HS junior athletes, already committed to top schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son's athletic recruiting was way more stressful than my son that just filled out applications and was either accepted or not.

My son had multiple schools tell him his SAT required score since he had a 3.7 UW GPA. One was very high, he knew he would not get the score and that coach was actually very impressed that my son was honest with him and did not waste his time.

My son had coaches call, call, call then ghost. It was really quite insane and unprofessional. It would not have been a big deal to just say, nope we went with someone else. But instead, my son was honoring his word with that coach and not talking to some others. But once it was clear the coaches were not going to return his call, he moved on. But, it would have been nice to get a call/text/email... but nothing... just a ghost.

He had to have at least 15 phone interviews, many went well with kind of sort of maybe offers that did or did not pan out. He had a few calls where coaches are all in but then 3 weeks later ghosted him.

This was how they treated a 15/16 year old. It's was quite insane to me.

My other son, visit, GPA, tests, Naviance, essays, applications, then just wait. Could you imagine getting a letter, hey your in we love you... psyche, we chose someone else, or better yet, get a call you are accepted then they ghost you. It would never happen, but it happens with athletes.

As a parent of athletes and nonathletes, I don't know why you weren't able to pivot and have him also do the regular admission process simultaneously with the recruiting. Everyone else I know has said recruiting was far easier than the application process for a non sports recruit. I don't mean this in a mean way at all but was your recruiting son on the cusp of the schools' needs? I definitely get that recruiting is a lot of work for the athlete, but it is not as high stress as having zero idea where you will get in to (provided you are actually recruited.)

The PP is trying to make the very valid point that people act like it's so easy for athletes, when it can be a very difficult and stressful process for 15/16 year olds. Many coaches are no transparent in this process and fail to respond to emails. If your kid is a tippy top recruit, sure, this is an easy process. But for kids on the cusp who really want to play their sport, it can be incredibly difficult and an emotional rollercoaster. There are kids given verbal commitment and think they're going to a top school and those commitments are withdrawn. I've seen it happen in my kid's sport more than a handful of times recently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son's athletic recruiting was way more stressful than my son that just filled out applications and was either accepted or not.

My son had multiple schools tell him his SAT required score since he had a 3.7 UW GPA. One was very high, he knew he would not get the score and that coach was actually very impressed that my son was honest with him and did not waste his time.

My son had coaches call, call, call then ghost. It was really quite insane and unprofessional. It would not have been a big deal to just say, nope we went with someone else. But instead, my son was honoring his word with that coach and not talking to some others. But once it was clear the coaches were not going to return his call, he moved on. But, it would have been nice to get a call/text/email... but nothing... just a ghost.

He had to have at least 15 phone interviews, many went well with kind of sort of maybe offers that did or did not pan out. He had a few calls where coaches are all in but then 3 weeks later ghosted him.

This was how they treated a 15/16 year old. It's was quite insane to me.

My other son, visit, GPA, tests, Naviance, essays, applications, then just wait. Could you imagine getting a letter, hey your in we love you... psyche, we chose someone else, or better yet, get a call you are accepted then they ghost you. It would never happen, but it happens with athletes.

As a parent of athletes and nonathletes, I don't know why you weren't able to pivot and have him also do the regular admission process simultaneously with the recruiting. Everyone else I know has said recruiting was far easier than the application process for a non sports recruit. I don't mean this in a mean way at all but was your recruiting son on the cusp of the schools' needs? I definitely get that recruiting is a lot of work for the athlete, but it is not as high stress as having zero idea where you will get in to (provided you are actually recruited.)

He could not go through the "regular process" because he was a 15 year old sophomore. He did have to go through the "regular admissions" because he was not recruited until Fall of senior year so all summer of senior year he acted like he was not going to be recruited. So he had an application process that was 3 years long.

When recruited he did have zero ideas of where he would get in. He thought school X had good academics for him and they were not top 10 so that was a good fit, until they got a new coach then they were top 10. Then he chose school Y, since academics were very important and they were ranked 20 (where his coach thought he had a good chance) he started talking to them, but the coach ghosted him for no apparent reason and they were not even that good.

He did official visits and non official visits which involve interviews with the coach, assistant coaches, etc. It's seems insane to me.

What I think people see is that #1 recruit who has a bunch of schools recruit him and he just picks. But that is not the case for most athletes.

The reality was that he was on the "cusp of their needs" in their assessment of a 15 year old. He ended up being a freshman starter and all American, but yes the coaches did not treat him that way during recruiting. By senior year he was on a full scholarship, which is extremely rare.

He was the 3rd to last person recruited from his club team and only 1 other kid from that team had any measurable playing time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have the NCAA rules changed. I thought you couldn’t contact coaches until the summer before Senior year.

Each sport has different rules but I know a lacrosse recruit that was recruited after 8th grade. Their rules have changed since.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

Marching bands and orchestras recruit.

[Anonymous]

I agree - kids should be recognized for their hard work. I wish the arts had a similar dimension at colleges, in that students might be there to study something else but contribute to the school through the arts (music, theater, etc.). But that is not the way things are set up at most schools. So people tend to bash athletes. The reality is that thousands of highly qualified kids apply to Ivys. If one of these ALSO fills a team position that is needed, they get a leg up. But the athlete him/her/themselves should not be bashed or belittled in the way I often hear, which is "it's so easy for athletes - they just get in automatically." Actually, aside from a very few, the application process is still very complicated (and in fact lasts longer). It's just that the sequence of steps is different. I just don't like the assumption made by many that athletes don't ever have the academic chops to get into where they go - most do - but people tend to focus on the few sensational stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://gocrimson.com/sports/womens-lacrosse/roster

Wow, looks like a real cross section of America.

Lots of diversity, some are blonde and some are brunette.

It can't be helped that lax skews white just like basketball and football skew black.

This.

There's a reason why lacrosse has very few blacks, the real athletes always choose football and basketball, and those that can't compete with the real athletes play niche sports like lacrosse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have two athletes both at Ivies. The first one scored 1250 on the SAT and he is now at an Ivy (think of Harvard, Yale, Columbia) and the second one scored 1270 on the SAT and he is now at another Ivy (think of Princeton, Brown). Both had 3.3 GPA in high school. They were both recruited for University of North Carolina but decided to attend Ivies. Don't believe in the index B.S. If the coach wants a 5 stars or blue chip recruit, he or she will get accepted.

Lmfao. Keep kidding yourself that the Ivies can even sniff a 5 star recruit in football or basketball, but certainly in niche sports where there is no money and the competitive field a fraction of football/basketball. True 5 star recruits ALWAYS have aspirations for the NFL or NBA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://gocrimson.com/sports/womens-lacrosse/roster

Wow, looks like a real cross section of America.

Lots of diversity, some are blonde and some are brunette.

It can't be helped that lax skews white just like basketball and football skew black.

This.

There's a reason why lacrosse has very few blacks, the real athletes always choose football and basketball, and those that can't compete with the real athletes play niche sports like lacrosse

Not really. There are some athletes out there from under represented communities who simply don’t have the opportunity for niche sports due to access not due to lack of desire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have two athletes both at Ivies. The first one scored 1250 on the SAT and he is now at an Ivy (think of Harvard, Yale, Columbia) and the second one scored 1270 on the SAT and he is now at another Ivy (think of Princeton, Brown). Both had 3.3 GPA in high school. They were both recruited for University of North Carolina but decided to attend Ivies. Don't believe in the index B.S. If the coach wants a 5 stars or blue chip recruit, he or she will get accepted.

Lmfao. Keep kidding yourself that the Ivies can even sniff a 5 star recruit in football or basketball, but certainly in niche sports where there is no money and the competitive field a fraction of football/basketball. True 5 star recruits ALWAYS have aspirations for the NFL or NBA.

Here's a link to a popular sports website that tracks top football and basketball recruits. For the Class of 2022, they list all of the 5 and 4 star football recruits, 247 athletes. Not a single Ivy. Almost exclusively SEC, Big 10, Big 12.

247sports.com/Season/2022-Football/RecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=highschool

[Anonymous]

My Senior is in a sport that often waits until Fall Senior of year to commit, and the past few years its not uncommon for some schools to wait until winter/Spring of Senior year (and sometimes still get $).

My Senior is in contact with coaches this Fall and has a lot going on.

The stress is you have two things going on: your sport schedule and regular academic route...and then keeping up with the recruiting side on top of it.

My son is applying to more colleges than he would if his sport wasn't in the picture because he needs to apply to potential colleges before the application deadlines (or maybe not if he gets a commit to a school he wants academically). An injury for all of last year pushed his window back.

It's pretty crazy. The good thing is he's a straight A/35ACT/APhonors kid so he will get in somewhere decent with or without the sport, but he REALLY wants to play in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

Sure. But as groups they don’t bring in nearly as much money to the school both while they are there and then more importantly for the many years after.

That’s what a lot of posters never comprehend. This is always a money question. Athletes bring money to the school, for many, many years. Most other groups don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a kid going through this right now. Potential to "commit" to an Ivy.

The people saying it's not a done deal are totally right. From the athlete's perspective, it's a commitment to prioritize the school over others. From the coach's perspective, it's a commitment to support the athlete. It is not binding. Neither wants to break it off though - not a good look for either party, but consequences aren't necessarily severe. For each, it means having to start over having somewhat exclusively dated someone for a period of time.

For Ivy League, academic standards are generally upheld. That is based on the academic index, which is unique to the Ivy League. An individual athlete might fall below the average for the class, but the team and/or all athletes need to average the same as the class. So you can't have people way below it. Non Ivy League schools will have wider variance from the average.

I used to think this was all unfair. And I still do in that it takes place Junior year vs. Senior year (although again it's not a done deal until Senior year, so in reality it's just a longer process). But, I also feel a little differently having watched my DC over the past many years. They have worked very hard in both athletics and academics. They have had to give up some things, especially their time, and not do some things other teens do. If they get into an Ivy League school, they're not simply getting in because they're an athlete. Academically they're in the pool - they're eligible for the "lottery ticket." The fact that the school needs someone for their position gives them an advantage, yes, but they're not unqualified.

I do recognize that this is a major equity issue though. We were able to pay for the athletics. DC was also able to not work (except in summers) in order to pursue the athletics. DC didn't have to use time after school to work part time or take care of siblings the way many teens do. This part is not fair. Some sports are worse for this than others - sports heavily supported by school districts are more equitable in this regard.

I hate this argument. I don't have an athlete and I see the time they put in. But I also see the time the musicians put in - 3 hours a day of practice on top of regional orchestras, camps, and then school-based music. I see the kids who work part time jobs that push 30 hours. I see the debate kids which runs 40 weeks. I see the kids who get their younger siblings to school, pick them up from school, get their homework done and get them dinner.

So .. yeah, they work hard. But look around! There are a lot of kids who work just as hard.

I'm the parent of a pretty serious musician and a pretty serious athlete. I'm still in the information gathering stage for one kid, the other is further along in the process, but this is what I can tell.

For kids who perform at a high level, either discipline requires a lot of work. Both my kids, by the time they get into college, will have played for their school, and also for outside organization. Both will have worked with private teachers/coaches, and attended summer camps. Both will have significant community service related to their field. It would be hard for me to say that one kid is working harder than the other.

Both kids will have to decide whether they want to play (music or sport) seriously in college. For the serious musician, the question is whether they will apply to major or double major in music. For the serious athlete, the question is whether they will try to be recruited to play for a college team.

If one of them doesn't want to continue at a high level, then music or sport becomes a nice EC to have, that shows they can time manage well, and that they can work in a group. So, it will be helpful, but to a limited degree. Musician kid has something of an advantage in that music will bring his GPA up, because the advanced music classes are honors classes. Plus he can take fewer academic classes and still get credit for rigor. There is no GPA boost for being an athlete, and my athlete kid will need to take more academic classes.

If they do decide to pursue at a higher level, then both kids will need to travel to schools to show their skills, auditions for one, showcases and ID camps for the other. If he does well at those opportunities, my musician will have a chance to get into some very prestigious schools, with very little weight given to his academic transcript. The same will be true for my athlete for a very small number of P5 schools, but not for the most prestigious schools. For those schools, he'll need to have an academic record that is as good as the other accepted kids. So huge advantage to the musician there.

Yes, the athlete will get some information early. If he gets recruited to a school that is D1 or D2 and isn't an Ivy or a similarly high level academic program, he might commit junior year, but if he's looking at high level academic programs such as Ivies or any D3 programs, he'll know a couple months earlier in the process than my musician. However, in order to know that he will likely have to commit to ED, and give up the opportunity to compare financial aid offers.

So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

You aren’t missing anything. DCUM anti-athlete posters are just crazy, that’s all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, academically my musician is way better off. Financially my musician is better off. But my athlete will know a few months early. I don't really see how this is evidence that athletes are treated better than musicians.

What am I missing?

Can you elaborate on this? How is your musician kid better off financially? Is he going to be the next Justin Beiber or Shawn Mendes?