If a student athlete scores below 1000 on his SAT test, would he still get any recruting attention by D1 schools?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I don't see why not. I think the minimum to eligible to play is 750, i may be wrong though.
Yes, D1 schools can stil be interested. I know a guy who got close to a full ride with less than a 900.
The required GPA rises as the SAT grade reduces. There is a list on the NCAA web page that shows corresponding GPA and SAT scores. Good luck
The required GPA rises as the SAT grade reduces. There is a list on the NCAA web page that shows corresponding GPA and SAT scores. Good luck
Thats correct. A student with an SAT below 1000 is a D1 prospect. there are two sets of criteria to be met.
1) Admission to the school
2) Initial Academic Eligibility
This website has a section discussing both. The NCAA has a sliding scale for SAT/GPA to meet the Initial eligibility. I believe that even if a student does not qualify after admission, they can qualify year 2 with grades gotten year 1.
http://www.hsbaseballweb.com/ncaa_quick_jump.htm
http://www.ncaa.org/eligibility/cbsa/academic.html#Additional
1) Admission to the school
2) Initial Academic Eligibility
This website has a section discussing both. The NCAA has a sliding scale for SAT/GPA to meet the Initial eligibility. I believe that even if a student does not qualify after admission, they can qualify year 2 with grades gotten year 1.
http://www.hsbaseballweb.com/ncaa_quick_jump.htm
http://www.ncaa.org/eligibility/cbsa/academic.html#Additional
My son never took the SAT...only the ACT, and received interest from many D-1's. The player’s talent is what triggers the recruiting interests, not his academic ability. Academics may “stop” the process but talent is what gets it started. The ACT seems to be the standard test for most colleges in and around the mid-south, with the exception of those colleges that are considered the strongest of the academic institutions. I don’t know about those colleges in the Northeast. I would guess the answer would be "yes"....D-1's would still recruit your son.
Fungo
Fungo
Sure you would still get attention so long as you are good enough to play D-I.
If you have a core GPA of 3.550 and above you can score 400 on the SAT or on the other side if you score 1000 on the SAT you can have a core GPA of 2.025.
As 33's dad said there is a sliding scale on the NCAA web page.
The examples I gave above are the extremes on each end. The key is knowing what your core course GPA is (grades 9-12)and making sure you have taken the correct core courses since the 9th grade.
The higher the GPA & SAT the better chance for more $$$$$$$$.
Good Luck,
CV
If you have a core GPA of 3.550 and above you can score 400 on the SAT or on the other side if you score 1000 on the SAT you can have a core GPA of 2.025.
As 33's dad said there is a sliding scale on the NCAA web page.
The examples I gave above are the extremes on each end. The key is knowing what your core course GPA is (grades 9-12)and making sure you have taken the correct core courses since the 9th grade.
The higher the GPA & SAT the better chance for more $$$$$$$$.
Good Luck,
CV
As was stated earlier, academics can stop the process. Different coaches also have their own criteria. The Georgia Tech golf coach decided my son's under 1100 and 3.0 core was not high enough for their standards. Given what he did his first semester at a different school, they were probably correct in their assessment. He has since settled in and is doing well in both academics and golf at a school more suited for him.
Bleudevil's post is absolutely correct. It is not up to the coach in the end, he could be the BEST player they are considering as a future player, but may not meet the school's standards academically. Schools want players that will not lose their scholarships due to academics ineligibilty. Coaches like to build their teams on a lot more than just the best players, and want to keep their recruiting classes in tact for at least 3 years.
There is a misconception regarding meeting the sliding scale from NCAA. When researching the baseball program, also research admissions standards. One may qualify for D1 status, does not mean an open door to the school of your choice. I also suggest that along the way, parents encourage their son's to take more difficult HS courses. One may have alower GPA, but scools would rather see a C in Triginometry than an in general math. Know your son's strengths and weaknesses for choosing classes, not everyone is a math or science genius but may excel in language and the arts. To me, this is much more inportant than trying to figure out how many showcases one needs to attend to get noticed. If I had limited funds and had to choose, tutoring would come before batting and pitching lessons.
I and a few other parents always stress the importance of academics coming before anything else. I know of a player in our area, two years ago ranked very high in our county. Was being recruited for years from teh very best D1's in the SEC and ACC. He got the job done on the field, but not in the classroom. It affected where he went to college and the draft as well. The funny part of it all, when I spoke to his step mom, who had very little control over what he did in HS, they were all shocked he had very little interest in the end. They always thought he would get into school on his ability on the field. I know this sounds strange to some of us, but maybe this is the rose colored glasses thing Fungo talks about.
There is a misconception regarding meeting the sliding scale from NCAA. When researching the baseball program, also research admissions standards. One may qualify for D1 status, does not mean an open door to the school of your choice. I also suggest that along the way, parents encourage their son's to take more difficult HS courses. One may have alower GPA, but scools would rather see a C in Triginometry than an in general math. Know your son's strengths and weaknesses for choosing classes, not everyone is a math or science genius but may excel in language and the arts. To me, this is much more inportant than trying to figure out how many showcases one needs to attend to get noticed. If I had limited funds and had to choose, tutoring would come before batting and pitching lessons.
I and a few other parents always stress the importance of academics coming before anything else. I know of a player in our area, two years ago ranked very high in our county. Was being recruited for years from teh very best D1's in the SEC and ACC. He got the job done on the field, but not in the classroom. It affected where he went to college and the draft as well. The funny part of it all, when I spoke to his step mom, who had very little control over what he did in HS, they were all shocked he had very little interest in the end. They always thought he would get into school on his ability on the field. I know this sounds strange to some of us, but maybe this is the rose colored glasses thing Fungo talks about.
Statistically, some 40-45 percent of the people who take the SAT will score below 1000. The interesting thing to see will be what happens to the scores under the "new" SAT.
My oldest didn't break 1000 and barely qualified. All three of his semesters in college so far have been better than ANY quarter he had in high school.
It can happen.
My oldest didn't break 1000 and barely qualified. All three of his semesters in college so far have been better than ANY quarter he had in high school.
It can happen.
FROM NCAA.ORG - not always easy to find stuff, but...
The next significant modification of the initial-eligibility rules came in 1992 (fully implemented in 1996-97) with the adoption of legislation in Division I to increase the number of required core courses to 13 and the introduction of an initial-eligibility index (or "sliding scale"). Using the index, a student-athlete could establish eligibility with a GPA as low as 2.000, provided the student also presents an SAT score (recentered) of 1010 or an ACT sum score of 86. At the other end of the index, a minimum 820 SAT or 68 ACT sum score establishes the floor for students with GPAs of 2.500 or higher.
The next significant modification of the initial-eligibility rules came in 1992 (fully implemented in 1996-97) with the adoption of legislation in Division I to increase the number of required core courses to 13 and the introduction of an initial-eligibility index (or "sliding scale"). Using the index, a student-athlete could establish eligibility with a GPA as low as 2.000, provided the student also presents an SAT score (recentered) of 1010 or an ACT sum score of 86. At the other end of the index, a minimum 820 SAT or 68 ACT sum score establishes the floor for students with GPAs of 2.500 or higher.
windmill...now 14 core courses for '05 and up.
And things are apt to change again when they move into the new SAT in March 2005
quote:
windmill...now 14 core courses for '05 and up
In 2008 the number goes to 16.
Look, I tell all of my kids to do everything in their power to break the 1000 barrier or 85 sum in the ACT. Failure to do so will greatly limit the choices of most athletes.
My personal opinion is that the Clearinghouse has become a joke. The NCAA spent several fortunes fighting lawsuits regarding the SAT/ACT and their answer was a dummying down of the process.
Unfortunately, that's not what the University Presidents wanted to see, and the beefing up of the academic requirements for athletes makes the Clearinghouse even more ridiculous.
Trust me on this....if you qualify with a 3.0 GPA and a 700 SAT score, you'd best be a very special player to be considered as a scholarship recruit at most schools. This will become even more of an issue as the new academic reforms begin to be implemented this year.
For the incredibly vast majority of high school athletes who hope to compete in college, academic numbers are every bit as important as athletic numbers.