 |
| Photo Credit to Chris Pestel (http://chrisWpestel.com) |
This article really got me thinking. Some of what is written frustrates me to no end because while the reasons captured sound like excuses. However, I feel like there has to be some validity to the frustrations expressed by multiple coaches over the years. I’m not posting in an attempt to validate those comments, or to whine, or add to the excuses. I just have a few thoughts and one recommendation and am opening up for opinions and feedback.
The below is not based upon any knowledge I have of
football, coaching or running athletic programs, because we all know that I
have no experience in those areas! I'm also not proclaiming to have more experience or insight than the Tiger Teams convened with experts to address this issue. I am however, basing my comments upon my experiences as a cadet, recent reflections on my assignment as an admissions officer for West Point, and my current volunteer role as a West Point admissions field force officer interacting and working with cadet candidates.
When all is said and done, I’ll be drafting a letter to the Superintendent. Just like with writing your Congressman,
maybe it will get heard, maybe not, but I know I'll have given my input and not
just provided another internet rant.
--------
When we talk about reasons why we haven't beat Navy, or more
importantly, why we haven't had a winning football program in recent history, I hear all sorts
of “reasons” from the war, to the football players having to balance athletics
and academics and summer training etc. I
hear many grads (myself included) flex their sports team’s recent Navy victory
and National championship stats and wonder why the heck the football team can’t
do the same. I also see a lot of people jump
right to blaming the coaches and / or the athletic department's recruiting
practices. But I wonder, has anyone considered that
the true limiting factor may be the academy’s admissions process?
You can't give
someone athletic ability and talent, but you can build on what’s already there.
The same is true for academic ability, and physical ability and
the only non-negotiable is a candidate’s ethical character. While [insert name of the Academy’s winningest
and Navy-beatingest sports here] may have been fortunate enough to have athletically talented cadets
on their teams because those cadets were admitted within the parameters of the current admissions
process, perhaps there are dimensions within the process that may negatively
impact our football program. At some
point in time, what the coaches see on the roster and on the team is what they’ve
got. If the admissions process is not setting the
conditions for our success, then we need to re-examine it.
In case you are asking: Why the emphasis on football? What about the other sports?
"Upon the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds that on other days and other fields will bear the fruits of victory." –Gen Douglas MacArthur
That’s why.
This quote is a mantra beat into our heads as
cadets, we live it and we believe it. Everyone
plays sports; every one competes to WIN…period.
Going back to my earlier point, since so many other teams at West Point
do have winning records and beat Navy with a fair amount of consistency, then I
think it is more than fair to look at the team that does not.
We need to focus on the root cause (ask the 5 Whys), which I believe
will lead us back to the admissions process.
When I worked in admissions this was the quote on my
signature block:
"The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its wars fought by fools." ―Thucydides*.
I kept that quote at the forefront of my mind because it is easy to get wrapped up in academics alone when working in admissions. The thing is, West Point admissions differs
from admissions for other colleges because our goal is not to maintain our
spot as the most prestigious academic institution or to further our goals and
boost our college football / athletics powerhouse status. Instead, we are admitting candidates to groom
them to become leaders of character for America’s sons and daughters and current
Superintendent LTG Caslen puts it much better than I:
“When America puts its sons and daughters in harm’s way, they do not
expect us to just ‘do our best,’ but to win…Nothing short of victory is
acceptable. That fundamental ethos is at the heart of this academy. It must be
ingrained in every one of our athletic programs. Our core values are duty,
honor, country. Winning makes them real.” AND oh, by the way, we are still
expected to be on par with schools the schools that signify the best and
brightest while still having a winning athletic program.
To that end, cadet candidates are admitted based upon three
things: academics, leadership and physical abilities. This is assessed both upon past performance
in the form of academic standing, ratings from professors, standardized tests,
leadership positions held, sports team membership, and fitness test assessment –
to name a few. The board evaluates a
candidate’s past performance as well as their potential for success, given the
academy’s rigorous academic curriculum and physical requirements. If the admissions board is willing to admit a candidate who brings
exceptional academic skills to the table and may go on to be the next [insert
prestigious academic award / honor here] for West Point – even though the
candidate is borderline or weak in their physical ability, then one could argue
that the same could be done in the case of athletics. What matters most is that
this candidate’s character and leadership potential is consistent with what we
look for in our Army’s leaders.
In cases such as the aforementioned hypothetical candidate, the rationale may be that the candidate's physical
ability can be worked on during his or her four years as a cadet. I am certain that along with the instructors in the Department of Physical
Education, the cadet and his or her company mates will work out and work at improvements and there’s
always those one or two physical studs who are willing to help out that
classmate who needs it. Similarly, if a
cadet who is borderline academically is admitted, he or she can seek additional instruction (AI) and will likely study with their roommate or company mates (who may just be the earlier referenced
academically exceptional candidate!).
The cooperate and graduate mentality is just as valuable to a cadet's leadership
development and that sense of team that transfers to the Army.
I think in the article Pete Dawkins – that is, West Point
graduate, Heisman trophy winning, Rhodes Scholar, White House Fellow, retired Brigadier General, Pete Dawkins – alludes to
something similar which resonates well with me: “You can tell if a
young person has the core qualities to be very able Army officers…It’s entirely
fair to accept some risks and then tutor them and make them successful. I think
it’s something we can do without compromising the standards and culture of the
place…“We’re a national institution that should play against other colleges and
institutions and all over the country...I think it’s crucial
that West Point stand out as a place of winners. We owe it to the country. They
deserve to have a winning Army football team.”
