HS All Star Selections

[Unregistered]

Isn't that more typical of men's programs then women's?

There is certainly more money in the women's game, but I doubt that more than 1/3 of the programs are fully funded and on average that the rest have no more than 8 or 9 scholarships. That money has to be split between 18-22 players. Even the fully funded programs need to escalate the amounts for the majority of their players. Just do the math. Lets say the program has the money for 10 scholarships. If the school costs $40,000 that means the coach has $400,000 to be split between 20 young women. You can make it easy and give each a 1/2 scholarship ($20,000) in each year. But that will essentially foreclose the chance to attract any top recruits who are expecting (and being offered by some others) more than 50%. It also might be frustrating to your senior all-american who would be getting the same $$ as players seeing little to no field time. So you are now going to have to split that money unequally. If you decide that four players are getting full money, that now leaves $280,000 to be split between 16 players. Give three others 3/4s and you know have 13 players splitting $190,000. You can quickly see how it is pretty easy for an incoming recruit to be looking at no more than a 1/4 - despite being the 3rd or 4th player on the recruiting board and carrying some pretty high performance expectations. No imaging that you don't have $400,000 to work with but $315,000. The pressures are even greater on that coach.

[Unregistered]

There is certainly more money in the women's game, but I doubt that more than 1/3 of the programs are fully funded and on average that the rest have no more than 8 or 9 scholarships. That money has to be split between 18-22 players. Even the fully funded programs need to escalate the amounts for the majority of their players. Just do the math. Lets say the program has the money for 10 scholarships. If the school costs $40,000 that means the coach has $400,000 to be split between 20 young women. You can make it easy and give each a 1/2 scholarship ($20,000) in each year. But that will essentially foreclose the chance to attract any top recruits who are expecting (and being offered by some others) more than 50%. It also might be frustrating to your senior all-american who would be getting the same $$ as players seeing little to no field time. So you are now going to have to split that money unequally. If you decide that four players are getting full money, that now leaves $280,000 to be split between 16 players. Give three others 3/4s and you know have 13 players splitting $190,000. You can quickly see how it is pretty easy for an incoming recruit to be looking at no more than a 1/4 - despite being the 3rd or 4th player on the recruiting board and carrying some pretty high performance expectations. No imaging that you don't have $400,000 to work with but $315,000. The pressures are even greater on that coach.

I feel so bad for the coach.

[Unregistered]

There is certainly more money in the women's game, but I doubt that more than 1/3 of the programs are fully funded and on average that the rest have no more than 8 or 9 scholarships. That money has to be split between 18-22 players. Even the fully funded programs need to escalate the amounts for the majority of their players. Just do the math. Lets say the program has the money for 10 scholarships. If the school costs $40,000 that means the coach has $400,000 to be split between 20 young women. You can make it easy and give each a 1/2 scholarship ($20,000) in each year. But that will essentially foreclose the chance to attract any top recruits who are expecting (and being offered by some others) more than 50%. It also might be frustrating to your senior all-american who would be getting the same $$ as players seeing little to no field time. So you are now going to have to split that money unequally. If you decide that four players are getting full money, that now leaves $280,000 to be split between 16 players. Give three others 3/4s and you know have 13 players splitting $190,000. You can quickly see how it is pretty easy for an incoming recruit to be looking at no more than a 1/4 - despite being the 3rd or 4th player on the recruiting board and carrying some pretty high performance expectations. No imaging that you don't have $400,000 to work with but $315,000. The pressures are even greater on that coach.

Sorry my math was wrong. I was off by $40,000. 16 players would split $240,000 and 13 would split $150,000. Actually better shows the point.

[Unregistered]

I feel so bad for the coach.

feel bad for the parents, they are the ones picking up the tab.

[Unregistered]

There is certainly more money in the women's game, but I doubt that more than 1/3 of the programs are fully funded and on average that the rest have no more than 8 or 9 scholarships. That money has to be split between 18-22 players. Even the fully funded programs need to escalate the amounts for the majority of their players. Just do the math. Lets say the program has the money for 10 scholarships. If the school costs $40,000 that means the coach has $400,000 to be split between 20 young women. You can make it easy and give each a 1/2 scholarship ($20,000) in each year. But that will essentially foreclose the chance to attract any top recruits who are expecting (and being offered by some others) more than 50%. It also might be frustrating to your senior all-american who would be getting the same $$ as players seeing little to no field time. So you are now going to have to split that money unequally. If you decide that four players are getting full money, that now leaves $280,000 to be split between 16 players. Give three others 3/4s and you know have 13 players splitting $190,000. You can quickly see how it is pretty easy for an incoming recruit to be looking at no more than a 1/4 - despite being the 3rd or 4th player on the recruiting board and carrying some pretty high performance expectations. No imaging that you don't have $400,000 to work with but $315,000. The pressures are even greater on that coach.

Once again, terrific information. Thanks for your perspective.

In situations like this, where the $$ a coach has to work with are restrained, aren't there other financial levers a coach can manipulate to ensure that a desired recruit is presented with an attractive offer? My understanding is that this sort of behavior occurs in D3 regularly.

[Unregistered]

There is certainly more money in the women's game, but I doubt that more than 1/3 of the programs are fully funded and on average that the rest have no more than 8 or 9 scholarships. That money has to be split between 18-22 players. Even the fully funded programs need to escalate the amounts for the majority of their players. Just do the math. Lets say the program has the money for 10 scholarships. If the school costs $40,000 that means the coach has $400,000 to be split between 20 young women. You can make it easy and give each a 1/2 scholarship ($20,000) in each year. But that will essentially foreclose the chance to attract any top recruits who are expecting (and being offered by some others) more than 50%. It also might be frustrating to your senior all-american who would be getting the same $$ as players seeing little to no field time. So you are now going to have to split that money unequally. If you decide that four players are getting full money, that now leaves $280,000 to be split between 16 players. Give three others 3/4s and you know have 13 players splitting $190,000. You can quickly see how it is pretty easy for an incoming recruit to be looking at no more than a 1/4 - despite being the 3rd or 4th player on the recruiting board and carrying some pretty high performance expectations. No imaging that you don't have $400,000 to work with but $315,000. The pressures are even greater on that coach.

You assume that all the scholarship athletes are only receiving ATHLETIC MONEY. In reality there are some players who will receive a percentage of ACADEMIC money and some receive a percentage of FINANCIAL AID money. Some will receive a blend (ACADEMIC and FINANCIAL AID or ACADEMIC/ATHLETIC or FINANCIAL AID/ATHLETIC). Others will receive a blend of ATHLETIC, ACADEMIC and FINANCIAL AID).

Thus, I would contend there are more ATHLETIC packages available than your model suggests.

[Unregistered]

You assume that all the scholarship athletes are only receiving ATHLETIC MONEY. In reality there are some players who will receive a percentage of ACADEMIC money and some receive a percentage of FINANCIAL AID money. Some will receive a blend (ACADEMIC and FINANCIAL AID or ACADEMIC/ATHLETIC or FINANCIAL AID/ATHLETIC). Others will receive a blend of ATHLETIC, ACADEMIC and FINANCIAL AID).

Thus, I would contend there are more ATHLETIC packages available than your model suggests.

Why are you shouting?

[Unregistered]

Why are you shouting?

It was a mistake....sorry. Tough crowd!

[Unregistered]

Once again, terrific information. Thanks for your perspective.

In situations like this, where the $$ a coach has to work with are restrained, aren't there other financial levers a coach can manipulate to ensure that a desired recruit is presented with an attractive offer? My understanding is that this sort of behavior occurs in D3 regularly.

I've heard stories of academic grants being provided to recruits to help bolster a school's offer. However, if the student is not academically qualified for such an award, independent of the recruiting status, it is a NCAA violation and I doubt that many schools would take that risk for a women's soccer player. I think it is more of an urban legend than fact. No doubt there are many soccer recruits that are also great students. That makes them more appealing to us for a couple of reasons. First, we are always concerned about a prospects ability to adjust to college life. Part of that is on-field, but most is off-field with a huge component being the academic strains that are placed upon student-athletes. Especially freshmen. So we look closely at your academic performance. It is also helpful because we are a selective school. That means that we need to work with admissions to get many recruits in. Generally, admissions looks at the amount of help required for not just individual prospects but also the entire recruiting class. Having some great students to offset some lesser ones is critical to that analysis. Finally, great students do qualify for academic grants and awards. Although those monies are awarded separate of our involvement they can and do work into a student's decision and can help with the bottom line.

[Unregistered]

I've heard stories of academic grants being provided to recruits to help bolster a school's offer. However, if the student is not academically qualified for such an award, independent of the recruiting status, it is a NCAA violation and I doubt that many schools would take that risk for a women's soccer player. I think it is more of an urban legend than fact. No doubt there are many soccer recruits that are also great students. That makes them more appealing to us for a couple of reasons. First, we are always concerned about a prospects ability to adjust to college life. Part of that is on-field, but most is off-field with a huge component being the academic strains that are placed upon student-athletes. Especially freshmen. So we look closely at your academic performance. It is also helpful because we are a selective school. That means that we need to work with admissions to get many recruits in. Generally, admissions looks at the amount of help required for not just individual prospects but also the entire recruiting class. Having some great students to offset some lesser ones is critical to that analysis. Finally, great students do qualify for academic grants and awards. Although those monies are awarded separate of our involvement they can and do work into a student's decision and can help with the bottom line.

Ok, thanks. Aren't there other awards besides academic awards that can come into play here legally, ethically and in nonviolation of NCAA rules? Alumni provide scholarship pools for all kinds of things such as geographic diversity, special academic interest, and so forth. Can schools use funds from these sources without having to consider ethical grey areas?

[Unregistered]

Ultimately you are right that the bottom line is going to be a mix of all types of aid, including athletic scholarships. However you need to know a couple of things. Athletic aid reduces your need based aid on a dollar for dollar basis. The realities of this formula plays a more important rile with upper classmen, because we have information to work off of in determing whether it makes sense to adjust (or raise) the amount of athletic aid a player will recieve. The reality is that players who are recieving lots of need based aid may not benefit from an increased athletic scholarship. The second thing for recruits is that most verbal commitments are being made well before we can have any determination about other forms of aid. We can promise what will be on the LOI and a likelihood of acceptance but nothing more - especially when it comes to need based aid and/or academic monies.

[Unregistered]

Ok, thanks. Aren't there other awards besides academic awards that can come into play here legally, ethically and in nonviolation of NCAA rules? Alumni provide scholarship pools for all kinds of things such as geographic diversity, special academic interest, and so forth. Can schools use funds from these sources without having to consider ethical grey areas?

We will certainly make our commits aware of independent sources to help pay for their education. Including some of the types of areas you describe. However, they are independent of the athletic department and except for providing some basic information and assistance in applying, we are forbiden from doing anything else. If it looks, acts and feels like a "slush fund" for athletes, then I assure you that it will be viewed that way by the NCAA, and again, very few schools are going to risk that type of negative exposure and press for their women's soccer team. Fortunately many of our student - athletes are able to qualify for many grants and awards (especially our upper-classmen) to help off-set the costs.

[Unregistered]

I doubt anyone would argue that the all star selection process is perfect. However, is it really "greatly flawed"? Looking at the Globe All Scholastics, the players who I am familiar with definitely deserve to be on the list. Sure you can quibble that player a is about as good as player b but is there really a superstar player out there that was overlooked?

The superstars are all accounted for but at least 10% included in the mix are there for the wrong reasons.

[Unregistered]

The superstars are all accounted for but at least 10% included in the mix are there for the wrong reasons.

what sort of wrong reasons?

[Unregistered]

The superstars are all accounted for but at least 10% included in the mix are there for the wrong reasons.

I am sure that we could quibble about plenty of the selections. With the Globe and Herald, perception becomes the reality and these are players that are perceived as being the best by their staffs. Who, by the way, may have seen a total of no more than 10 games between them. I'd be interested in someone like HSHs opinion, but my guess is that she wouldn't say anything negative about the players on the list. Perhaps she could provide her "best players" that were omitted?