|
|
Post by davecisar on Jun 14, 2008 8:47:54 GMT -6
sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3441063&campaign=rsssrch&source=st.+louis+cardinalsLooks like the old rules are back in place, play for 4 years and then go do your committment in the war zone. Bottom line is, we're a nation at war and as a nation at war we believe it is inappropriate for Navy and Marine Corps personnel to be released from service obligation to play sports at a time other sailors and Marines are carrying out their service obligations," Davis said. Winter suspended all early releases from active duty for professional sports in January 2007. Previously, officers could serve 24 months and then apply for an early release to pursue "an activity with potential recruiting or public affairs benefit to the Navy and Marine Corps."
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 14, 2008 13:27:45 GMT -6
sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3441063&campaign=rsssrch&source=st.+louis+cardinalsLooks like the old rules are back in place, play for 4 years and then go do your committment in the war zone. Bottom line is, we're a nation at war and as a nation at war we believe it is inappropriate for Navy and Marine Corps personnel to be released from service obligation to play sports at a time other sailors and Marines are carrying out their service obligations," Davis said. Winter suspended all early releases from active duty for professional sports in January 2007. Previously, officers could serve 24 months and then apply for an early release to pursue "an activity with potential recruiting or public affairs benefit to the Navy and Marine Corps." I wonder how this affects the recruiting between the service academies , since this apparently is simply a Naval Decision and not a universal policy for all academies. If a recruit is not set on going to either West Point, Annapolis, or Colorado Springs...will the different treatment by various branches influence a decision? |
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Jun 14, 2008 13:44:54 GMT -6
I find this pretty odd...
First, how many players could this possibly affect? Probably not many...so why change the policy? It's not like the Navy is losing hundreds or even dozens of people each year to the ranks of professional teams. Second, I would think that the real value of a high-profile, pro-caliber athlete would be as a recruiter, not as a sailor. Why send an elite athlete overseas when that person can make a much bigger contribution, PR-wise, staying in the states?
Just seems strange to me...I would like to know what precipitated this and why the other service academies are not doing the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jun 14, 2008 14:01:25 GMT -6
While I agree with you that the "does one man" really make a difference logic can be applied here, I do think the underlying values of the unofficial Navy Motto ""Non sibi sed patriae" (Not self but country)" apply here. Especially since anyone in the class of '08 enrolled in the academies during the current war. There has to be a line drawn somewhere...first it could be pro athletes..then..why not chemists or engineers? What about acting?
Also, in this case, it is baseball...and baseball is just SO tough to crack into the "high profile".
|
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Jun 14, 2008 14:14:12 GMT -6
Here's the other thing...
When this kid entered the Naval Academy, there was a different set of rules. Now, the Navy is going to change those rules? I don't think that is really fair. If the Navy is going to institute something like this, then people who started at the school before the policy change should be exempted from it.
Look, I'm a vet. I did my time (US Army '96-'99) and I understand that the needs of the military supercede the desires of the individual. But, with that being said, it sounds like this kid entered the academy with the understanding that, if he made it to the next level, there would be some kind of arrangement made with the Navy that would allow him to fulfill his obligation to his country AND pursue a career in professional sports, as well.
That was the rule when he entered the academy. I just think that he should be "grandfathered out" of the new rule.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajreaper on Jun 14, 2008 16:03:11 GMT -6
Since we've invaded Iraq how many athletes from the service academies have become a professional in any sport? If our military cannot afford to have a handful of (and not even that) officers released early to play a professional sport and be used for PR what does that say about the current state of our military? Personally I think it's a PR stunt in and of itself that essentially has zero bearing on the war effort so why even go there? It's a meaningless policy- hell are we going to reassign members of the Marine Corp band and silent drill team to combat units? There's way more of them then there are athletes at the service academies who will play a sport professionally.
|
|
|
|
Post by eickst on Jun 14, 2008 16:27:20 GMT -6
The easy resolution to all of this is to not be a nation at war. But we as Americans have a hard time *not* being at war with someone (or something).
War on Poverty
War on Drugs
Cold War
War on Terror
I'm probably in the minority here on the boards as I do not believe in God and I do not believe that America is in the right simply because it's America.
If the armed services don't see the benefit to having someone in pro sports acting as a liaison and recruiter then they shouldn't complain about their low recruitment and retention numbers. Add this to a pretty worthless GI bill and all of the fraudulent advertising about people getting high paying jobs when they leave the military and it's no wonder no one wants to sign up, war time or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Jun 14, 2008 17:22:46 GMT -6
Let's try to keep politics and dogma out of this.
|
|
|
|
Post by wildcat on Jun 14, 2008 20:59:39 GMT -6
Locked.
|
|
