Glass ceiling for Ohio/Midwest kids?

[default]

While at practice the other day, me and some of the other parents were having discussions about what schools our kids were interested in, which camps they have been invited to, visits, who's going where, other great kids we have played with through the years and where they are going etc.... (I should add that the class year for my daughter's team is mostly 15's-16's and we play in some nice showcases in CO,NJ, IL, MO, Fla, PA, CA etc)

One thing that was discussed is a pitcher we knew (from the midwest) who played in PGF Nationals did really well out there (ERA around 1) her team did very well and made it pretty far but those kids didn't garner much interest. We talked about kids we knew that were very good and did well in Colorado and PGF yet garnered little interest from the big boys and it appeared to us having the Cali or Texas last name- gave those kids an edge even where midwest kids were "better" in our opinion (at this point, the cali and OH kid would BOTH be out of state kids).

We also discussed kids we knew from various midwest states who were being "lowballed" by the big ten schools in their state and other MAC of Big East schools offering them 20-25% athletic and telling them that the reason is, they have to give a kid from Cali or Arizona 80-100%. Most of these kids are finding that they could play D1 at a high level and get 20% or look at a lower D1 school and there offers are 75% (what i am finding is that these lower level d1 schools don't appeal to some of these girls because they want to be at universities with a diverse academic offering)

So, i just wanted to start a discussion and get your thoughts on what we think is a glass ceiling. Grant it, there are exceptions (for example in Ohio, Alvelo, Lilley, Mack etc. that are going Pac 12 or SEC) but for the most part, Ohio kids stay in Ohio, PA kids stay in PA, Jersey kids stay in Jersey etc.

 

[default]

I think its a numbers game. I think you have to take the number of scholarships given annually and then sort out the percentage given to Ohio, California, and Texas kids. You would have to factor in the number of kids playing in each of those states, as I believe the numbers would be far greater in CA or TX than OH and we would find what is truly happening.

I'm sure there is more to this equation I just haven't thought it all thru.

 

[default]

This may be true for some schools that the staff wants the conveinience of recruiting in the same general area all the time rather than traveling to chance signing a blue chip from Ohio, but the bigger picture tells me the big schools still are evaluating the talent and seeking the ones that "fit" their program. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

 

[default]

Sometime around the freshman/sophomore year, parents begin to realize that their kids are probably not going to play for an out of state school because it costs too much for the softball program when they have equal talent in state. Most coaches know that the best they can offer these kids is 25% athletic (since they are out of state) and most kids won't go that direction unless they are pretty sure they can get need or merit based $$$ (keeping in mind that merit based money at most schools is more limited for out of state kids).

So at this point, they start focusing on this big schools in their state and realize that those schools can only offer them 25% athletic too because they are recruiting studs from Cali that cost $$$.

By sophomore year, the kids/parents really start to focus on other in-state schools and possibly D1 out of state schools that they can sell themselves to cheaply (because of merit or need based aid).

If your grades/test scores are not in the high range (3.6+, top 10%, 29+ on ACT), you are looking at realistically 35-50% athletic aid at an in state school (not all of these schools are fully funded).

there is always the exception for the truly elite- top 5% in the country.

not sure if its a glass ceiling or just the economic side of recruiting- this is the reality....

also, there is something called reciprocity or the academic common market which offers a tuition discount for students of various states: and of course, Ohio is NOT one of the participating states

http://home.sreb.org/acm/states.aspx

 

[default]

I have often heard what I consider the best analogy.

Non-revenue sports in college are like playing Fantasy Football. You have a distinct salary cap. So you have to really look at how a kid fits into your program from a financial along with a skill level perspective. You want to play D1 softball? Then you need to fit into 1 of 3 cataogies:

1- willing to walk on and play for free to the team
2- similar to #1 in that you have high scores and will be recruited because you cost them almost zero athletic money
3- be a stud, like top 1-5%

 

[default]

I have often heard what I consider the best analogy.

Non-revenue sports in college are like playing Fantasy Football. You have a distinct salary cap. So you have to really look at how a kid fits into your program from a financial along with a skill level perspective. You want to play D1 softball? Then you need to fit into 1 of 3 cataogies:

1- willing to walk on and play for free to the team
2- similar to #1 in that you have high scores and will be recruited because you cost them almost zero athletic money
3- be a stud, like top 1-5%

Don't necessarily disagree with you but you do realize that just about every sport in college is a non-revenue sport except football and men's basketball.

 

[default]

Sometime around the freshman/sophomore year, parents begin to realize that their kids are probably not going to play for an out of state school because it costs too much for the softball program when they have equal talent in state. Most coaches know that the best they can offer these kids is 25% athletic (since they are out of state) and most kids won't go that direction unless they are pretty sure they can get need or merit based $$$ (keeping in mind that merit based money at most schools is more limited for out of state kids).

Nice post, however I don't believe out-of-state tuition is a factor in how state schools limit/budget their teams' athletic scholarships. It certainly doesn't cost them more to educate and house an out-of-state athlete than an in-state one.

The real issue is coaches have to offer a higher percentage to an out-of-state kid so the remaining amount the family has to pay is acceptable to them. The coach can offer a lower percentage to an in-state kid that results in the same remaining amount for the family.

 

[default]

yep

That applies to most college athletics.

 

[default]

Socal,

My understanding is that each D1 school has to place a dollar value on 1 athletic scholarship based on a number of variables and computed through some ncaa equation. (this is for equivalency sports)


15.02.2 Cost of Attendance. The “cost of attendance” is an amount calculated by an institutional financial aid office, using federal regulations, that includes the total cost of tuition and fees, room and board, books and supplies, transportation, and other expenses related to attendance at the institution. (Adopted: 1/11/94)
15.02.2.1 Calculation of Cost of Attendance. An institution must calculate the cost of attendance for
student-athletes in accordance with the cost-of-attendance policies and procedures that are used for students in general. Accordingly, if an institution’s policy allows for students’ direct and indirect costs (e.g., tuition, fees, room and board, books, supplies, transportation, child care, cost related to a disability and miscellaneous personal expenses) to be adjusted on an individual basis from the institution’s standard cost figure, it is permissible to make the same adjustment for student-athletes, provided the adjustment is documented and is available on an equitable basis to all students with similar circumstances who request an adjustment. (Adopted: 1/11/94)

15.5.3.2 Equivalency Computations. In equivalency sports, each institutional financial aid award (per
Bylaw 15.02.4.1) to a counter shall be computed as follows:
(a) Once a student becomes a counter, the institution shall count all institutional aid (per Bylaw 15.02.4.1)
received for room, board, tuition and fees, and books up to the value of a full grant-in-aid. Books shall
count for calculation purposes as $400 in the denominator and, if they are provided or their cost covered
by the institution, as $400 in the numerator, regardless of the actual amount received. Exempted government grants per Bylaw 15.2.5 and exempted institutional aid per Bylaw 15.02.4.3 specifically are excluded from this computation. (Revised: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/96, 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04)
(b) A fraction shall be created, with the amount received by the student-athlete (up to the value of a full
grant-in-aid) as the numerator and the full grant-in-aid value for that student-athlete as the denominator
based upon the actual cost or average cost of a full grant for all students at that institution. Financial aid unrelated to athletics ability (see Bylaw 15.1) received by the student-athlete in excess of a full grant-in-aid shall not be included in this computation. (Revised: 1/10/90, 4/29/04 effective 8/1/04)
(c) The sum of all fractional and maximum awards received by counters shall not exceed the total limit for the sport in question for the academic year as a whole.

So for example, when my son was recruited to play baseball, he went out of state and this is what was explained to us, in simplest terms:

My son’s scholarship covered out of state tuition as indicated on the bursar’s statement and indicated the out of state portion was not waived. I was led to believe there was no scholarship disadvantage in being an out of state student. If tuition was covered it made no difference to the coach or the university where the student was from. It wasn’t like the higher cost of out of state tuition would eat up more of the 11.7.

But this was later explained to me during my daughter's recruiting by a different out of state school-

If a schools total budget is say for example, $500,000. If out of state COA is $30k and all of the 12 scholarships are out of state, that costs them $350k of the budget. That leaves them with a balance of $150k for everything else- meaning it did cost out of states kids more (she was just looking to get tuition paid and we would pick up room and board but that didn't pan out and we went in a different direction).

But if in state COA is $15k, their 12 schollys cost around $175K and they'd have a budget balance of $325k.

 

[default]

... One thing that was discussed is a pitcher we knew (from the midwest) who played in PGF Nationals did really well out there (ERA around 1) her team did very well and made it pretty far but those kids didn't garner much interest. We talked about kids we knew that were very good and did well in Colorado and PGF yet garnered little interest from the big boys and it appeared to us having the Cali or Texas last name- gave those kids an edge even where midwest kids were "better" in our opinion (at this point, the cali and OH kid would BOTH be out of state kids).

We also discussed kids we knew from various midwest states who were being "lowballed" by the big ten schools in their state and other MAC of Big East schools offering them 20-25% athletic and telling them that the reason is, they have to give a kid from Cali or Arizona 80-100%. Most of these kids are finding that they could play D1 at a high level and get 20% or look at a lower D1 school and there offers are 75% (what i am finding is that these lower level d1 schools don't appeal to some of these girls because they want to be at universities with a diverse academic offering)

So, i just wanted to start a discussion and get your thoughts on what we think is a glass ceiling. Grant it, there are exceptions (for example in Ohio, Alvelo, Lilley, Mack etc. that are going Pac 12 or SEC) but for the most part, Ohio kids stay in Ohio, PA kids stay in PA, Jersey kids stay in Jersey etc.

College recruiting is not perfect nor fair. We also wonder in SoCal why some players were signed and others overlooked. The biggest factors we see are team/org and timing.

In another post, you listed some of the most inflential people in recruiting and almost all of them are travel coaches. These coaches developed good teams at one point and the players got recruited. That drew strong players the next year which lead to another strong team and more high profile signings - and the cycle repeats year after year.

Timing is a big factor as colleges are recruiting younger and younger. Some kids miss the D1 recruiting window because they weren't developed yet and others miss it because they weren't an impact player on a high profile team at the time. The discrepancy in offers can also be due to timing. Coaches commit large chunks of their money early to top recruits which leaves little left for other recruits later.

College coaches also have to manage the risk/reward of their offers. They have a limited amount of scholarships, so every offer is based on how much they think the player will help their team. The 20% offer from a major D1 versus the 75% from a lower D1 could reflect that and/or the major D1 has already committed most of its scholarships.

Many early verbal offers are for lower percentages because the coach is unsure whether the player will end up being a major contributor to their team. Coaches with strong programs are going to be less sure about how individual recruits will do, so they hedge their bets by getting multiple players at lower percentages and having them battle it out once they get into their program.

 

[default]

Socal,

My understanding is that each D1 school has to place a dollar value on 1 athletic scholarship based on a number of variables and computed through some ncaa equation. (this is for equivalency sports)

NCAA calculations aren't an issue. BTW, schools can either use the actual COA for each athlete or an average COA for all students.

15.02.2.1 Calculation of Cost of Attendance. ...

This just states they can't give student-athletes an adjustment (e.g. waive out-of-state tuition) that isn't available to all students.

15.5.3.2 Equivalency Computations. ...
(b) A fraction shall be created, with the amount received by the student-athlete (up to the value of a full
grant-in-aid) as the numerator and the full grant-in-aid value for that student-athlete as the denominator based upon the actual cost or average cost of a full grant for all students at that institution. Financial aid unrelated to athletics ability (see Bylaw 15.1) received by the student-athlete in excess of a full grant-in-aid shall not be included in this computation.

So for example, when my son was recruited to play baseball, he went out of state and this is what was explained to us, in simplest terms:

My son?s scholarship covered out of state tuition as indicated on the bursar?s statement and indicated the out of state portion was not waived. I was led to believe there was no scholarship disadvantage in being an out of state student. If tuition was covered it made no difference to the coach or the university where the student was from. It wasn?t like the higher cost of out of state tuition would eat up more of the 11.7.

For NCAA calcs, that's definitely true if your son received a full grant-in-aid. If it was partial (e.g. didn't include room and board), I would expect him to calc as a higher fraction. Example: $20k/$30k (out) vs $10k/$20k (in).

But this was later explained to me and my daughter's during her recruiting by a different out of state school-

If a schools total budget is say for example, $500,000. If out of state COA is $30k and all of the 12 scholarships are out of state, that costs them $350k of the budget. That leaves them with a balance of $150k for everything else- meaning it did cost out of states kids more (she was just looking to get tuition paid and we would pick up room and board but that didn't pan out and we went in a different direction).

But if in state COA is $15k, their 11.7 schollys cost $175K and they'd have a budget balance of $325k.

Budgeting of athletic scholarships is internal 'funny money' and it obviously varies by institution. It seems very odd the 2nd school took such a simplistic approach - budgeting one lump sum to cover all internal charges/transfers and external expenditures.

 

[default]

This is an interesting topic. But it is also one that we - the little people - will never, ever get full disclosure on. And really if we think it is only happening in softball we are being narrow-minded. Now that said - Florida colleges have an even bigger issue/opportunity that keeps the vast majority of the really good players in state, a lot like Ohio. It also helps explain why there are only a few Florida Travel Teams that actually travel out of state. Instate schools actually tell TB coaches that they can get 3 Florida players for every one from out of state. Stock piling good players at a low cost allows coaches to spend more money on players they think are difference makers. Right or wrong.

 

[default]

I think your parents are asking the wrong question.

OH (and PA) have a set of academically tremendous small colleges. Our dd's have an opportunity to play softball at these schools while getting a great education. This single fact alone is much more important than playing for OU or PS or Florida. The reason that we see so many second string CA/TX kids playing here is that these western states simply do not have the wealth of superb education institutions that we have and these kids have a certain cachet.

Your kid and my kid is unlikely to play for any D1 program and it is an exceptional kid that will play for a national powerhouse. However, there are 300 schools within 150 miles of where I live (central PA). They need some 1200 players each and every year. Couple this to the fact that 80-90% of our girls will go to school within two hours of home. Attempting to play for a remote national powerhouse is likely to disappoint everyone. Attempting to play for a regional school with tremendous educational opportunity....priceless.

At some point OU/PS/Pitt will realize that the local kids are an overlooked goldmine and will recruit them, maybe then they will win that national championship.

 

[default]

forum,
Great posting... thought provoking...
Ron

 

[default]

Here is a good website that discusses the ins and outs of athletic scholarships and there is some discussion about out of state, tuition waivers etc.


The Truth about Athletic Scholarships | Informed Athlete | The Allen Group, Inc. |

 

[default]

My first thought was that there is no "powerhouse" org in Ohio. That hurts our kids more than we know . No Org that a Big ten, PAC12, SEC team head coach has a long running relationship with and that type of relationship only happens over time. Orgs that are known for producing Top Twenty type players get noticed while players who might be just as good will not get a look . If you have watched the 2013s' and upcoming 2014's you would have to be blind to not see its nearly as important as WHO you play for VS how well you play the game.

 

[default]

Many early verbal offers are for lower percentages because the coach is unsure whether the player will end up being a major contributor to their team. Coaches with strong programs are going to be less sure about how individual recruits will do, so they hedge their bets by getting multiple players at lower percentages and having them battle it out once they get into their program.

Remember what he wrote here when you see and hear of young verbals in our sport. This is dead on.

Tim

 

[default]

College recruiting is not perfect nor fair. We also wonder in SoCal why some players were signed and others overlooked. The biggest factors we see are team/org and timing.

In another post, you listed some of the most inflential people in recruiting and almost all of them are travel coaches. These coaches developed good teams at one point and the players got recruited. That drew strong players the next year which lead to another strong team and more high profile signings - and the cycle repeats year after year.

Timing is a big factor as colleges are recruiting younger and younger. Some kids miss the D1 recruiting window because they weren't developed yet and others miss it because they weren't an impact player on a high profile team at the time. The discrepancy in offers can also be due to timing. Coaches commit large chunks of their money early to top recruits which leaves little left for other recruits later.

College coaches also have to manage the risk/reward of their offers. They have a limited amount of scholarships, so every offer is based on how much they think the player will help their team. The 20% offer from a major D1 versus the 75% from a lower D1 could reflect that and/or the major D1 has already committed most of its scholarships.

Many early verbal offers are for lower percentages because the coach is unsure whether the player will end up being a major contributor to their team. Coaches with strong programs are going to be less sure about how individual recruits will do, so they hedge their bets by getting multiple players at lower percentages and having them battle it out once they get into their program.

Absolutely agree. Another consideration for recruits (especially pitchers) is to LOOK AT THE ROSTER, AND TALK TO THE COACH! Look at the class and position of current players. If two senior pitchers garnering a ton of innings are set to "retire", what does the underclass look like? Is the team actually looking for your specialty? A recruit is far more valuable, and can command a healthy scholarship by concentrating efforts on programs who have an immediate need for their specific skill set. Sure - ANY program will take the top recruit in the state, but the next nine in line must be in the "right place at the right time". Obviously a kid must choose the schools that fit their academic plan FIRST, but athletic scholarship odds are far better if you focus on a school where your specialty is needed most. The trick is to find a match for both academics AND softball.

 

[default]

If I could like "this" three times I would..........

Absolutely agree. Another consideration for recruits (especially pitchers) is to LOOK AT THE ROSTER, AND TALK TO THE COACH! Look at the class and position of current players. If two senior pitchers garnering a ton of innings are set to "retire", what does the underclass look like? Is the team actually looking for your specialty? A recruit is far more valuable, and can command a healthy scholarship by concentrating efforts on programs who have an immediate need for their specific skill set. Sure - ANY program will take the top recruit in the state, but the next nine in line must be in the "right place at the right time". Obviously a kid must choose the schools that fit their academic plan FIRST, but athletic scholarship odds are far better if you focus on a school where your specialty is needed most. The trick is to find a match for both academics AND softball.

 

[default]

I don't know that I agree with the idea of a "glass ceiling" for Ohio girls. Just in recent years we have seen Tess Sito at Georgia, Kara Dill at Kentucky, Erin Gabriel at Tennessee and in the future we will see Jenna Lilley at Oregon and Taran Alvelo at Washington not too mention the Ohio girls in the Big 10(OSU and MICH St for sure) and there are probably some others I am missing. Obviously when talking about that level we are talking about the top 1-2% of players in the entire country and when you look at the populations, the number of participants at early ages, the weather situations, and the history of fastpitch development it is not at all surprising to me where girls are recruited from. It takes years to change the climate of an entire sport and slowly this is happening. The PAC 10 no longer completely dominates college softball, the Big 12 and SEC are right there using mixtures of local players and west coast players. Also I see more and more Ohio girls going to mid-size D1, small D1 schools, and D2 schools out of state. Glass Ceilings are made to be broken and over time Ohio and the Midwest can break through, it just won't happen overnight.