Hypothetical question that was discussed recently with some other parents of serious athletes:
“If you could start your child off at a young age in any sport, which one would maximize chances to be recruited to a highly competitive academic school (D1) and at what age would you start training?”
Assumptions: above average athleticism (short-distance sprinting speed, hand/eye, strength, agility, lung capacity), average height/weight, high dedication from parents (economic, time)
Thoughts?
Concern with most coaches during our recruitment rounds was the athlete burnout once they start college. Many kids who started their sport at a very young age (10 or less) who were pushed by their parents to become an elite athlete, lost their passionate once college started. Our kid started in middle school and eventually recruited to an Ivy Div 1. In regards to which sport, unfortunately everyone child is different, and depending who you ask will give you a different answer. Our kid tried every sports while growing up. One he became passionate about one sport by middle school, that was the sport we focused on and supported him 110%.
Just clarifying…do you really mean average height, which in the US is men 5’9" and women 5’4"? IMO average height is a significant constraint for many D1 sports
Track and Field. Easiest sport to get recruited by, it’s all in the results. If you produce, coaches want you. Simple as that. There is a need for a lot of kids. Low cost involved, you most likely are not paying huge “club” fees and traveling all over the place wasting your holidays and vacations at dumb showcase tournaments.
Height and Weight is probably the least relevant in hockey and lacrosse at the D1 level -that would require those attributes. It is easiest to be recruited in sports where metrics are critical to recruiting. If you are on a team and are not on the right team, with the right coach paying the right people to promote your kid your kid may have no chance no matter how talented he is. Further, many kids are promoted with false or misleading stats. I.e goals and assists. A lacrosse team that beats another team 16 to 2 will have a bunch of meaningless goals attributed to its players If your kid can do something that is measurable like run a certain distance in a certain time or is in an individual sport then it is much less reliant on what team and politics and geography etc
got to love those dumb showcase tournaments…such waste for 90+% of the kids. Huge money maker for the organizations. S’s HS baseball coach (coached many D1 players, knows all the coaches, etc.) explained it to me on day. Essentially the coaches that participate at the college run camps (where maybe 10 - 20 college coaches are present) are there to look at some specific players. That was all set up in advance. If you’re not one of those 10 kids out of 250 (or more), they will never even see your kid unless he does something remarkable which is rare. They’re there for the 10 kids. The fees from the rest go to pad the schools baseball program. The private ones are a bit different but more similar than you think.
Agree if average height, track and field/xc is best chance for recruitment. Also in the mix-squash, some types of fencing, diving (not swimming), women’s golf, maybe lacrosse (but those boys and girls tend to be taller than average in our local high school that regularly sends kids to good d1 programs), wrestling.
A maybe for men’s and women’s hockey (but not many are average height anymore), ditto for men’s golf and women’s softball.
For men, average height generally rules out football, basketball, baseball, swimming, rowing at D1 level, but of course there are exceptions. For women, average height generally rules out basketball, volleyball, rowing, swimming.
S attends a small D1 school (with excellent sports teams, nationally ranked, etc). He was a very good HS player in FL which, due to yr round play, makes him better than most. He is playing club ball. A buddy on the team, avergage HT / WT , good player, very athletic, tried to walk on the D1 baseball team. The coach told him they have no room for anyone under 6’0" this small school has SS at 6 ft 185 lbs, 1B typically 6’2" - 6’4" / 200+ lbs.
Hard for a 5’10" / 160 lb kid to compete at that level., Bigger , stronger, faster and athletic. They recruit for upward projection. They like big frames with wide shoulders and know they can put on the weight with a strength program. That’s a big part of what they’re recruiting. Not just current talent, but how does the kid project?
Completely disagree on hockey: mens hockey is getting smaller. They are picking kids when they are 13 and 14 as future stars and many who are huge at 5 9" then dont get any taller. Hockey East in particular is full of smaller kids. Midwestern hockey tends to be a little taller.
If you look at both men’s and women’s ivy league hockey rosters, there are not many of average height. In fact, most of the men are 6 feet and over. While the game is getting faster, a taller fast player is preferable to a smaller fast player in both men’s and women’s games.
You seem overly invested in your middle school age S’s athletic endeavors and how it might help get him into college. This is your third similar post. Very few HS athletes get recruited for college. So much will depend on if he maintains his interest, continues to improve, develops the physical size/skills necessary for the sport etc. If your son does use athletics as an entree to college, I imagine his best chance would be in the sport you called “his first sport and main passion.” http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/athletic-recruits/2108158-does-playing-more-than-one-sport-at-a-college-varsity-level-help-incrementally-in-admissions-p1.html
I personally know several average height swimmers who went to ivy/top colleges as recruited athletes, yes height is a limiting factor IF you want your kids to become an Olympic swimmer, but if you really just want your kid to be a good swimmer who is recruitable, height is not a limiting factor. That being said, swimming demands lots of tough time commitment (20hrs weekly, 11.5 months and getting up at 4 am) for four years in most situations during HS, and some serious money-expenditures!
It definitely seems like certain sports require physical attributes that are innate (e.g. height for basketball), which become a constraining factor.
Two other points that were mentioned in my conversations:
It’s less about the sport and more about athleticism. Coaches tend to recruit athletes and bodies thinking they can teach the finer parts of the sport. So you want eye popping measurables: speed, velocities, etc.
My son has already selected his sports, which he’s been invovled in for almost a decade now.
The discussion topic is hypothetical but hopefully instructive to parents whose kids are just starting out in sports.
Your S is in middle school, and many posters on your threads have suggested a cautious approach regarding the line of thinking as in the above quote. Many of our kids have gone before yours, and ended up playing different sports (and being recruited) than those they favored in middle school. Kids get burned out, or injured, or find an activity they like better, or grow too big/too small, or just can’t keep up relatively with the skills required to remain competitive. The competitive landscape changes dramatically in high school, and the grind is unrelenting. I wish continued success to your S, and hope the entire family stays open minded and flexible with regard to athletics.
Part of this discussion should probably talk about what a parent means by recruitable. Getting on the team one piece, getting real money (and not just a couple thousand a year) is another piece.
Track and Field isn’t a headcount sport, so getting a scholarship or getting on the team doesn’t mean any individual will get any meaningful money. In this hypothetical understanding which sports are headcount sports and which aren’t is super important.
What does that have to do with this discussion?
@daddycaddy Simply reacting to your quote in post #14, which took the thread in a different direction
This is a fair point.
To provide context of the initial discussion among the parents, it was more about a child being recruited so that she could get a boost in admissions to a very selective college - not so much to receive scholarship $.
For most youth sports it’s almost never an “investment”, from the perspective of $ parents spend for their child’s sport generating a return later in the form of scholarship $ (or in the extremely rare case of being a professional athlete). Unless we are talking about “investments” with negative rates of return.