I agree with Jeremy Schaap at the end there, he's gonna be (potentially) recruiting others for duty he himself isn't taking up. Thought the catcher's sentiments were admirable, while the soldiers as victims mentality some of the ESPN folks project is all too common in America today.
Recently, Army (I'm not sure if it's all academies or just Army) has enacted a rule whereby certain cadets can be completely exempted from their service commitments.
Practically, this means that athletes with promising professional careers will no longer have to serve. Their service commitments can be waived so that they can go play ball.
Caleb Campbell is a Safety who will likely be taken in tomorrow's NFL Draft, and I believe is the first Cadet to be granted this new exemption.
Join date: Oct 2004
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 18954
tGunslinger wrote:
Recently, Army (I'm not sure if it's all academies or just Army) has enacted a rule whereby certain cadets can be completely exempted from their service commitments.
Practically, this means that athletes with promising professional careers will no longer have to serve. Their service commitments can be waived so that they can go play ball.
Caleb Campbell is a Safety who will likely be taken in tomorrow's NFL Draft, and I believe is the first Cadet to be granted this new exemption.
Zap Branigan wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
Recently, Army (I'm not sure if it's all academies or just Army) has enacted a rule whereby certain cadets can be completely exempted from their service commitments.
Practically, this means that athletes with promising professional careers will no longer have to serve. Their service commitments can be waived so that they can go play ball.
Caleb Campbell is a Safety who will likely be taken in tomorrow's NFL Draft, and I believe is the first Cadet to be granted this new exemption.
Does he have to pay back his education?
I don't believe he does. All I know about this is an article from the March 24, 2008 issue of Sports Illustrated.
Pertinent excerpts from the article:
War Games: A West Point cadet may fulfill his Army obligations by playing in the NFL by Clay Travis
...But Campbell's path may soon diverge sharply from his classmates'. Earlier this month he attended the NFL combine in Indianapolis, where he wast he first Army nonkicker ever invited. Like every participant he hopes to be drafted by an NFL team next month, but Campbell has more riding on that draft than most. He could be playing professionally next season. But if he isn't taken or doesn't make an NFL team as an undrafted free agent, he'll likely be serving as a second lieutenant in Iraq or Afghanistan by the end of the year. Such is life on the banks of the Hudson River in a time of war.
In the past, star athletes at military academies (Navy's Roger Staubach and David Robinson, for example) had to put pro sports careers on hold while they fulfilled their service obligations. (Staubach served four years, including one in Vietnam; Robinson served two years at a base in Georgia, and then four as a reserve while playing in the NBA.) Campbell owes his chance to pursue his NFL dreams to a policy implemented by the Army in 2005 that releases cadets from their five-year active duty commitment if they "unique talents and abilities." It requires them only to "participate in activities with potential recruiting or public affairs benefit to the Army."
If he's drafted, Campbell will serve as a recruiter for the Army during and after the NFL season, speaking to young people and working at the local recruiting office wherever he plays. (He would be excused from his five-year service commitment.) If he doesn't hook on with a pro team within a year, he'll return to the Army for five years.
The policy's rationale is straightforward: West Point grads wit highly visible talents create positive publicity for the Army, an aid to recruiting at a time when the military can be a hard sell. Josh Holden, a minor leaguer for the Cincinnati Reds, was the first Army graduate to benefit, in 2005. Campbell would become the first football players to receive the exemption, a distinction that makes him uncomfortable. "I came here after 9/11; I knew what to expect," he says. "We've been trained to lead troops into battle. I expected to do that. I didn't expect the Army to give me an opportunity to play in the NFL. But the difference gets to you. My best friends are probably going to be in Iraq soon."
I hurriedly copied that out of the magazine and didn't proofread it, so any typos are mine.
I think I agree with his take. He should serve or pay for his education. At this point if he thinks his "duty" is to play in the NFL then he probably shouldn't lead men. But he should foot the bill for it. I doubt someone avoiding serving is a good recruiting tool for the Army.
Actually he does have to pay back his education, I do not know the actual terms. Though if I remember correctly he still is serving as an inactive reserve, which means he can still be recalled but only as a last resort.
In his defense, if you are in the military and somehow strike it rich, million+++. Most of the time you are encouraged to leave the military.
Join date: Oct 2004
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 18954
jre67t wrote:
Actually he does have to pay back his education, I do not know the actual terms. Though if I remember correctly he still is serving as an inactive reserve, which means he can still be recalled but only as a last resort.
In his defense, if you are in the military and somehow strike it rich, million+++. Most of the time you are encouraged to leave the military.
I have no problems at all with it then. If his heart isn't in it he should not lead men in battle.
I think I agree with his take. He should serve or pay for his education. At this point if he thinks his "duty" is to play in the NFL then he probably shouldn't lead men. But he should foot the bill for it. I doubt someone avoiding serving is a good recruiting tool for the Army.
Why is going to a service academy on a scholarship any different than someone going on scholarship to a state university?
Should we make everyone who has graduated from a state supported school on a scholarship pay back said scholarship?
To reply Rainjack, the purpose of the Citadel is to raise future leaders for the Military. I understand your logic here, but also you have till the start of your Junior year to decide if the military and its free education is for one's self.
Join date: Apr 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 14606
jre67t wrote:
To reply Rainjack, the purpose of the Citadel is to raise future leaders for the Military. I understand your logic here, but also you have till the start of your Junior year to decide if the military and its free education is for one's self.
Unless the powers that be change the rules, and allow an elite athlete the opportunity to opt out of his agreement.
I think it is a dumb rule.
I also think that if college student goes pro before attaining a Bachelor's degree, said student should be required to pay back his scholarship.
Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 1135
jre67t wrote:
In his defense, if you are in the military and somehow strike it rich, million+++. Most of the time you are encouraged to leave the military.
This is true and sets a precedence for situations like the one mentioned above.
When my wife was in the Army, there was a senior NCO in her unit who won the lottery in Texas, I believe, he was then allowed out of his remaining service obligation.
I think I agree with his take. He should serve or pay for his education. At this point if he thinks his "duty" is to play in the NFL then he probably shouldn't lead men. But he should foot the bill for it. I doubt someone avoiding serving is a good recruiting tool for the Army.
Why is going to a service academy on a scholarship any different than someone going on scholarship to a state university?
Should we make everyone who has graduated from a state supported school on a scholarship pay back said scholarship?
I think the whole point of this was to avoid having another Tillman. Tillman is regarded as a hero and an icon now but the dead part of his outcome probably hasn't helped recruiting. The Army probably wants to avoid more than anything having him crippled or worse and getting more of these stories of a promising life/career cut short by the war all over even ESPN.
I think the whole point of this was to avoid having another Tillman. Tillman is regarded as a hero and an icon now but the dead part of his outcome probably hasn't helped recruiting. The Army probably wants to avoid more than anything having him crippled or worse and getting more of these stories of a promising life/career cut short by the war all over even ESPN.
But isn't that the problem? That the media, if not the country, buys into the "soldier as victim" mentality.
Thinking about this more, I believe this is a smart move for the military. He is more valuable as spokesman than him leading a platoon. The publicity and pride he will bring forth is a higher reward.
Also when he was called as a 7th round pick the crowd rose and applauded. Also this is a great story to follow hopefully he will have a great career. Maybe like Staubach's.
One thing for sure, the Army has to meet the 'Macho' requirement, and when they have no players in the NFL and suck at college ball, it just reinstates the negative stereotype that only losers and fuckups join the army.
I mean what does that say if the army can't even ebat civilians at a ball game?
Aren't ballgames kind of like non-violent battle, the army is supposed to dominate every sport.
I think country's like Germany and Russia understood the importance of this and America is just starting to get the drift.
Guerrero wrote:
One thing for sure, the Army has to meet the 'Macho' requirement, and when they have no players in the NFL and suck at college ball, it just reinstates the negative stereotype that only losers and fuckups join the army.
I mean what does that say if the army can't even ebat civilians at a ball game?
Aren't ballgames kind of like non-violent battle, the army is supposed to dominate every sport.
I think country's like Germany and Russia understood the importance of this and America is just starting to get the drift.
I think you severely overestimate the recruitment standards for the Army. If this was the AirForce or the Marines, you would have more of a point.
Professor X wrote:
Guerrero wrote:
One thing for sure, the Army has to meet the 'Macho' requirement, and when they have no players in the NFL and suck at college ball, it just reinstates the negative stereotype that only losers and fuckups join the army.
I mean what does that say if the army can't even ebat civilians at a ball game?
Aren't ballgames kind of like non-violent battle, the army is supposed to dominate every sport.
I think country's like Germany and Russia understood the importance of this and America is just starting to get the drift.
I think you severely overestimate the recruitment standards for the Army. If this was the AirForce or the Marines, you would have more of a point.
I know what you mea, I mean how the fuck did Private England get into the army that girl was like 5 foot 3 and partially retarded.
What I'm saying is, the Army HAS low ass recruiting requirements we all know this, but there is a cream of the crop, they have rangers, they have intelligence, commissioned officers etc etc. When they can't even win at a ball game...it basically reinforces what you just said.
The Army has no standards, they suck at everything, noone wants to join, except mentally retarded rural people, dudes who don't speak english and homeys in the hood.
Join date: May 2004
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 4801
Guerrero wrote:
The Army has no standards, they suck at everything, noone wants to join, except mentally retarded rural people, dudes who don't speak english and homeys in the hood.
Article Discussions
