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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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 $.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's becoming increasingly difficult to say the path to college soccer is worth the sacrifice for many, including our family. Several factors have made it a pipe dream. The most significant started years ago with Title IX, which is great for girls but, for boys, and understandably so, shifts scholarships to the revenue makers - basketball and football. These two sports eat up dozens of scholarships. Then you have the transfer madness that has most lineups comprised of 21 yo (often older) seniors with coaches constantly recruiting over their current talent. There is little to no loyalty. The infiltration and prioritization of scholarships to international players is another factor. Some are literally pros who are using college here as an avenue to keep playing while getting a degree. Finally, the MLS academies have become the D1 pipeline, which means if you are not in one - the odds are much steeper at going D1 or even D3, as there are quite a few academy players at all levels. Some kids don't want to go all-in on soccer and disregard academics, other sports, or the ability to enjoy their youth outside of soccer. My kid was a soccer nut until recently, but I think he and I are starting to see that it's no longer in our best interest to prioritize soccer as much as we have in the past. There are some kids who will see the end goal of college soccer as worth it. But I'd advise boys in particular to know that even if you join an academy and make a D1 roster, it's hard to argue that there is a straight up return on investment. Of course, this is different for everyone, but from a financial and time standpoint, know that you're going to commit ALOT to make it on a college roster and then will still deal with the transfers that change the team landscape every year.

You should quit.

Almost all do, unfortunately after years of being fooled into thinking the juice was worth the squeeze and that fun wasn't the only real reason to play.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's becoming increasingly difficult to say the path to college soccer is worth the sacrifice for many, including our family. Several factors have made it a pipe dream. The most significant started years ago with Title IX, which is great for girls but, for boys, and understandably so, shifts scholarships to the revenue makers - basketball and football. These two sports eat up dozens of scholarships. Then you have the transfer madness that has most lineups comprised of 21 yo (often older) seniors with coaches constantly recruiting over their current talent. There is little to no loyalty. The infiltration and prioritization of scholarships to international players is another factor. Some are literally pros who are using college here as an avenue to keep playing while getting a degree. Finally, the MLS academies have become the D1 pipeline, which means if you are not in one - the odds are much steeper at going D1 or even D3, as there are quite a few academy players at all levels. Some kids don't want to go all-in on soccer and disregard academics, other sports, or the ability to enjoy their youth outside of soccer. My kid was a soccer nut until recently, but I think he and I are starting to see that it's no longer in our best interest to prioritize soccer as much as we have in the past. There are some kids who will see the end goal of college soccer as worth it. But I'd advise boys in particular to know that even if you join an academy and make a D1 roster, it's hard to argue that there is a straight up return on investment. Of course, this is different for everyone, but from a financial and time standpoint, know that you're going to commit ALOT to make it on a college roster and then will still deal with the transfers that change the team landscape every year.

You should quit.

Anonymous wrote:It's becoming increasingly difficult to say the path to college soccer is worth the sacrifice for many, including our family. Several factors have made it a pipe dream. The most significant started years ago with Title IX, which is great for girls but, for boys, and understandably so, shifts scholarships to the revenue makers - basketball and football. These two sports eat up dozens of scholarships. Then you have the transfer madness that has most lineups comprised of 21 yo (often older) seniors with coaches constantly recruiting over their current talent. There is little to no loyalty. The infiltration and prioritization of scholarships to international players is another factor. Some are literally pros who are using college here as an avenue to keep playing while getting a degree. Finally, the MLS academies have become the D1 pipeline, which means if you are not in one - the odds are much steeper at going D1 or even D3, as there are quite a few academy players at all levels. Some kids don't want to go all-in on soccer and disregard academics, other sports, or the ability to enjoy their youth outside of soccer. My kid was a soccer nut until recently, but I think he and I are starting to see that it's no longer in our best interest to prioritize soccer as much as we have in the past. There are some kids who will see the end goal of college soccer as worth it. But I'd advise boys in particular to know that even if you join an academy and make a D1 roster, it's hard to argue that there is a straight up return on investment. Of course, this is different for everyone, but from a financial and time standpoint, know that you're going to commit ALOT to make it on a college roster and then will still deal with the transfers that change the team landscape every year.

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.