I’m struggling to make sense of some somewhat counterintuitive responses from coaches. S20 has a top-notch transcript from an elite private high school, very good scores, a geographical hook, and URM status. He has visited all of his DIII LAC favorites, spoken with coaches, and received positive attention from nearly all of them. He’s filled out a Recruiting Form for all, which included academic information and geography.
Athletically, he seems to be right in the middle of the recruited pack: coaches’ responses have ranged from “you’d be an impact player from day one” to “we’d like to have you, but won’t ‘recruit’ you”.
Although he’s recently been offered 5 Overnight Visits, only one coach has requested a pre-read – and that school happens to be the most selective (academically) of the group. Other coaches have said, “you’ll have no problem getting in”, etc. Because the lack of pre-read requests seems inconsistent with the OV offers and general level of coach enthusiasm, I’m wondering if there are instances in which a coach doesn’t push a pre-read because his experience tells him the kid is a highly likely admit? If so, that might explain why S’s one pre-read is from the most selective school.
Related question: It seems logical to me that a super-positive pre-read might actually result in a coach appearing to recruit a kid LESS aggressively, particularly for someone in the “middle of the pack” athletically. If the coach knows a kid is interested in the school/team, and will be admitted, why would he use up a valuable “slot”, “tip”, etc. that he could better use to land an equal or better player who might need more “help” with the AO? Does that make sense? Thanks!
At any super selective school, there is almost no profile that guarantees admission- except recruited athlete. However, I have known kids who were desirable to a coach but not “must-haves”. Both were told they had a good chance of being admitted without coach support (and were), so the coach was able to preserve his slot and get a decent player.
Honestly, its virtually impossible to know. Your kid may be a very strong applicant with other attributes that significantly increase his odds of admission. And/,or he may not be a player a coach wants to use a chit for. My guess, and it’s only that, is that the message from the coach is “I’d be happy to have this kid on my team but there are others I would rather go to bat for.” Your best bet, particularly after the OV, is to ask explicitly “Are you supporting my app and if yes, have you ever had someone in my position who didn’t get in with your support.” Your son will likely need to apply ED - you are right to want to know what you get in that trade.
If the coach really wants an athlete, they will use one of their slots for that athlete. They will not take a chance with admissions. You should definitely ask the coach specifically if you have a spot.
I disagree with this, every year there are kids who were told they had a slot and do not get accepted, across all NCAA divisions. There is little data, but from the Harvard lawsuit we know that over the several years of that data, only 86% of athletes who ‘committed to the process’ were in fact accepted. While that is obviously high, that means 14% of the kids who were told by the coach they had a slot were in fact not accepted…at Harvard that’s probably 25 to 30 kids per year who in December are scrambling to find another spot or get additional applications together.
For OP, the level of school selectivity that we are talking about matters, as does the specific school…at a highly selective LAC with acceptance rates below 10%, or even 20%, coaches have no business telling a kid ‘they’ll have no problem getting in’ without coach support/athletic slot…admissions are far too uncertain for that.
Some schools do have the concept of ‘soft support’ where the coach basically tells admissions they would love to have this student, but I am not giving them one of my slots…this is somewhere in between full support/slot and ‘if you get in you can be on the team’.
I agree that your S has to have clear communications with each coach…where does he stand in the list of recruits, and from him where each school stands in his list, and if offered a slot or spot or tip…what does this mean (full or soft support?) and how many students with this type of support have or have not been historically accepted. Most coaches are honest in their communications, but many could be more clear and forthcoming with information. Your S should be honest with coaches as well, and hopefully things will become clear over the next month or two. Good luck.
Point taken @Mwfan1921. What I was trying to convey is great stats alone do not make anyone a sure thing at super-selective schools, which seems to be the OP’s concern. And yes, there are exceptional athletes who will be guaranteed their spot.
Yes, there are hitches - by school, by sport, and sometimes by misunderstanding what has been communicated. The latter is why everyone is telling the OP to have a direct conversation with the coach.
We know no such thing. We only know what was written. But there is no definition of “recruited athlete” in relation to the 86%. I find it hard to believe that it means that only 86% of recruits with a positive preread were accepted.
I thought the definition of recruited athletes in the lawsuit documents was an athletic rating of 1, which looks like those had an 83% acceptance rate.
Could be some recruits who committed to the process didn’t have a positive pre-read but why would they still have submitted an application then? Some recruits probably fall out at the likely letter stage, giving them some notice before a formal rejection. Some are probably rejected after receiving a likely letter too (poor Q1 grades, disciplinary issue in or out of school, etc.) The 86% I referenced might include all athletes, recruited or not. (so include those with athletic ratings of 2, 3, 4, etc.) @data10?
I think there is a wide range of what it means to be “recruited,” and there is a significant variance in the degree of pull that coaches have from school to school and from sport to sport. This is why it is vital for either you or your son to have a very frank conversation with the coaches before you apply ED1 (which most, if not all, highly selective LACs coaches will insist on). When I asked the coach what it meant that my son had a successful pre-read and a slot, one coach at a top LAC replied, “I have been here for X years and I have never had one of my slotted athletes not been accepted.”
If your kid is an excellent candidate for admission even without an athletic hook, then the coach is going to try not to burn one of his “slots" on that kid. The coach is trying to use his slots on top impact players/performers. Then he hopes to round out his roster by encouraging other kids with decent athletic ability AND that meet the school’s accepted profile to apply, and hopefully those kids get in. That’s kind of where the “soft support comes in”. The coach might submit a list to admissions with slots, and also kids that he’d like to have using no slots.
Thanks! I really appreciate all the insight and assistance. The main thing that is still troubling me is the discrepancy between the number of OV offers and pre-reads. I’d like to believe that it is explained by a facially strong admission profile (rendering a pre-read unnecessary at some less selective schools), but I worry that something else may be going on that I’m blind to at the moment. Is there any other good reason a school would go to the trouble of arranging/hosting an OV, but not invest in a pre-read?!?
For an “average” athlete, the coach is not going to want to use one of his slots. However, for a stellar athlete with a stellar academic profile, the coach will be using one of his valuable slots.
Wouldn’t (your son) asking the coaches directly give you a definite answer? Everyone on CC is offering educated guesses, but the coaches will know what’s going on for sure. I’m a year behind you, but the advice I’ve read is always “when in doubt, ask the coach.”
Hopefully. But before having that discussion with multiple coaches, it seems wise to try to figure out what the range of possible responses might be . . . so that a 17 yr. old is not caught completely off-guard by a coach.
Other posters have covered most of the bases well. You don’t mention the schools or conferences involved, probably for understandable privacy reasons. But I do think that is relevant. There are quite a few schools out there that don’t have any kind of pre read process, either because they aren’t all that selective or because the coaches can’t provide admissions support anyway (hence no reason for admissions to set up such a process). The process you read about here on CC involving formal pre reads, slots, etc., applies to a very small percentage of schools. (And even then, things aren’t always communicated to athletes using the key words that are highlighted here).
If these are selective schools that have such processes in place and the coaches aren’t asking for transcripts and test scores, that’s usually a sign that they won’t be supporting the application but might like to get the athlete ‘for free’ as you suggest. As others have mentioned, that’s common with average athletes, NOT with top recruits (even those who are slam dunks for admission). No coach is going to gamble with a top recruit: supporting the application not only ensures admission, it locks the athlete in (because the vast majority of supported athletes apply ED).
Since your son has submitted transcripts to at least one coach, I think I’d just go ahead and email final transcripts, test scores, and senior year schedule to the others. Just mention that “other coaches needed these for the pre read. I’m not sure if you’re going through a similar process but thought I’d share them in case you are.” Something along those lines might get you more info without an awkward phone call. But eventually, if you’re hoping for admissions support, your son will need to ask about that process and whether he’s being considered for support.
@politeperson - Thank you so much for your insight. I am indeed reluctant to mention specific schools because the process is still “live”; but none of the schools is in NESCAC. Most are West or Midwest. The one pre-read was requested from the most selective of his schools (<10% admit rate) which also happens to have the most elite athletic program. The others are less selective and elite . . . in some instances, much less so. Those may well fall into the group you mention that may not have a regular pre-read process or robust coach participation in the admissions process.
I think your suggestion and “script” for S to initiate a formal or informal pre-read process is a great idea. Thanks again!
For what it’s worth, my D3 athlete was focusing on schools where he was in the top 25% in stats and which had higher acceptance rates (30+%) as he needed merit award for the finances to work so he had no reaches and only a couple “targets.” Out of about 6-7 schools, only one coach asked for formal pre-read materials while the others relied on his description of his academic portfolio. We knew he would get in, the coach knew he would get in, Admissions had usually “ball parked” the merit award. The real question was whether he had a roster spot offer from the coach, and that is what kept us on tenterhooks at some schools which were more competitive in terms of recruiting but were admissions match/safeties.
As others have said, when asked direct, specific questions, we found coaches to be honest and responsive. But if a player doesn’t ask those questions, the coaches probably won’t volunteer that, for example, there are other athletes ahead of you on their recruiting board.