Today in Morning Coffee we mentioned Navy pitcher Mitch Harris who will serve his five year active-duty commitment rather than hurling for the St. Louis Cardinals franchise. Harris isn't the first military academy graduate to be drafted by a professional team, but unlike West Point graduate Caleb Campbell who will don a Detroit Lions uniform, Harris is scheduled to report to the Navy Monday for two weeks of training and then begin serving in Ponce as a weapons officer.
The Army recently changed their rules, allowing recruited athletes to turn pro upon graduation. The program, known as the alternative service option, gives the service person the option to play for two years, after which they can buy out the remaining three years of their service commitment.
The Navy has no such rule and according to a Navy spokesperson, there aren't plans to change that fact. "At this point in time, the nation being at war takes precedence," Navy spokeswoman Lt. Karen Eifert told the Associated Press. "We need all of our manpower to be deployable to meet their service obligation."
For its part the Army sees a marketing and PR goldmine. "The real advantage for the Army is just the amount of publicity we get," Army spokeswoman Lt. Col. Anne Edgecombe also said in the AP article. "When you think about it, who's the best recruiter for the Navy you can think of? David Robinson. He's called the Admiral, for goodness sake."
Unlike Robinson--who served two years active duty and then applied to be released from his service--Navy's Harris does not have many options. In 2007 the Navy suspended early releases to enable the branch to meet its commitments in the Middle East.
The Army's decision to allow its recruits to go-pro rather than serve their military obligation raises several questions that could impact the competitive nature of the military academies. Would top recruits be less likely to play for Navy if they knew they would have to serve the full service commitment? What does this do for the viability of the other academies athletics programs?
In the AP article, an Air Force spokesperson was obviously nervous about the residual impact of the Army's new rule. "Would their interpretation create an unfair advantage over the other two military academies? Because we basically all recruit our new cadets from the same pool."
Men and women who participate in athletics at the military academies have three commitments to uphold: service to their country, remaining academically eligible and participating in sports. Is serving as a PR device for the Army as valuable as serving an active duty commitment? What do you think?