Observation About Non-Revenue D1 Athletes

[Tugg Speedman]

I've been fortunate enough to have two daughters that are high D1 recruits in two different sports (XC/track and tennis).  Consequently I've been watching other high D1 High School athletes in these sports for years.  While I don't have any data, I have an observation I thought I would throw out and see if others have noticed/comments on it. (Note, these comments do not apply to either of my daughters, they apply to watching others that are a few classes ahead of my kids as they work through their experience.)

First, the myth of the "full ride."  They are very rare in non-revenue sports.  My impression is that the average non-revenue athlete is getting about a 15% to 25% scholarship.  Some are as low as 1%, and yes the truly exceptional are getting more than 50%.  But it is very rare for a full-ride, these go to future Olympians.  Again I'm speaking about really high D1 schools that so many kids/families place a premium on attending so they are more concerned about getting in rather than about how much they are getting in scholarship.  This is why Ivies are very competitive in non-revenue sports.  Families are very happy to use excellence in sports as a way into these schools and are more than happy to pay tuition once their kid gets in.

My other impression is many (not all) high D1 athletes in non-revenue sports athletes come from families of some means.  Without family money how else does one develop (or even start) a tennis player, golfer, swimmer, softball player, soccer player, volleyball player, rower, etc.

I've seen first hand that high D1 athletics is a huge commitment.  So big a commitment that some have decided that the 10%, 20% or 30% scholarship is not worth it.  So lots of kids wind up competing a year or two in college and then quit.  Some even quit their Freshman year.  I've seen this with state champions, state record holders and nationally ranked high school players.

I'm getting the impression that some extraordinary athletes are really just competing in high school with the hopes of leveraging it into a premium college commitment.  Once they get into a desirable college, they will give it a go but if they do not get immediate success or enjoyment in competing, they are more than happy to quit, give back the partial scholarship and remain as a regular student.  I've even seen a few literally stop competing almost the moment they sign a NLI (National Letter of Intent) giving the impression their goal/purpose in competing was to get into college, not actually competing in college.

My impression is 20% to 40% of non-revenue D1 athletes will eventually quit and stay-on as regular students.  Again the reason this happens is the average non-revenue scholarship is 15% to 25%.  That roughly works out to $5,000 to $10,000 a year at a premium college.  But the work and effort is so great to be an athlete, they can quit, stay in the premium school and get a job which is much less of a commitment to cover the loss of a scholarship.  If they were getting 75% to 100% scholarships effectively "paying them" $40,000 to $50,000/year I believe their commitment would be much greater.

I'm not passing judgement or morality of these athletes.  Remember they are students first and that is their priority.  So quitting the sports to focus on academics is often the better move than allowing the academics to suffer to devote a larger commitment to their sport.  What surprised me is the high attrition rate.

Comments?

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

One of my daughter's friends has an older sibling who is an exceptional XC/Track runner and is only a sophomore.  He's a Top10 runner (or better) in the state of Connecticut already.  His parents told me they were hoping it lead to a scholarship somewhere and I tried to caution them that it might only be  15% to 25% scholarship (as I heard that figure elsewhere also). 

[StillAWarrior]

I appreciate your insight.  I don't have any kids who are college athletes - maybe in the future, but who knows - so I don't have any experience from that perspective.  My personal experiences come from the volleyball side of things which is a bit of a different beast because it is one of the few non-revenue sports that is a headcount sport (i.e., full scholarships are the norm).  My daughter hopes to play D1 volleyball, but she's a sophomore in HS so we're not to that point yet.  I've explained to her, like you mention, that if she plays D1 volleyball, it will be a full time job.  Including most of winter break and also summer.  She's old enough now that she knows some girls from her club who are freshman at D1 schools and she's starting to hear from them about their schedules:  practice, class, weights, academic support/studying, practice, studying...  Very long, full days.  Still, she is determined.

And also I agree with the comment about the cost of being able to be in a position to develop in a sport - at least in volleyball.  Between club fees and travel, club volleyball is expensive.  We have some friends right now who have a very talented 12 year old daughter (who also likely will end up around 6'3" or so).  They're really struggling with the decision of what to do with her because they want her to play, but it will be a pretty challenging financial situation for them.  Fortunately, the mother can be an assistant coach, so that will lower the expense some, and the club might give a bit of a break on the fees.  But it's still expensive with the travel involved so they're still on the fence.  And there are many, many kids out there who don't even get that opportunity.  It's pretty rare to find a D1 college volleyball player who hasn't come through club volleyball.  And if they've gone that route, it's likely someone has paid a lot of money to make that happen (often at great personal or family sacrifice for many who are not especially wealthy).  Just on my daughter's team we have a single mother who works a second job to pay for volleyball and a family where the older sister stopped playing club volleyball to allow for the more talented younger sister to play.  I'm sure some would say that priorities get out of whack, and perhaps they're right, but I'm not inclined to judge.

[GGGG]

One of my children was offered a very partial ride non-revenue scholarship at a D1 school.  He turned it down because of the time commitment.  He really didn't see the point.  My anecdotal experience says you are fairly accurate Heisenberg. 

[Tugg Speedman]

One of my daughter's friends has an older sibling who is an exceptional XC/Track runner and is only a sophomore.  He's a Top10 runner (or better) in the state of Connecticut already.  His parents told me they were hoping it lead to a scholarship somewhere and I tried to caution them that it might only be  15% to 25% scholarship (as I heard that figure elsewhere also).  

College cross country runs 7 or 9 varsity runners depending on the race.  The high D1 school my daughter goes to has given the team 8 full scholarships to divide up.  Her school tuition is about $50k/year so that represents a $400k/year commitment to XC by this school, a fairly sizable commitment to this sport.  And don't forget the school also pays coaches, assistant coaches, trainers, facilities (they have their own,  very nice, locker room), travel, and they do travel the entire country.  So the total commitment to the sport might be closer to $800k/year.  My point is her school is not doing this cheap.

Their is no limit to the number of runners they have, just a limit in scholarship money.  This season the had 21 runners and two red-shirts (injury).  So 23 athletes are splitting 8 full rides. Hence the average scholarship is about 33%.

However, the end of the season many go to the coach and lay out their case to get more scholarship money the following year (remember that scholarships are one-year renewable).  It is exactly like asking your boss for a raise.  So the upperclassmen are getting a higher percentage.  I think (but I'm not sure) that the coaches encourage this as an incentive to keep competing.

*** As an aside in 2000 Chris Lear wrote the book "Running With the Buffaloes" about the 1998 University of Colorado cross country team (powerhouse program).  In the book he noted that in 1998 Colorado was recruiting Jorge and Edwardo Torres, twin brothers from Wheeling IL.  At the time Jorge Torres was one of the best HS cross country runners ever produced by the United States (three time state champion and just missed qualifying for the Olympic trials).  Edwardo was not far behind him.  Yet Colorado could only offer them both a 50% scholarships.  Other programs did offer them full-rides (hoping these two stars would establish them).  In the end they both decided to attend Colorado paying half their tuition.  So not even one of the best ever produced by cross country went to college on a full-ride.

[ChicosBailBonds]

My only quip would be the attrition rate you state.  That may be true for something like track and XC, but I haven't seen it nearly at that level in the three athletic departments I worked in.  The time commitments are high, but in my experience the kids stick around mostly for the entire duration. 

My son is goalie on his high school team and in club.  Very good goalie, but doesn't have the DI body and never will.  Just not tall enough.  That being said, he has a good shot to play somewhere at the DII or DIII level, or he could try to walk on at DI if he felt the desire to do so.  It will be interesting to see what he does as I've explained to him the commitments are not light.  If he's going to do it, he should commit to doing it his entire college career.

[Tugg Speedman]

And also I agree with the comment about the cost of being able to be in a position to develop in a sport - at least in volleyball.  Between club fees and travel, club volleyball is expensive.  We have some friends right now who have a very talented 12 year old daughter (who also likely will end up around 6'3" or so).  They're really struggling with the decision of what to do with her because they want her to play, but it will be a pretty challenging financial situation for them.  Fortunately, the mother can be an assistant coach, so that will lower the expense some, and the club might give a bit of a break on the fees.  But it's still expensive with the travel involved so they're still on the fence.  And there are many, many kids out there who don't even get that opportunity.  It's pretty rare to find a D1 college volleyball player who hasn't come through club volleyball.  And if they've gone that route, it's likely someone has paid a lot of money to make that happen (often at great personal or family sacrifice for many who are not especially wealthy).  Just on my daughter's team we have a single mother who works a second job to pay for volleyball and a family where the older sister stopped playing club volleyball to allow for the more talented younger sister to play.  I'm sure some would say that priorities get out of whack, and perhaps they're right, but I'm not inclined to judge.

Your volleyball example is similar to my tennis experience.  I've done the math and not even a four-year full-ride followed by a few year pro career** would "pay back" the money we spent to develop her (starting in 5th grade).  So our motivations, like the motivations of others that excel in non-revenue sports, is not about pay back via scholarships.

** I'm not suggesting my daughter is this good, just offering prospective ...

If a player were to attain a world ranking less than top 100, income from tennis, net of the costs (world travel, coaches, trainers, physio, doctors, agents and yes their are endorsements and equipment contracts) might net a player $30k to $50k year.  Top 100 is good enough to qualify for Wimbledon and the US Open and may even win the first round or two every once in a while.  But no one gets rich being outside the top 100.  Yet think about how extraordinary an athletic achievement that would be!

For prospective, if one is a top 100 baseball player or football player they are top 3 or 4 on a professional team making millions a year.  

My point is to illustrate that one goes into a non-revenue sport for the money.  Only the very top (say top 30 in the world) make money.  For the rest it is a labor of love.

[Tugg Speedman]

My only quip would be the attrition rate you state.  That may be true for something like track and XC, but I haven't seen it nearly at that level in the three athletic departments I worked in.  The time commitments are high, but in my experience the kids stick around mostly for the entire duration. 

My son is goalie on his high school team and in club.  Very good goalie, but doesn't have the DI body and never will.  Just not tall enough.  That being said, he has a good shot to play somewhere at the DII or DIII level, or he could try to walk on at DI if he felt the desire to do so.  It will be interesting to see what he does as I've explained to him the commitments are not light.  If he's going to do it, he should commit to doing it his entire college career.

I did say 20% to 40% attrition which can also be stated as 60% to 80% stick around.  Those that quit are typically the bottom half of the team getting small scholarships.

[StillAWarrior]

Your volleyball example is similar to my tennis experience.  I've done the math and not even a four-year full-ride followed by a few year pro career** would "pay back" the money we spent to develop her (starting in 5th grade).  So our motivations, like the motivations of others that excel in non-revenue sports, is not about pay back via scholarships.

** I'm not suggesting my daughter is this good, just offering prospective ...

If a player were to attain a world ranking less than top 100, income from tennis, net of the costs (world travel, coaches, trainers, physio, doctors, agents and yes their are endorsements and equipment contracts) might net a player $30k to $50k year.  Top 100 is good enough to qualify for Wimbledon and the US Open and may even win the first round or two every once in a while.  But no one gets rich being outside the top 100.  Yet think about how extraordinary an athletic achievement that would be!

For prospective, if one is a top 100 baseball player or football player they are top 3 or 4 on a professional team making millions a year.  

My point is to illustrate one does not go into a non-revenue sport for the money.  Only the very top (say top 30 in the world) make money.  For the rest it is a labor of love.

I think volleyball probably isn't as expensive as tennis.  For that, I'm thankful.

I see far too many club volleyball families "chasing" scholarships.  In a lot of cases, it's sad because many families are completely delusional about talent level and the odds of getting a scholarship.  It's definitely not a good investment.  I know a guy whose daughter played D1 and has spent a bit of time playing with "USA" on her chest.  A truly rare talent.  I've heard him tell plenty of people, "If you want your daughter to get a scholarship, have her spend 20 hours a week at the library instead of the gym."  My kids play because they love it.  My oldest daughter wants to play D1, but that's not why she plays.  We'll see in the coming years if that's in the cards for her.