor Fleming is that no kid knows what the Naval Service is like when they enter USNA - with the possible exception of the prior enlisted ranks who come in. Kids might have an idea of what the service will be like, but they don’t really know. I think the hope is that their predisposition to service and commitment will keep them at USNA and beyond their initial service obligation.</p>
<p>On “exposure” to USNA, the importance of football is once again overstated in my humble (but informed) opinion. I always ask candidates how they learned about USNA. It has never, ever, not once in five years and dozens of interviews been, “I saw them play Notre Dame on TV.” It’s usually word of mouth, a friend, graduate, or as the result of a visit. I’m not saying football doesn’t expose some to USNA, but I honestly don’t believe that it is a real driver for future CNO’s, astronauts, Blue Angels or Marine 2LTs/Ensigns.</p>
<p>As far as “scare” and “fear mongering” in the support of football goes, I am solid supporter of Navy Athletics. Ok, I’m only a 2-star Blue and Gold supporter, but I give what I can. Consider me part of the “loyal opposition”. I would love to give more to Navy athletics, but that’s about all I can handle. I buy 4 season tickets, 2 parking passes and routinely send my kids to the summer sports camps. In fact, this is the first summer in 8 years that one of my kids won’t be at a Navy lacrosse or basketball camp. Once again, I say others use the scare and fear tactics to convince people that de-emphasizing football will be the death knell for our other non-rev sports, or will harm recruiting. I just don’t see it, but that’s one guy’s opinion.</p>
<p>USNA84, I am curious as to the write up you submitted on the “free candidate” and if you spoke to admissions before and after the Appointment was offered.</p>
<p>LOA was offered before my writeup was finished - I was still drafting it, and yes, I emailed my AC (Area Coordinator) about it. That’s the chain of command.</p>
<p>Candidate waited until May 1st to accept despite having the LOA at Thanksgiving. Told me she was waiting for other offers to come in from some Ivies (haha) and some big, eastern U’s. She just didn’t have the academic chops for those places. Meanwhile, the other kid she was competing against for the slot was kept hanging until her acceptance. He got a “no” around the 15th of May. Went Army ROTC at VMI. Another good kid lost. He’ll be a junior this Fall, but would rather be at USNA and tracking USMC. He just didn’t want to do Rat Year and then Plebe year right after it. I can’t say I blame him.</p>
<p>I think she might have had a shot if she’d done a year at NAPS, but that was not offered to her - she got an LOA instead. You wouldn’t have to be a rocket scientist to look at her grades (in courses like Physics and Calc), class standing and SAT’s - as well as dearth of extracurriculars - to have some concern about her making it. An LOA? Wow. Really not smart on our part.</p>
<p>USNA84; I have also seen “lesser qualified” candidates obtain appointments. BUT, is a “mediocre” NA better off for it? Stick w/ me for a minute.</p>
<p>The Academy is not set up to graduate all who are admitted. [I know, “everybody who is admitted can make it through” but, you and I know that not to be the case.] So, in teh same way that airlines overbook, in a sense, the Academy does also. </p>
<p>Aren’t failures just as instructive to the Brigade as successes?</p>
<p>My father always said there is something to learn from everbody, even if from fools you only learn to not be foolish. </p>
<p>The budget, operations, the pipeline, the whole mess is set up to absorb about a 1,000 new ensigns/Lts per year. So, as part of the leadership laboratory, shouldn’t a few “lesser” appointees be made? If they make it, the system works and the Navy benefits, everybody gets to see the new face of the Navy, everybody’s a winner!</p>
<p>If they don’t make it, well, hopefully, company officers can point in that direction and say somehting like: See, told you not to do that.</p>
<p>I don’t know that this is anything too new, its just that instead of a hillbilly from Kentucky or a hick from West Texas, the “failure candidates” are now “diverse.” That is, the percentage who graduate relative to the number admitted has been relatively constant; hasn’t it? So, there is nothing REALLY different about certain appointees being lesser qualified; perhaps the complexion [maybe, maybe not] of those who are perceived to be less qualified but nothing in terms of raw numbers.</p>
<p>doesn’t make it any easier for the “star” candidate who doesn’t get admitted, but that’s life.</p>
<p>WOW! Sad case. That upsets me when you have kids that want to attend no matter what…You can’t control everything and you did your best. In the end that person was gone and the Brigade remains but could have made the spot avail for someone who wanted to be there. I still think that admissions does a phenominal job. I would hope that summer seminars and visitations would help prohibit these type of mistakes.</p>
<p>Bill0510 are you saying that all failure candidates are diverse? All mainstream candidates are successful?</p>
<p>What is the racial make up of the graduating class of 2010?</p>
<p>Great question and an answer you’ll not see.</p>
<p>Similarly, you can note that the various stats for incoming Mids are now compared only to others in their categories in the national picture. Never relative to their fellow classmates. A slight of hand that no doubt fools and wows some. In past years, there have been some stats provided on who graduates vs. who was appointed. There is some wide disparity among the groupings, as you might anticipate. Whixh may be more to your question.</p>
<p>Folks -</p>
<p>Let me be clear. I support USNA and its mission to increase minority enrollment, I just don’t necessarily agree with the way the pendulum has swung on “diversity uber alles” in the last 10 years or so. Merit has to be more highly emphasized than race in selecting class makeup, and since the pool of talent in the minority demographic has lots of choices, it’s a sellers’ market for talent. </p>
<p>We need to make USNA and a career in the Navy/Marine Corps a compelling choice for those candidates with lots of options. Don’t lower the bar to hit a number.</p>
<p>I liken it to being a Democrat when the Republicans are in charge of the White House/Congress (or vice versa). Do you stop being American, or renounce your citizenship because you can’t handle the way things are, or do you point out things that are wrong - fundamentally wrong - and work within the system to make them better? I choose the latter.</p>
<p>To Bill, the “yield” we like to brag about, i.e. “graduation rate” seems to be pretty consistent at around 80% of those who enter will likely graduate. I’ll need to go back and do some homework on past class sizes and their yield rate, but I seem to remember that the academies used to plan for a lot higher attrition in the bad old days, and admit much larger classes so they could get the 800-1000 grads out the door after four years. </p>
<p>Now, the classes are pretty much static at 1250(ish) entering, and we see the same roughly 1000 out the door on graduation day. I don’t think that happens by chance, nor do I think USNA is unique from other universities. We all like to boast about the fact that if you are admitted, chances are very high that you will graduate.</p>
<p>My observation tells me that when you need to hit a yield number, things like honor offenses become impediments to hitting that desired end number, so you choose remediation over separation. If classes are too hard, and kids might flunk out, change the classes to be easier so you don’t harm your yield.</p>
<p>Do you get a better product out the door? Maybe not, but at least you hit your number. People also ask fewer questions when you tell them that four years from now, you will put 1000 O-1’s out the door, +/- 3%.</p>
<p>
OCS has a rigid schedule and very limited resources, both infrastructure and instructional. To commence a new course, for example, first would require manipulating the schedule and then finding an instructor to teach it, probably requiring PCS orders. Give me an example of something that could not be started at USNA Saturday morning at Professional Training this week. However, Adm Fowler explained it much better than me in his latest rebuttal to Fleming. Perhaps, as a BGO, you should have read it.</p>