Delayed Service for athletes...

Harpy Eagle

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Feb 22, 2017
102,676
34,202
2,290
President tells Army-Navy players that service can be deferred until after pro careers

On Saturday, the current Commander-in-Chief touted while attending the annual Army-Navy game a shift in policy that permits athletes at the service academies to delay their service.
President Trump told the players that they now have the chance “to make a fortune, and after you’re all finished with your professional career, you’ll go and you’ll serve and everybody’s thrilled.”


What do you all think...good policy or not?

Maybe we can get something other than the normal split on this one...

I say it is bad policy for two reasons...

First, it says that making your fortune is more important than serving your country and full fulling your commitment to the country.

Second, what if their career last 20 years and they are 40 plus when they enter active duty? What if they are injured and no long qualify to be on active duty?

I think this just sends a bad message.
 
I don't see many people going into the service after racking up millions as a pro athlete.
 
Well no one is forced to serve in the military, so what is the meaning of this?
 
Like it or not, scholarship athletes at Division I schools are recruited for their brawn, not their brains. Army and Navy would have to drop to Division II or III status if they preclude athletes from a chance to go pro. Maybe that's OK, but the brass wouldn't like it.
 
It seems to me that if one wants to pursue a professional sports career, perhaps one of the major military academies is not the place to do so. They involve a commitment to service; there are many other colleges to attend while pursuing a sports career.

That said, I couldn't begin to predict whether this policy would actually have any sort of negative or positive effect.
 
Like it or not, scholarship athletes at Division I schools are recruited for their brawn, not their brains. Army and Navy would have to drop to Division II or III status if they preclude athletes from a chance to go pro. Maybe that's OK, but the brass wouldn't like it.

"If they preclude athletes for a chance to go pro"? What do you think the policy has been up until now?
 
I don't believe it is a big deal at all.

It might hurt recruiting at Stanford or Vanderbilt or Wake Forest, but not many others. You have to
be ultra intelligent to get into the Military Schools. There are no dummies at those places.

It is a very strong academic/athletic place. Your time is constantly challenged. You have very
little time for yourself. Your social life is usually limited to a break for three meals a day and you march
to those. These are dedicated young men and women. If one of them can participate in a pro sport,
so be it.

Each graduating class has somewhere around a 1,000+. Alabama usually has around 10/or 12 going
to the NFL. How in the hell many would Army, Navy or Air Force have? It ain't that big of a deal.

The good that comes out of it, is there maybe a person out there who is very intelligent and would
love to be an Officer in the Military, but at the same time is a very talented player. He can pursue both
dreams at the same time. There is nothing wrong with that.

It's a policy that is long overdo.
 
What do you all think...good policy or not?

Its neither good or bad. It will not affect the life of any American other than the athletes. If its good for the athletes then its good.

Why should certain athletes be given a different set of rules than the rest of the graduates of the US Military Academies?

Why not make the same rule for someone that is offered a great contract to make a fortune with Google or Microsoft of Exxon? Why is making a fortune as an athlete worthy of special treatment?
 
What do you all think...good policy or not?

Its neither good or bad. It will not affect the life of any American other than the athletes. If its good for the athletes then its good.

Why should certain athletes be given a different set of rules than the rest of the graduates of the US Military Academies?

Why not make the same rule for someone that is offered a great contract to make a fortune with Google or Microsoft of Exxon? Why is making a fortune as an athlete worthy of special treatment?

Those companies do not pay like professional ports and their physical skills don't deteriorate with age.
 
President tells Army-Navy players that service can be deferred until after pro careers

On Saturday, the current Commander-in-Chief touted while attending the annual Army-Navy game a shift in policy that permits athletes at the service academies to delay their service.
President Trump told the players that they now have the chance “to make a fortune, and after you’re all finished with your professional career, you’ll go and you’ll serve and everybody’s thrilled.”


What do you all think...good policy or not?

Maybe we can get something other than the normal split on this one...

I say it is bad policy for two reasons...

First, it says that making your fortune is more important than serving your country and full fulling your commitment to the country.

Second, what if their career last 20 years and they are 40 plus when they enter active duty? What if they are injured and no long qualify to be on active duty?

I think this just sends a bad message.

Another point, Gator: By the time your pro career ends, you're likely married with young children. Not the best time to do your mandatory service either.

In reality, the best time to do your service is right after you graduate. All of that you learned in a military academy is current and fresh in your mind when you go to serve, so you're of the most use to the service. You're accustomed to the discipline and expectations of military life, and as you pointed out, you don't have any injuries which would prevent your service.

I just don't see ANYONE going into military service after a successful pro sports career. I don't see multi-millionaire athletes, with family obligations, doing 5 years as a military officer. These athletes will try to buy their way out of it.

Last but not least is the message it sends. When young men and women enrol in West Point or Annapolis, they are making a commitment to their country. Many are setting out on a lifelong path of public service. JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". West Point and Annapolis are the educational institutions which live that ethos. Trump is saying "Your promises to your country mean nothing. Get it while you can".

Just as JFK's words reveal the kind of man he was, so do Trump's.
 
President tells Army-Navy players that service can be deferred until after pro careers

On Saturday, the current Commander-in-Chief touted while attending the annual Army-Navy game a shift in policy that permits athletes at the service academies to delay their service.
President Trump told the players that they now have the chance “to make a fortune, and after you’re all finished with your professional career, you’ll go and you’ll serve and everybody’s thrilled.”


What do you all think...good policy or not?

Maybe we can get something other than the normal split on this one...

I say it is bad policy for two reasons...

First, it says that making your fortune is more important than serving your country and full fulling your commitment to the country.

Second, what if their career last 20 years and they are 40 plus when they enter active duty? What if they are injured and no long qualify to be on active duty?

I think this just sends a bad message.

Another point, Gator: By the time your pro career ends, you're likely married with young children. Not the best time to do your mandatory service either.

In reality, the best time to do your service is right after you graduate. All of that you learned in a military academy is current and fresh in your mind when you go to serve, so you're of the most use to the service. You're accustomed to the discipline and expectations of military life, and as you pointed out, you don't have any injuries which would prevent your service.

I just don't see ANYONE going into military service after a successful pro sports career. I don't see multi-millionaire athletes, with family obligations, doing 5 years as a military officer. These athletes will try to buy their way out of it.

Last but not least is the message it sends. When young men and women enrol in West Point or Annapolis, they are making a commitment to their country. Many are setting out on a lifelong path of public service. JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". West Point and Annapolis are the educational institutions which live that ethos. Trump is saying "Your promises to your country mean nothing. Get it while you can".

Just as JFK's words reveal the kind of man he was, so do Trump's.

That's odd! By the time I finished my Navy service obligation, I had been married for 5 years and had two children.

My daughter's Army service obligation is up next August, and she is unmarried with no children. It all depends on the individual.
 
President tells Army-Navy players that service can be deferred until after pro careers

On Saturday, the current Commander-in-Chief touted while attending the annual Army-Navy game a shift in policy that permits athletes at the service academies to delay their service.
President Trump told the players that they now have the chance “to make a fortune, and after you’re all finished with your professional career, you’ll go and you’ll serve and everybody’s thrilled.”


What do you all think...good policy or not?

Maybe we can get something other than the normal split on this one...

I say it is bad policy for two reasons...

First, it says that making your fortune is more important than serving your country and full fulling your commitment to the country.

Second, what if their career last 20 years and they are 40 plus when they enter active duty? What if they are injured and no long qualify to be on active duty?

I think this just sends a bad message.

Another point, Gator: By the time your pro career ends, you're likely married with young children. Not the best time to do your mandatory service either.

In reality, the best time to do your service is right after you graduate. All of that you learned in a military academy is current and fresh in your mind when you go to serve, so you're of the most use to the service. You're accustomed to the discipline and expectations of military life, and as you pointed out, you don't have any injuries which would prevent your service.

I just don't see ANYONE going into military service after a successful pro sports career. I don't see multi-millionaire athletes, with family obligations, doing 5 years as a military officer. These athletes will try to buy their way out of it.

Last but not least is the message it sends. When young men and women enrol in West Point or Annapolis, they are making a commitment to their country. Many are setting out on a lifelong path of public service. JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". West Point and Annapolis are the educational institutions which live that ethos. Trump is saying "Your promises to your country mean nothing. Get it while you can".

Just as JFK's words reveal the kind of man he was, so do Trump's.

That's odd! By the time I finished my Navy service obligation, I had been married for 5 years and had two children.

My daughter's Army service obligation is up next August, and she is unmarried with no children. It all depends on the individual.

Would you have started you service obligation with a wife and two children? My father-in-law left the Navy when his second child was born.
 
President tells Army-Navy players that service can be deferred until after pro careers

On Saturday, the current Commander-in-Chief touted while attending the annual Army-Navy game a shift in policy that permits athletes at the service academies to delay their service.
President Trump told the players that they now have the chance “to make a fortune, and after you’re all finished with your professional career, you’ll go and you’ll serve and everybody’s thrilled.”


What do you all think...good policy or not?

Maybe we can get something other than the normal split on this one...

I say it is bad policy for two reasons...

First, it says that making your fortune is more important than serving your country and full fulling your commitment to the country.

Second, what if their career last 20 years and they are 40 plus when they enter active duty? What if they are injured and no long qualify to be on active duty?

I think this just sends a bad message.

Another point, Gator: By the time your pro career ends, you're likely married with young children. Not the best time to do your mandatory service either.

In reality, the best time to do your service is right after you graduate. All of that you learned in a military academy is current and fresh in your mind when you go to serve, so you're of the most use to the service. You're accustomed to the discipline and expectations of military life, and as you pointed out, you don't have any injuries which would prevent your service.

I just don't see ANYONE going into military service after a successful pro sports career. I don't see multi-millionaire athletes, with family obligations, doing 5 years as a military officer. These athletes will try to buy their way out of it.

Last but not least is the message it sends. When young men and women enrol in West Point or Annapolis, they are making a commitment to their country. Many are setting out on a lifelong path of public service. JFK said "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". West Point and Annapolis are the educational institutions which live that ethos. Trump is saying "Your promises to your country mean nothing. Get it while you can".

Just as JFK's words reveal the kind of man he was, so do Trump's.

That's odd! By the time I finished my Navy service obligation, I had been married for 5 years and had two children.

My daughter's Army service obligation is up next August, and she is unmarried with no children. It all depends on the individual.

Would you have started you service obligation with a wife and two children? My father-in-law left the Navy when his second child was born.

I did somewhat, with a wife and one on the way. I was married a year before I was commissioned and had a daughter two months afterward.

My third and last child was born three weeks before I left active duty ten years later.

Your father-iin-law leaving the Navy when his second child was born was his guarantee that he would be there for the conception of anymore children rather than just the birth. He wanted to make sure the children he was supporting were his!
 
Last edited:
So, if you play kickball or hittyball real good, you can shirk your commitment to the taxpayers who funded you. But ONLY if you play kickyball or hittyball real good. If you are brilliant and could slide into a research head position somewhere...tough shit,learn to play kickyball or hittyball.

Cool.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top