quote:My posts have been in support of those who have elected to serve in the military, both as commissioned officers out of the Academies and in the ranks. People who committed without the personal reserve clause of ‘as long as I don’t get the opportunity to play professional sports instead.”
Questioning the policy is entirely fair game, statements like these are cheap shots imho.
It is my understanding that the officer in question was about to accept a D1 baseball scholarship in California and the military refused to accept no for an answer. They sweetened their offer by making the pro option available and the young man took the offer. It is entirely reasonable to question the military for making this type of offer, it is quite another to impugn the young man (and others) for accepting it.
Some random thoughts....
Is an enlisted man or officer who signs on to the military with a promise to get stationed in Hawaii somehow less honorable than the enlisted man or officer who gets stationed in some other less than desirable location?
Leaving the military after two years to pursue baseball seems reasonable at first glance but often, propects emerge later in their college careers. They are called senior signs in some cases and in other cases many prospects elevated their status remarkably by having phenomenal junior or senior campaigns.
I don't have a good answer for why the military allows players to pursue pro ball. My guess is it simply comes down to athletic recruiting. The coaches in question probably are asked by potential recruits about the possibilities of pro ball and they simply do not want to have to tell them this is off the table. For whatever reason, the military has chosen to provide D1 sports and apparently are willing to deal with the consequences of an exceptional athlete on an individual basis. Is that the correct policy?