You can't spell "lacrosse" without SLACs

[Anonymous]

Bottom line is the SLACs love athletes because they are more successful post graduation and are better alumni because they tend to give back more and help recent graduates get job offers. Athletes bring a lot to the table from team work, competition, dealing with adversity and failure, commitment, leadership - all traits that employers are looking for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really I think what people are complaining about is the differential admissions standards applied to athletes at many schools.

It would be one thing if the admissions slots reserved for lax/ hockey at these schools were filled by students who had more or less the same grades/ test scores/ academic profile as everyone else.

But this is objectively *NOT* the case. Study after study shows that being a recruited athlete confers an admissions advantage equivalent to ~150 SAT points or more, or perhaps a whole point of GPA. Athlete routinely make up the lowest part of the admitted "stats" ranges for most schools. Don't protest about how your DS or DD athlete has great grades...this is just objectively a fact.

If schools are going to do this, reserving "slots" for otherwise unqualified athletes needs to become a *much* more restricted practice. Fine, bring in a few low GPA/SAT ringers. But I think everyone would feel better about selective college athletic if coaches were generally forced to build the rest of their teams out of walk-ons from the general pool of smart kids. In a school the size of many SLACs, where there may be only 700 or so total male students, special preferences for lacrosse (~50 students) and ice hockey (~40 students) and football (~60+ students) add up fast. The solution is not to abandon sports altogether, but to significantly, if not totally, eliminate the influence of coaches in recruiting and admissions.

Make it about character, sportsmanship, and fun, rather than winning. The way it was always supposed to be.

100% agree and I'm the poster above who said something similar (my post was deemed post of the year!).

The problem is telling this to the coaches. They have gained a lot of power with admissions. If their livelihood depends on winning, then they are going to push to have as much flexibility as possible. SLACs don't have as short a leash on their coaches as major D1 schools, but if a lax coach goes 3-10 a few years in a row, his job security is going to be limited.

I'm not sure what the right answer is. But I fully agree it has gone too far in the wrong direction. One big step would be getting rid of the pre-read process for athletes. But that isn't going to happen.

Also note that there are plenty of athletes on these teams who are good academic fits, or very close. We should not overly generalize. But there are way too many who aren't. As you noted, if it was 1-2 per year, it would be less of a concern. But it is more.

I’m so happy that these colleges take athletically gifted students for their sport. I couldn’t care less about their grades. When I watch their games, I want to watch a competitive game between skilled players. Not a bunch of nerds who have 2 left feet who “play for fun and show good sportsmanship.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people hate athletes so much? When we don't hate the made-up research or non-profit that Mom started for their kid and then got shut down before the kid even left for college.

We don't hate the player, hate the game.

It's a ridiculous proposition to say that any sport besides football and basketball really adds anything to a university.

It is not ridiculous just because you think it is. In fact, thousands of colleges think many sports besides football and basketball add something to their experience. This demonstrates that your opinion is flatly wrong.

You can be as mad about the supposed "unfairness" as you want, but your feelings are irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really I think what people are complaining about is the differential admissions standards applied to athletes at many schools.

It would be one thing if the admissions slots reserved for lax/ hockey at these schools were filled by students who had more or less the same grades/ test scores/ academic profile as everyone else.

But this is objectively *NOT* the case. Study after study shows that being a recruited athlete confers an admissions advantage equivalent to ~150 SAT points or more, or perhaps a whole point of GPA. Athlete routinely make up the lowest part of the admitted "stats" ranges for most schools. Don't protest about how your DS or DD athlete has great grades...this is just objectively a fact.

If schools are going to do this, reserving "slots" for otherwise unqualified athletes needs to become a *much* more restricted practice. Fine, bring in a few low GPA/SAT ringers. But I think everyone would feel better about selective college athletic if coaches were generally forced to build the rest of their teams out of walk-ons from the general pool of smart kids. In a school the size of many SLACs, where there may be only 700 or so total male students, special preferences for lacrosse (~50 students) and ice hockey (~40 students) and football (~60+ students) add up fast. The solution is not to abandon sports altogether, but to significantly, if not totally, eliminate the influence of coaches in recruiting and admissions.

Make it about character, sportsmanship, and fun, rather than winning. The way it was always supposed to be.

100% agree and I'm the poster above who said something similar (my post was deemed post of the year!).

The problem is telling this to the coaches. They have gained a lot of power with admissions. If their livelihood depends on winning, then they are going to push to have as much flexibility as possible. SLACs don't have as short a leash on their coaches as major D1 schools, but if a lax coach goes 3-10 a few years in a row, his job security is going to be limited.

I'm not sure what the right answer is. But I fully agree it has gone too far in the wrong direction. One big step would be getting rid of the pre-read process for athletes. But that isn't going to happen.

Also note that there are plenty of athletes on these teams who are good academic fits, or very close. We should not overly generalize. But there are way too many who aren't. As you noted, if it was 1-2 per year, it would be less of a concern. But it is more.

I’m so happy that these colleges take athletically gifted students for their sport. I couldn’t care less about their grades. When I watch their games, I want to watch a competitive game between skilled players. Not a bunch of nerds who have 2 left feet who “play for fun and show good sportsmanship.”

How many people who are not related to the participants actually go to these games? 12? That is the irony of all this. All this effort to get in and play these sports yet there were probably more people attending their high school games than college.

I went to a major D1 sports school and had friends on various non-revenue sports teams so actually went. Some of these teams were top 20 nationally. There was usually no one there.

[Anonymous]

There are only 73 NCAA D1 men’s lacrosse teams. Why are we even talking about this?

In P4 leagues men’s lacrosse will likely be cut to rebalance Title IX scholarships.

[Anonymous]

Title IX doesn’t mean anything anymore. All the money is going to football and men’s basketball. How is that equal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:cross country probably the worst example of this - most nescacs are fielding 30 men and 30 women when only 5 score most of the year. terrible way to bring in full pay white kids. The house settlement reduced the SEC to 10 runners per x country team. Joke that Wesleyan Bates Bowdoin have 60 kids on these teams

You do realize that only 2-4 kids each year have coach support through recruiting for the sport don’t you?

yes, in fact I know exactly how it works. The number of supportable x country athletes is typically 5, and in different bands from slot to tips - but all with support typically get in. Usually 2 get full support because they need it and times/potential justify the use. 5x4=20- still a big number

So the vast majority got in without any support. What’s the issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really I think what people are complaining about is the differential admissions standards applied to athletes at many schools.

It would be one thing if the admissions slots reserved for lax/ hockey at these schools were filled by students who had more or less the same grades/ test scores/ academic profile as everyone else.

But this is objectively *NOT* the case. Study after study shows that being a recruited athlete confers an admissions advantage equivalent to ~150 SAT points or more, or perhaps a whole point of GPA. Athlete routinely make up the lowest part of the admitted "stats" ranges for most schools. Don't protest about how your DS or DD athlete has great grades...this is just objectively a fact.

If schools are going to do this, reserving "slots" for otherwise unqualified athletes needs to become a *much* more restricted practice. Fine, bring in a few low GPA/SAT ringers. But I think everyone would feel better about selective college athletic if coaches were generally forced to build the rest of their teams out of walk-ons from the general pool of smart kids. In a school the size of many SLACs, where there may be only 700 or so total male students, special preferences for lacrosse (~50 students) and ice hockey (~40 students) and football (~60+ students) add up fast. The solution is not to abandon sports altogether, but to significantly, if not totally, eliminate the influence of coaches in recruiting and admissions.

Make it about character, sportsmanship, and fun, rather than winning. The way it was always supposed to be.

100% agree and I'm the poster above who said something similar (my post was deemed post of the year!).

The problem is telling this to the coaches. They have gained a lot of power with admissions. If their livelihood depends on winning, then they are going to push to have as much flexibility as possible. SLACs don't have as short a leash on their coaches as major D1 schools, but if a lax coach goes 3-10 a few years in a row, his job security is going to be limited.

I'm not sure what the right answer is. But I fully agree it has gone too far in the wrong direction. One big step would be getting rid of the pre-read process for athletes. But that isn't going to happen.

Also note that there are plenty of athletes on these teams who are good academic fits, or very close. We should not overly generalize. But there are way too many who aren't. As you noted, if it was 1-2 per year, it would be less of a concern. But it is more.

I’m so happy that these colleges take athletically gifted students for their sport. I couldn’t care less about their grades. When I watch their games, I want to watch a competitive game between skilled players. Not a bunch of nerds who have 2 left feet who “play for fun and show good sportsmanship.”

How many people who are not related to the participants actually go to these games? 12? That is the irony of all this. All this effort to get in and play these sports yet there were probably more people attending their high school games than college.

I went to a major D1 sports school and had friends on various non-revenue sports teams so actually went. Some of these teams were top 20 nationally. There was usually no one there.

Maybe when you went to your school in the 70s and 80s. But not now.Get with the program, you’re behind

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really I think what people are complaining about is the differential admissions standards applied to athletes at many schools.

It would be one thing if the admissions slots reserved for lax/ hockey at these schools were filled by students who had more or less the same grades/ test scores/ academic profile as everyone else.

But this is objectively *NOT* the case. Study after study shows that being a recruited athlete confers an admissions advantage equivalent to ~150 SAT points or more, or perhaps a whole point of GPA. Athlete routinely make up the lowest part of the admitted "stats" ranges for most schools. Don't protest about how your DS or DD athlete has great grades...this is just objectively a fact.

If schools are going to do this, reserving "slots" for otherwise unqualified athletes needs to become a *much* more restricted practice. Fine, bring in a few low GPA/SAT ringers. But I think everyone would feel better about selective college athletic if coaches were generally forced to build the rest of their teams out of walk-ons from the general pool of smart kids. In a school the size of many SLACs, where there may be only 700 or so total male students, special preferences for lacrosse (~50 students) and ice hockey (~40 students) and football (~60+ students) add up fast. The solution is not to abandon sports altogether, but to significantly, if not totally, eliminate the influence of coaches in recruiting and admissions.

Make it about character, sportsmanship, and fun, rather than winning. The way it was always supposed to be.

Let’s use the NESCAC since we are talking Lacrosse. Supported athletic recruits is about 70 kids across all sports 2 per team plus 14 for football. These b/c band recruits can fall in the 25-50 percent range academically with a few c band being lower, generally less than 10 across the entire school. Taking a C band recruit usually costs you your other b band spot as well so they are used sparingly. There are another 70 or so who are tipped and in as long as their academics are above the mean.

The idea that there are huge groups of less qualified athletes at NESCAC schools is flat out false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are really only complaining about 2 recruits who need full support , or 8 total in a school. Would you rather have 8 xc runners that are slightly below academically or 8 international students who keep to themselves and don’t contribute to the school community, other than being full pay.

And XC runners often tend to be good students/nice kids so I'm sure there are plenty who didn't need a heavy push from the coach.

Much different than the bigger team sports where there are often a lot of meatheads sneaking through the cracks.

the “meatheads” are the ones killing it on wall street and creating a pipeline back to their alma mater recruiting the next gen of lax and football players. Are the nice kid cross country runners doing this? that’s the true value of sports at these D3s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible post. I am from a low income area with 100% minority kids and lacrosse has been great for us. Literally a game changer. Maybe they don't go to SLACs, but lots of D3 college scholarships for kids who really need them.

But stay in your world and pretend you're the one who doesn't get enough privilege.

Div. 3 does not give scholarships. So these kids you are referring to “who really need them” will get financial aid or merit aid without lacrosse. What you think is a “game changer” is you justifying affirmative action for whites.

It is actually affirmative action for white jocks. And since most of these schools are tripping over themselves to show their DEI street cred and have good percentages of minorities, it means no seats left for non-athlete whites. I know that no one is playing their violin for this group but this was not the goal.

Yes, you are right. It is affirmative action for white jocks. SLACs that want diversity get only one kind of white kid. But that ain’t the world.

I haven't read the thread, but D3 athletics (with a few exceptions) is $$$ for these schools. Look at the typical roster of a D3 baseball team. Majority full pay, private school kids. At the elite meets needs LACs, those kids are great athletes and, maybe, a bit more diverse. A bit. See Davidson and Swat. Tiny bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really I think what people are complaining about is the differential admissions standards applied to athletes at many schools.

It would be one thing if the admissions slots reserved for lax/ hockey at these schools were filled by students who had more or less the same grades/ test scores/ academic profile as everyone else.

But this is objectively *NOT* the case. Study after study shows that being a recruited athlete confers an admissions advantage equivalent to ~150 SAT points or more, or perhaps a whole point of GPA. Athlete routinely make up the lowest part of the admitted "stats" ranges for most schools. Don't protest about how your DS or DD athlete has great grades...this is just objectively a fact.

If schools are going to do this, reserving "slots" for otherwise unqualified athletes needs to become a *much* more restricted practice. Fine, bring in a few low GPA/SAT ringers. But I think everyone would feel better about selective college athletic if coaches were generally forced to build the rest of their teams out of walk-ons from the general pool of smart kids. In a school the size of many SLACs, where there may be only 700 or so total male students, special preferences for lacrosse (~50 students) and ice hockey (~40 students) and football (~60+ students) add up fast. The solution is not to abandon sports altogether, but to significantly, if not totally, eliminate the influence of coaches in recruiting and admissions.

Make it about character, sportsmanship, and fun, rather than winning. The way it was always supposed to be.

100% agree and I'm the poster above who said something similar (my post was deemed post of the year!).

The problem is telling this to the coaches. They have gained a lot of power with admissions. If their livelihood depends on winning, then they are going to push to have as much flexibility as possible. SLACs don't have as short a leash on their coaches as major D1 schools, but if a lax coach goes 3-10 a few years in a row, his job security is going to be limited.

I'm not sure what the right answer is. But I fully agree it has gone too far in the wrong direction. One big step would be getting rid of the pre-read process for athletes. But that isn't going to happen.

Also note that there are plenty of athletes on these teams who are good academic fits, or very close. We should not overly generalize. But there are way too many who aren't. As you noted, if it was 1-2 per year, it would be less of a concern. But it is more.

I’m so happy that these colleges take athletically gifted students for their sport. I couldn’t care less about their grades. When I watch their games, I want to watch a competitive game between skilled players. Not a bunch of nerds who have 2 left feet who “play for fun and show good sportsmanship.”

How many people who are not related to the participants actually go to these games? 12? That is the irony of all this. All this effort to get in and play these sports yet there were probably more people attending their high school games than college.

I went to a major D1 sports school and had friends on various non-revenue sports teams so actually went. Some of these teams were top 20 nationally. There was usually no one there.

Maybe when you went to your school in the 70s and 80s. But not now.Get with the program, you’re behind

Aren't we self-confident. Where did you go to school? What sport did you play? I think you got hit a few time in the head with a lax stick and then took the back end of one up the backside a few too many times and it has impaired your judgement and tact.

There are not hundreds of people going to college field hockey games or wrestling matches almost anywhere. With a few very specific exceptions. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are really only complaining about 2 recruits who need full support , or 8 total in a school. Would you rather have 8 xc runners that are slightly below academically or 8 international students who keep to themselves and don’t contribute to the school community, other than being full pay.

And XC runners often tend to be good students/nice kids so I'm sure there are plenty who didn't need a heavy push from the coach.

Much different than the bigger team sports where there are often a lot of meatheads sneaking through the cracks.

the “meatheads” are the ones killing it on wall street and creating a pipeline back to their alma mater recruiting the next gen of lax and football players. Are the nice kid cross country runners doing this? that’s the true value of sports at these D3s

Actually, yes. Two good friends who ran XC are both doing great on Wall Street. I'm sure there are many more. Not saying you are wrong about the others. But don't incorrectly generalize.

So much ignorance here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are only 73 NCAA D1 men’s lacrosse teams. Why are we even talking about this?

Because DCUM loves to be mad about “white laxbros”. 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really I think what people are complaining about is the differential admissions standards applied to athletes at many schools.

It would be one thing if the admissions slots reserved for lax/ hockey at these schools were filled by students who had more or less the same grades/ test scores/ academic profile as everyone else.

But this is objectively *NOT* the case. Study after study shows that being a recruited athlete confers an admissions advantage equivalent to ~150 SAT points or more, or perhaps a whole point of GPA. Athlete routinely make up the lowest part of the admitted "stats" ranges for most schools. Don't protest about how your DS or DD athlete has great grades...this is just objectively a fact.

If schools are going to do this, reserving "slots" for otherwise unqualified athletes needs to become a *much* more restricted practice. Fine, bring in a few low GPA/SAT ringers. But I think everyone would feel better about selective college athletic if coaches were generally forced to build the rest of their teams out of walk-ons from the general pool of smart kids. In a school the size of many SLACs, where there may be only 700 or so total male students, special preferences for lacrosse (~50 students) and ice hockey (~40 students) and football (~60+ students) add up fast. The solution is not to abandon sports altogether, but to significantly, if not totally, eliminate the influence of coaches in recruiting and admissions.

Make it about character, sportsmanship, and fun, rather than winning. The way it was always supposed to be.

Let’s use the NESCAC since we are talking Lacrosse. Supported athletic recruits is about 70 kids across all sports 2 per team plus 14 for football. These b/c band recruits can fall in the 25-50 percent range academically with a few c band being lower, generally less than 10 across the entire school. Taking a C band recruit usually costs you your other b band spot as well so they are used sparingly. There are another 70 or so who are tipped and in as long as their academics are above the mean.

The idea that there are huge groups of less qualified athletes at NESCAC schools is flat out false.

The point is that recruited athletes (who are “qualified” just like 90% of applicants) get in, and others don’t. We don’t care about the 2 subpar kids per team. The entire team would likely not have gotten in except for being recruited athletes — or at least 90% of them. Just like “normal” high stats, top extracurricular kids don’t get in either.

But if you think it is cool that the majority of white kids who get into these schools are recruited athletes well, then, party on!