<p>As I read finn's posts, I don't think this ED school was Williams but was another NESCAC.</p>
<p>Hi. To set the record straight Williams was not the ED school my D applied to. THe coach there, as well as admissions office, was vbery straightforward and upfront, so we knew where we stood. Chose different school for ED.</p>
<p>Thanks for everyones feedback.</p>
<p>casey- riverrunner was very clear that the assumption that the school was Williams was NOT to be made. Oops- moot.</p>
<p>Thanks for clarifying, finnsdad. It would be a shame to have people assume something bad about Williams based on a quick scan through your posts.</p>
<p>Stated by casey75:
"...., but that coach was quite helpful in telling us exactly what weaknesses may or may not have been in my son's transcript after running it by Admissions and what his (the coach's) limitations were in the process. There were no promises made other than telling us that he was on the list of supported athletes."</p>
<p>Hope you will be on this board in the fall of 2009, to give advice to next year's applicants. Recruited athletes...especially at D3 schools...should ask the coaches and admissions offices for a similar statement, so that the recruited student's situation is as transparent as possible.</p>
<p>2boysima - Actually, the best place I found for advice on D3 sports is the baseball site hsbaseballweb.com. It is a volunteer-run site and has forums for all sorts of baseball topics, but the recruiting forum is applicable in many ways to any college sports, not just baseball. You can go on there and search for information on D3 sports and learn tons of info. Also, the NY Times ran a series of articles in 2005-06 on D3 recruiting, using Haverford College as the window to the process...a facsinating series if you are interested in D3 sports:</p>
<p>The</a> New York Times > Sports > A Series: The Athlete's Edge</p>
<p>We had a bad day at our house, too. D applied ED to a NESCAC as the "#1" recruit of a coach. She also had "support" but no promises from a second coach. She plans to play two sports. Four days before ED decisions, we saw the first coach and had a cheerful and "wish I had news from admissions" conversation. ED letter arrives and daughter is deferred. Test scores and grades are in the range but at the low end. She attends a rigorous secondary school. (She's a B student - poor thing...isn't a B above average??!!) D has talked to the coach who is "still optimistic", "you are still my #1 recruit", 2nd coach is now going to swing support her way. Here's the question - can coaches get completely dissed by admissions, particularly in a less popular women's sport? We were told by several folks who should know that if she was the #1 recruit for a NESCAC coach - unless there was something awful in her application she would be admitted. I've asked the "was there something in her application question", and the coach emphatically said no - she just needs to "bring up her grades." I find this actually humorous - since that gives her about 8 weeks to become and A student! High School counselor is particularly upset, since counselor was led to believe D would be accepted. Obviously, D has to go to Plan B and apply to other schools. Any insights?</p>
<p>Coaches CAN get completely dissed by admissions. Some coaches have particularly good relationships with admissions- formed over many years. Other coaches may be newer and not as "plugged in". If she really is the No. 1 recruit, she will probably get in, but make sure your daughter has several other schools she really likes, including a good safety.</p>
<p>No, the NESCAC schools certainly do not have less coach's influence than other DIV III schools.</p>
<p>Understand that there are a limited number of "tips" -- slots where the athletic department chooses who will be admitted or not as long as the athlete is "admittable" based on a formula of so many "a little below average", so many "a lot below average", and so many "we really don't want to talk about it".</p>
<p>NESCAC schools can have 66 of these tips. Two things to keep in mind:</p>
<p>a) In practice, the athletic department won't waste a tip on an athlete with average or above average academic stats. They use these on athletes who would have no prayer of getting in otherwise</p>
<p>b) They concentrate the tips on sports where there are no athletes with average or above average academics. For example, mens ice hockey and mens football. Women's sports tend to have good academic athletes and, thus, fewer tips.</p>
<p>Redhouse:</p>
<p>It sounds like your coach did not use a tip on your daughter. He probably used what is called a "protect". This is a list of 36 more (at Williams) recruits with "average" academics for the school. The admissions office decides whether they get in or not, but at least there is a strong recommendation from the athletic department. </p>
<p>Athletes with strong academic qualifications get nothing from the athletic department. The coaches just roll the dice and hope they get accepted based on academics, prefering to use their "influence" on average to below average academic recruits.</p>
<p>I agree with menlopark mom here...in my D's case - coaches let Admissions offices know to send her "priority" or "select" application invitations, that was pretty much the extent of their influence...perhaps since they knew what D's test scores were, they figured that her getting in was not a problem (one coach actually said 'well, we don't have to worry about THAT'). Getting the aid (need-based or merit) is a totally different story, I don't think coaches have much if any pull on that at all, DIII at least...interesting what people have said about NESCAC - one of her top three choices is a NESCAC, and she hasn't even talked to that coach yet, although she is in touch with the other two coaches often...</p>
<p>It depends on the school, the sport, the athletic director, the coach. All of those factors come into play when you are talking about recruiting. Sometimes the athlete, sport, school and coach are such that some of those areas can be bypassed, but usually they are all important. What happens is that the coaches meet with the athletic director to give their lists and cases for who the want on their teams. It is the athletic director who usually then meets with the admissions person designated to liason with sports, and they then agree who gets accepted from the list. Though it can happen that a coach is directly wired to the admissions department, it does not usually work that way. You can see how it would not be a good idea to be having all of those coaches individually lobbying admissions. So cuts can occur between the coach and admissions as the negotiations between admissions and the athletic director occur. </p>
<p>We lost out on two likely admits in the ivies and a strong commit from BC with our athletic recruit son. Another ivy and Williams were noncommital but encouraging and they did not pan out either. It is not a sure thing for most athletes and sports as we found out from our process.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd be careful about burning bridges with him (e.g. going to the AD etc.) as the college sports coaching community is very small and you don't want to burn bridges for your D. Sad but true - word will get around, painting your D as a "troublemaker".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If this is true, it is very disheartening. There is only one "troublemaker" in OP's scenario, and it is not OP's D.</p>
<p>I would not be paranoid about the situation, but exercise good judgment. The reason you may not want to make a big stink about the issue right now is because you don't know how who is connected to whom. </p>
<p>My guess is that your D is not going to get an athletic bump unless a big need arises in her sport/position. My son did get into a number of schools without an athletic pass because just did not make it on the athletic list but made admissions standards. This can still happen. It is very possible that this can happen with your D. You don't know what happened between the coach and the admissions director. My guess is that she was a card that was dropped during the negotiations between the athletic director and admissions. The coach may well not have lied. He could have given your D a first priority mark, but the sport may not have rated high enough in the school athletics to get that consideration. There may have been someone with times very comparable to your D with higher academic marks and she could have been traded for someone else in a different sport that did not have that flexibility.</p>
<p>I would not take any assurance from anyone that the admissions is a done deal until you get the acceptance letter. That is just the way it works. The coaches' assurances can too often give you a false sense of security. Just because you are number one on his list and he usually gets his first choice does not make it a done deal for you. There could be a lot of scenarios where it does not pan out. The coach lying is only one of them.</p>
<p>I agree with everything cptofthehouse has written.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, there is still a selection process at work -- a selection process that may be driven by admissions at some schools, the Athletic Director at others, or a negotiation between the two at still other schools. In still other cases, the athletic department defers to admissions (i.e. rolls the dice on a strong academic candidate by providing no tip or support) on one student to preserve a stronger role in the admission of a weaker applicant.</p>
<p>There are too many variables to sort out unless you know the specific details.</p>
<p>I agree with everything written above, too, BUT... colleges should be made aware that their coaches are making false promises, and coaches should be prohibited from doing so. OP's D chose one college for ED based on the coach's false statements, giving up her opportunity to apply ED/EA to another choice, and perhaps a chance on another's school's roster. It feels like some responsive action is in order, even if it is after regular decisions come out.</p>
<p>Bay:</p>
<p>I would take it one step further and dismantle the entire parallel admissions track for recruited athletes. The admissions office should be in charge of admissions and admissions visits and everything else. There's no reason they can't get the athletic departments' opinion on athletic credentials in exactly the same way they send music performance submissions to the music department for evaluation. The music departments don't host overnight campus visits and serve as the contact point for admissions of musically inclined students. The athletic departments shouldn't be playing that role either, unless we are talking the professional ranks of BCS Div I, where there is just the thinnest veneer of academic pretext anyway.</p>
<p>Athletic recruits vary in how they are treated. A basketball recruit for Duke is pretty much in the door if the coach wants him. A swimmer or a field hockey player is not in the same situation. You need to know how much punch a sport has at a school and how good your kid is in that sport. My son was an excellent swimmer with top times in a stroke, but he got beat out by someone who was just a bit slower but better in other strokes in one situation. The coach can be telling you the absolute truth when he says your kid will be rated #1 on his list and that most of the first picks get right in. However, the athletic director might be really pushing for a kid who is truly a stretch to be accepted academically in a revenue generating sport, and have to give the admissions office some concessions. He might drop the top prospects in lesser sports that have lower ranked prospects that are still close in terms of times or other measure of ability, but a easier for admissions to accept. The coach can even be telling the truth in saying that all of his #1 prospects have been admitted, and he expects someone will be in, given the history. What actually happens can be out of his control.</p>
<p>This happens occasionally in big ticket sports too. Someone that a coach is sure he could sell to admissions just doesn't happen. The entire process is fraught with uncertainties for that reason. We have a friend whose son has been under verbal commitment to a major school since he was a junior. Does it mean he has a lock there? Absolutely not. More likely than usual because he is in a major revenue sport and is a top recruit nationally. But there are limits as to what this particular college will bend in terms of academic flexibility. If he does not get the numbers, he may end up redshirted at a local college getting a decent transcript for another chance the following year. I say this because I know a kid that this happened to at this same college. He did get accepted the following year after getting good grades in easy subjects at the local college, pursuing his sport on a private level to preserve his eligibility. Could not get the numbers to sell admissions despite the coach really wanting him.</p>
<p>"I would take it one step further and dismantle the entire parallel admissions track for recruited athletes. The admissions office should be in charge of admissions and admissions visits and everything else. There's no reason they can't get the athletic departments' opinion on athletic credentials in exactly the same way they send music performance submissions to the music department for evaluation. The music departments don't host overnight campus visits and serve as the contact point for admissions of musically inclined students."</p>
<p>I totally agree with you, interesteddad. (Amazing!) It's disgusting how sports has its own inside track like this.</p>
<p>Cptofthehouse,
In one of your posts you mentioned that your son missed out on likely admits with Ivys. Could you elaborate on how that happenned? Did a coach promise a likely letter and not deliver? If an athlete gets a likely letter from an Ivy admissions dept. are they really in, or do they have to wait until April to confirm it when regular decisions come out? Thanks for sharing your experiences.</p>