Any admission advantage for walk on throwers?

Athletic Recruits
21

Tips and slots do exist, even if every NESCAC school does not use those precise words. If there were no slots, why would NESCAC schools identify B and C bands? The bands show how low the school will go. Obviously, an admitted athlete from the C band is a slot – a coach-identified impact recruit offered admission with significantly lower academic standards than other admitted students.

Here’s the point about “slots” from the three part article in the Bowdoin Orient. After estimating the number of AFs (athletic factors, a/k/a slots) for Bowdoin at about 75 total recruits, the article explained :

“Those recruiting caps of supported athletes are then subdivided into “bands”—sometimes referred to as slots—which separate recruits academically based on how they compare to the averaged statistics of accepted students. Students in the B band have scores slightly below the averages, while C-band recruits are lower.”

While the article doesn’t use the word “tip,” but it explains what is commonly known as a tip.

“Students whose scores place them well within the averages fall into the A band, but these individuals are not factored into the athletic support numbers.”

In other words, the athlete has the grades and board scores to get in anyway, but the tip gives them the nod over other similarly situated applicants because of athletic ability.

22

@Ohiodad51 is right on point as I understand and have experienced. D and S have gone through the Ivy and NESCAC (and some other selective D’s) recruiting process for softball and baseball within the past 4 years. I make no claims about any other sports, but I would assume that the coaches for every sport for 1 school are subject to the same rules and constraints, although I would not be surprised that certain coaches may have a better personal relationship with the AO than others. They do have different quota’s by sport.

I have not heard of “tips” for Ivies. You are recruited or not. The Harvard and Yale softball coaches were willing to write support letters but were frank that it would just be part of the admissions packet and there was no further influence they could exert. Princeton and Dartmouth both said they do not submit letters, but there was a place on the team for D if she got in. We screwed up with D and did not start the process in earnest for her until summer between junior and senior year by which time most slots were taken. HYB and C baseball coaches did not offer to write letters, but encouraged S to walk on if he got in. My understanding for Ivies is that each sport has a specific recruit quota with certain AI minimums and overall averages based on the general student body AI, with football operating on a band system similar to the NESCAC’s. In all cases, the AO still had final approval for the recruit.

As for NESCAC’s, the coaches had different quota’s for each band within their overall quota. Not sure if there was any play/flexibility between bands (e.g. if the coach did not use his/her quota for the lowest band whether that meant he/she got 2 slots for a higher band). S was pursued pretty aggressively by D3’s both because he did well in the camps/showcases and because he would have been in the top band. It wasn’t just a “tip” but a guaranteed slot for which he had to apply ED. As mentioned in an earlier post, some followed up with him after EA/ED decision dates because they still had some support quota. We did not encounter “tip” or “nod” discussions. It could be that this is what is being referred to for top band students who do not need a large relative boost as suggested by @gointhruaphase or maybe some D3 coaches have more flexibility/pull for non quota recruits that may already be very competitive academically – that may be what the D3 coaches were offering when they contacted S in December.

23

Thank you @BKSquared @Ohiodad51 and @gointhruaphase. I think that you have all been helpful in describing the potential problem that we are facing - I dont think that there is a solution unless he can get his shot, discus, and javelin distances up. It sounds like if he is not recruited for a position, then there will be no advantage to talking with the coach in terms of admissions. In fact, for Penn, the coach will likely not use one of his positions on someone who will probably have a good shot at getting in anyway. Maybe the best thing will be to meet with the coach and let him know that we would not expect a likely letter but get an idea about my son’s chances for being on the team if he is admitted. Unless he is recruited by a D3 school before we get to that spot.

24

They don’t really mean anything but they definitely exist. So maybe that means they don’t exist? I guess the question is does “tip” just mean “coach mentions person to ad com” or “coach mentions person to ad com and that has an appreciable, even if slight, impact on admissions.”

True, but in my sport at least there was a clear line between “recruit” (Receiving significant boost in admissions and when on campus, is definitely on the team) and “walk on” (Little or no boost in admissions and if admitted and matriculating, will need to try out and earn spot on the team)

25

I think we might all be talking about the same thing when referring to a tip. To me, it means the coach ‘puts in a good word’ at admissions, says ‘If it’s possible, I’d like to have Sam on the team’ but is not a recruit so the coach isn’t giving Sam any help. Does admissions care about the list of ‘tips’ or the letter from the coach? I don’t know, but why make the list or write a letter if it never helps with admissions?

26

Speaking for myself, and I think @bksquared, the issue is the idea often expressed here that kids who are above the line or A band recruits in the NESCAC are not eligible for a “slot” and can only receive a “tip”. Not only is this contrary to my personal experience, but I find it illogical that the NESCAC would have a conference rule that prioritizes weaker academic kids over stronger academic kids. Put another way, my kid would have likely been the top recruit in his position group if not in the entire recruiting class at any of the NESCAC schools recruiting him. I sincerely doubt that Coach Mills at Amherst would have gone to admissions and said “Hey, Ohiokid is probably the top athletic recruit in our class, but since his academic record puts him well within the A band, I would really appreciate a little nudge that might improve his chances of running the 15% admissions gauntlet. On the other hand, here are fourteen kids whose academic record is weaker, and who are not as good football players. Please use my slots on them so I know they will be admitted.”

For the same reason the Ivy uses the band system on which the NESCAC system is obviously based. Because it ensures that each school will maintain certain academic standards in recruiting. Four years ago, in football, each NESCAC school had 14 B and C band slots (“below the line” recruits). I assume that similar to the Ivy there were a small number of C band recruits available and the remainder were B band. This was a conference rule. Differently than the Ivy, where the number of permissible supported recruits in Band 4 is also set by conference rule, in the NESCAC each school makes its own decision in how many slots to devote to A band (“above the line”) recruits. If I remember correctly, and based on the coaches from the three NESCAC schools my son was most interested in, Amherst, Tufts & Bowdoin, this number was 13-14 for football. To my knowledge, there was no difference in how admissions handled those 27-28 recruits. As I said above, it would be extremely illogical if there was a difference.

I have always assumed, but have never been told, that this departure from the Ivy system was based on the smaller class size of most NESCAC schools, and the varying strength of the athletic tradition at say Williams and Wesleyan. Bluntly, like many people believe HYP runs the Ivy, I assume Amherst and Williams run the NESCAC and both schools wanted the freedom to invest more resources into athletic success than say Wes or Connecticut.

Now, whether certain NESCAC schools have a system where a coach can provide some assistance to a recruit outside of the slots granted to that sport by conference/school rule, I have no idea. I really doubt that such a system exists in the Ivy because the conference itself caps the total number of permissible recruited athletes. I think some type of “intermediate” support system would violate the spirit if not the letter of that rule. On the other hand, I would think it would be at least possible that such a system could exist in the NESCAC because the conference doesn’t define the total number of supported recruits permitted.

27

So, this is what I thought. There is a very real difference between “tips” in the Ivies and in the NESCAC. In the NESCAC, tips are athletic recruits in the true sense of the word. The tipped recruit typically will have an admissions pre-read, and an OV during which the recruit will be recruited just like a slot. In fact, many NESCAC recruits will not know whether they are tips or slots, if only because there may be some movement on the coach’s list as the music stops in musical chairs. Just how “tipped” a given recruit is depends on how much the coach wants you (i.e., where you are on the coach’s list). The pre-read informs the process for the tipped recruit. The tipped recruit typically will expect a roster spot like any other recruited athlete, although he or she should ask the coach about cut policies before applying.

But, for statistical and NESCAC league purposes, tips are not considered the same as slots or Athletic Factors, as the Bowdoin article explains. If you have an All-State, straight A athlete with a 33 ACT and a 3.9 GPA, whether he plays LAX or is in the orchestra doesn’t matter much to a school’s academic bottom line. So, a school like Bowdoin can honestly recruit only 75 Athletic Factor (or slotted) athletes, when it takes (and they will need to recruit) a much greater number of athletes to field all the teams.

A letter from a coach in the Ivies (which some call a tip) seems to have little more influence than an additional letter of recommendation. That is a point of differentiation from the NESCAC.

28

@gointhruaphase, I think I agree with what you are saying above. My problem has always been with the idea that a “slot”, which is limited in the language of this board to kids with below average admissions stats, provides more certitude in admissions than a “tip” which, again according to this board, is the level of support provided to recruits who have academic stats above the average. There is no way that that is true.

Assuming a rational universe (a big assumption at times) recruits are going to be ranked and supported by athletic desirability. There is simply no way a kid who just so happens to be a potential Olympian at shot put but really wants to go to Williams is going to have a harder time getting through admissions than a kid who will maybe top out as a conference placer thrower simply because the potential Olympian did better on his SAT. No one really believes that, do they?

29

@Ohiodad51,

Your description of a “slot” is not how I understand it, having gone through several rounds of D3 recruiting and countless discussions with coaches. A recruit is given a slot because a coach wants the recruit and the recruit needs the slot to get admitted, not because he or she is the best athletic recruit for a given year. Example: I had one discussion during which a NESCAC coach told me that the coach had once slotted the best athlete in the cycle and the admissions committee told the coach to use the slot on a different athlete because the student at issue did not need the slot to get in. So, the coach changed the designations. Would the athlete have gotten in without a tip – that certainly is a different question. That particular NESCAC school has fairly high standards, so at least it would be a toss up.

So, there is a direct correlation with slotted athletes having lower academic credentials (either B or C bands). There also a correlation – albeit weaker – between slotted athletes being the most talented athletes, but only because usually when a coach can go down in academic talent, he or she can go up in athletic talent.

In fact, my guess is that the No. 1 tip has an equal likelihood of being admitted as the No. 1 Slot in a given year. The results would, however, be different between the No. 1 Slot and the No. 6 tip. In that instance, the slot’s chances for admission are clearly better than for the tip. The adcom might say to the coach, “why do you need 7 recruits? I gave you 8 last year.”

30

Getting back to the original question, I think that there is consensus from the responses that meeting with the coach knowing that he is not going to be recruited is not going to hurt admissions chances, correct? It sounds like a “tip,” if it exists, is neutral to slightly positive in terms of the admissions decision.

31

I agree with the first part, and only disagree with the second part (No 1 “slot” vis No 6 “tip”) in the sense that I am very sure the coaches know exactly how many "slots and “tips” (if we must use that language) they will have in any recruiting cycle. If they didn’t, recruiting would be massively inefficient.

@gointhruaphase, again, I do not think we are really in disagreement on the substance. I am mostly arguing against the definition of “tip” as set out above by @twoinanddone, and the idea that “slots” are only available to below average academic recruits (B and C band recruits from your post above). That has not been my experience, and as I have said it makes no sense.

Personally, I think the system as it actually exists is a lot closer to the system laid out in the recent Amherst paper, where you have “athletic factor” admits and “coded” admits. I assume that the athletic factor admits are the B and C band kids and the coded admits are the A band kids, assuming the band system laid out in the Bowdoin Orient series is still in place. The Amherst paper tells us that “coded” admits are admitted in “much higher” percentages than non coded admits, and doesn’t tell us how many athletic factor admits are admitted. I very seriously doubt that athletic factor admits are admitted in a higher percentage than coded admits.

I would be willing to bet that what actually happens is that the admissions committee looks at groups of athletic factor and coded admits in a closed universe, rather than as a component of the entire applicant pool, and the main distinction for admissions purposes is that the athletic factor admits need to be reported to the conference.

32

@heartburner, yes I think that is true. Reaching out is never a bad idea and is certainly not going to hurt him.

33

I think the OP is trying to square the circle a little bit. If DS doesn’t have the stats to be recruited, it is hard to imagine how to engage the system.

To start with, it’s best not to think of terminology like, “tips” vs. “slots” as though they were written in stone somewhere. They’re not. At Wesleyan, for example, I have only heard of tips, although if you said the word, “slot”, people would probably understand you to mean the same thing. In general, it means being on an actual list submitted to the adcom, composed of athletes who would not otherwise get in without the coach’s help. Yes, there are a certain number divided up per team; helmet sports (particularly football) get the most; swimming, diving and tennis get the least. The academic bands are an added striation within each sport, although, again, it is more common to hear it talked about wrt to football, wrestling, hockey, etc… This may or may not be analogous to the Ivy League’s Academic Index.

There is also a gray area, outside the tip system, that may or may not be relevant, depending on the college. Some NESCACs are so swamped with high-scoring applicants (and, by that I mean, SATs, ACTs and GPAs) that there are a lot of potential athletes who would be left high and dry because they fall somewhere between the highest band for their sport and the tippy-top non-hooked applicants in the general pool. In those situations, a coach may ask that a certain number of them be “protected”, that is, set aside and treated almost like URMs or legacies. My hunch (and, I could be wrong), is that the teams with the lowest number of allotted tips are more likely to ask for “protects”.

The thing to remember is that none of these terms would be relevant were it not for the fact that the candidate is being recruited, and by that I mean,

  1. the candidate has been on the coach’s radar for some time, either through the coach’s own network or through the Wesleyan Athletic Dept. portal, and,

  2. the coach, is seriously considering using one of his allotted tips, slots or protects on that candidate for admission purposes.

IMO, once the coach has thrown his fairy dust on you, you are not, technically speaking, a “walk-on”. You either have a place on the team or you don’t.

34

@circuitrider - This is exactly what I was trying to get at. What is the spectrum of coach influence? Is it an all or none phenomenon or is there some consideration given for a student that will contribute to the coach’s program if they are admitted…wink wink. Or is there something more official for each individual school or league.

35

@heartburner: Your son is at Exeter, correct? Have you had this conversation with his college counselor and coach there? I’m thinking that they would be in the best position to give you the best advice as they know your son and his competitiveness well. What are they telling you?

36

Hi @ChoatieMom. So far College Confidential has been a better source of information. Exeter college counseling defers to coach; coach says he is recruitable for D3 but not D1…Hence the question.

37

My guess is it’s not even just school/league but also sport specific so unless everyone else is talking track (I’m not) YMMV.

I can’t imagine it would hurt to contact coaches at schools where he’s not recruitable and schedule a meeting when you’re on campus. I did that for every school I applied to and, after telling me I was not good enough to be recruited, everyone always thanked me for reaching out and encouraged me to come try out if I was admitted. With throwing, distance is distance so I guess its relatively inconceivable that a school could overlook someone whereas in my sport, there was always a sliver of a chance someone was overlooked because they didn’t compete nationally and could therefore come to campus and wind up being better than someone on the team. E.g. I was by no means a top competitor, but I always beat a few recruited kids from schools that told me I wasn’t good enough to get recruited.

38

@heartburner wrote:

This is where it gets crazy. The more hooks a candidate has, the less likely it is that a coach is going to want to use up one of his allotted tips or protects. As a URM from a legacy family, DS may fall into that category. As stated recently in an article that focused on Wesleyan, but, is probably true of NESCAC as well:

https://slate.com/culture/2017/12/wesleyan-university-football-is-good-business.html

39

Thanks @circuitrider - helpful. Are hooks cumulative? For example, is legacy + URM + geographic + tip > legacy + URM + geographic?

40

^If the many “Chance Me” threads I see people posting are any indication, they certainly strategize as if they are cumulative. My best guess is that an adcom is either going to like you or not like you after the first “hook”; an additional one isn’t going to make them like you even more.