quote:
Originally posted by Orlando:
In my view, deciding that playing short season ball in Podunk is somehow worth “millions of dollars in free advertising and PR” is making light of the commitment of those who serve. Oh, and then a little TDY as a recruiter.
My post was in answer to CPZL's; hence the quoted post from him. In that post, he asked that the commitment made by those who enlist (in this case, he and his son) not be made light of. I answered that the Academies' policy and his own statements about the perceived PR and advertising value of playing minor league ball in Podunk (as regularly used in baseball circles to describe the small towns in which the introductory levels of baseball are played) made light of the commitment of those, be they Academy graduates or any other enlistees, who serve, as promised, in military endeavors, whatever they be.
As I have stated previously, I do not understand the 'advertising' value of toiling in the obscurity of the minors. And I do not agree with the policy of modifying the cadets' service in order to play professional sports as if that endeavor is more valuable than the one for which they originally committed.
I'm sure you will interpret this to mean whatever you so choose. Please try to read in context, at a minimum.
This is the essence of your ignorance on the issue and evidence that you try and twist anything said.
You claimed to know alot about baseball, yet you've never heard of this policy. It's been in place 6 years now, so I guess you must not be as informed as you purport here.
Saying that the commitment as an Army recruiter in the off season is a little recruiting and some TDY, belittles the comittment and the person. Don't make these people out to be shirkers of duty and lying on a beach somewhere in a cushy job. The army spends hundreds of millions of dollars each year in marketing and advertising, obviously, they place a huge importance on recruiting.
They made a decision that they wanted to take the $350,000 investment they made in a cadet and let him try and make it in pro ball. Currently there are three players from West Point in pro ball, two of them just drafted this year. The other two players that were drafted out of West Point, both played one year and then went back into the Army to serve the remainder of their commitment more traditionally. So your assessment that they are "toiling in the obscurity of the minors" is again premature and ignorant. It's become obvious you lack the prerequisite knowledge to make such statements.
Lets do some math...A player, $350,000 investment. I believe the percentages are around %10 of players taken in the first 10 rounds make it to the pro's. So the Army would have to make a total investment of $3,500,000 to get 1 player into pro baseball. Two years served as an Army recruiter with a value of $50,000, so that deducts a total of $1,000,000 in payback of that investment. Then a buyout of $33,000 per player and now the investment is slightly over $2,000,000 for those 10 players. That is a drop in the advertising bucket over the span of years it will take to place 10 players in pro baseball. If one player lasts 5 years, the return on investment in publicity for the Army would be huge.
Now, let's look at it from an institutional perspective. Just like any college, the acadamies would like to field competitive teams. Having a high profile team brings positive publicity, which is why universities do it. The acadamies are no different than traditional universities in that regard, they want to compete for the highest caliber applicant they can. By offering the "pro service option", it helps recruiters because they don't have to take playing pro sports off the table to a top level recruit.
For those of you who want to argue, "he made a commitment, he should have to fulfill it", well, the Army made a commitment to him also, it's a two way street. The idea that somebody gets out of something is to demean the instilled values of that person. You may choose to ignore it, but all of the cadets so far have been torn between pro ball and the military. They choose pro ball, for the same reasons your son has/did/would, it has been their dream their whole life. It seems quite heavy handed to expect a young man to not only agree to lay his life on the line to defend his and your country, but tell him if he chooses to do it, he must throw away all his childhood dreams. No one is holding your sons up to that same threshold or scrutiny, nor would they want to.
The belief of the acadamies is, paraphrasing MacArthur, "our future leaders of America will come from the fields of friendly strife"...athletics. No institutions in the world place a higher value on conditioning and athletics than the academies. Part of a cadets GPA is formulated using physical assessment test scores. Every cadet at West Point is required to play a sport, whether at the club level, intramural, or intercollegiate. Courses like boxing, swimming, and physical fitness are required core courses. It makes perfect sense that an institution that so values athletics would do whatever it could to raise the level of its competitiveness. After all, isn't war the epitome of competition? It also stands to reason that it would want to showcase its best athletes to perspective cadet candidates through the pro ranks. These are young men with high morals, excellent academics, rock solid values.
As parents, wouldn't you prefer to see a person of that caliber succeeding in pro sports? The Army would like to hold up that person as an icon of what the acadamies produce, thereby publicizing to the parents of potential candidates the example of what they can expect their son or daughter to be as a result of graduation.
My son made a commitment to the Army to serve, with a proviso. The Army made a commitment to my son to provide an education and develop a leader of character, with a proviso. Both parties have every intention of living up to their commitment. The promises made are reciprical, not just on the part of the cadet.
I don't see the unfairness in offering my son the same opportunity to play professionally as your son has. When your son is forced to enlist and serve, that argument might hold water, but it doesn't in an all volunteer military.
Oh, for heaven's sake. I infer by that that you are under the impression that anyone not agreeing with your take on the situation and policy is displaying ignorance. Such arrogance would fit with a commitment that is self-defined.
