JustAMomOf4

If Caleb Campbell had left West Point after his sophomore year - we would not be having this discussion.
If Caleb Campbell doesn't not make the NFL - the Army will gain an officer and leader of troops.

It's funny that we didn't hear an outcry when baseball players were involved -but now that it is a football player - we hear things like: disturbing, embarrassing, dishonorable.

USNA09Mom has a point - perhaps Caleb Campbell - who admitedly would have left USMA two years ago - does make the NFL then he can be of service by encouraging other young people to enlist or consider ROTC or USMA or even Army Football. Without a draft, times are tough. Who is going to answer the call?

While the ASO might not be a good plan - at face value, it also might not be a bad plan either. There is a plebe at West Point who made the Olympic team in rifle - do we cut him loose? Or support him as one of Army's own?

For those of you who don't know - applications at West Point are down since the war. Cadets do leave and athletes do leave and pursue their athletic endeavors at other colleges.

If anyone has a right to judge Caleb Campbell it should be his fellow cadets. Frijoles?

frijoles

I can't really speak for his situation, in all honesty. I don't think there is any real resentment in the Corps though, not that I represent everyone's opinion. I think you can liken it to some degree to the people who do really well academically who get to go straight to grad school, while their classmates are deployed essentially right out of BOLC. Should he serve exactly like his classmates, probably. Does he owe the government something? Definitely, and I think if you asked him he would totally agree.

I know that this program is not limited to football players, and that this opens up a very large debate on what we should do to remain competitive in intercollegiate athletics in general.

midshipman2012

it is a very good question...recruiting for service academies is such a difficult situation...hopefully we can find a good answer soon

jadler03

I understand both sides of the argument here...

1) Recruiting purposes
2) Commitment purposes

I feel that all athletes should come to a service-academy for the purposes of serving in their respective service, just as non-athletes do. I think that these athletes should serve most of their minimum commitment (4 years), then being released to play their sport on a professional level, while serving as a public affairs officer or recruiting officer, in a reserve status. The taxpayers are paying for service academy cadets/midshipmen to become commissioned officers and serve on the fronts - whether on the seas, in the air, or on land. Thus, the taxpayers and government are getting an appropriate amount of service and recruiting from an athlete. I don't think two years is enough service.

With regards to graduate programs....those officers must serve the minimum commitment plus any additional time incurred....they aren't getting out of a commitment early...it is just delayed.

Soylent

Before I continue, I am not yet a midshipman nor do I claim to be.

I don't just have a problem with the Campbell situation, but I think the situation with every athlete who goes on this alternative service route is deplorable. Perhaps the role of intercollegiate sports in the service academies needs to be rethought with the changing times, but I think cadets who do take this route are a waste of space and taxpayer's money. Surely there is another person out of the 10,000+ who applied that would serve a little more than 2 years recruiting and 2 years in the reserves.

Luigi59

Eliminate Division 1 athletics.

Eliminate athletic recruiting.

Problem eliminated.

USNA Dad&Grad

My own humble position on this is that the policy to release professional calbre athletes from their service obligation is wrong, period, full stop, end of story. I don't care if they are "poster children" for recruiting.

The only disrespect to the fallen is being committed by military leadership - in this case the Army - that has endorsed the policy. I really don't want to see USNA, USAFA and USMA become "football factories" who release players who are drafted. The policy is wrongheaded and inconsistent with the mission of any service academy, let alone one with the history of West Point.

I'm not buying Shogun's argument that West Point has a harder time recruiting because of the war, and that Navy and Air Force have it easier because their graduates will be less likely to be in harm's way than West Point grads. Here's why:

I read the gomids.com board regularly and occasionally wander over to the Army site. After last year's A-N football game, there was a huge "hue and cry" from the Army supporters about the service selection of the Army football players who were showcased in the promotional spots during the game. There were a lot of "Air Defense Artillery" selectees, while it seemed that a majority of the Navy players were selecting "Marine ground" - i.e. "infantry". Many of the posters seemed to be ashamed that the football team wasn't selecting infantry or a more "in harm's way" type of MOS. I have no opinion on that, just pointing it out.

As to the argument that "if Caleb Campbell had left after his sophomore year..." - "if" is the biggest word in the English language.

"If" you have a child at a military academy who is not a professional prospect, you have to come to terms with the possibility that s/he may be killed in the service of his/her country. I have had more friends killed or seriously injured in peacetime aviation training and operational accidents than in this war. Granted, most of my classmates are past their flying days, but it's a fact of military life.

Somebody in Congress needs to put a stake through the heart of this policy and stop it.

USNA Dad&Grad

One more thing - I didn't choose Navy over Army because of the football team's record. Frankly, I couldn't have cared less - until I got there and realized how much institutional self-worth seemed to be tied up in the result of the Army-Navy football game.

I'm not gonna lie - I HATE losing to Army - but I didn't make my choice based on that criterion. I doubt many other prospective midshipmen or cadets do either.

Ann

I believe that while implementation may vary the directive applies to all academies and ROTC:
http://west.dtic.mil/whs/directives/...0824sports.pdf

While I am not a supporter of the ASO program, I do understand the intent behind it. I suspect that the publicity the program has garnered is not the type originally envisioned by the DoD....

shogun

So, based on the information Ann provided above, this "hyprocrisy" extends to the DoD. This is a program that includes the Naval and Air Force Academies as well. ASO is not just an Army thing.

As far as the percentage of graduates "in harms way" goes, the facts are clear, and the Army has certainly earned the right to determine what is in it's best interest. If the Army sees the value provided by the ASO program and chooses to allow a cadet to opt for it, so be it. Given that this program applies to the Navy and Air Force Academies as well, the next article may very well be aimed at them. Hopefully the person writing that article won't have his head in the same place this guy's is.

The US Army certainly doesn't consider Cadet Campbell a "waste of space" and of "taxpayer money". The cadets don't appear to feel that way either. Those two opinions are really the only ones that count.

USNA69

It appears to me that the Secretary of the Army and West Point were the only ones to buy into this program.

shogun

The policy applies to all the academies and ROTC. When someone in one of the other other academies finds themselves in a position in which they could apply for the provision, and desires to do so, then we shall see if the others have bought in or not.
"Buy In" is not required. The program exists for all the academies. The quote you posted only stipulates the authority to spell out the details insofar as how the program is administered. This doesn't appear to be a "if you feel like it, do it" thing--I believe the word used is "policy."

JustAMomOf4

First - I don't like the idea of this program. I was however disgusted by the tone of the article that our good friend Great American posted.
There is always more than one side to every story and I like to get all sides. According to the article I posted below - the committment is two years "active" duty then 6 years in the reserves.

The program is NOT about football, it's not about Caleb Campbell, it is NOT about the Army-Navy game, it's NOT about recruting cadets to come to West Point.

The purpose appears to be recruiting but I do believe it is a thinly veiled attempt to get and keep promising atheletes to come and stay at West Point.
That said - the Army needs recruits. 1/8 need conduct waivers now. If a couple of athletes are out there doin' their thing for the Army then maybe - just maybe there will be a benefit.

Here is an interesting article about Nick Hill who is taking part in the program after graduating last year from West Point:
Mariners | Mariners pitching prospect Nick Hill hoping to go from lieutenant ... to majors? | Seattle Times Newspaper

JustAMomOf4

USNA Dad&Grad -

I can't speculate on:
But - it could be that they Army players had no choice. Army policy is that 80% of male cadets must branch combat arms. The combat arms branches are Infantry, Aviation, Armor, Field Artillery, Air Defense and Engineers. The most popular branch is Infantry. In fact, Infantry is now more popular than it was prior to 2001. If their class standing was not high enough to get Infantry then they had to go somewhere.

It is my understanding that these days nearly every USNA cadets who wants Marines gets it.

dyenior_2008

I think that a WP grad gone pro could be good PR for the Army, and I think thats exactly why they enacted the policy. I disagree with the people who think that these athletes who this policy applies to(SOOOOO few) are taking a slot away from a pontetial great officer. If the kid who didn't get in because of that cadet - turned pro athlete, there is ROTC, scholarship or not... if someone wants to be an officer, there are ways to do it other than at West Point. I really don't think we should think less of any cadet that takes advantage of this option either; statistically it is more dangerous to take a drive down the street than serve in Iraq. I don't think they would be "dodging the danger of serving", nobody goes through 4 years at an academy and does not want to serve. Anyone who would come so they could have a free education and MAYBE go pro and avoid the Army just would not put up with what the cadets have to go through. Not worth it for someone who does not want that gold bar pinned on at graduation. I don't think its the escape hatch some people think it is. Thus, I don't really have a problem with the policy.