Recruiting Give and Take: Part 2

Few issues for the college-bound student-athlete and his or her parents generate as much interest and angst as the amount of the scholarship offered. In this installment of the series, Alan Versaw leads off with a high school coach’s perspective and Jay Johnson responds from the point of view of the college recruiting coordinator.

Okay, Jay, let’s start with an easier topic. I think you and I will find a great deal of common ground on this issue: What about the question of how much scholarship money high school athletes (and their parents!) expect to receive coming into college?

The starting point of any discussion here has to be the number of available scholarships: 18.0 per school for women and 12.6 per school for men in Division 1, and then 12.6 per school for both men and women in Division II. I don’t know if NAIA has any similar limitations on numbers.

It shouldn’t take a very perceptive individual to understand that this mandates some serious spreading of the frosting. We all hear about the occasional full-ride student-athlete, but when you divide the available scholarships by five—according to the number of years most student-athletes take to use up their NCAA eligibility, you realize schools have maybe four full scholarships (or equivalent) to award for women and a little over two for men with each incoming class. And that assumes that the school in question is fully funded! Many schools, especially many Division II schools, are not fully funded, meaning they have fewer—often far fewer—than the maximum number of scholarships available to offer.

On this question, I land squarely in the corner of the college track coach, except for one troubling little factor: many of these coaches don’t do a very good job, if they do any job at all, of explaining this at the beginning of the recruiting process. I don’t know if it’s assumed that the high school coach will explain it to the athlete, if the athlete will figure it out on his/her own, or just what, but way too many promising high school athletes find out way too late in the process that they will be offered but a fragment of the 20 – 50% they were expecting. That leads to anger and disillusionment, much of it entirely avoidable.

I try to do a good job of explaining to my athletes not to expect much. Honestly, I have to tell most of our guys not to expect anything, and to be delighted if they are offered anything beyond an invitation to walk on. Of course, I’ve never coached anyone who could chase down German Fernandez.
But, frankly, a very large number of high school coaches don’t know or haven’t really thought over the implications of the numbers I just talked about. Equally as many high school coaches prefer not to be involved in the process and leave parents and athletes more or less on their own. And, ultimately, it isn’t the job of the high school coach to break down the arithmetic of the available scholarships for the college coach. I can’t possibly know the particulars every college program’s situation and, even if I could, it isn’t my story to tell.

This is a great place for us to start the discussion, yet before I talk specifics let’s take a step back and consider the following: how often does a auto mechanic, mortgage broker, or anesthesiologist simply and clearly explain what they’re going to do for a client or patient? Some do, but the vast majority struggle to simply and clearly communicate the aspects of their service or craft because to them, the issues are intuitively obvious – they do this 10 times a day and it’s second nature. Now, I’m not saying that college coaches should assume that parents and students know how many scholarships are available, yet the college coach often does assume that the high school coach knows how many scholarships are available. Should the college coach make this assumption? No. But I want you, the reader, to remember that the communication in this process is, like other experiences you’ve had with other professionals, muddled by the fact that one person “does this every day” and for you – the parent, athlete or HS coach – this process is one in which you will not be at fault for asking a lot of questions.

Okay, here’s the deal – you probably don’t know a male distance runner who has received a full ride scholarship to an NCAA DI school that annually makes the NCAA championships. Why? Well, at the Stanfords, the Oregons and Arkansas’s of the world, a boy who runs 1:54, 4:06 and 8:55 for 800m, 1,600m and 3,200m will definitely be recruited, but he won’t get a “full grant-in-aid,” i.e. the “full ride” that everyone talks about. My guess would be that he’d get roughly 50% athletic money at those three schools, so for the remainder of this comparison we’ll say all three schools are offering this young man 50% (Note: This is just my best guess – DO NOT call up these programs when an athlete runs 1:53.9, 4:05.9 and 8:54.9 and ask for “the 50% scholarship Jay talked about.”).

Now let’s assume he has 34 on the ACT. Great – he’ll likely get some academic money at Arkansas and maybe some at Oregon, but Stanford? Not a chance; it’s Stanford and when you walk into a class of 30 kids on that campus and you have 34 on your ACT you’ll be in the bottom fiftieth percentile of ACT scores.

I don’t want to go into too much detail here, but I can safely say that the most frustrating thing during my years recruiting at CU was not being able to offer any academic money to kids who had 35 on the ACT or 1560 on the old SAT. I hated watching other hard-working coaches (Louis Quintana at Arizona State is the first that comes to mind) give that 35/1560 kid at least 50% academic money and sometimes up to 70%. That allows that same coach to offer only 30%-50% athletic money – the same amount that we were comfortable offering – for the kid to tell the local paper that he is going to school on a “full ride.” Did that coach want the athlete more than we did? No. But parents, athletes, and HS coaches often equate the amount of money being offered with “how much they want Johnny,” when the reality is that the schools in question, at least when it comes to athletic money, want him equally because they’re each offering 50% grant-in-aid.

We could go on and on – and we will in the coming weeks – about what you have to run to expect X amount of athletic money, but let me explain what coaches mean when they say 50% grant-in-aid. Each institution comes up with a dollar figure, a figure that includes tuition, fees, room and board, books and usually a small allowance for personal expenses (clothes, travel, etc.). Most schools will call this the “cost of attendance” and state schools will have a different number for their in-state students vs. their out-of-state students: here are CU-Boulder’s current numbers. So if you attend Lincoln HS in Denver and are offered a 50% scholarship then it’s worth about $11,630 (half of the $23,261 – the on campus housing number since you’ll live on campus as a freshman at CU).

There are numerous questions you should have at this point and I’ll let you ask them in the comments section, but let me make something clear – I always hated the idea that Johnny is “worth $11,630” because he can run 1:54/4:06/8:55. Putting a number, a metric, on a person just felt wrong to me, yet I was fairly adept at “getting kids” for 20% when the other DI offers ranged from 50% to 100%. As I write this I can see the faces of two young men who turned down “fulls” at other places to come to CU for 20% – both won Big 12 titles in their respective fortés, both competed at the NCAA outdoor championships, and both had their scholarships increased throughout their careers as they ran faster. Not every school “bumps” you up when you run faster, but I can proudly say that Mark Wetmore bumped me from a walk-on to a scholarship athlete in 1995. He does it every year with athletes who deserve it. So even though the system does place a metric on a HS athlete, it’s not inherently amoral or wrong, especially when the end of the story is a great education, great teammates, and big PRs.

Okay, that’s enough for you to digest at one sitting. We’ve not talked about this process for women (it’s totally different), we’ve not talked about this process at DII, DIII, NAIA, or JUCO (they’re all different). We’ve not talked about this process at the Ivy’s or military academies (again, a different process,) and we’ve not talked about why an athlete might turn down multiple scholarships to be a walk-on athlete (you’re on the team, but you’re not receiving an athletic scholarship). Alan and I have a dialogue planned, yet please ask you questions in the comments section below so that we make this project a useful resource for athletes, parents and coaches.

This entry was posted in Recruiting. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Mark R.
    Hey Jay,

    Thanks for the video answer. Based on your first response, all things being equal, in-state kids are more economical for college programs. I know Dan Hawkins feels it's very important to get the "best" players each year from the state for his football team, and it would seem like a good policy for in-state programs to follow as a general rule, especially state-funded schools. I know many of my athletes receive congratulatory form letters each year based on their participation at the state meet (cross country and/or track), and those letters have never come from a Colorado school. They've come from Iowa, Minnesota, Alabama, Iowa State, Colby, Fort Hayes, Chadron, Georgia, Iona, Cornell, and a host of other schools, who obviously take the time to look at our state results, look up the school address, and drop a quick note in the mail with the athlete's name to the coach's attention. And I can tell you those little form letters make a big difference to a lot of kids. I think it's easy for us, as adults, to maybe forget what that period of life was like, and make light of something as simple as a form letter. But over and over again, I've watched kids make a decision because someone showed an early interest. My son felt a real sense of obligation to Minnesota because they were the first school to send a real letter and follow up with monthly e-mails. Even though that option was never very feasible for our family, their early, consistent interest made a big impression. I also know from talking to other coaches in the state, that they feel the same sense of neglect from the state schools. I don't know if high school coaches all over the United States feel the same way as some of us here in Colorado, but we're not sure why they don't send out the "we know you exist" letters the athletes receive from some institutions, and we don't know why they (or their assistants) don't show up at our clinics (with some minor exceptions) as presenters at every opportunity so that they can build networks with high school coaches and share their philosophy of coaching. Maybe we, as high school coaches, put college coaches on too high a pedestal and expect too much of them. I know I've had parents with unrealistic expectations about their child's academic/athletic abilities, and we don't want to make the same mistake with the college coach. So, college coaches, tell me what's unreasonable or unworkable about this game plan that many of us high school coaches have discussed. (In our ignorance) we think, if we were college coaches, that we would let all the top athletes know that we were aware of their achievements with letters. We'd host a dinner/work night, we'd sit down with state high school results, and we'd use supporters of our programs (parents, athletes, ex-athletes, interested community members) to help with letter-stuffing. We'd contact the state coaches' association and find out when they had clinics so we could attempt to work our schedule around them, and we'd let them know that we'd be happy to present so we could network with high school coaches and share our coaching philosophy. We'd also contact the coaching associations in bordering states for the same purpose. We'd develop relationships with a core group of reliable adults who could give us the "skinny" on the kids in the state so we could focus on kids who were a good fit for our program. We're used to being pied-pipers in our coaching situations as we compete for athletes with football, basketball, soccer, lacrosse, etc. because track/cross country isn't viewed with the same glamour as many of the sports in high school. So we figure out ways to outwork other coaches who might take kids for granted, and we do camps, dinners, breakfasts, camping trips, midnight runs, road trips, ultimate frisbee fests, etc. and we recruit kids based on relationship and passion. We know kids respond to that passion and we hope they'll find programs where it's not just about a great training philosophy but about the "family" and the chemistry they've experienced at the high school level. With the obvious jump in volume and intensity of training, a passionate, encouraging coach is going to be that much more crucial in helping athletes make the transition from high school to college.

    From all I read in the paper and comments I've heard from those who've met him, I think Dan Hawkins is a pretty good example of the kind of coach we'd like to see. He's enthusiastic, accessible, participates in many community functions all over the state, and is a supporter of the whole university because he knows where his bread is being buttered. He is Avis to the rest of the Big 12's Hertz because he has less to work with from a facilities standpoint. He sells relationship, integrity, enthusiasm, organization, and a strong desire to succeed. I know(hope) those qualities are present in many of our college track/cross country coaches, but I don't think they are as aggressive as they could be in looking for venues to share that vision. Given some of the responses I've read from Jay, it seems pretty clear that the head coach needs to have an enthusiastic assistant. But, again, looking at the football model, it seems like Hawkins is being paid for two different skill sets: his football knowledge and his ability to recruit. (I know the difference in pay is quite substantial between a head football coach and a cross country/track coach, so is this about "getting what you pay for"?) Thanks for any light you can shed on the way programs strategize their recruiting.
  • Don
    Good discussion already. There are many other things I am sure you will get around to ...

    Like, why would you turn down a 50% to walk on somewhere else?

    The best way to pick a school if you are going for an education is to find one that is really good at training people to do what you want to do in life. Very very few collage athletes will run as a career (the number has increased from my day I think, but still it isn't many and it's a very tough life), so you must always focus on the after.

    In addition, a 50% at a private school is obviously not worth what a 50% might be at a public school, because the most relevant number is what is left over for you to pay ... and can you pay it ... and at what cost to your family finances.

    But if athletics is an important part of what you want to do in college, you want to find a program that fits you and fits what you can do/become. There are a lot of colleges with below average programs ... which may be frustrating to you if you join one, or it may allow you to achieve individual goals that you could not achieve elsewhere. It is clearly variable. There are better and worse coaches. There are coaches that work on all athletes on the team and coaches that coach only the very select athletes on the team. So many variables.

    I did the full gamut from academic scholarship to no scholarship, to scholarship that exceeded costs, to full ride scholarship in my five year four school career. It was interesting to me how doing it because I wanted to (no scholarship) was in many respects much more enjoyable than doing it because I had to (full scholarship). I was successful at both D1 schools I attended, but how I felt about it was much different. Sometimes less can be more from this perspective.
  • Coach Sal
    Hey Jay,

    As a high school coach in Michigan, I have found my role to be one of support and a resource for parents and athletes when needed. When an athlete has demonstrated the ability and the desire to compete at the collegiate level, I typically have a talk with them. Here I prompt them to consider many aspects of choosing a college for them, not intending to influence their decision, but guide their selection. I have check list of about 30 criteria. I agree whole heartedly that it is important for recruits and parents to ask questions. Remember, as the recruit or athlete, you are going through this for the first and likely only time, the College coach does this all the time. They are familiar with the questions and will be able to give you the answers to guide your decision.

    As I see it, the two biggest obstacles in college recruiting is emphasis some recruits place on the scholarship; as if it is an award such as "All-State". When selecting a school your primary concern should be your education, then the fit for your as an athlete, and of course the financial viability. The scholarship is not about status, it is about giving an athlete an opportunity to further their education and their athletic career.

    I enjoy your discussion, keep up the great work

    Brian Salyers
    Milford Cross Country
    Milford Track & Field
  • The scholarship as a status issue
  • MicahPorter
    Jay,

    As usual, you bring clarity to confusion. I never knew about those early conversations you had with Father McGuire, not that I needed to. Additionally, I can only imagine how time consuming the recruitment process is and how a head coach can not put the time in there when his/her current athletes need them! I can barely get to my parent emails and phone calls as a feeble high school coach. I look forward to future installments as you and Alan hash this great conversation through.

    My son and I had our waffles this mornin' and feel pretty humbled by the experience.

    Peace.
  • MicahPorter
    Coach Jay,

    In response to your ego question. I guess my easy answer is "all of the above." However, I can only play from my experiences. I am going to use two athletes I have had that I have been blessed to coach, John McGuire and Kevin Williams. Both my and the athlete's took a blow when it came to the University of Colorado. Jay, please don't take this comment personally :). It almost seemed to be the Bowerman approach ... they needed to show that they wanted to run a CU as opposed to CU wanting them to run there. Is that an accurate or fair perspective? The ego of the runners and parents are effected here. As a high school coach I thought I had made them marketable to many top programs. When it came to John, Stanford really wanted him, under the guidance a coach that would not be there come fall. In the case of Kevin, Martin Smith made Kevin feel that he was wanted. Both cases obviously resulted in the athletes going to those respective programs. I could have cared less, to some degree, as I knew the choice needed to be theirs and the programs that they had to choose from were good. I stayed out of the way, as I didn't want to negatively influence a decision. Is it professional for a high school coach to push an athlete in the direction of any particular school? This led me to my second question about training philosophies. If an athlete is leaning toward a school that isn't the right fit, in terms of training, what role should a high school coach have in persuading a decision? How flexible are college coaches when it comes to the athletes who choose their school? Do egos effect what is best for young runners? I am not sure I have cleared anything up here ... maybe just added some fog.
  • These are all valid points. Specific to the two cases above, I can only speak to the recruitment of John as I was not involved in distance recruiting last year.

    John's father, early on, made it clear that CU was not MIT or Stanford and that those two, along with the Ivy League schools, were going to be schoosl from which John would choose. During this information gathering, I was on the phone with father McGuire, not Mark; if the issue is that the head coach isn't taking the time to gather this information then let me be blunt and say that's a waste of the head coach's time - that's why you have young, enthusiastic (poorly paid?) assistants making phone calls 5 nights a week. And I'm being blunt only because you and I will be friends for many more John's and Kevin's and it's important to understand the reality that head coaches, in my humble opinion, shouldn't spend their time making the initial contact. It's time away from their current student athletes and, as Mark loved to say, "you need to contact 20 recruits to get 10 to visit to get 1 to sign." So if the next stud from D'Evelyn wants to go to Oregon and he gets a call from a coach named Powell before he gets a call from a coach named Vin, you shouldn't be offended - nor should the kid.

    That said, there is no doubt that Martin Smith most have done something special in the recruitment of Kevin; my assumption, prior to your comments above, was that Bobby Lockhart did much of the leg work, yet obviously Martin "closed the deal" well.

    And that's a great point to end on - the assistant coach does the majority of the leg work and the head coach "closes." Every head coach has a slightly different style when trying to close, but in most big DI programs that's the template.

    I hope that was helpful Micah. And to those of you not named Micah, please comment or ask another question so we can fully illuminate this/these issues.
  • It is always good to know the background of the WHY. Knowing that the colleges are limited by a solid number can help my athletes know why they might not have received a scholarship. And you point about the college coach assuming the HS coach knows is very true. There is no place that i know of for a HS coach to seek out these answers. The NCAA packets are written for the athletes and frankly they are very complex. The main issues are
    1. who should make the first contact, athlete, parent, hs coach or college coach?
    2. when should that contact be made?
    3. if an athlete in interested in a specific college what is the best way for them to ensure that a college coach will notice them?
    4. I know there are rules about when a college coach can "recruit" but is there a clear listing of those rules for track and field?

    This is stuff that is absolutely learned only through experience. Thanks for helping me through the learning curve...

    --
    coach mac
  • I'll come back to this coach mac - great questions and I just need more time to tease these apart.
  • NAIA contact, Israel Negron
  • NAIARulesGuy
    Coach: You are providing a great resource by explaining how the recruiting process works.

    Since you mentioned the NAIA a couple of times in your post, I wanted to provide you and your readers a link to information regarding the NAIA.

    Specifically, student interested in opportunities at NAIA institutions are encouraged to review the NAIA Guide for the College-Bound Student (http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools/naia/member-services/CollegeBoundStudentAthlete1.pdf).

    We are happy to respond to any questions you may have about the NAIA.

    Israel Negron
    NAIA Director of Legislative Services
blog comments powered by Disqus