monstor344

Suppose I received a recruited walk-on offer from Stanford. That is, I get the advantages of being a recruited athlete for admissions but none of the scholarship money (I think?). Could I still get financial aid from Stanford? Would being recruited as a walk-on limit how much FA I receive? And also, how does playing time usually look for walk-ons? Are they generally benchwarmers who get the occasional playing time during garbage hours? If it matters, suppose the sport I were being recruited for was baseball.

fauve

You could get financial aid if you demonstrate financial need via all the forms. You would not be eligible for the athletic department athletic grants/scholarships. Walk-ons can certainly end up being bench-warmers, as they are by definition the least pursued/least gifted athletes.

The phrase recruited walk-on seems somewhat conratradictory, however if a coach uses it, it would seem he sees some value in the athlete.

treemaven

Is your hypothetical for any college or just for Stanford? When asked at the information session, the Stanford admissions person said uncategorically that Stanford does not give athletic scholarships (only need-based financial aid), which is the same information in all their literature. Nevertheless, I continually hear about athletic scholarships at this school. So I'm quite confused.

Based upon what the admissions folk and literature states, I'm not sure what a 'recruited walk-on' would be. Seems to me you would either be a 'recruited athlete' with whatever admission perks go with that status or you would be a 'walk-on'. As I understood the financial aid information, it is all need-based only and so whether you were recruited or not, it wouldn't really matter.

I certainly have no inside knowledge or experience with this school and its athletic admissions, but I am curious as to why people continue to talk about athletic scholarships given at Stanford. Am I misunderstanding something?

10scholar

I have a little insight into this type of situation with Stanford for a different sport. My friend used it last year and then his sister did it this year (it appears). They were solid players who probably could've gotten scholarship money from lower-level schools, but were nowhere near the top-10 in the country Stanford typically takes. They didn't need FA, but if they did they would've gotten it just like any other admitted student. It was their dream school, and they were both very smart, i.e. above the 75th percentile. They pursued the coach like crazy and got a spot there, even though they will probably never play a match. I think that Stanford is unique in being able to do this because they place such a large emphasis on athletics. I'm not sure if it works with other sports, but I suspect that Stanford's rich history in tennis may play a role in the influence of the coach on admissions. I had higher stats than these kids, and was actually coached by the S coach's uncle, so I probably could've gotten to that stage had I wanted to, but after considering it I decided that I wanted to play for my school, not be a practice partner for 4 years. That's something you'd have to decide for yourself - if you get to the point where the coach will take you, will you give up the chance at playing time to follow the Stanford "dream?"

ChargerFans

It is my understanding you can take athletic money or financial aid but not both. Whichever is higher is what the student will take. A friend of ours is being recruited by USC and that is also what they were told. It's an NCAA rule I guess.

EMM1

"When asked at the information session, the Stanford admissions person said uncategorically that Stanford does not give athletic scholarships (only need-based financial aid), which is the same information in all their literature."

You are mistaken. From the official 2008 Stanford website:

Chase, Wilcox-Fogel and Zagory Elevated to Scholarship Status
Senior linebacker Thaddeus Chase, senior wide receiver Nate Wilcox-Fogel and senior placekicker Aaron Zagory have been awarded scholarships for the 2008-09 academic year. Chase enters the 2008 season battling for playing time at outside linebacker. He will also be a steady contributor on special teams. Chase appeared in 12 games last season and finished with four tackles, including two solo efforts. He was credited with one blocked kick and played on all four special teams units. Wilcox-Fogel, a fifth-year senior from nearby Los Altos, has lettered each of the last two seasons after sitting out the 2004 and `05 campaigns. After serving as a back-up kicker last season, Zagory regained the starting role in fall.

monstor344

To elaborate on a few things:

As far as I've heard, Stanford does give athletic scholarships. But so it seems from what people are saying, I could get FA even as a walk-on (which kind of seems to diminish the whole purpose of athletic scholarships, but hey I'd take it). My bigger concern anyway would be playing time: I've heard that sometimes recruited walk-ons don't even make the team and don't play, period. If that's true then I would not want to risk that; I'd rather get sufficient playing time at, say, an Ivy...Conversely, how often do walk-ons elevate themselves into frequent athletic roles?

scualum

A few comments:

1) Stanford absolutely gives athletic scholarships

2) An athlete in a non headcount sport will often get a blend of aid - athletic, merit and financial.

3) Being a walk-on or a recruited walk-on does not preclude a player getting substantial playing time. Coaches are paid to win - and if a walk on can help them win, they will play them.

Here is a link to a great article about walk ons at Stanford

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/m...s/walkons.html

Runners2

I think the issue is that any athletic scholarship money you receive reduces your financial need, so you'd get less financial aide based on need.

With regards to playing time for walk-on's - I think that is really a question for the coach that would be dependent on the school, sport, and specific recruiting class. There are certainly walk-on's in many sports that end up working their way into significant roles, but it seems their odds of doing so are less than for the recruited athlete. In considering that possibility, you might look at the current roster to see how many athletes are also in your position and ask the coach how many recruits he is looking at for that position.

stemit

Monstor, I believe that you are a pitcher. Pitchers are the most in demand of all baseball players. Most schools (not all, but most) give the majority of their available scholarship money (in baseball it is 11.7 scholarships in a fully funded program -- and I believe that Stanford is such a program) to pitchers. The school can slice those scholarships up anyway they see fit so long as they give a 25% minimum scholarship and a maximum distribution to 27 players.

A “recruited walk-on” in baseball is in the most tenuous of all places. You have no guarantee of making the spring team; and even worse, if you don’t make the team, NCAA rules can really impact your ability to transfer and play the following year in a division 1 program. Now, that having been said, coaches are paid to win and once practice begins, the best players will make the team (what is “best” may be a vague definition to you, but not to the coach).

I believe some very good advice that I heard in athletics: “go where you are wanted.” (Assuming the college is a fit for you.) To me this means money talks. Money is the currency by which coaches recruit (at a Division 1 funded program). They place a value upon what they see; they pay for it. Then after all the money is gone, they go and try to find “insurance”—a player who may have what it takes to be a mid-week reliever. Once in a while they find gold – but the tables are really tilted towards them and not to the recruited walk-on.

I analyzed a local top 20 program’s distribution of its 11.7 schollys during the last year. Pitchers 1 – 8 all received approximately 90% of their “cost of attendance” (I believe that the COA differs if players live off campus – I do not believe that a athletic scholarship can cover room off campus so a player living off campus has a lower COA then one living in a dorm). Pitchers 9 -10 got 25%. A total of roughly 7.7 of the 11.7 scholarships went to pitchers. Then there were 11 - 16. Some received academic and a few received financial (and you can’t mix athletic with financial aid). Go look up how many innings pitchers 11 - 16 get in most large programs.

Now, there are always the exceptions; the players who grew 12 inches their senior year and gained 5 mph over the summer before college, etc. Those exceptions will get their money the second year. For those who are not exceptions (the overwhelming majority of walk-on pitchers), there is a whole new crop of recruited walk-ons to contend with the following fall practice.

Stanford is a PAC-10 program. Pitchers don’t touch 85; they sit 88+ (actually a lot sit higher). Speed is the ticket to the dance; command, control and the rest determine how long you can dance. Without the ticket in, however, the rest doesn’t matter. Being a recruited walk-on pitcher is a big big risk if you desire to pitch in college,

All my opinion, of course.

treemaven

I stand corrected: Stanford Student Athlete Cardinal Portal

I don't know why the information I initially received could have been so wrong. Thanks for being considerate of my confusion and I'm glad to have that straighten out for me.

fauve

Perhaps you confused the info with an Ivy League school presentation.

TheGFG

The Stanford coach I talked to said that in D's sport, they typically use athletic scholarships as a reward for your performance. So a freshman will usually not receive athletic scholarship, just financial aid. From my understanding, you can't get both because then the FA would count as athletic money for NCAA accounting purposes. So if the student performs well on a national level for the school, he'd get around 100% the next year, on a regional level, 75%, and on a conference level 50%. I'm sure this varies by sport and gender. But this is the same way it is handled for this sport at other D1 schools like Duke.

monstor344

Wow - Thanks for that post stemit! (Actually thank everyone who responded, period .) Did you recognize me/my thread from the hsbaseballweb site?

From what you've said, I think that I would most likely go with another program where I'd get frequent playing time (if this situation came up at all of course). Still, I have a lot of time before I would ever make such a decision and things could change, I guess.

You mentioned that Stanford's pitchers cruise in the high 80s. Exactly how different is the profile for recruited walk-ons? You said that a few baseball players who suddenly gain 5+ MPH get switched to a scholarship; does this mean that the walk-on pitchers top programs are recruiting often are sitting more in the mid-80s? Basically, how big is the scholarship pitcher/walk-on pitcher disparity in terms of velocity/ability?

keylyme

It has become common for coaches to recruit athletes who won't be getting a scholarship simply because the coach does not have the money in the budget to cover scholarships for all the athletes he needs. These athletes are known as "recruited walk-ons" and are more common in some sports than others. Gymnastics is one sport where you see recruited walkk-ons. It is a "head count" sport and only 12 athletes can have any scholarship money. Coaches often want a team of at least 15/16 girls to have enough depth and provide a cusion for all the injuries which generally occur during the season. The "walk-ons" generally receive as much, if not more, "playing time" than the scholarship athletes. And, while they don't get the athletic scholarship, they can certainly get any merit or need-based aid, and they still get all the other perks (team gear, travel with team paid for, NCAA "slush fund" money, etc.) Soccer is similar as the max amount of aid (not head count) is 9.9 player's worth. This is not much, and since most soccer teams field around 25 players, recruited walk-ons are not uncommon.