Success rate of the student-athlete vs non-student-athlete

Does it make a difference . . .

. . . when some of these college athlete get academic support at the school? Supposedly, many coaches/universities will counsel the student athlete on academic aspects, and they have to keep their grades up. The get free tutoring many times. That seems to make "getting help when needed" a little easier than the regular student who may not seek out that assistance, or be able to afford tutoring. Do you think that make the student-athlete more successful than other non-athletes?

 

More thoughts to ponder

I have read all of these great posts and while some are answering questions, some are also bringing on more questions as well.

First, there has been A LOT of references to "DI, scholarship athletes" being more likely to stick with a program through their senior year as opposed to DII or below schools who appear to have a larger attrition rate. So I took a few minutes to look at current rosters for some schools at the various levels from DI to DIII:

University of Alabama (DI) - 2 seniors; at least 4 incoming freshman recently signed NLI's

Campbell (DI) - 6 seniors; at least 9 incoming freshman recently signed NLI's

Gardner-Webb (DI) - 1 senior; 8 freshmen 2010

Fayetteville State (DII) - 2 seniors; 4 freshmen 2010

Chowan - 6 seniors; 9 freshmen 2010

Mount Olive - 3 seniors; 5 freshmen 2010

Lenoir Rhyne - 3 seniors; 4 freshmen 2010

Pfeiffer - 2 seniors; 2 freshmen 2010

If you were to look at the numbers pulled here, it would appear that retention was better at non-traditional DI's (not your Bama's, UCLA's, etc) and at the DII and DIII levels. Additionally, one has to ask that if the retention rate was SO HIGH at DI's, why are they consistently recruiting classes each year of 6-9 (or more players)?

Some additional questions that have come to mind are how much is attrition with the scholar-athlete effected by change of career paths? If, say, a student wanted to be a lawyer as a high school senior and attended Duke for pre-law, but by end of sophomore year realized her dream was to pursue pharmacology and Duke did not offer the program?

How many girl's go to college just go to college to play ball because they are the athlete-player not the girl-player, only to find out that the demands are college are above what they are prepared to commit to-sans sports?

 

wow

Wow central-d what is your issue with non DI softball. I would put alot of the DII programs and include my little NAIA school up against these so callled DI programs. It blows my mind why a kids goes to a mid level DI program and have a losing record year in and year out. What really matters to me is you can show your children you played college softball and have a degree at any level. In our school athletes have a a higher GPA on average then non athletes. Quality programs require so much from their athletes and this is why some can't make it. Yes it isn't fun at times in the weight run, conditioning and in study hall, but when they put that championship ring on, its fun. It takes a special person.

 

A coach that recruits a kid that leaves early made a mistake. A coach that has a lot of kids leave early may not understand the recruiting process. Early being in or after the first year.

How many girls quit ball after the 2nd year because they simply realize that they will not get any playing time no matter how hard they try. It seems that if you are not playing some of the time by the end of your 2nd year then you will likely not play in your 3rd and 4th. They have to ask themselves: "Is wearing the jersey good enough to keep me practicing?" I dont think there is any sense of seniority in college sports.

Sometimes focusing on their school work or studying abroad because they arent getting any playing time might simply be a prudent decision.

 

Agree 100%

IMO coaches need to do a better job gauging player's likelihood of persisting. If I were a coach I'd make some home visits. Two schools did this recruiting my DD and she ended up playing at one of them and worked as a volunteer assistant at the other following graduation. Too often coaches rely on recruiting videos or a few brief encounters at TB tournaments. Even then there are signs that you can read. Two summers ago I was @ Walnut Creek and one of my DD's college coaches ask me to look at kid they had signed. I watched a couple of innings (the kid was a pitcher). The coach ask for my opinion and I responded "she doesn't look very interested in what she's doing". After the game I noted she walked off hand-in-hand with a boy. Long story short she was asked to leave the team before the end of her FR year after numerous violations of team rules. I suspect a little time observing her more closely could have saved this school a scholarship.

You're correct about playing time also. If a kid isn't playing in her Sophomore year she's not likely to. Unlike guys, girls don't get physically stronger after 18. Time, in fact, becomes the girls' enemy.

I have no issue with the girl who is in a program a couple of years, realizes that college ball isn't for her (for whatever reason) and moves on. Quitting in the first year is an entirely different thing. It shows a lack of initiative, maturity and resolve and reflects poorly on the child and the parent(s).