<p>how good do you have to be at a sport to be recruited, and does being recruited increase your chances? also what sports do they tend to favor? thanks :)</p>
<p>I think you need to approach the school's coaches to be recruited, but, since I'm not an outstanding athlete, I'm not sure.</p>
<p>here's some info for prospective student-athletes, with questionaire/recruit forms for submission to particular coaches:</p>
<p>Here is an article that describes the peculiar ins and outs of the Ivy League recruiting process:</p>
<p>This is heresay but interesting to me because it poses the best chances for being recruited in my case.</p>
<p>Supposedly (<- big stress here), some schools work off of an average for each sport. Say that the sport is required to have a certain average SAT score. To get the candidates that they really want, coaches will take decent athletes with high SAT scores in order to offset those with low SAT scores. That being said, I don't think anyone's going to get in with 300s. Is this valid? I'd be interested because although I'm an alright runner I think that my academics are better comparatively.</p>
<p>This is a time-tested technique, patented by the lax coach at Princeton but now widely used throughout the Ivies. "Recruits" of modest skills are known as "boosters." Even if they never take the field, and indeed never formally join the team, their strong academic record helps "boost" the team average, making it possible for the more athletic (if slower-witted) to gain admission and actually play. For background, see Chris Lincoln's book on Ivy recruiting.</p>
<p>Does anyone know how good (academically and athletically) one must be to qualify for this (^) type of recruitment?</p>
<p>Depends on the school and the sport. For guidance, read this recent book:</p>
<p>Playing the Game: Inside Athletic Recruiting in the Ivy League, by Chris Lincoln, published by Nomad Press.</p>
<p>thanks, Byerly</p>
<p>wait a second... are you saying that a guy with good academic credentials, say, 2250+, 4.0 uw, #1 in class but with modest athletic records, say a 11.2-11.4 on 100 dash would actually stand a chance to be recruited??</p>
<p>Byerly is wrong. The "boosters" were essentially phased out of the Ivy League in the way he described a couple years ago. To the extent boosters exist it is in sports with generally highly academically qualified participants (squash, rowing etc.) and in football with the "banding" system.</p>
<p>The question of recruiting really varies so much from sport to sport and school to school. Generally with the more "white guy" sports (pretty much everything except football and basketball, track recruiting is minimal) you need to be very accomplished in that sport; the Ivy League, for example, hosts some of the premiere lacrosse programs in the nation, so you need to be a top-level lacrosse player to be recruited. Because the basketball is Div. 1 with an automatic NCAA tournament berth it is very competitive as well.</p>
<p>Football is a good sport to be recruited in because of the banding system, which allots a certain number of players per Academic Index range according to standard deviations from the school's average. Thus, you can be a moderately talented football player but be fairly strong academically and thus be a recruit because you fall in a high band. Doesn't guarantee admission by any means, but def. doesn't hurt. Coaches in the Ivy League generally put a lot of emphasis on stuff like heart, hustle, leadership etc. because getting top natural athletes is fairly difficult for them (no scholarships). This is the other reason football is good; football scholarships are relatively abundant. NCAA limits force most sports into a position where not every player is on even close to a full scholarship. Thus sports like lacrosse, wrestling, soccer, even baseball, can exist at big D1 schools and still have the majority of participants only on partial scholarship. As a result the Ivy League is more competitive in getting top recruits for these sports. Football, on the other hand, where 80-some scholarships are available at the D1, 1-AA, D2 and NAIA levels (as well as generous "financial aid" at D3), can be a far tougher sport in which to snag a good recruit when there are so many scholarships available.</p>
<p>The thing to do is get in contact with the coach of whatever sport(s) you're interested in (this can be done on the school's athletics page), and, depending on the sport, send a tape out. "Playing The Game", as previously mentioned, is a great resource as well. You should seriously pursue the coach, as commitment and your relationship with him/her can be big factors.</p>
<p>Oh ok... it was too good to be true any ways... do you happen to know why track recruiting is minimal? I know that Harvard's track team and especially the sprinters are mediocre at best.</p>
<p>Stover is 100% wrong about "boosters" being "phased out." </p>
<p>They are still relied upon in not only the sports where he concedes coaches uses them - football, crew, rowing etc., but also soccer, ice hockey, lacrosse and basketball. Indeed, their use became more widespread after the applicability of the AI was broadened to cover more sports.</p>
<p>A classic demonstration of their use is seen when you track the size of the Princeton lax roster over the years compared to that of rival Ivy schools, as certain "boosters" insisted on playing, and taking up roster space, rather than retiring gracefully!</p>
<p>let me say that princeton's admissions only give big boasts to lax , football, and basketball players during the admissions process. While it will help to get recruited by the coach in another sport, your grades have to be pretty much on par with the other admitted student who aren't recruited athletes. I athletes could get admitted to Brown or columbia but probably will not get admitted to princeton if he has a 3.8 uw and a 1200/1600 on his SAT's</p>
<p>What about "booster" athletes?? How "modest" do they have to be? Just a regular varsity letterer, or at least state qualifier?</p>
<p>hswrestling07 "let me say that princeton's admissions only give big boasts to lax , football, and basketball players during the admissions process. While it will help to get recruited by the coach in another sport, your grades have to be pretty much on par with the other admitted student who aren't recruited athletes. I athletes could get admitted to Brown or columbia but probably will not get admitted to princeton if he has a 3.8 uw and a 1200/1600 on his SAT's"</p>
<p>a lot of other sports besides football, lax, and basketball can get you recruited. I got a 1980 on my SAT and low 500's on SAT II's. Wasn't in the top 10 percent in school and got in to play baseball....your comment about having the be on par with other students is just wrong. Is 1980 on par with 2250??? NO</p>
<p>You are on the money.</p>
<p>Let me just say that i know plenty of kids who got just above 1100 on the old SAT's and got into cornell and penn and were recruited athletes. These athletes were from a sport that was a non-revenue sport. This would not happen at princeton or yale. The revenue and most-known sports get better admission help. The standards for athletes at princeton are way higher than other ivy's. Don't get me wrong, Texas 14, i'm not one of those people who hate the athletes that get into the ivys and other people with better SAT's don't. 1980 on SAT is pretty good too.</p>
<p>"The standards for athletes at princeton are way higher than other ivy's." ????</p>
<p>That is absolute poppycock.</p>
<p>Byerly- Sorry i said way higher. The fact is that princeton, yale and harvard have a bit tougher admissions for athletes. Their academic index standards are higher and only allow a couple from the lowest band while other ivy's allow a couple more from the lower band.</p>