Ivy Recruiting - What support can a coach provide?

[Ohiodad51]

The 2003 article by the Harvard Crimson indicates that the cap of the recruited athletes of 1.4 times the size of travel squad does not count the football team and the football team is simply limited to 30 recruits per year.

I am not sure we read that article the same way. I think that the references in the article (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/6/27/ivy-league-caps-athletic-recruiting-the/) to football being dealt with separately address the AI averaging, not the number of slots. As far as number of slots, the article states directly

At its biannual meeting, the Council of Ivy Group Presidents limited the number of recruited athletes who may matriculate to 1.4 times the number needed to fill the travel squads for the 33 “Ivy Championship” sports.

What is more, if you review the 2011 Ivy Manual, and add up the travel squad limits for the recognized sports (including football and non “Ivy championship” sports like hockey) and multiply the total by 1.4 you get 230, which is the number cited in the Yale Daily Herald in 2012 as slots “given” by the Ivy League (http://yaleherald.com/homepage-lead-image/cover-stories/always-outnumbered-never-outplayed/). For this reason, it appears to me that the football travel squad is used to calculate the multiplier, even though football is separately designated as receiving slots for support in excess of this number every year.

This is important for a couple of reasons. One, we know that football gets 30 “slots” a year, even though their multiplier number is 21.7, so the AD has to account for those extra 8.3 slots elsewhere. Two, there is consistent reporting that schools do not use all of their allotted slots. @fenwaypark has cited some reporting in the Brown Daily Herald that Brown limits itself to 205 (if I remember correctly) such slots, and @bluewater2015 cited an article up the thread disclosing that Yale issued 171 a few years ago. So in my opinion, it is highly unlikely that any more than a handful of coaches at any given school are given their entire allowable allotment of likely letter slots in any given year.

Not all athletes that receive likely letters accept them, some recruited athletes that are accepted do not end up matriculating, and some recruited athletes that do attend do not end up playing their sport. I would be careful about drawing conclusions about the Ivy League recruitment process based on the number of freshman athletes on a roster.

I think this is true, although I would believe that the vast majority of matriculating athletes who receive support for a likely letter are rostered during the first semester of their freshman year. But the intent of setting out the numbers in the original post was not to show how many likely letter athletes there were in each sport in the freshman class at each school. It was to highlight the maximum allowable under the rules, and the fact that the rosters include more freshman than we can reasonably anticipate there are slots for, even in the spring sports. I am assuming that the fact that these kids are rostered, especially in the spring sports, indicates that there was some recruiting going on prior to arrival on campus.

[bluewater2015]

@Ohiodad51, thanks for the insights on football rosters.

@ClarinetDad16, I agree that a good number of spots in each class are “taken” for various institutional priorities, whether that’s athletes, legacies, development office, URMs, geographic balance, or something else.

I think the athletic preference vs. legacy preference thing is important to understand for those students where the two don’t align, e.g. someone who is a Dartmouth legacy (but isn’t being offered an athletic likely letter), but is being offered a LL by a Penn team. All else being equal, I think that student is going to have a higher chance of getting into Penn.

[fenwaypark]

But the intent of setting out the numbers in the original post was not to show how many likely letter athletes there were in each sport in the freshman class at each school. It was to highlight the maximum allowable under the rules…

The oft-cited rule of 1.4 x travel squads = 230, applies to the cap on the total number of slots. It does affect the cap on slots per team, which is negotiated each year among coaches, the AD, and the Admissions Office.

Baseball (7) - - Penn 11 - Yale 8

Not sure if the “7” above is intended to mean that there is an Ivy cap of 7 slots for baseball each year. If so, not correct. Why do I say this? Information provided at an Ivy summer recruiting camp a few years ago with coaches from four Ivies in attendance. (Baseball travel squads are 24 for road trips with more than one doubleheader, 20 for other trips, btw).

Yale very well could have had 8 slots, and Penn 11. If so, these above-average numbers would have been made possible by drawing from the average numbers for other sports, as agreed upon with the AD.

For youngsters going through the Ivy recruiting process:

It is a legitimate question to ask a coach how many slots s/he expects to be available for your class, if this may be relevant to your decision about which possible opportunities to pursue.

[Ohiodad51]

(7) is intended to represent the number of slots allocated based on the rule that the total slots available is equal to 1.4 times the travel squad size. I thought that was clear from the initial post, but if not that was the intent.

But the intent of setting out the numbers in the original post was not to show how many likely letter athletes there were in each sport in the freshman class at each school. It was to highlight the maximum allowable under the rules…

The oft-cited rule of 1.4 x travel squads = 230, applies to the cap on the total number of slots. It does affect the cap on slots per team, which is negotiated each year among coaches, the AD, and the Admissions Office.

Not sure I get the point you are trying to make.

But again, I think that everyone understands that Cornell, for example, can dedicate more spots to wrestling, or Columbia to baseball. The point, though, is that those extra slots come from somewhere, and not every sport is going to get near the allotment the rule would suggest. As I said two posts up:

So in my opinion, it is highly unlikely that any more than a handful of coaches at any given school are given their entire allowable allotment of likely letter slots in any given year.

Since the point seems to be getting buried, and to illustrate with the rest of the quote you truncated above,

and the fact that the rosters include more freshman than we can reasonably anticipate there are slots for, even in the spring sports. I am assuming that the fact that these kids are rostered, especially in the spring sports, indicates that there was some recruiting going on prior to arrival on campus.

Some of these kids, in some of these sports, are showing up as rostered athletes as first semester freshmen. How are they getting there? It may be that Penn had the ability to support 11 freshmen baseball players last year. Without knowing how many slots were available to Penn (I don’t think Penn fields teams in all sports), how many of those available admissions chooses to utilize, and how they are divided, we can never know the answer to that question. But I do think that it is reasonable to say that of the 10 sports set out above, no where near all will given the allotment suggested by the rule. Where are these kids coming from then?

My supposition is that they are akin to recruited walk ons. Kids who were recruited by the particular coach, and who the coach knows is coming. They may have been told that although the coach wouldn’t or couldn’t support them for a likely letter, he would still append a note to the application or write a letter or whatever. I think this is where the persistent idea of soft support comes from.

And I think this is a particularly important distinction to remember when taken in context of the idea that recruits can be supported recruits but not in line for a likely letter for policy (as opposed to the vagaries of timing, etc) reasons. I think parents who are trying to help their kids through this process should be very, very careful regarding that distinction, if they in fact find themselves in a situation where support is being offered without a likely letter.

[Swimkidsdad]

The following is from the 2003 article in the Harvard Crimson:

At its biannual meeting, the Council of Ivy Group Presidents limited the number of recruited athletes who may matriculate to 1.4 times the number needed to fill the travel squads for the 33 “Ivy Championship” sports.

.

Football remains the only Ivy Championship sport to be regulated separately because the League has recently—and successfully—modified its regulation of football, Orleans said.
But football in the Ivy League also has “peculiar competitive considerations,” he said.
“We’ve worked very hard to get an admissions structure in which everyone is competitive,” he said. “We’ve reduced the numbers in football twice in the past ten years, and I think [this time] there was some unwillingness, given all the other changes we’re making, to risk upsetting both the academic success and the competitive balance.”

In this passage Jeff Orleans, executive director of the Ivy League, discusses the separate regulation of football and the number of football recruits.

[Ohiodad51]

I don’t believe that Ivy League football has a championship so they would not be included in the 33 teams.

1. There is a recognized Ivy League Champion in football every year. At times, it is kinda a big deal. I am unaware of a definition which requires there be a tournament before a sport qualifies as an “Ivy championship” sport. If that were the rule, then basketball wouldn’t qualify either.

2. Read the rest of what I wrote about the actual numbers from the Ivy Manual and how they match up with what has been reported by Yale.

eff Orleans, executive director of the Ivy League, discusses the separate regulation of football and the number of football recruits.

1. No, he doesn’t. He discusses why the banding system was going to remain in place even as the league as a whole shifted to monitoring all athletic AI’s.

2. See 2, above.

[bluewater2015]

I do think the lack of athletic scholarship money in the Ivies (and high academic D3 schools especially NESCAC and UAA) makes it harder for recruits and parents to figure out where they stand. Although I absolutely agree with the Ivy policy of no athletic scholarships and think the LL system is a good way to bring more clarity to a process that is inherently more ambiguous than at scholarship schools.

At the scholarship schools, one doesn’t have to parse a coach’s exact words to see that a team offering an athletic scholarship really wants the kid, and if there’s no money offered the kid is further down their list.

But, on the other hand, the Ivies want people with the skills and motivation to solve difficult problems in the world. So maybe it’s not unreasonable that their recruiting processes require some extra thought.

[Zinhead]

Interesting thread. A couple of comments:

1 - Perusing the web pages of various Ivy League minor sports, one finds a very high percentage of athletes of Ivy League parents, particularly athletes. For example, you might see female athlete at Brown whose father played football at Yale and mother ran track at Dartmouth. These are not so much legacies of the school, but athletic Ivy legacies. On some minor teams, more than 50 percent of the team had one or both parents having Ivy connections. Since most of the coaches in the Ivy League seem to have some sort of Ivy connection themselves, I wonder if there is a bias to favoring Ivy legacies, particularly athletic legacies, in recruiting.

2 - There are a dearth of easily identifiable URM’s on the smaller sports rosters. Since the Ivy’s are actively looking for URM’s for their student bodies, it would seem that being a URM and being able to play a sport would be highly desirable from the schools point of view as it would effectively fill two admission slots with one candidate. However, in practice, that does not seem to be the case. Also on that point, there were almost no identifiable ORM’s listed as athletes.

[fenwaypark]

My supposition is that they are akin to recruited walk ons. Kids who were recruited by the particular coach, and who the coach knows is coming. They may have been told that although the coach wouldn’t or couldn’t support them for a likely letter, he would still append a note to the application or write a letter or whatever. I think this is where the persistent idea of soft support comes from.

And I think this is a particularly important distinction to remember when taken in context of the idea that recruits can be supported recruits but not in line for a likely letter for policy (as opposed to the vagaries of timing, etc) reasons. I think parents who are trying to help their kids through this process should be very, very careful regarding that distinction, if they in fact find themselves in a situation where support is being offered without a likely letter.

Classicalmama agrees with this (I think…she can speak for herself)

I agree with “binary”, “it is or it ain’t”, “a recruited athlete on the list is just as solid whether or not they get the letter in the mail”, and “you can expect no advantage in the admissions process due to your athletics–other than that of a nice EC”

I feel for the 16-17 yr olds who are reading this and trying to draw a conclusion

[fenwaypark]

Since most of the coaches in the Ivy League seem to have some sort of Ivy connection themselves, I wonder if there is a bias to favoring Ivy legacies, particularly athletic legacies, in recruiting.

Not sure that most Ivy coaches had an Ivy connection before they became Ivy coaches, but that is beside the point.

I can say from multiple close-up experiences that there is no bias favoring athletic legacies in recruiting, unless perhaps two candidates competing for the last slot rate out exactly equal.

As for admission of non-athletes, there are lots of threads about the legacy advantage. At all Ivies legacy appears to be a tipping factor in favor of the legacy applicant

[Ohiodad51]

@zinhead, I would bet that some of the reasons you see the spread you note under both points 1 and 2 is because of money. A lot of sports are very expensive propositions, and simply not available to a number of kids.

I feel for the 16-17 yr olds who are reading this and trying to draw a conclusion

So do I, that is the entire purpose of this thread.

Frankly, I think most of us find the process pretty straightforward once you understand the basic rules. It is only in reference to your position about support being routinely granted without a likely letter, or the posters who insist on some definable “soft” support, that it becomes complicated. And again, that is why I set this thread up so we can put all the thoughts in one place and avoid confusing people on other threads.

[fenwaypark]

Frankly, I think most of us find the process pretty straightforward once you understand the basic rules. It is only in reference to your position about support being routinely granted without a likely letter…

First, don’t recall saying that support is “routinely” granted without a LL, but if I did, I expect you will correct me.

Second, the following–which I agree with, and apparently you don’t-- is not my original opinion. Maybe the author doesn’t understand the basic rules either:

So we know that each college in the Ivy League is granted a set number of spots for recruited athletes. At a school that fields that full number of Ivy Championship sports this may be around 230 spots per year over a rolling 4 year period. These 230 individuals are used in the Academic Index calculation. Their names are on a list that is submitted by the coach to admissions and their entire application, test scores, essays and recommendations are evaluated by admissions. Before they get on this list, their academics have been pre-screened. The vast majority of recruited athletes that make it to the list are admitted.

The majority of those (I don’t have data on this, just many anecdotes) will receive a Likely Letter from admissions. But there are some sports at some schools that apparently don’t automatically send the Likely Letter to all of their supported recruits. Does that mean the support is any less solid?

My opinion is that a recruited athlete on the list is just as solid whether or not they get the letter in the mail. They are one of the 230 or so recruits that has been identified by admissions. I spoke to one athlete that was recruited and put on the coach’s list. The kid asked about the Likely Letter and the coach basically told him it was an unnecessary formality. The student reiterated that he would feel a lot better about the process if he got the letter and the coach initiated the request. He eventually received his letter.

http://www.tier1athletics.org/blug/

[Ohiodad51]

Physician, heal thyself

And what part of anything that I have written do you feel is inconsistent with what @varska wrote above?

[fenwaypark]

Physician, heal thyself

??? (I know what it means, don’t see how it applies)

In answer to your last question, see post #28

EDIT: If we all agree with the excerpt quoted in post #31 above, then I suggest we just leave it at that. If someone does not agree with that excerpt, then I can understand the need for new threads and theories on the issues

[fenwaypark]

Youngsters who may be reading this: I think the quoted excerpt in post #31 (which was posted previously in this forum a long time ago) provides the most accurate and concise assessment of:

1. Whether there is “soft” or any other intermediate form of support,
2. Whether support without a likely letter is as solid as support with a likely letter, and
3. Whether all schools in all sports provide likely letters to all recruits

[skieurope]

MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Let’s dispense with the snark, shall we?

[Ohiodad51]

I didn’t write post #28, you did. I believe I have been consistent in saying that while there may be circumstances where a likely letter is not issued by admissions, I would think those circumstances would be rare, and I would make sure to seek clarification as to why from the recruiting coach. I think I have supported this position with specific experience and reference to the rules that exist. I won’t speak for @varska, but I do not see a meaningful distinction between that position and what is quoted above, or anything else I have seen on the Tier One site on this topic.

In case it is unclear, the idea behind this thread was to avoid some of the miscommunication which occurred on the “Navigating Football Recruiting in the Ivys” thread, as an example. My opinion is that there is value in collecting the disparate opinions on this topic in one place. Your opinion apparently differs.

I continue to believe that there is an issue that is susceptible to confusion when we discuss a coach’s support but no issuance of a likely letter, particularly because of this persistent idea of soft support.

I believe that it would be easy to read some of these threads, without the context of understanding the Ivy rules or how things operate in the normal course, and not understand that there is a substantial distinction between “I am supporting you, but admissions is not going to issue a likely letter (for whatever reason)” and “I really like you, but your academics are so strong I do not think it necessary to submit your name for a likely letter, but I will write a note to admissions.”

If you think that this is a clear distinction to an 18 year old who is coming to this process cold, then this type of thread probably has little value. But I think that the majority of people who read this forum are parents who come here because they find the recruiting process difficult to understand in the main, and I do not think that it is a stretch too assume that someone could get misled.

[fenwaypark]

I didn’t write post #28, you did

Correct. Post #28, which I wrote, contains quotes from you and varska. Let the readers judge the extent to which they are consistent, or not.

I continue to believe that there is an issue that is susceptible to confusion when we discuss a coach’s support but no issuance of a likely letter, particularly because of this persistent idea of soft support.

So let’s try to resolve it.

The quoted material below, all by the same author, not me…which has been cited multiple times on this forum, most recently in post #31 above… reflects my opinion, and is what I recommend that recruits take to heart. Anyone who has an issue with this or is confused about it, is invited to express those issues or why this is confusing. This is not a challenge, it is a sincere invitation. Really.

The majority of those (I don’t have data on this, just many anecdotes) will receive a Likely Letter from admissions. But there are some sports at some schools that apparently don’t automatically send the Likely Letter to all of their supported recruits. Does that mean the support is any less solid?

My opinion is that a recruited athlete on the list is just as solid whether or not they get the letter in the mail. They are one of the 230 or so recruits that has been identified by admissions…

Also, the idea that a coach can rank how much support he wants to give each recruit is nothing I’ve seen in person, in interviews with coaches or current/former Ivy athletes. Support is a binary thing - you either is or you ain’t.

A second tier of “soft-support”, not included as part of the formal number of supported athletes would really undermine the whole process.

[Ohiodad51]

Is the confusion that you think I am trying to draw a distinction between types of support offered by a coach? Meaning one level of support results in a likely letter and one does not? If that is the case, then perhaps my writing is not as clear as I assume.

I agree that there is one level of support offered in the Ivy League. Whether that support results in the issuance of a likely letter is up to admissions. While my experience tells me that likely letters are the routine result of that support, I acknowledge that there are situations where issuance of a letter may be impractical. It appears that you and others believe that there are also policy reasons why letters are not issued to certain recruits or in certain sports. But I do not think I have seen anyone argue that the level of support is some how categorically different based on whether a letter is issued.

However, the issuance of a likely letter certainly provides a greater degree of certitude to a recruit. This is for two reasons. One, the issuance of a letter tells the recruit that his application has been reviewed and approved. Two, the issuance of the letter is a concrete example of a coach’s support.

This second poiint is really where I am focused here. We have several posters who consistently believe that there is some intermidiary support in the Ivy League - less than support for a letter, but more than just a normal application in the general admissions pool. I am trying to highlight the distinction between those two scenarios (coach’s support but no issued letter and this alleged “soft” support) so that parents who come here are less likely to be misled by a fast talking coach who knows this field far better than the rest of us.

[fenwaypark]

Recruits and their parents:

Anecdotes are cheap. They do not prove anything. But maybe they can add some context. So here is an anecdote from a situation I was very closely involved in.

Kid was being recruited by a couple of Ivies (not for football). One opportunity lasted until late August of the application year. One day got a text from the coach along the lines of “Sorry, we have others ahead of you for our remaining slots.” No encouragement to apply early in the absence of support. No talk of notes in the file. Nothing like that. Done. Communication ceased.

OK, you might think, maybe the kid stunk and therefore the coach really didn’t give a hoot. Well, here’s the rest of the story…

Kid applies to the Ivy anyway, regular decision. Gets in on non-athletic merits (except as they may have accounted for a nice EC). Decides to matriculate there. Summer before school starts, contacts the coach about the possibility of trying out as a walk-on. After some back and forth, coach said he would hold walk-on tryouts.

About ten kids show up for the walk-on tryouts. One made the team–the kid we are talking about. As a freshman, even got some playing time against a couple of Ivy opponents–not much but some. There are slot recipients, and even LL recruits I would venture to say–can’t verify this last detail–who get zero playing time as freshmen even against non-league opponents and in blowouts. So the kid obviously did not stink.

Bottom line: here was one kid, who did not get a slot, but was well-known to the coaches and good enough to eventually make the team–and even play a little as a freshman–who got zero so-called “soft” support. This kid would have been the poster child for soft support, but didn’t get any. Why? Because in my opinion, and as expressed in material cited above, it is binary–either you is or you ain’t.

Just one data point. Proves nothing. Maybe it can add some context.