NESCAC, which is D3, has rules that are different than Ivy League rules and other D1 conferences. It is my general impression that NESCAC’s academic rules for recruiting athletes are more stringent than the Ivy League. NESCAC admissions offices wants to see 3 full years of HS grades on the transcript before they decide. That is why NESCAC offers don’t come out until July 1 between Junior and Senior year- not September 1 at the beginning of Junior year. In general, D3 recruiting occurs after D1 anyway. For our year, NESCAC also went test optional with their recruited athletes.
1 Like
It’s not my intent to debate on this thread how recruited athletes are admitted to universities.
I am just a parent and have just explained what our experience was. Only coaches and admissions office administrators have a complete picture of how that recruiting works.
My intent was to inquire why athletics is so popular. At least on a per capita basis, it appears to me that support for varsity athletics is much more popular to the top academic universities than nearly everyone else.
1 Like
D3 recruiting actually can start much earlier than D1/D2 recruiting because they aren’t held to the same contact rules. Now, many D3 schools will wait a while to see how the whole D1 recruiting shakes out with kids they are interested in, but high academic kids who know they want NEWMAC, NESCAC-type schools will start having conversations with those coaches early on. Many of those kids are not looking or waiting on a D1 school because they want the academics those schools (NEWMAC, NESCAC) offer.
1 Like
My son was offered a spot by a NESCAC in April of his Junior year.
2 Likes
I thought NESCACs don’t do pre-reads until after July of their Junior year. So while they may extend an offer earlier, wouldn’t it also be contingent on a positive pre-read that summer?
All college coaches say they want to get to know the player before they give out offers. However, If you are a top player, that message goes out the window.
2 Likes
You’re losing me again. Are you including only the T20 national universities you mentioned upstream or are you expanding your list?
I don’t understand your question. My original question pertained to top national academic universities and I used USNWR list as an example. I acknowledge there are problems with that specific list and other schools not on that list could qualify as being considered top academic universities as well. Other posters started talking about NESCAC schools - smaller schools with similar academic distinction. I was only replying to their specific posts. However, as you widen the criteria for inclusion, the list becomes increasingly heterogeneous and it becomes more difficult to compare and contrast.
Fine, but what is your control group? What colleges are you comparing them to?
How about keeping it simple? Compare the top 20 USNWR National Universities list with all of the other schools belonging to the SEC, Big 10, PAC-12, ACC, and Big 12.
Sounds reasonably true to me. Here’s the Director’s Cup standings for only the Fall so far this year:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/nacda.com/documents/2022/1/12/Jan_13OverallStandings.pdf
For D1, at least Harvard (#18) and Princeton (#28) seem to be trying to keep up with the “big boys.”
Fair enough. So, basically, you’re saying that because the big conference schools have fewer athletes per capita than the T20 universities that that is a barometer of the relative lack of importance of athletics on the big conference campuses?
1 Like
That’s close but not exactly what I’m saying.
We all know that sports is HUGE for the Power 5 schools. It generates tremendous income, prestige, and visibility that is unrivaled by any other school. But given these advantages and especially given their much greater size, these schools field significantly fewer varsity teams than schools on the top 20 list. Why is their relative support lacking? Conversely, why are the top 20 academic schools relatively devoting so much of their resources to sports- especially sports that have very few participating athletes and which the public doesn’t pay attention to.
Isn’t that a fair question to ask?
1 Like
The NCAA leaves the recruiting timeline up to the schools, conferences or sport coaching authority. The NCAA only oversees the NIL (for Div 1 and 2) dates. It allows athletes to sign the NIL even if they haven’t been admitted to the school yet, but not until Nov of senior year (most sports). If the student isn’t admitted, the NIL is void. Because Div 3 athletes don’t sign NIL, they have few recruiting rules or date restrictions.
In about 2016, lax coaches’ associations (men and women) decided on the Sept 1 of junior year date. NCAA doesn’t care. Before that, coaches were offering to 8th graders who hadn’t even started high school yet. (That still happens in basketball.) The offers meant nothing, the commitments meant nothing except bragging rights on the parent sidelines. Most didn’t announce commitments, and they weren’t published, until Jan 1 of sophomore year for lax except many top players were considered ‘committed’ before that. Still didn’t mean much. Many NESCAC coaches made offers at those dates, as did Ivies, Maryland, Virginia, Duke and Hopkins. The students hadn’t been admitted to the schools, in fact hadn’t even applied to the schools. You could go online and see the ‘commitments’ to every school in any division. Now those commitments are just moved forward 9 months to Sept 1.
Nothing is final until the letter from the admissions office arrives.
My experience was different. Maybe, a different sport.
But the NCAA has definite timelines for recruiting and it isn’t up to the individual school to decide.
The answer is not that complicated. The T20 universities are wealthier on a per capita basis than their Power 5 counterparts.
The Power 5 schools are earning plenty of money from their revenue sports teams to subsidize their non-revenue counterparts, but they choose not to spend more on niche sports.
The T20 universities have plenty of money to spend overall, so they spend it on niche sports. What’s the purpose and what do they gain from it? On the surface, it seems that there is very little to be gained. I’m very cynical. Even rich people don’t throw money at something without a good reason, especially when they are all doing it in unison.
1 Like
Full stop.
Looking at only fall sports for a year with COVID is misleading. The final totals in the year prior to COVID are at June28DIOverall (PDF) - National Association of Collegiate Directors of Athletics and summarized below. The Director’s Cup is scored based on number of high ranking finishes in Div I sports. High rankings in less popular non-revenue sports score for as many points as revenue sports, and there are much larger number of non-revenue sports than revenue sports, so this is essentially a list of the colleges that do best in non-revenue sports. Stanford stands out. Ivies do well at a few specific less popular sports that get the bulk of their points. Less popular, non-revenue sports are where “top academic” colleges are most likely to excel.
1 . Stanford – 1504 (6 national championships - VBall, gym., swim, golf, tennis, WPolo)
– Large Gap –
2. Michigan – 1272 (most points from 2nd in baseball, many teams in top 5)
3. Florida – 1157 (national championship in track & field)
4. Texas – 1149 (national championship in tennis)
5. USC – 1076 (national championship in water polo)
6. UCLA – 1059 (national championship in softball)
…
9. Duke – 1001 (national championship in women’s golf)
…
17. Notre Dame – 885 (most points from 2nd in women’s basketball)
…
30. Princeton – 772 (best in Ivy League, most points from 3rd in women’s field hockey)
…
45. Northwestern – 529 (tie, most points from 3rd in women’s lacrosse)
45. Vanderbilit – 529 (tie, national championship in baseball)
…
57. Harvard – 426 (2nd best in Ivy League, most points from 5th in women’s field hockey)
…
118. Brown – 144 (worst in Ivy League, majority of points from 5th in fencing)
In DIII, the results were as follows. “Top academic” colleges are well represented, including ones that are not typically known for athletics, such as MIT. Caltech still falls well behind other “top academic” colleges, but it at least ranked well enough in a sport to score points.
1 . Williams
2. Johns Hopkins
3. WUSTL
4. Middlebury
5. Emory
6. MIT
7. Tufts
8. Amherst
9. Chicago
…
290. Caltech
1 Like
It’s also easier for the schools in close conferences to compete in more sports. Travel is less, similar school calendars, etc. A lot of the schools on the west coast haven’t added lacrosse because the travel is so expensive and time consuming, but as more schools do add it, it is less expensive.
Hawaii can’t be traveling all over the place during the school year so has to limit sports.
My daughter got a nice surprise this semester when her university gave a big check to her club hockey team. Usually they have to pay for it themselves but this semester was free with university support. Thank you very much D1 basketball and football.
4 Likes