Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just the further lowering if expectations for athletes in college. At this point why even have athletics in college? Just move them to their own athlete communities where they are clearly there just to play and make money.

Too many high schools will give kids fake grades to keep them playing. It’s such a racket. And then athletes take the places for kids who actually want to learn and study in college.

Standardized test scores are the ONLY way to ensure the kids admitted to a school have the academic ability necessary.

Then you’ll be happy to know that coaches at the most competitive academic schools are still pushing / expecting committed athletes to take standardized tests and get high scores, regardless of the “optional” admissions policies of their respective institutions (or action by the NCAA to remove the requirement altogether). Any athlete considering a top academic school breathing a sigh of relief that she no longer needs to take the ACT or SAT should think again.

Anonymous wrote:Just the further lowering if expectations for athletes in college. At this point why even have athletics in college? Just move them to their own athlete communities where they are clearly there just to play and make money.

Too many high schools will give kids fake grades to keep them playing. It’s such a racket. And then athletes take the places for kids who actually want to learn and study in college.

Standardized test scores are the ONLY way to ensure the kids admitted to a school have the academic ability necessary.

Anonymous wrote:I guess test scores don't matter then now?

https://www.athleticbusiness.com/operations/governing-bodies/article/15288674/ncaa-moves-to-nix-test-score-requirements-for-athletes

Anonymous wrote:I guess test scores don't matter then now?

https://www.athleticbusiness.com/operations/governing-bodies/article/15288674/ncaa-moves-to-nix-test-score-requirements-for-athletes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Very rarely is there scholarship money involved for girls lacrosse."

They have 13 scholarships to spread out over the roster. On a 36 women roster that a little over a 1/3 scholarship per kid. Some will get more some less.

Is that not accurate?

That is accurate. 13 scholarships refer to a fully funded D1 program. For only D1 (non-Ivy) programs on the women's side, in our experience, those scholarships are typically split up amongst the team as you describe, at different percentages. Typically, a coach will offer a higher percentage to the first few girls in a recruiting class, and then levels were go down from there in the class. Sure, it is possible some may get nothing, and that top girls in the entire country get offered quite a bit. Further, the coach will often back load the percentages, meaning freshman year scholarship money is a lower percentage then senior year. We know a girl whose fractional scholarship was changed to a majority scholarship after her performance freshman year (at a mid level D1 school). One curve ball is for public universities. Their money pool is based on out of state tuition. So in theory, if their in state tuition price was half of their out of state price, they could double their “full rides” from 13 to 26 if they had a roster of only in state girls. That example is extreme, but you can see how it would provide a coach at a public school more flexibility. Also, if your “out of state” child has great grades, they may qualify for an in state tuition waiver from the public school, further helping the public coach with spreading their scholarship dollars around. Note that all these examples have nothing to do w grants or need based aid. Also, some parents recognize this athletic scholarship dynamic and will tell the coach during the process that they require no athletic money, possibly making their daughter a more attractive recruit versus a recruit that a coach would have to allocate scholarship dollars to.