Evidence?
1 Like
I think it depends on how you are looking at it. I don’t think MOST coaches will give up a slot for a sub par athlete.
That doesn’t mean that a competitive legacy athlete doesn’t have a leg up. Coaches don’t want to waste their time on someone who will end up elsewhere. All things being equal (and that is usually the case) why not seal the deal with the athlete that is ready to do so?
The conversation has me curious though. Which side of the coin is yours? The legacy or the non-legacy?
1 Like
Preference doesn’t mean “subpar”. It could simply mean giving an edge among very similar recruits to the one with a legacy (sibling or parent) connection. No different than also giving preference to an athlete with better grades or ability to pay - one less thing to worry about.
To answer your question, I have an older child who is being recruited by competitive schools for the sport. Both parental legacy schools became much more interested, as evidenced by frequency and intensity of communication, once they found out there was a connection to the school. One of the schools is, as some like to put it, highly rejective. It is a top 3 choice for our child, but not #1 (no connection to that school unfort).
I also have a younger child who is very likely to be recruited for a different sport by top programs, among which is the highly rejective (top 3 for older sib) parental legacy school mentioned above.
This is why sibling legacy is important to understand for us, because if there is a sibling preference then that could be another factor to consider for our oldest in making a decision.
I want to be clear that IMO the sibling or even parent preference I refer to is by the coach. I don’t think admission cares about it that much, especially if the coach uses a ‘slot’ on this athlete.
The student could apply under the regular ‘legacy’ rules (some schools require ED) but I don’t think the admissions office ‘stacks’ hooks. The student can get in under a legacy hook (which I don’t think siblings always get) or an athletic hook, but having both won’t help (IMO)
The sibling/parent legacy may help with the introduction to the coach, leading to the athletic hook.
This one I am not so sure about. We’ve had both an Ivy and a top D3 coach imply that admissions loves when athletes fill other buckets too. I don’t think it’s an athlete exclusive thing though. I think they do like to catch two birds in one hand when they can.
1 Like
IMO not fair to the older child of it’s not where they want to attend themselves.
Like I said, why wouldn’t the coach favor the legacy kid if he can get what he needs out of the athlete? Call it yield management 
That kid is going to get an early look over and a head start. The coach is not going to simply move on to another athlete if he doesn’t need to.
But is it something you can count on? No way! You can’t know what hole a coach (and who knows who that will be in 4 years) will need to fill. Yes, a legacy athlete that fills the teams need probably has an advantage, but you can’t predict what that need will be.
Don’t over think this. Let each of them follow their recruiting path. If the two overlap, great, but if they don’t it’s ok too.
4 Likes
I should clarify
My older child’s (OC) #1 choice is a non-legacy school (#3 choice is a parental legacy). I think OC has a very strong chance to be recruited to #1 choice and is almost a lock for #3.
#1 school probably will not recruit my younger child (YC) - too competitive. But #3 (legacy) probably would. No idea about preference of schools for YC - too early to tell (middle school).
Since nothing is a sure thing, we are just trying to maximize the chances of recruitment to schools that are top choices with strong interest on both sides. If there is a sibling legacy benefit, it would be “wasted” if OC goes to #1 (which prob won’t recruit YC), but if OC picks #3 then it would probably help.
I think legacy is legacy, and your younger child is already a legacy at school #3. I don’t think being a double legacy adds materially to the younger child’s application.
2 Likes
OP, I appreciate that you are trying to avoid that “if only we’d thought about that” moment, but I would not subject the older child to this because there are so many other variables at play here.
Coaches, first and foremost, want the best athletic recruits they can find in that year. Yes, a top soccer player may introduce her amazing sister to her coach, and having that foot in the door may get her the serious look another player may not get with just film and an email.
But you have 2 different sports, so that boost won’t be there.
And years between athletes, when anything can happen, not just on the athletic front, but in terms of interests, idea of fit, etc.
Let your older child make her decision without considering this possible feather on the scale. They both sound like amazing kids who can thrive without this. And yes, when the younger applies, even to another school, just saying "my sister played A at X " indicates that she knows what’s involved of a student-athlete and has had some good guidance on making a good choice for her.
7 Likes
The recruiting questionnaire also asks about legacy as a way for the coach to ascertain how serious the athlete is about their school. A highly recruited athlete might be more likely to choose a school that his/her parents or sibling attended.
I disagree that at the highest level the athletes are very similar. They play different positions/swim different what ever it’a called/are in different weight classes. You are trying to figure out the formula too minutely and there is no formula.
1 Like
Coaches are paid to win games and fired if they don’t. They recruit the best players they can get admitted, period.
The only time I have ever heard of a sibling having an impact is when a YOUNGER sibling is an elite athlete and the school hopes getting the older sibling helps recruit the younger one. And this is something I have only heard about happening twice.
2 Likes