College equation has changed for boys

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless you play in a revenue generating sport which means football or basketball, college sports are just another enjoyable activity to pursue. Think marching band, fraternities, engineering competitions, and the like. All power to you if that’s what you enjoy and it’s great that our colleges offer all these activities to enrich the experience. College soccer is no more no less. I hope people aren’t delusional about college sports.

:roll:

Come back when recruited athletes no longer get a special admissions process and are in the same bucket as students in marching band.

Athletes recruited for soccer don’t often get a led up in admissions. It’s different for revenue generating sports like basketball and football. DS was advised to maintain the highest GPA possible if he wanted to be recruited. Sure there may be an occasional applicant who a coach fights for but it’s isn’t going to be the majority of recruits. A 3.5 isn’t going to get admitted to HYSP on the men’s side. The coaches have their choice of talented HS soccer recruits who check the admissions boxes. But the fact is college soccer coaches are much more likely to choose a transfer or international player in 2026.

Athletes recruited for soccer absolutely get a leg-up in admissions, and it’s very odd to claim otherwise. My child who was recruited by several ivies was told he could get through admissions so long as he kept his grades up and got at least a 1250 on the SAT. My other child (not recruited) with perfect grades in highly rigorous classes and a 1600 on the SAT was shut out by those same schools.

Also, check the rosters for HYPSM. The vast majority of players are American.

I’m not saying it’s an easy path to get to any top school, but we have found that the shot at a golden admissions ticket tends to keep kids more focused on their academics than they might otherwise be.

The HYP players or "IVY" players get no scholarship $.

Sure they do! 100% It's just not called an athletic scholarship.

[Anonymous]

Why does nobody talk about D2 here? A full ride athletic scholarship is rare, but you can combine a partial athletic with a partial academic scholarship. I did that, although it was 30 yrs ago. It doesn’t seem like much has changed. Or there are at least some state schools with lower tuition to make partial athletic scholarship work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I am hiring leadership talent, and look at comparable candidates that have similar track records, similar educations and seem to be a good cultural fits - same same - except for one was a college athlete and the other was not - I will take the college athlete every time. (spoiler alert: And so will most other leaders of leaders).

The special treatment of college athletes extends well beyond the institutional walls.

Forgot to add, I would not take the marching band, fraternity bro (even if in my fraternity), debate club champ, student paper editor, etc... You even bring that sort of stuff up in a leadership interview or on your CV, and I'm labeling you a weirdo.

And this is why American businesses are fixated on doing away with regulation and focusing on the short term, necessitating a government bailout a couple of times per generation.

All our problems would be solved if we had more flautists. Lizzo for president!

Thomas Jefferson played the violin, cello and clavichord.

Harry S Truman was an accomplished pianist.

Abraham Lincoln played violin.

And, apparently, Chester A. Arthur played banjo.

Soccer players? GHW Bush and Trump. I don't think we have to have a big political argument to agree that Jefferson, Truman and Lincoln fared a bit better in office. (I have no idea about Chester A. Arthur.)

I write about sports. I've interviewed a lot of athletes. Some of them are smart, thoughtful people. A lot of them aren't.

So the idea that an athlete will necessarily be a better employee than a musician or a robot-builder or an entrepreneur is just laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does nobody talk about D2 here? A full ride athletic scholarship is rare, but you can combine a partial athletic with a partial academic scholarship. I did that, although it was 30 yrs ago. It doesn’t seem like much has changed. Or there are at least some state schools with lower tuition to make partial athletic scholarship work.

We have friends whose kids went that route. It can be smart financially.

[Anonymous]

OP is actually spot on. The boys side is super tough. International players will claim most of the D1 spots and transfer portal to get that grown man in those spots. Your 180lb 18 year old won't stand a chance. Then there is title IX so you have Power 4 schools not even offering soccer. Just look at the SEC schools, they could care less about fielding a soccer team. Profit wise, it's a guarantee loss.

Most domestic players should target D1 as a stretch goal, with realistic expectations on a D3 program. With that being said, there are a ton of real strong D3s programs that could beat many of the D1s both academically and on the pitch. Tufts, Williams, Hopkins, UChicago, etc. but soccer will not help you get into school like football will. You still need to be a scholar, there is not escaping that.

My son committed to playing at a D3 in the Nescac and his IG post basically said, I got an offer for soccer and committed to the application process of the school. He had great grades and test scores so it wasn't an issue. But if your kid is practicing 4x a week and a games on the weekends without hitting the books, he's not going to get very far. They can't give you money for sports, but my son got about 1/3 of his tuition covered with academic money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why does nobody talk about D2 here? A full ride athletic scholarship is rare, but you can combine a partial athletic with a partial academic scholarship. I did that, although it was 30 yrs ago. It doesn’t seem like much has changed. Or there are at least some state schools with lower tuition to make partial athletic scholarship work.

I've asked this before on this board and the answer usually comes down to D2 being perceived as:

1) Not as athletically prestigious as D1, and
2) Not as academically prestigious as D3.

However, D2 schools are often cheaper than both of those options, particularly for public schools. For athletes who just want to play and don't care about having a "name" school on their diploma, D2 is just fine.

[Anonymous]

I wonder how 5 in 5 may impact international recruiting for boys. Everyone's been focused on how it will impact US based reclassing for basketball, lacrosse, and football, but I think it will impact D1 schools recruiting semi pro 22 year olds from Europe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I am hiring leadership talent, and look at comparable candidates that have similar track records, similar educations and seem to be a good cultural fits - same same - except for one was a college athlete and the other was not - I will take the college athlete every time. (spoiler alert: And so will most other leaders of leaders).

The special treatment of college athletes extends well beyond the institutional walls.

I was a D1 student athlete. We are not all the same. Some of my teammates were dumb as rocks. And some sports tend to attract more cerebral and disciplined people than others. From what I recall, cross country, swimming and tennis always had the highest GPAs. I know not every job needs the cerebral types. Generally what you should look for is the student athletes who won awards outside of their sport, who held leadership positions either inside or outside of the sport, and/or who won scholar-athlete recognition from the conference or nationally. Those are the student athletes who are really going places. The average college athlete with no other accolades ends up coaching their sport for low pay or doing some other mediocre job. Which is why the vast majority of kids should prioritize academics and opportunities available at their chosen higher ed institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I am hiring leadership talent, and look at comparable candidates that have similar track records, similar educations and seem to be a good cultural fits - same same - except for one was a college athlete and the other was not - I will take the college athlete every time. (spoiler alert: And so will most other leaders of leaders).

The special treatment of college athletes extends well beyond the institutional walls.

Forgot to add, I would not take the marching band, fraternity bro (even if in my fraternity), debate club champ, student paper editor, etc... You even bring that sort of stuff up in a leadership interview or on your CV, and I'm labeling you a weirdo.

Im labeling you as a weirdo. Plenty of people do sports and something else. Not many people play D1 to D3 sports but they still might play club or intramural also be captain of the debate club. How weird that you are do fixated on this small subset of people that do college athletics.

[Anonymous]

You are forgetting economics of college - so few boys attending- personally know four boys on near or full rides.

The girls need someone to date

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how 5 in 5 may impact international recruiting for boys. Everyone's been focused on how it will impact US based reclassing for basketball, lacrosse, and football, but I think it will impact D1 schools recruiting semi pro 22 year olds from Europe.

Same here - do the college coaches view the internationals as desirable if they can only play a year or two? Is college as desirable a path for those players if they can't stay long enough to get a degree?

Am very curious how that and the limited free transfers impact HS recruiting, though I guess the proposed changes have to pass first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how 5 in 5 may impact international recruiting for boys. Everyone's been focused on how it will impact US based reclassing for basketball, lacrosse, and football, but I think it will impact D1 schools recruiting semi pro 22 year olds from Europe.

Same here - do the college coaches view the internationals as desirable if they can only play a year or two? Is college as desirable a path for those players if they can't stay long enough to get a degree?

Am very curious how that and the limited free transfers impact HS recruiting, though I guess the proposed changes have to pass first.

DP. I think this is the latest on the 5-in-5: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/48978440/ncaa-panel-tweaks-di-eligibility-proposal-vote-late-june It would start the 5 year eligibility clock from the earlier of an athlete’s 19th birthday or their full-time college enrollment.

The D1 coaches my DS spoke to during the recruiting process this year said they expect the new rule to pass. It will presumably dampen coaches’ interest in the over-age foreign players. But it’s not good for the next few HS recruiting classes, as players currently playing in college may decide to take advantage of their fifth year of eligibility, like many did during the temporary eligibility extensions during COVID. D1 coaches right now don’t know how many open spots they will have for kids currently in HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how 5 in 5 may impact international recruiting for boys. Everyone's been focused on how it will impact US based reclassing for basketball, lacrosse, and football, but I think it will impact D1 schools recruiting semi pro 22 year olds from Europe.

Same here - do the college coaches view the internationals as desirable if they can only play a year or two? Is college as desirable a path for those players if they can't stay long enough to get a degree?

Am very curious how that and the limited free transfers impact HS recruiting, though I guess the proposed changes have to pass first.

DP. I think this is the latest on the 5-in-5: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/48978440/ncaa-panel-tweaks-di-eligibility-proposal-vote-late-june It would start the 5 year eligibility clock from the earlier of an athlete’s 19th birthday or their full-time college enrollment.

The D1 coaches my DS spoke to during the recruiting process this year said they expect the new rule to pass. It will presumably dampen coaches’ interest in the over-age foreign players. But it’s not good for the next few HS recruiting classes, as players currently playing in college may decide to take advantage of their fifth year of eligibility, like many did during the temporary eligibility extensions during COVID. D1 coaches right now don’t know how many open spots they will have for kids currently in HS.

5-in-5 passes: https://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/49156177/ncaa-division-cabinet-ok-5-year-age-based-eligibility