In part this is an attempted continuation of back and forth from yesterday in another thread but also with an eye towards better, more honest and transparent, and less agenda-driven discussion in general.

I'll offer what I think is a key clarifying suggestion at the outset. Many discussions go awry and dissemble into snark because of confusion about what and if we're disagreeing about. Sometimes, without necessarily knowing this or acknowledging it, we Do generally agree about some rather basic truths or patterns (while of course most of us will concede at least a little room for exception cases). The real disagreement, when it is real, may most often occur at the decision or choice phase....like we agree generally about a relative set of facts but then end up having very different takes about what we have done or would do given very similar circumstances. I also will go out on a limb and state that in many cases most of us would do something very similar if we were truly in the shoes of the other.

OK, enough teasing and vague rambling.

Few of us, even if we have or had the resources, are going to drop 250-300K for college on a kid who shows no interest in college or who is ill-equipped or a poor candidate for college or colleges at a certain level. By extension, few of us are going to do that simply to have our kid "play soccer," especially when we're paying for it. Given the costs these days, another way of saying something similar is that few of us would pay 60-65K a year to essentially have our kids go off somewhere to ONLY "smoke pot and discover themselves."

By the same token, few of us who have the means and have a pretty to very motivated kid who fits the profile for certain schools are going to deny them that opportunity. And for those that have kids who want to play a sport in college and can do so while still thriving in college, and/or for whom athletics actually is part of the thriving, few of us are going to deny them. I am of course fully acknowledging in putting things in those terms that there are kids where athletics might be truly detrimental to their college experience and relative overall success. There, and MANY, though for whom playing a sport in college is a PLUS or at worst neutral.

Let's try to agree that there are any number of scenarios, and also agree to not overly react to the fact that no one is going to adequately identify or cover all of them in a single post or even a series of posts.

Here's one before I forget and that actually is real. I know a kid whose parents did not go to college or at most community college and who was always considered borderline for college himself. Really good soccer player, played for one of the top local non-DAP teams, had colleges coaches in the stands looking at him for college games (mostly all D3 coaches and perhaps an occasional D2 and all local). He most likely was headed to a regional state school or the equivalent in a surrounding state. A school like Wheaton was a real reach for this kid and I'm guessing many, including his family, wondered if he could keep his head above water at a school at that level. He chose Wheaton and chose Wheaton specifically to play soccer with the perk that he was getting a better school than he could have dreamed of. He's done well with the soccer and has done OK with the school part. He no doubt won't be summa cum laude or going to law school, but he'll earn a degree and have gone further than anyone in his family thus far and most likely be just fine. He'll have some benefit to always being a part of the Wheaton family however one wants to think about that. Keep in mind that in this scenario the family likely got a ton of financial aid.

At any rate, there are kids who DO end up picking their D3s with soccer as a key determinant, but not necessarily in the way that sounds. Take a kid who fits a certain tier of D3s, like the lower NESCACs and similar elsewhere. He would go going to one of those schools where he applies whether he played soccer or not, but he wants to play soccer, so all things being relatively equal, he picks one where the coach wants him (not for a "tip" but wants him nonetheless). Let's say in the end he picks Bates over Colby because one coach wants him and the other not so much. Seems pretty reasonable. He was going to go to one of them anyway, his family was going to pay for one of them anyway, and playing soccer seems like it will be a net positive. I personally don't see this example, which is frequent in our demographic, as "making the soccer too important."

Let's pause and clarify a few more things.

***No one (or virtually no one) has claimed or would pick a high D3 over a high D1 or even just athletically high D1 IF he or she truly can be a real player at the D1. In other words, a legit player and admit for a Duke isn't going to pick Williams. Period. Full stop.

***I personally NEVER suggested (and indeed have gone to lengths to say the opposite) that my kid "coulda played D1 but chose D3" FOR ANY REASON and certainly not based on some "superior academics" argument as often is alleged. My kid was not a D1 talent at any level. Full stop. There have been posters over the years who have said their kids legitimately had offers at low D1s and chose high D3s. I do believe there is a category like that, and that category from time to time has spoken up and represented on this site. Again, though, they are not taking about turning down offers from elite academic AND athletic D1s to attend D3s. Almost always they are talking about choices that most of us would agree are close calls or at least understandable based on abilities, preferences, desired flexibility, etc, etc. We've seen these contrasts debated and critiqued before. Most of us would agree that a kid with a certain kind of profile could go either way on a 1/4 ride to Bucknell versus an admit and chance to also thrive with soccer at Haverford. Just to put a little color on that, my kid DID apply to both of those schools....to Bucknell as just a regular student who would not have played soccer there (or at best might have walked on) and Haverford where he very likely could have played soccer. I happen to love Haverford despite the tiny size but Bucknell is a very impressive and superb school itself. For kids who are legit soccer players for either I could see the stats trending 50/50 or 60/40 or so in either direction.

***The kid who is a legit player for a top 25 D1 (athletically) is on a different track than all the others, and I have always endorsed that view. They should in my mind go to those kinds of D1s (unless they just don't want to), and I consistently have said I would have pushed for the same if my kid fit that story. I've also said they should train and play at levels that support them, while at the same time not blaming kids who make top local club teams. It's not the latter's fault if there aren't enough kids in the area to fill rosters fully with kids all of the same ability level.

***On the why pay so much for club if you ONLY are going to end up with D3.....All of us wish things cost less. Participating doesn't mean we don't think some aspects (like travel, etc) are ludicrous, but analogous to the apologizes and deference for early recruiting, it is what it is. These days, especially on the men's side, a kid who hasn't trained and played at a high level and is continuing to push himself IS NOT GOING TO PLAY EVEN AT HIGH D3 (putting aside real outliers and very occasional exceptions). The rosters of D3s prove that point over and over, and potential consumers are being misled if they are told just play jhigh school soccer and maybe dabble a little with low level club if the goal is a good to elite D3.

Much more to say and clarify, but that's a start....

-- Pman (the real one)