<p>I was just wondering what the experience has been or if there was any knowledge of DIII programs where recruited athletes find themselves NOT on the roster. Seems to me that by the number my son is giving me on current recruits, either the coach over-recruited or some athletes are slightly confused (or outright embellishing) their status as recruits. </p>
<p>S is assuming that all recruits and those previously on the roster are automatic shoe-ins. I disagreed and believe that especially at DIII with no athletic scholarship that if a stand out walk-on tries out, he has just a good a chance as anyone else. Am I totally wrong in this summation?</p>
<p>I would think that if you had a recruited player who had real potential as a freshman, but it never materialized, the kid may not make the roster come junior year. In just looking at the rosters over the past four years, there seems to always be a drop off as the years go by and I just can't imagine this is based purely on athletes making the decision to play or not play, and has nothing to do with better talent coming in behind them and their being cut.</p>
<p>Opinions, insights, experience most welcomed.</p>
<p>Almost identical situation here. S was All American in HS, but didn’t want to attend the DI schools who tried to recruit him, abd focused more on the school than the sport during applicatons. He is at a DIII top LAC and hopes to walk in, but the odds are definitely a little confusing. As it is, it looks like two players didn’t return for sophomore year, so I imagine some drop off can be attributed to that kind of situation as well. </p>
<p>I look forward to what others have to say.</p>
<p>I don’t think you could generalize accurately across all of DIII or even across one single sport in DIII. Coaches don’t always have the same philosophy or approach to building their teams. Even at the same school (under the same AD, obviously), you could find a coach who cuts returnees who aren’t delivering, and a coach who might not play those kids or might not play them much, but wouldn’t cut them. </p>
<p>
S’s assumption is likely to be wrong, and yours is likely to be right - though again, different coaches have different approaches. Also, your and your S’s surmises aren’t mutually exclusive, either. Many a coach will make room for a super player even if everybody else <em>is</em> a shoo-in (especially in a sport that usually runs a big roster, like lax). </p>
<p>
Once again, nothing is going to hold true across the board, but particularly in DIII this <em>is</em> likely to be the choice of the student. Kids who are not starters or key reserves may find, as they reach junior year and focus in on their majors a little more, that even though they were happy with it as freshman and sophomores, they no longer feel happy about giving so much time to the team when they’re not on the field (in the pool, on the court, what have you) as much. (This is not the same thing as suddenly getting less playing time when a new crop of enthusiastic recruits arrives - that definitely happens too.) And even key players may simply change their priorities. Then you have situations in which a new coach, with a new philosophy, comes in, and the older team members may not feel the equation is balancing anymore. Or even without a change, kids may be willing to put up with a certain coaching style for a couple of years, but no more. There can be a lot of reasons why great athletes choose to stop playing - you can’t rule out injuries as a reason for kids coming off the roster the following year. Or kids in injury-prone sports suddenly deciding that one more concussion would be one too many.</p>
<p>It is my experience that all truly recruited players make the DIII roster. Some choose not to return in subsequent years for many reasons some of which are that they aren’t getting enough playing time, they don’t like the sport-coach-team-committment, their grades are suffering or any other reason. At a DIII, because you aren’t being “paid to play”, you have no true committment to the sport, team or coach. They can’t make you play by taking away any financial encouragement. So sometimes, students use the recruitment to get in the door and then quit the team after they have fulfilled the unwritten rule of one year on the team. </p>
<p>Having said that, walk-ons do have a much harder time of gaining a spot on the team. I recounted the reason for this in another, similar post:</p>
<p>“In my D2’s sport, the coach is only allowed to carry 15 players on the team. She recruits between 3-4 per year, replacing the recruits who graduate. For this current year, there were 13 recruited athletes on the roster. Three other freshman girls went out for the team. Because the coach only had 1 senior graduating, taking two of the true walk-ons bringing the team up to the maximum allowed would have only left the coach with 1 slot open for recruitment. This was not enough for optimum recruitment and would have made the team quite freshman heavy (and carried the heavy load for the next 4 years). The coach didn’t keep any of the 3 who tried out.”</p>
<p>So, especially if no upperclassman drops off the team, finding a walkon spot is pretty difficult (in my experience).</p>
<p>Great point. How big a roster a coach can keep is definitely an important factor. The budget and the individual sport will both affect this. (Obviously, the volleyball roster will be smaller than the soccer or lax one, for example, regardless of budget.)</p>
<p>Modadunn: my rather limited experience is w/ DIII men’s soccer in the Northeast/Midatlantic regions. From the coaches DS has dealt with and the options he has for this fall, there’s a bit of variation, for him personally and in terms of the school’s practices. For instance, at one school he was guaranteed a roster spot for the coming year depending on when he applied. Coach wanted to firm up roster through ED process and DS didn’t need ED for admission, so he is applying, but does not expect to have a spot saved for him. All players except for the recruited/committed freshmen have to try out. Because he was recruited, he assumes he will have the ability to try out with others currently on the team, which still is an advantage over a true walk-on. Another school makes everyone try out, even recruits. Theoretically, a kid who’s recruited and encouraged to apply ED could end up burning his bridges at other schools that were recruiting him and then not make the team. DS declined to apply ED there also. At virtually all schools I guess, though, the top recruits will play, and at no schools do you get anything more than a guaranteed roster spot for a year. Everyone has to earn a spot and playing time after the first year. I believe that for NESCAC and other top schools, for a coach to support a recruit by putting him on his list for Admissions (even if not using one of his couple of “slots”), the coach has to assert to Admissions that he expects the player to make an immediate impact in the varsity program. That means he’ll be on the roster. At DS’s first choice NESCAC school, there is a jv squad, too, and walk-ons can go to the coach’s camp over the summer and maybe earn a spot on the varsity team. He knows at least one guy who did this recently. The DIII schools DS is applying to carry 25-30 players on the team, but only 18 are on game-day roster. And, yes, many upper class players drift away if they are supplanted by fresh recruits (and for other reasons, too, of course).</p>
<p>Thanks Royal. That helps a lot. I think. I guess the only way to know for sure is to talk to the coach. Also not sure how the other “recruits” might view a walk on (as an interloper vs one of the club), especially if you also come with accolades like LaxMom refers to I suppose.</p>
<p>^^I was just visiting some DIII sites and one of them states that they do not hold tryouts, but only recruit for their team. So, you might be able to find out by checking out sites as well. I imagine some of the better DIII teams do this. I know much of the NESCAC actively recruits.</p>
<p>Royal, Thanks for your input.</p>
<p>My DS applied many schools that mostly are D3 with RD. We hope there is a spot for him after 4/1 and FA offering. Some coaches contacted him and some no response at all. Some coaches are still follow up and some are out of radar after learned no ED among those coaches who contacted him.</p>
<p>So what is your suggestion that we can keep this door open between now and 4/1?</p>
<p>I would have son write every coach at the schools he applied and tell them he is in the RD pool and hopes to be accepted. Son had several phone calls the day after decisions went out to encourage him to come to their school and he met with every coach at schools where he was accepted that he made a second visit. His decision of where to attend was still overwhelmingly dependent on quality and fit of school and academics, but being encouraged to play by the coaches was nice as well.</p>
<p>Modadunn, “His decision of where to attend was still overwhelmingly dependent on quality and fit of school and academics, but being encouraged to play by the coaches was nice as well.”</p>
<p>What is weight of “encouraged by coach”? Did he go to the school that coach made a phone call after the day of decision went out?</p>
<p>What is weight of decision making for going top university/Ivy but no playing V. top LAC but playing at school?</p>
<p>I encourage your athlete(s) to make a point to do an overnight visit at the schools they are considering. DS was a top recruit for many top tier DIII schools. We paid for two overnight visits asking the coach to arrange DS sleep in the dorms with potential team mates. DS got a more intimate look at how the teammates interacted “when no one was looking”.<br>
Although my DS loved the DIII schools for their academic merits, he still wanted participate in college athletics. After all the scholarship packages were in (including National Merit Finalist), DS chose to walk on at a DI school. He has had no regrets. He Lettered both years and has earned two SEC Championship rings. He knows he is a student first, the athletic experience he has had is a wonderful bonus!</p>
<p>Soccer92boy - I sent you a PM. He had calls from all coaches after acceptance decisions came out. His decision, however, still boiled down to fit. It’s a whole package. An athlete can be hurt and his career on the field over and too, coaches leave for greener pastures. Denison pushed a lot for a commitment to ED but then before the fall was over, coach moved back east. School wasnt that good of a fit overall, so playing, while enticing, wasn’t the motivation. Same with Holy Cross and Fairfield. He never even applied to them. My advice would be to never ever pick a school based solely on coach or opportunities to play. But then again, our position as parents has always been to invest in a good helmet - it’s the brain that gets them to graduation! :)</p>
<p>I agree with momof2boyz that athletics are a bonus. Of course, son really hopes to get that bonus and I suppose only time will tell.</p>
<p>soccer92 boy, in response to your question: What is weight of decision making for going top university/Ivy but no playing V. top LAC but playing at school? </p>
<p>I think I’m restating what’s already been said, but try to evaluate this part of the decision without regard to sports at all. If he wasn’t an athlete, would he rather be at a selective DIII or a “top university/Ivy?” There are many opinions about this, but only your son’s matters. </p>
<p>Try and help him evaluate size and location of schools, strength of his major at each school, how each student body is characterized (if it’s possible to generalize about the student body- probably more likely as the schools under scrutiny get smaller.) How strong will the name on the diploma be when it comes to applying for the first job or grad school. </p>
<p>The big intangibles are probably the most important: your child will finish growing up during those four years. What do you both hope for when you think about his intellectual and personal development in those year, and try and find a place that will best nurture that part of him. Sports are just sports, at the end of the day. And, yes, I’m the mom of a college athlete…</p>
<p>Best wishes!</p>
<p>I mostly agree with Riverrunner and while a digression from the discussion of walk on and DIII recruits, I will offer another view point when it comes to playing at all. Sometimes if playing is something a kid really wants to do, a larger university might offer more competitive non-varsity opportunities without the DI commitment. Most have club or even intramural teams, especially if they have a top notch DI team in the sport you’re looking for. For example in lacrosse, while Michigan only has a club team, it is very very good. Wisconsin-Madison has three club teams of varying levels. Duke, on the other hand, has a top notch DI team, but has club and intramural teams as well where I imagine the competition can be very good just based on location with regular games and reduced practices. In fact, he knows a number of kids with whom he’s played that are playing at all different levels from Cornell to the Ivies to no-name LAC. And then there’s the one who transferred to the UofDenver last year, wasn’t thrilled with the coach but decided he loved the school regardless. Surprise! They get princeton’s old coach and viola! It’s the perfect place and time. </p>
<p>Son knew that by wanting to be at a smaller LAC vs a super large University for educational reasons alone, that the opportunity for competitive club or intramural would be less likely simply based on the size of such a small population. We had a lot of discussions trying to assess the role he wanted sports to play in his life as well the kind of school he wanted to attend. Had S had his heart set on a top university for academic reasons, (and he had a few where this would have applied), he would have had MORE opportunity to make a team. Play at some level. But he went “all in” for the school itself, knew he could find lots about it to keep him happy and now, can really only hope for the best. </p>
<p>And back to regular programming:</p>
<p>I am just trying to figure out how much I should encourage son to put it all out there because ultimately coaches want to win. Don’t they? And if I went by the stats of the last two years, I think that even if the coach guaranteed all recruits a spot for the first year, there are some others on the roster that have not seen much field time, if any in the last two/three seasons. However, if rostered spots are secure (which makes no sense to my competitive nature), he will have a much bigger odds due to NCAA roster limitations. So just trying to get some experiences or insights before I offer advice/encouragement. And bottom line, I suppose I will only offer my supreme vote of confidence that he can do it only if I am also willing to accept that if I am completely off base, his likely conclusion will be, mom’s don’t know jack. 
(and never take my advice again)</p>