An op-ed at the New York Times argues that West Point and Annapolis have sacrificed military excellence for success at big-time sports, and have become anachronisms that need to be fixed or abolished:

Yes, we still produce some Rhodes, Marshall and Truman Scholars. But mediocrity is the norm.

Meanwhile, the academy’s former pursuit of excellence seems to have been pushed aside by the all-consuming desire to beat Notre Dame at football (as Navy did last year). To keep our teams in the top divisions of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, we fill officer-candidate slots with students who have been recruited primarily for their skills at big-time sports. That means we reject candidates with much higher predictors of military success (and, yes, athletic skills that are more pertinent to military service) in favor of players who, according to many midshipmen who speak candidly to me, often have little commitment to the military itself.

George C. Scott, in the opening scene of Patton, tells his troops that when their grandchildren sit on their knee in 50 years and ask “what did you do in the War, Grandpa,” “you won’t have to say I shoveled shit in Louisiana.” Well, in my generation’s war, I emptied bedpans in Peoria, so I try not to pontificate on what makes for a strong military.

But passing over applicants with indicia of future military success in favor of guys with Heisman trophy potential is a serious mistake.

Yeah: fix ’em or close ’em.