Does it happen that coaches will pass on supporting kids who have a strong hook for another reason? The coach thinks, “this kid is getting in anyway so I don’t need to waste my support on them.” Or is that a thing of the past (I have heard rumors) because schools’ acceptance rates are so ridiculously low that nothing is a sure thing.
This is a generalization, but yes a coach will often not use one of their “slots” for an athlete that has another hook. They will write a letter supporting the player though.
Yes, coaches might do this. It depends an the situation though. An outstanding student with a legacy hook at a school where that matters might be viewed as a recruit a coach can get without using a slot. But if that’s a high impact player and the chances are much better with coach support, most coaches won’t gamble (but some will). I believe at some Ivies this can be a discussion between the coach/AD and admissions so they aren’t guessing about the outcome, and can make an informed decision about whether or not to use an athletic slot.
Ok. Thanks for the comments. I just want to have info on hand so my daughter can ask coach’s specific questions.
Yes. I know kids who have been in this situation. One that comes to the top of mind was NOT a top player but one who brought some valuable bench strength to the team. The coach’s assessment was that he’d get in without full support. He was right. But this kid didn’t have a true “hook”.
Another was the same level player (different school, different sport) but who was hooked. He also got in without coach support.
Both were very involved with the respective coaches throughout the process. Both were top 5 LACs (D3). My guess (based on a few other bits of information I had) is that the coach also had discussions with admissions before deciding that he could save his chit and still get the player.
I think like most everything else he answer is it depends. How desirable is the recruit? What are the recruit’s chances absent the athletic hook? I sincerely doubt there are many coaches at high academic schools that would send a desired recruit through admissions “unprotected” (to use my son’s coach’s phrase when this issue came up during his recruitment.
Agreeing with @Ohiodad51 and that it depends on the situation.
At a high end academic such as an Ivy or high end NESCAC , I doubt a coach would take the chance and send a top recruit, even with outstanding academics, thru admissions unprotected. If they were a lower end athletic recruit and very top academic candidate, that may be a little different.
Or a very top academic candidate at a little lower academic type of school they may not protect if they were certain and it was obvious that they would get in without any support.
What type of hook are you thinking about?
I’ve seen swimmers end up on the team who didn’t get a likely letter but they went to an elite boarding school and parent(s) were alumni. They were good enough to be on the team, but not fast enough to be a top swimmer. I think these type of kids are nice add ons the coach would like to have but is willing to chance it.
@AlwaysMoving
Very strong legacy hook. Academics in line. Top D3.
Yes, it is possible. It would depend upon how much the coach wants/needs a particular athlete. The top picks get the red carpet and the coaches are very eager to get the deal sealed.
. If you are in a mid level group , it’s a stressful situation for both the coach and the athlete. It’s uncertain who will end up where. Very fluid situation. The coach and athletic department do practice management of the scholarships and push with admissions. The coach has to manage his influence with admissions and why waste a push when the kid’s highly likely to get in anyways?
I’d bring it up with the coach. As you get closer be sure of the level of support the coaches giving and what percent get in with that support.
@1ofeach , I think it’s also important to understand, if the coach believes the kid can get in without support, where they’ll fit on the roster. You don’t want the coach promising all the supported recruits playing time so that there is none left.
@AlwaysMoving
That would seem to support what I was saying and I think is common for many of the Ivy teams as not all players on an Ivy team are recruited LL athletes. The coaches only get so many LLs. I am not sure how many LLs there are for swimming vs. the size of the swim team roster.
The swimmers you mentioned that were good enough to be on the team, but not fast enough to be a top swimmers so the coach was willing to “chance it” sound like they were also not the top swim recruit(s). The very top recruits, even the outstanding academic students, probably got LLs and did not go thru “unprotected” as @Ohiodad51 said.
I didn’t used to think so. I thought a coach either wants a recruit or not, and if the recruit is wanted, he or she will be supported. However, I since have heard a few things that temper that conclusion. First, the 2014 Amherst report on athletic recruiting suggests that some minority athletes indeed may fall under a different hook. Second, a Little Three coach told one recruit I know that he likely didn’t need athletic support, since he had the stats and was a double legacy.
This comes with a but, however. I just can’t believe that there would not be some kind of dialog about using a different hook between coach and admissions. If the recruit was highly sought after, I agree that the coach would not leave things to chance. Imagine a minority recruit that a coach really wants. Regardless of the type of hook, the coach will still ask admissions for a pre-read and will still inform the recruit about the outcome of the pre-read. The only difference is that, between the coach and admissions, the coach might have an additional tip or slot in the coach’s back pocket.
The only thing keeping a NESCAC from accepting a whole team as recruits is the agreement through the conference. Since D3 doesn’t give scholarships every single player could be admitted to the school as a recruit, but the schools in the conference have agreed not to do that. The admissions office may also want the athlete for one of its other hooks (URM, male/female ratio, legacy) or just good stats so will let the coaches know. There are also 2 sport athletes so it might be better for the field hockey coach to support the girl leaving an extra slot for the lax coach. There is also trading of slots from one team to another, but keeping the school under the total number agree to in the conference.
I don’t think there are a lot of surprises where the coach thinks the applicant doesn’t need support but then the admissions office decides not to admit. There is a lot of communication between the coaches and admissions.
I agree with @twoinanddone. In a recent conversation with a NESCAC coach the coach commented about the high number of first gen kids on their team and about a high school where they’d found some really great URM kids.
They mentioned that getting such kids also allowed them to admit a few “white kids from Connecticut.”
IOW, it was clear admissions was more likely to accept players they wanted, with or without formal support, if they were making a real effort to meet the school’s other admissions goals.
I think part of the answer to the OP’s question depends on how closely the coaches are working with admissions. At this coach’s school admissions has made a concerted effort to work with coaches so that there are no surprises in the admissions process. I think this is common among the NESCACs. I’d ask the coach directly if he’s ever been surprised by an admissions decision.