Watching the game

 Today is the Army-Navy game. I'll be watching and cheering for that Navy team. Go Navy, beat Army. I didn't attend the Naval Academy although I was stationed there at one point in my career. I only live about 30 minutes from Annapolis and go there to use the base Exchange. As a result of all that I have taken a little interest in watching the game each year. It's a lot of pageantry, pomp and circumstance. Mostly, it's just fun to watch. And that's what it is supposed to be, a game. Of course it has become much more than that, much more.

 I heard on the news that some rules have been changed. These rules concern the players, not the game rules. I didn't catch the details and a google search didn't provide any answers. I admit I haven't spent a great deal of time researching that. The thing is, from what little I heard,  players may now defer their military service to go play professional football. The reason for that change is recruitment. It is difficult to recruit top high school players with dreams of going pro, to join the service. 

 I get it, it is a big commitment. Many want to be parotitic, serve the nation, and get paid while doing it. The service academies do provide everything, housing, food, clothing, not to mention education, along with a salary. In exchange you have to commit for ten years. Four years of school followed by six years of service. But if that student feels like they can go pro, that's definitely where the money is! They don't want to commit, hence the rules are changing. As with any college, sports, especially football brings in the money. The Alumni and others support that program generously. A winning football team is very important to the economics of the athletic program. But at the academies the focus is on Service. A delicate balance. 

 Now there has always been, shall we say, special considerations for athletes. It has never been obvious, no special rules for grade point average, class attendance, that sort of thing. It has always been an " awareness " for lack of a better term. You know what I mean, like the star athlete at the high school, some special considerations. But if this new rule is implemented that would be a major change in policy. If you can defer your service because of a better economic opportunity what is that saying? You know during the Civil War a wealthy man could just pay another five hundred dollars to take his place. The ability to defer your service, your commitment, because of athletic talent strikes me as no different. Truth is, I find it a bit troubling. Are the academies now going to say, if you are a star athlete you really don't have to serve, you can get a free pass? 

 Like I said I don't really know the details but I didn't like the sound of it. If you are able to defer your service because of economic opportunity how is that fair to the other cadets? What is more important? A winning football team or a trained fighting force? Make no mistake that is what the objective of this change is, the ability to recruit top notch players. But, should the academies be concerned with winning football games, or recruiting military officers to lead the nations armed forces? Also if this person has their service deferred to play pro ball and is subsequently injured playing pro ball, what then? What happens if he is not able to fulfill his commitment? Is it a simple matter of " paying back " the academy for the cost of that education? Is that it, an economic decision? If a non-athlete chooses to not serve after completing training can they just " pay them back" and not serve? I'm not a pro athlete can I arrange a payment plan? 

 I don't know I just don't like it. Yes there have been a number of players that went on to play pro ball after attending the service academies. It's my understanding they still served their time in the reserves, going to training once a month and " active " duty two weeks a year, but don't quote me on that. The service academies cite these players as representing their branch of the service to the public in general. Their spin on it is it will increase the desire for a student to attend their academy. I'm not so certain about that and apparently the service academies are finally willing to admit to a reality, money talks! Now I'm not saying great athletes can't be great patriot's! I am in no way calling their integrity into question. I am saying if you have a choice between receiving a pro contract, in 2018 that would be a min of 480,000 dollars, this year 495,000 dollars, or serving four years active duty in the Army or Navy, what would you choose? Look, if I am recruited by the Navy or whatever I have to figure they believe I have some pretty good skills. So I could then gamble just a bit. I can go to the service academy, tuition free, all expenses paid, heck I'll even get paid and enjoy the prestige of attending that academy. I do have to commit to ten years though, four in school and six years after. Still if I'm good enough, and why wouldn't I believe that I am, that six year can be deferred. When you are 18 that would have to sound awful tempting. I also wonder what if? What if that player doesn't get an offer from the pros? How is that person going to perform in a career that they may or may not have wanted in the first place? I don't know. 

 To me this is just another example of showing where our priorities lie. They lie with economics. It is more important to recruit top athletes than it is to recruit those with a desire to serve their country. Incentives are being provided to facilitate that. Yes the service academy coaches complain that they are at a disadvantage in recruiting players. I can't disagree with that, it is difficult to get a player to commit to that. I know, I tried to get my grandson, who is not a player, to consider the Naval academy. He didn't want to make that commitment and I respect that. If there had been a possible " way out " perhaps his decision would have at least taken longer. My thought is just, what are we recruiting for, football or the Navy? That's my only point.