"Seismic policy shift frees Air Force Academy grads to pursue pro sports without 2-year commitment"

[Uncle Ken]

I thought there were strict height and weight requirements at the academies that make it hard to build a line?

They are given a waiver to compete in sports.

 

[Uncle Ken]

You have to remember that this is a "policy" that is being done in the middle of a draw down of US forces - unlike previous times when they've done the same thing, they are being very explicit about it, and letting the recruiters actually tell recruits this on the road.

They did the same thing in the early/mid nineties - cadets and midshipmen, both academy and ROTC, were graduating after the taxpayer paid for 4 years of college and getting commissioned directly into the ready reserve without ever serving a day of active duty. The only difference between now and then is that they are letting recruiters explicitly tell them it's a possibility right up front.

It's hard to drastically pare down the number of cadets that you are accepting and running through any of the Academies for both structural reasons (it's pretty hard to offer a diverse set of university courses with fewer than about 4,000 students) and political reasons (remember, almost every cadet and/or midshipman is there because a US Congressman or Senator nominated them for that slot).

It's a little easier to pare down the number of ROTC cadets/midshipmen, but even for those, there is a bare minimum that you have to keep pushing through the system if you're going to keep the system viable. And unless you're 100% confident that the US will never again have to call up large numbers of troops, you have to keep the system viable.

Now, what happens when the total number of cadets/midshipmen graduating (remember, they all started 4 years ago), exceeds the number of 2nd Lieutenants/Ensigns the services actually need today?

What happens when the projections show more graduates than you need 4-6 years from now, and you're already running at a minimal viable level?

You tell potential recruits that in some defined circumstances, they will be commissioned into the ready reserve.

And if, in 2021, when they graduate, the military does actually need their service because Trump has got us into a hot war after a pissing match with Putin, guess what?

They'll be commissioned straight into the active office corps along with everyone else.

The reason is NOT to reduce forces. Sacky's right, in that the numbers with which we are dealing are too low to make even an impact in that regard.

The real reason that a service academy wants to do this is two-fold:

1. They're tired of losing NFL prospectives when telling them that they are obligated for active duty military service following commissioning.

2. Reserve duty will consist of putting on a uniform and conducting PR events. The services want to take advantage of this (like the Navy did with Robinson).

Output of the academies is pretty consistent and does not need to be adjusted unless there is a major event (early 90s drawdown or a war).

It's the ROTC commissioning programs that are adjusted to meet demand (four year outlook for incoming class, and annual review to adjust). ROTCs can manage this by phasing in scholarships for "volunteers" that participate in the program without the benefit of scholarship. For instance, a qualified student (typically 3.5 GPA or better with some sports credentials) who did not receive an ROTC scholarship can participate in the program without benefits. If the military needs more officers, they will release scholarships. If they don't, they won't. Typically, if the student hasn't picked up a scholarship after two years, they are released and no longer able to participate.

For the record, there are far too many ROTC programs. They are impossible to close, since each is it's own little political gem (and source of federal funding). Too many, is okay for capacity purposes, to a degree. But even with future wars in mind, we have too many.

 

[sackman]

Please provide specific examples.

No.

 

[sackman]

Alright, I actually thought of one. It's a story my dad told me about his time in the army.
My dad was drafted during the Korean War. His group (and I apologize for not knowing the nomenclature of companies, regiments, platoons, etc) was one of four groups to go through basic at the same time. He looked around and saw the other guys in his group were all college educated, while the guys in the other three groups were not. At the end of basic, he gets shipped off to New Jersey, and none of the guys in his group go to Korea. All the guys in the other three groups went to Korea.
I'd say that's showing a separate set of rules.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Alright, I actually thought of one. It's a story my dad told me about his time in the army.
My dad was drafted during the Korean War. His group (and I apologize for not knowing the nomenclature of companies, regiments, platoons, etc) was one of four groups to go through basic at the same time. He looked around and saw the other guys in his group were all college educated, while the guys in the other three groups were not. At the end of basic, he gets shipped off to New Jersey, and none of the guys in his group go to Korea. All the guys in the other three groups went to Korea.
I'd say that's showing a separate set of rules.

It doesn't happen like that anymore for a number of reasons.

 

[sackman]

It doesn't happen like that anymore for a number of reasons.

Well. Yeah. There's no draft for one.

 

[skibum]

Output of the academies is pretty consistent and does not need to be adjusted unless there is a major event (early 90s drawdown or a war).

To my knowledge, it's almost never really adjusted. It wasn't adjusted in the 90s drawdown for instance. The service academies have been within spitting distance of 4,000 students (1,000/year) for about 40 years now (if not longer, I don't think they varied much in size even during WWII). It makes a lot of economic sense to keep them at a consistent size.

You may be right that there are too many ROTC units - but again, these are relatively inexpensive to keep going at a minimal level, and very expensive/difficult to get going again. Once they leave a campus, there are a lot of hurdles to getting them back.

I tend to agree with you that this an attempt to land NFL prospects. I've heard rumors that the services are desperate for higher quality recruits (at all levels) right now. Stories about how military recruiters (not football related, but straight up "come join the Air Force" recruiters) are starting to revert to some of the "bad old days" tactics of straight up lying to recruits about their future military roles, where they'll be stationed, how much they'll be paid, etc.

At the more senior levels, I've also read and heard some stories that the senior officers in charge of recruiting are getting to at the "throw a bunch of **** at the wall and see what sticks" stage.

I'm betting this move actually comes from that process.

I guess, at the end of the day, I don't see that much of a problem with it. If they were being excused from getting shot at in an active war, that'd be a different story. But when a huge percentage of active duty officers will never once hear a shot fired in anger, I don't have as much of a problem with it.

 

[Uncle Ken]

To my knowledge, it's almost never really adjusted. It wasn't adjusted in the 90s drawdown for instance. The service academies have been within spitting distance of 4,000 students (1,000/year) for about 40 years now (if not longer, I don't think they varied much in size even during WWII). It makes a lot of economic sense to keep them at a consistent size.

You may be right that there are too many ROTC units - but again, these are relatively inexpensive to keep going at a minimal level, and very expensive/difficult to get going again. Once they leave a campus, there are a lot of hurdles to getting them back.

I tend to agree with you that this an attempt to land NFL prospects. I've heard rumors that the services are desperate for higher quality recruits (at all levels) right now. Stories about how military recruiters (not football related, but straight up "come join the Air Force" recruiters) are starting to revert to some of the "bad old days" tactics of straight up lying to recruits about their future military roles, where they'll be stationed, how much they'll be paid, etc.

At the more senior levels, I've also read and heard some stories that the senior officers in charge of recruiting are getting to at the "throw a bunch of **** at the wall and see what sticks" stage.

I'm betting this move actually comes from that process.

I guess, at the end of the day, I don't see that much of a problem with it. If they were being excused from getting shot at in an active war, that'd be a different story. But when a huge percentage of active duty officers will never once hear a shot fired in anger, I don't have as much of a problem with it.

From a policy-writer's perspective, this is ****ed up policy.

Incentives should reward mission/vision. In this case, the mission is to create active duty officers for the respective services. Rewarding a select few specifically for not fulfilling the mission is a bad idea and represents poor values. The service academies need to focus on the mission, not the shiny object. Bad, bad, bad idea that should piss the taxpayers off.

Best outcome is that bad policy leads us to look more deeply into whether or not we need the academies at all. The ROTC officers I've worked with in the field are typically at least as capable as their academy counterparts, and frequently more capable. Also, they are often easier to work with. Not everybody shares my opinion, of course.

 

[Burrito]

Alright, I actually thought of one. It's a story my dad told me about his time in the army.
My dad was drafted during the Korean War. His group (and I apologize for not knowing the nomenclature of companies, regiments, platoons, etc) was one of four groups to go through basic at the same time. He looked around and saw the other guys in his group were all college educated, while the guys in the other three groups were not. At the end of basic, he gets shipped off to New Jersey, and none of the guys in his group go to Korea. All the guys in the other three groups went to Korea.
I'd say that's showing a separate set of rules.

Make America great again?

 

[The Monk]

From a policy-writer's perspective, this is ****ed up policy.

Incentives should reward mission/vision. In this case, the mission is to create active duty officers for the respective services. Rewarding a select few specifically for not fulfilling the mission is a bad idea and represents poor values. The service academies need to focus on the mission, not the shiny object. Bad, bad, bad idea that should piss the taxpayers off.

Best outcome is that bad policy leads us to look more deeply into whether or not we need the academies at all. The ROTC officers I've worked with in the field are typically at least as capable as their academy counterparts, and frequently more capable. Also, they are often easier to work with. Not everybody shares my opinion, of course.

The military is brand based not value based, the academies even more so. Better academy teams and a better brand will attract more and maybe better enlisted candidates, and enlisted recruiting has always been a more difficult thing to manage than officer. For the taxpayer it might seem that the military is misusing resources and not following mission with a program like this, but if recruiting command can save a few resources and recruits are a little bit better than this might actually be good for the taxpayer. Of course making the assumption a massive 700B government corporation is good for the taxpayer.

 

[buffaholic]

Different dynamic, but the worst was living in San Diego's north county. The Camp Pendleton marines were not exactly respectful to guys who were out with a girl and ended up in the same bar as them.

Enlisted Marines, so different than Naval Academy.

 

[Highlander]

The ROTC officers I've worked with in the field are typically at least as capable as their academy counterparts, and frequently more capable. Also, they are often easier to work with. Not everybody shares my opinion, of course.

Academy officers where either top quartile or bottom quartile. Almost never were they a part of the middle 50%.

 

[Darian3Hagan]

Who cares what some academy pukes do after graduation?

 

[patebuff]

Some seem to have very strong opinions here. I don't know enough about military requirements to comment. I wonder if one could make the same points about them playing collegiate athletics in the first place and not fulfilling their obligations there?

 

[SuperiorBuff]

From a policy-writer's perspective, this is ****ed up policy.

Incentives should reward mission/vision. In this case, the mission is to create active duty officers for the respective services. Rewarding a select few specifically for not fulfilling the mission is a bad idea and represents poor values. The service academies need to focus on the mission, not the shiny object. Bad, bad, bad idea that should piss the taxpayers off.

Best outcome is that bad policy leads us to look more deeply into whether or not we need the academies at all. The ROTC officers I've worked with in the field are typically at least as capable as their academy counterparts, and frequently more capable. Also, they are often easier to work with. Not everybody shares my opinion, of course.

As an enlistee, I hated academy officers. Overzealous pricks who looked down on everyone.

 

[The Ogre]

Some seem to have very strong opinions here. I don't know enough about military requirements to comment. I wonder if one could make the same points about them playing collegiate athletics in the first place and not fulfilling their obligations there?

Not really. Although they have commitments beyond what a normal college kid has, they are fledglings until graduation/commissioning. As I understand, are some who go to the academies (ROTC too, I assume) for a couple of years, "wash out" and finish at another school, usually without owing a dime for that part of their education.

As an enlistee, I hated academy officers. Overzealous pricks who looked down on everyone.

As a former enlisted guy (that could have been me near Pendleton, Nik), the few I knew fit Highlander's assertion. The good ones don't go around telling everybody they're academy grads or wearing their rings.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Some seem to have very strong opinions here. I don't know enough about military requirements to comment. I wonder if one could make the same points about them playing collegiate athletics in the first place and not fulfilling their obligations there?

If I understand your comparison correctly, I'd say it's less like apples and oranges and more like pinecones and bowling balls

 

[skibum]

As an enlistee, I hated academy officers. Overzealous pricks who looked down on everyone.

Ring-knocker syndrome.

As I understand, are some who go to the academies (ROTC too, I assume) for a couple of years, "wash out" and finish at another school, usually without owing a dime for that part of their education.

I was one of these - failed my pre-commissioning physical on a technicality "that would have been an easy waiver a few years ago, but it's 1995 and the assholes in DC are trying to find reasons to disqualify people right now." (Pretty much a direct quote from the CPO who prepared the waiver request for the CO's signature.)

I was devastated at the time, but got the majority of my undergraduate education for free, courtesy of the taxpayer.

 

[The Ogre]

Ring-knocker syndrome.

I was one of these - failed my pre-commissioning physical on a technicality "that would have been an easy waiver a few years ago, but it's 1995 and the assholes in DC are trying to find reasons to disqualify people right now." (Pretty much a direct quote from the CPO who prepared the waiver request for the CO's signature.)

I was devastated at the time, but got the majority of my undergraduate education for free, courtesy of the taxpayer.

That explains so much.



I kid.

 

[Uncle Ken]

The military is brand based not value based, the academies even more so. Better academy teams and a better brand will attract more and maybe better enlisted candidates, and enlisted recruiting has always been a more difficult thing to manage than officer. For the taxpayer it might seem that the military is misusing resources and not following mission with a program like this, but if recruiting command can save a few resources and recruits are a little bit better than this might actually be good for the taxpayer. Of course making the assumption a massive 700B government corporation is good for the taxpayer.

This strikes me as a very Army way of thinking. The Army constantly discusses brand and market share. I'm not kidding. The Navy is so fragmented, it would never care to front a brand--in their case the Academy is really just the Academy--and the Marines are too small to have a brand, but prefer to have an identity (which to my way of thinking is slightly different). Neither the Army nor Air Force would acknowledge their similarities (they are very similar in a lot of ways), but I don't disagree that there is some element of brand thinking behind the Air Force's decision. Which is why I suggested that pro-athlete service would consist of being seen in uniform.

 

[Uncle Ken]

Some seem to have very strong opinions here. I don't know enough about military requirements to comment. I wonder if one could make the same points about them playing collegiate athletics in the first place and not fulfilling their obligations there?

I read this post a few more times. I may be confused on your point. Could you explain further?

 

[darth-horax]

HECK YES!

As a Colorado Springs native, and as an avid AFA follower, this is HUGE!
They have a great system, good facilities, and a campus that rivals CU's.

This could make them legitimate again.


I'd LOVE to get an AFA/CU game a reality...this could make it worthwhile to have a 3 way yearly thing with CU/CSU/AFA.

GREAT NEWS!

 

[darth-horax]

the only thing that still hurts AFA is the size requirements. They have to be shorter than a certain height and smaller in weight
IF they are trying to be a pilot cause they need to fit in the cockpit.

 

[Uncle Ken]

the only thing that still hurts AFA is the size requirements. They have to be shorter than a certain height and smaller in weight
IF they are trying to be a pilot cause they need to fit in the cockpit.

A very low percentage of those men and women fly after commissioning.

 

[The Ogre]

A very low percentage of those men and women fly after commissioning.

They don't call it the Chair Force for nothing.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

A very low percentage of those men and women fly after commissioning.

Do most of the AF pilots come from somewhere else or are you just saying the amount of pilots in the AF is very small relative to how many officers are commissioned?

 

[Burrito]

They don't call it the Chair Force for nothing.

What's the height restriction to be a missleer? (Is that what they're called?)

 

[darth-horax]

I want to say it's 6'6", but don't quote me on that.

There's a lot of jobs they can get, but pilots are coveted spots that many try to get but few achieve.
A lot of athletes try it out because they ahve a very competitive nature, adn the pilot position is highly competitive.

 

[The Ogre]

What's the height restriction to be a missleer? (Is that what they're called?)

Pretty sure those silos were made with Morlocks in mind, so they're bigger than you'd think.

 

[Buffnik]

If we start talking revenue from media exposure and the traditional Pac alignments with paired rivals, adding AFA and BYU would be the worst thing that could happen to make a Pac-14. For fans, I think it would actually be pretty great.