NCAA Recruiting

[Anonymous]

I'd be more concerned with the lack of money being thrown around in the future.

If your kid is not the TOP prospect for the school, you better find a school where she is...unless money is not a concern

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scholarships can be increased. If money isn't available freshman year because of those fifth year seniors sticking around she can think of it as a year-long tryout to prove her worth for when that money frees up next year.

This is not a one year only thing. NCAA allows all current students an extra year of eligibility, so you could see some effects for the next 4 years. It could reduce incoming class sizes for up to 4 years. Players on the cusp of making a college squad may not get in at all.

You're misunderstanding what the players staying on a fifth year are tying up. The issue isn't the number of roster spots, it's the number of athletic scholarship dollars available. The coaches can still take the same number of incoming freshman, they just won't have as much athletic scholarship free up if scholarship players who were expected to leave choose to stay. If your kid had good priorities and a good GPA they'll get academic money instead of athletic to make up for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scholarships can be increased. If money isn't available freshman year because of those fifth year seniors sticking around she can think of it as a year-long tryout to prove her worth for when that money frees up next year.

This is not a one year only thing. NCAA allows all current students an extra year of eligibility, so you could see some effects for the next 4 years. It could reduce incoming class sizes for up to 4 years. Players on the cusp of making a college squad may not get in at all.

You're misunderstanding what the players staying on a fifth year are tying up. The issue isn't the number of roster spots, it's the number of athletic scholarship dollars available. The coaches can still take the same number of incoming freshman, they just won't have as much athletic scholarship free up if scholarship players who were expected to leave choose to stay. If your kid had good priorities and a good GPA they'll get academic money instead of athletic to make up for it.

Either way, it's not a great situation. Less money, and less playing time than normal. And I don't see schools subsiding the lack of athletic money with academic money. The extra year of eligibility puts incoming freshmen who are on the cusp at a disadvantage, and it will last for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scholarships can be increased. If money isn't available freshman year because of those fifth year seniors sticking around she can think of it as a year-long tryout to prove her worth for when that money frees up next year.

This is not a one year only thing. NCAA allows all current students an extra year of eligibility, so you could see some effects for the next 4 years. It could reduce incoming class sizes for up to 4 years. Players on the cusp of making a college squad may not get in at all.

You're misunderstanding what the players staying on a fifth year are tying up. The issue isn't the number of roster spots, it's the number of athletic scholarship dollars available. The coaches can still take the same number of incoming freshman, they just won't have as much athletic scholarship free up if scholarship players who were expected to leave choose to stay. If your kid had good priorities and a good GPA they'll get academic money instead of athletic to make up for it.

Either way, it's not a great situation. Less money, and less playing time than normal. And I don't see schools subsiding the lack of athletic money with academic money. The extra year of eligibility puts incoming freshmen who are on the cusp at a disadvantage, and it will last for years.

So, go to VT on a quarter or go to ODU on a full. What would you do?

Let's say the difference is 80,000 savings over 4 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scholarships can be increased. If money isn't available freshman year because of those fifth year seniors sticking around she can think of it as a year-long tryout to prove her worth for when that money frees up next year.

This is not a one year only thing. NCAA allows all current students an extra year of eligibility, so you could see some effects for the next 4 years. It could reduce incoming class sizes for up to 4 years. Players on the cusp of making a college squad may not get in at all.

You're misunderstanding what the players staying on a fifth year are tying up. The issue isn't the number of roster spots, it's the number of athletic scholarship dollars available. The coaches can still take the same number of incoming freshman, they just won't have as much athletic scholarship free up if scholarship players who were expected to leave choose to stay. If your kid had good priorities and a good GPA they'll get academic money instead of athletic to make up for it.

Either way, it's not a great situation. Less money, and less playing time than normal. And I don't see schools subsiding the lack of athletic money with academic money. The extra year of eligibility puts incoming freshmen who are on the cusp at a disadvantage, and it will last for years.

So, go to VT on a quarter or go to ODU on a full. What would you do?

Let's say the difference is 80,000 savings over 4 years.

What is the best-school-but-no-scholarship option, and what does she want to study?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scholarships can be increased. If money isn't available freshman year because of those fifth year seniors sticking around she can think of it as a year-long tryout to prove her worth for when that money frees up next year.

This is not a one year only thing. NCAA allows all current students an extra year of eligibility, so you could see some effects for the next 4 years. It could reduce incoming class sizes for up to 4 years. Players on the cusp of making a college squad may not get in at all.

You're misunderstanding what the players staying on a fifth year are tying up. The issue isn't the number of roster spots, it's the number of athletic scholarship dollars available. The coaches can still take the same number of incoming freshman, they just won't have as much athletic scholarship free up if scholarship players who were expected to leave choose to stay. If your kid had good priorities and a good GPA they'll get academic money instead of athletic to make up for it.

Either way, it's not a great situation. Less money, and less playing time than normal. And I don't see schools subsiding the lack of athletic money with academic money. The extra year of eligibility puts incoming freshmen who are on the cusp at a disadvantage, and it will last for years.

So, go to VT on a quarter or go to ODU on a full. What would you do?

Let's say the difference is 80,000 savings over 4 years.

What is the best-school-but-no-scholarship option, and what does she want to study?

Put.all that aside....i really want to hear what people have to say on this.......

Your kid, a very good player, gets an offer to play out of state at Notre Dame on a partial (25 percent) scholarship. Its your kids dream school. Your kid also has offers to play in-state at JMU, ODU and Mason on a full ride.

What would you want your kid to choose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scholarships can be increased. If money isn't available freshman year because of those fifth year seniors sticking around she can think of it as a year-long tryout to prove her worth for when that money frees up next year.

This is not a one year only thing. NCAA allows all current students an extra year of eligibility, so you could see some effects for the next 4 years. It could reduce incoming class sizes for up to 4 years. Players on the cusp of making a college squad may not get in at all.

You're misunderstanding what the players staying on a fifth year are tying up. The issue isn't the number of roster spots, it's the number of athletic scholarship dollars available. The coaches can still take the same number of incoming freshman, they just won't have as much athletic scholarship free up if scholarship players who were expected to leave choose to stay. If your kid had good priorities and a good GPA they'll get academic money instead of athletic to make up for it.

Either way, it's not a great situation. Less money, and less playing time than normal. And I don't see schools subsiding the lack of athletic money with academic money. The extra year of eligibility puts incoming freshmen who are on the cusp at a disadvantage, and it will last for years.

So, go to VT on a quarter or go to ODU on a full. What would you do?

Let's say the difference is 80,000 savings over 4 years.

What is the best-school-but-no-scholarship option, and what does she want to study?

Put.all that aside....i really want to hear what people have to say on this.......

Your kid, a very good player, gets an offer to play out of state at Notre Dame on a partial (25 percent) scholarship. Its your kids dream school. Your kid also has offers to play in-state at JMU, ODU and Mason on a full ride.

What would you want your kid to choose?

Norte Dame if you can afford it. If not, JMU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scholarships can be increased. If money isn't available freshman year because of those fifth year seniors sticking around she can think of it as a year-long tryout to prove her worth for when that money frees up next year.

This is not a one year only thing. NCAA allows all current students an extra year of eligibility, so you could see some effects for the next 4 years. It could reduce incoming class sizes for up to 4 years. Players on the cusp of making a college squad may not get in at all.

You're misunderstanding what the players staying on a fifth year are tying up. The issue isn't the number of roster spots, it's the number of athletic scholarship dollars available. The coaches can still take the same number of incoming freshman, they just won't have as much athletic scholarship free up if scholarship players who were expected to leave choose to stay. If your kid had good priorities and a good GPA they'll get academic money instead of athletic to make up for it.

Either way, it's not a great situation. Less money, and less playing time than normal. And I don't see schools subsiding the lack of athletic money with academic money. The extra year of eligibility puts incoming freshmen who are on the cusp at a disadvantage, and it will last for years.

So, go to VT on a quarter or go to ODU on a full. What would you do?

Let's say the difference is 80,000 savings over 4 years.

What is the best-school-but-no-scholarship option, and what does she want to study?

Put.all that aside....i really want to hear what people have to say on this.......

Your kid, a very good player, gets an offer to play out of state at Notre Dame on a partial (25 percent) scholarship. Its your kids dream school. Your kid also has offers to play in-state at JMU, ODU and Mason on a full ride.

What would you want your kid to choose?

Norte Dame if you can afford it. If not, JMU.

Is a piece of paper worth 120,000 more because it has the name of a more reputable school? Personally, in today's world, I dont think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Put.all that aside....i really want to hear what people have to say on this.......

Your kid, a very good player, gets an offer to play out of state at Notre Dame on a partial (25 percent) scholarship. Its your kids dream school. Your kid also has offers to play in-state at JMU, ODU and Mason on a full ride.

What would you want your kid to choose?

So many variables. Depends on my financials and his/her career goals mostly but I would want to get a feel for the team culture and playing time also. Career wise, it can be a distinct advantage to have a degree from a "name brand" school if your kid/goals is at the pointy end of the spear so to speak. If that were the case, I'd be inclined to stretch to make their dream school work. But if I didn't have a reasonable impression of future playing time, got a bad vibe, or if the kid is undecided, I'm going to recommend the full ride, in-state route at JMU or better. Mason or ODU not so much.

[Anonymous]

The CEO of Northrop Grumman is the same age as most of us parents on this board (born 1975) and she went to JMU for business as an undergrad. She made $20 million this year. That's a good enough tip of the spear for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The CEO of Northrop Grumman is the same age as most of us parents on this board (born 1975) and she went to JMU for business as an undergrad. She made $20 million this year. That's a good enough tip of the spear for me.

Nice Unicorn but a vast majority of top CEOs came from Ivies.

But the question still remains regarding which is the best choice for your kid? The reality is it depends on the field of interest and the major. If your kid doesn't really know what they want to do or waffling between a couple majors then a large state University is probably best.

Getting a teaching degree? Same thing.

However, for kid with Grad school in mind for Law, Business, Medicine then the $120,000 piece of paper can be a difference maker in regards to the level of Graduate school.

But the reality is, for most kids, once they set foot on campus they tend to settle in and enjoy themselves. Some road mapping is obviously helpful but sometimes it is just as good to allow things to sort themselves out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CEO of Northrop Grumman is the same age as most of us parents on this board (born 1975) and she went to JMU for business as an undergrad. She made $20 million this year. That's a good enough tip of the spear for me.

Nice Unicorn but a vast majority of top CEOs came from Ivies.

But the question still remains regarding which is the best choice for your kid? The reality is it depends on the field of interest and the major. If your kid doesn't really know what they want to do or waffling between a couple majors then a large state University is probably best.

Getting a teaching degree? Same thing.

However, for kid with Grad school in mind for Law, Business, Medicine then the $120,000 piece of paper can be a difference maker in regards to the level of Graduate school.

But the reality is, for most kids, once they set foot on campus they tend to settle in and enjoy themselves. Some road mapping is obviously helpful but sometimes it is just as good to allow things to sort themselves out.

I think the point of the JMU post is that what you make of the degree is up to you. These days, the brand name means little and going to a state school is certainly is not a show stopper for your kid to make any level of success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CEO of Northrop Grumman is the same age as most of us parents on this board (born 1975) and she went to JMU for business as an undergrad. She made $20 million this year. That's a good enough tip of the spear for me.

Nice Unicorn but a vast majority of top CEOs came from Ivies.

But the question still remains regarding which is the best choice for your kid? The reality is it depends on the field of interest and the major. If your kid doesn't really know what they want to do or waffling between a couple majors then a large state University is probably best.

Getting a teaching degree? Same thing.

However, for kid with Grad school in mind for Law, Business, Medicine then the $120,000 piece of paper can be a difference maker in regards to the level of Graduate school.

But the reality is, for most kids, once they set foot on campus they tend to settle in and enjoy themselves. Some road mapping is obviously helpful but sometimes it is just as good to allow things to sort themselves out.

I think the point of the JMU post is that what you make of the degree is up to you. These days, the brand name means little and going to a state school is certainly is not a show stopper for your kid to make any level of success.

My post was in general agreement with yours outside of a few circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scholarships can be increased. If money isn't available freshman year because of those fifth year seniors sticking around she can think of it as a year-long tryout to prove her worth for when that money frees up next year.

This is not a one year only thing. NCAA allows all current students an extra year of eligibility, so you could see some effects for the next 4 years. It could reduce incoming class sizes for up to 4 years. Players on the cusp of making a college squad may not get in at all.

You're misunderstanding what the players staying on a fifth year are tying up. The issue isn't the number of roster spots, it's the number of athletic scholarship dollars available. The coaches can still take the same number of incoming freshman, they just won't have as much athletic scholarship free up if scholarship players who were expected to leave choose to stay. If your kid had good priorities and a good GPA they'll get academic money instead of athletic to make up for it.

Either way, it's not a great situation. Less money, and less playing time than normal. And I don't see schools subsiding the lack of athletic money with academic money. The extra year of eligibility puts incoming freshmen who are on the cusp at a disadvantage, and it will last for years.

So, go to VT on a quarter or go to ODU on a full. What would you do?

Let's say the difference is 80,000 savings over 4 years.

What is the best-school-but-no-scholarship option, and what does she want to study?

Put.all that aside....i really want to hear what people have to say on this.......

Your kid, a very good player, gets an offer to play out of state at Notre Dame on a partial (25 percent) scholarship. Its your kids dream school. Your kid also has offers to play in-state at JMU, ODU and Mason on a full ride.

What would you want your kid to choose?

There are three or four different context to consider here. What are your DD’s academic goals and abilities? Soccer goals (no pun intended) and abilities? your family’s financial situation? Your DD’s desire or not to stay close to home?

For a good student who is good enough to get on the field for ND, a top 30 soccer school in the ACC, who wants to keep moving forward as far as she can in soccer, and whose family is both OK with the distance and OK with the $$ outlay, why not Notre Dame? You’re still getting 25% off sticker price which isn’t a bad deal.

If financials mean the family needs to take the full scholarship, but the DD still wants as high a level of soccer as she can get, then looking at the NCAA D1 rankings the choice would be first ODU, then JMU, then GMU. All three are excellent schools where she’ll get as good an education as she wants.

If the best soccer available isn’t a priority for DD, then the academics and atmospherics should drive the choice among the three remaining schools. Where are the programs she wants? Where does she feel comfortable? How close to home does she want to be? Does she want a big campus or something else?

No absolute right answers, just answers that are right for each family given its situation.

[Anonymous]

I would choose not paying for college every time as long as the academics were as strong.