[Softball Fan]

Does the admissions department listen to what coaches say about athletes?   I thought admissions was objective and independent from coaches.   I remember after his first year Harbaugh complained relentlessly about all the work he put in to recruiting players who did not get admitted.

I know for Volleyball Denise Corlett from experience told recruits exactly what they needed on the SAT and how many honors classes they needed.  Many parents told me her position was if their kid doesn't hit the mark she won't get admitted.

The applications for recruited athletes are identified and admissions factors that into their decision. But beyond that can they be influenced by coaches to lower entrance metrics for certain recruits?

[Softball Fan]

Does the admissions department listen to what coaches say about athletes?   I thought admissions was objective and independent from coaches.   I remember after his first year Harbaugh complained relentlessly about all the work he put in to recruiting players who did not get admitted.

I know for Volleyball Denise Corlett from experience told recruits exactly what they needed on the SAT and how many honors classes they needed.  Many parents told me her position was if their kid doesn't hit the mark she won't get admitted.

The applications for recruited athletes are identified and admissions factors that into their decision. But beyond that can they be influenced by coaches to lower entrance metrics for certain recruits?

[BobK]

Palo Alto Apps go to the coaches and from the coach with approval from Admissions.

[BobK]

Palo Alto Apps go to the coaches and from the coach with approval from Admissions.

[Mick]

There is no quota on "exceptional" athletes.  If we happened to have a chance at Tiger Woods, Katie Ledecky, John McEnroe all in the same year, even if they were on the lower range of the academic side, we would like admit all of them, provided they weren't below a minimum bar.  If the next year, we were only looking at one exceptional athlete, and she was below the bar, the fact that she was the only athlete of her caliber wouldn't help her.

Athletes are not competing against one another from an admissions perspective (they may be competing against one another for a limited number of scholarships, of course).


BC

That's the opposite of the Ivy League.  It is mandated to the athletic directors that there's a limit to the number of exceptional athletes that they can take (assuming a normal academic distribution).

[Mick]

There is no quota on "exceptional" athletes.  If we happened to have a chance at Tiger Woods, Katie Ledecky, John McEnroe all in the same year, even if they were on the lower range of the academic side, we would like admit all of them, provided they weren't below a minimum bar.  If the next year, we were only looking at one exceptional athlete, and she was below the bar, the fact that she was the only athlete of her caliber wouldn't help her.

Athletes are not competing against one another from an admissions perspective (they may be competing against one another for a limited number of scholarships, of course).


BC

That's the opposite of the Ivy League.  It is mandated to the athletic directors that there's a limit to the number of exceptional athletes that they can take (assuming a normal academic distribution).

[JustAnotherFan]

There is no quota on "exceptional" athletes.  If we happened to have a chance at Tiger Woods, Katie Ledecky, John McEnroe all in the same year, even if they were on the lower range of the academic side, we would like admit all of them, provided they weren't below a minimum bar.  If the next year, we were only looking at one exceptional athlete, and she was below the bar, the fact that she was the only athlete of her caliber wouldn't help her.

Athletes are not competing against one another from an admissions perspective (they may be competing against one another for a limited number of scholarships, of course).

BC

I didn't say there was a quota on exceptional athletes. I said that there is so much pull coaches have on admissions and it is not unlimited. And it begs the question that if multiple sports are being dropped if that means the other sports benefit, or if that leverage just dissipates.

---

There is no quota on "exceptional" athletes.  If we happened to have a chance at Tiger Woods, Katie Ledecky, John McEnroe all in the same year, even if they were on the lower range of the academic side, we would like admit all of them, provided they weren't below a minimum bar.  If the next year, we were only looking at one exceptional athlete, and she was below the bar, the fact that she was the only athlete of her caliber wouldn't help her.

Athletes are not competing against one another from an admissions perspective (they may be competing against one another for a limited number of scholarships, of course).


BC

That's the opposite of the Ivy League.  It is mandated to the athletic directors that there's a limit to the number of exceptional athletes that they can take (assuming a normal academic distribution).

The Ivy League uses an academic index which incentivizes coaches to bring on some really outstanding academic recruits with little to no chance of playing so that they can squeeze in some better athletic recruits. Just in case you were wondering who the kids sitting at the end of the bench are.

[JustAnotherFan]

There is no quota on "exceptional" athletes.  If we happened to have a chance at Tiger Woods, Katie Ledecky, John McEnroe all in the same year, even if they were on the lower range of the academic side, we would like admit all of them, provided they weren't below a minimum bar.  If the next year, we were only looking at one exceptional athlete, and she was below the bar, the fact that she was the only athlete of her caliber wouldn't help her.

Athletes are not competing against one another from an admissions perspective (they may be competing against one another for a limited number of scholarships, of course).

BC

I didn't say there was a quota on exceptional athletes. I said that there is so much pull coaches have on admissions and it is not unlimited. And it begs the question that if multiple sports are being dropped if that means the other sports benefit, or if that leverage just dissipates.

---

There is no quota on "exceptional" athletes.  If we happened to have a chance at Tiger Woods, Katie Ledecky, John McEnroe all in the same year, even if they were on the lower range of the academic side, we would like admit all of them, provided they weren't below a minimum bar.  If the next year, we were only looking at one exceptional athlete, and she was below the bar, the fact that she was the only athlete of her caliber wouldn't help her.

Athletes are not competing against one another from an admissions perspective (they may be competing against one another for a limited number of scholarships, of course).


BC

That's the opposite of the Ivy League.  It is mandated to the athletic directors that there's a limit to the number of exceptional athletes that they can take (assuming a normal academic distribution).

The Ivy League uses an academic index which incentivizes coaches to bring on some really outstanding academic recruits with little to no chance of playing so that they can squeeze in some better athletic recruits. Just in case you were wondering who the kids sitting at the end of the bench are.

[Mick]

That's the opposite of the Ivy League.  It is mandated to the athletic directors that there's a limit to the number of exceptional athletes that they can take (assuming a normal academic distribution).

The Ivy League uses an academic index which incentivizes coaches to bring on some really outstanding academic recruits with little to no chance of playing so that they can squeeze in some better athletic recruits. Just in case you were wondering who the kids sitting at the end of the bench are.

And that's how the Ivies have 18% varsity athletes in their classes. Because most of them are decent athletes but academically gifted.

Here's a pretty good article on how the AI is calculated, written by an organization aimed at helicopter parents from a sport that Stanford used to support. Each of the Ivies need to achieve specific AI averages by sport, across all sports, and across grades. So the football AI needs to have an average AI, and it needs to fit into the overall athletic program, and the athletes from all years are factored into account. Stanford takes a similar, less formal approach.

https://www.fencingparents.org/college-b...of-fencers

[Mick]

That's the opposite of the Ivy League.  It is mandated to the athletic directors that there's a limit to the number of exceptional athletes that they can take (assuming a normal academic distribution).

The Ivy League uses an academic index which incentivizes coaches to bring on some really outstanding academic recruits with little to no chance of playing so that they can squeeze in some better athletic recruits. Just in case you were wondering who the kids sitting at the end of the bench are.

And that's how the Ivies have 18% varsity athletes in their classes. Because most of them are decent athletes but academically gifted.

Here's a pretty good article on how the AI is calculated, written by an organization aimed at helicopter parents from a sport that Stanford used to support. Each of the Ivies need to achieve specific AI averages by sport, across all sports, and across grades. So the football AI needs to have an average AI, and it needs to fit into the overall athletic program, and the athletes from all years are factored into account. Stanford takes a similar, less formal approach.

https://www.fencingparents.org/college-b...of-fencers

[warrenloui]

Per Swimswam, Regan Smith (their #1 recruit of all time, ahead of Ledecky) has decided to defer enrolling for one year to train for the olympics.  Probably the right move for her, but this puts our NCAA winning streak in jeopardy (although it already is due to the likely cancellation of a number of sports seasons); especially since i don't think i've seen anything on the return of Taylor Ruck, who was the #2 recruit in 2018 and redshirted last season to train for the olympics.  

I've been trying to keep track on where our championships might be next year if there are actually seasons.  Women's cross country (NC State likely the top competitor) and Mens gymnastics should have good shots.  

Without Smith or Ruck, we are probably still top 3-5  in women's swimming (including Smith, we had the #1 recruiting class for maybe the second or third time in the last four years) but can't see us ahead of Virginia. Women's tennis has to compete with North Carolina and UCLA.  

Sports that rely more on interconnected parts, like women's basketball and men/women's soccer are harder to predict, although they have lots of talent and great coaches.  Maybe mens/women's water polo?  Mens tennis, swimming and golf had great recruiting years (each having the #1 or #2 recruit and the #1 or #2 recruiting class) but are likely too young/don't have enough depth.  Women's volleyball has a lot of young talent (#1 class will be sophomores) but needs to replace too much.  Any others?  

Would love to see a deeper discussion by those more knowledgeable of what others think about our various teams' chances.  

Thanks.

[warrenloui]

Per Swimswam, Regan Smith (their #1 recruit of all time, ahead of Ledecky) has decided to defer enrolling for one year to train for the olympics.  Probably the right move for her, but this puts our NCAA winning streak in jeopardy (although it already is due to the likely cancellation of a number of sports seasons); especially since i don't think i've seen anything on the return of Taylor Ruck, who was the #2 recruit in 2018 and redshirted last season to train for the olympics.  

I've been trying to keep track on where our championships might be next year if there are actually seasons.  Women's cross country (NC State likely the top competitor) and Mens gymnastics should have good shots.  

Without Smith or Ruck, we are probably still top 3-5  in women's swimming (including Smith, we had the #1 recruiting class for maybe the second or third time in the last four years) but can't see us ahead of Virginia. Women's tennis has to compete with North Carolina and UCLA.  

Sports that rely more on interconnected parts, like women's basketball and men/women's soccer are harder to predict, although they have lots of talent and great coaches.  Maybe mens/women's water polo?  Mens tennis, swimming and golf had great recruiting years (each having the #1 or #2 recruit and the #1 or #2 recruiting class) but are likely too young/don't have enough depth.  Women's volleyball has a lot of young talent (#1 class will be sophomores) but needs to replace too much.  Any others?  

Would love to see a deeper discussion by those more knowledgeable of what others think about our various teams' chances.  

Thanks.

[JustAnotherFan]

Per Swimswam, Regan Smith (their #1 recruit of all time, ahead of Ledecky) has decided to defer enrolling for one year to train for the olympics.  Probably the right move for her, but this puts our NCAA winning streak in jeopardy (although it already is due to the likely cancellation of a number of sports seasons); especially since i don't think i've seen anything on the return of Taylor Ruck, who was the #2 recruit in 2018 and redshirted last season to train for the olympics.  

I've been trying to keep track on where our championships might be next year if there are actually seasons.  Women's cross country (NC State likely the top competitor) and Mens gymnastics should have good shots.  

Without Smith or Ruck, we are probably still top 3-5  in women's swimming (including Smith, we had the #1 recruiting class for maybe the second or third time in the last four years) but can't see us ahead of Virginia. Women's tennis has to compete with North Carolina and UCLA.  

Sports that rely more on interconnected parts, like women's basketball and men/women's soccer are harder to predict, although they have lots of talent and great coaches.  Maybe mens/women's water polo?  Mens tennis, swimming and golf had great recruiting years (each having the #1 or #2 recruit and the #1 or #2 recruiting class) but are likely too young/don't have enough depth.  Women's volleyball has a lot of young talent (#1 class will be sophomores) but needs to replace too much.  Any others?  

Would love to see a deeper discussion by those more knowledgeable of what others think about our various teams' chances.  

Thanks.

I can't imagine many sports having the ability to have a national champion this coming year. Maybe sports with limited teams that can all compete in one big year end event that is not tournament style. I'm thinking maybe gymnastics (but not), golf, cross country (good luck social distancing at the start), track and field (think Penn Relays).

[JustAnotherFan]

Per Swimswam, Regan Smith (their #1 recruit of all time, ahead of Ledecky) has decided to defer enrolling for one year to train for the olympics.  Probably the right move for her, but this puts our NCAA winning streak in jeopardy (although it already is due to the likely cancellation of a number of sports seasons); especially since i don't think i've seen anything on the return of Taylor Ruck, who was the #2 recruit in 2018 and redshirted last season to train for the olympics.  

I've been trying to keep track on where our championships might be next year if there are actually seasons.  Women's cross country (NC State likely the top competitor) and Mens gymnastics should have good shots.  

Without Smith or Ruck, we are probably still top 3-5  in women's swimming (including Smith, we had the #1 recruiting class for maybe the second or third time in the last four years) but can't see us ahead of Virginia. Women's tennis has to compete with North Carolina and UCLA.  

Sports that rely more on interconnected parts, like women's basketball and men/women's soccer are harder to predict, although they have lots of talent and great coaches.  Maybe mens/women's water polo?  Mens tennis, swimming and golf had great recruiting years (each having the #1 or #2 recruit and the #1 or #2 recruiting class) but are likely too young/don't have enough depth.  Women's volleyball has a lot of young talent (#1 class will be sophomores) but needs to replace too much.  Any others?  

Would love to see a deeper discussion by those more knowledgeable of what others think about our various teams' chances.  

Thanks.

I can't imagine many sports having the ability to have a national champion this coming year. Maybe sports with limited teams that can all compete in one big year end event that is not tournament style. I'm thinking maybe gymnastics (but not), golf, cross country (good luck social distancing at the start), track and field (think Penn Relays).

[BobK]

Looking at rosters
Women’s Water Polo:
The Fischer sisters did not complete this past season nor did Neushul All training for the Olympics with the national team

All three are on the 2021 roster right

Women’s Swimming the new roster isn’t up yet.
So my point is some may not be taking off two years. Thinking Ruck. Smith delaying is probably right for many reasons

[BobK]

Looking at rosters
Women’s Water Polo:
The Fischer sisters did not complete this past season nor did Neushul All training for the Olympics with the national team

All three are on the 2021 roster right

Women’s Swimming the new roster isn’t up yet.
So my point is some may not be taking off two years. Thinking Ruck. Smith delaying is probably right for many reasons

[Treefence]

It's no shock that Regan Smith is deferring again, I'd assume all the athletes that deferred a year last year will do the same this year for the Olympics.  The question I'd raise is which ones will actually come (back) to Stanford.  Given how unsure the future is for everyone, I'd imagine going pro for some of these athletes will be very appealing, assuming it's an option.  I hope that doesn't happen, but the events of the world have already been a brobdingnagian challenge for the NCAA

[Treefence]

It's no shock that Regan Smith is deferring again, I'd assume all the athletes that deferred a year last year will do the same this year for the Olympics.  The question I'd raise is which ones will actually come (back) to Stanford.  Given how unsure the future is for everyone, I'd imagine going pro for some of these athletes will be very appealing, assuming it's an option.  I hope that doesn't happen, but the events of the world have already been a brobdingnagian challenge for the NCAA

[BobK]

Wouldn’t Smith be a Frosh this year. She signed with Stanford November 2019

---

https://gostanford.com/news/2019/11/14/w...dinal.aspx

[BobK]

Wouldn’t Smith be a Frosh this year. She signed with Stanford November 2019

---

https://gostanford.com/news/2019/11/14/w...dinal.aspx

[Treefence]

Wouldn’t Smith be a Frosh this year.  She signed with Stanford November 2019

---

https://gostanford.com/news/2019/11/14/w...dinal.aspx

Correct, for some reason I was thinking she could've been on the team this past season.

[Treefence]

Wouldn’t Smith be a Frosh this year.  She signed with Stanford November 2019

---

https://gostanford.com/news/2019/11/14/w...dinal.aspx

Correct, for some reason I was thinking she could've been on the team this past season.