Your description of a “slot” is not how I understand it, having gone through several rounds of D3 recruiting and countless discussions with coaches. A recruit is given a slot because a coach wants the recruit and the recruit needs the slot to get admitted, not because he or she is the best athletic recruit for a given year. Example: I had one discussion during which a NESCAC coach told me that the coach had once slotted the best athlete in the cycle and the admissions committee told the coach to use the slot on a different athlete because the student at issue did not need the slot to get in. So, the coach changed the designations. Would the athlete have gotten in without a tip – that certainly is a different question. That particular NESCAC school has fairly high standards, so at least it would be a toss up.
So, there is a direct correlation with slotted athletes having lower academic credentials (either B or C bands). There also a correlation – albeit weaker – between slotted athletes being the most talented athletes, but only because usually when a coach can go down in academic talent, he or she can go up in athletic talent.
In fact, my guess is that the No. 1 tip has an equal likelihood of being admitted as the No. 1 Slot in a given year. The results would, however, be different between the No. 1 Slot and the No. 6 tip. In that instance, the slot’s chances for admission are clearly better than for the tip. The adcom might say to the coach, “why do you need 7 recruits? I gave you 8 last year.”