[quote=Anonymous]I know that was your experience, but i can't see 12 starters getting the same amount of money as the bottom 2/3s...i've heard kids taking roster spots with zero money on some teams. [/q
You're spot on, committing and getting a big package are two very different things
and for some it doesn't matter. One of the Tewaaraton finalists this year had no athletic money. Got into a great school and turned into a great player. The biggest advantage to being a good lax player is that it can be an immense help in getting into a better school. If that can be combined with good scholarship money, all the better.
But if you are using lax to get into your reach school, you don't have the grades so there is no academic money. Those kids need the athletic money even more. Good grades fix everything!!!!
Ivies, for example, don't give academic or athletic money, just need. But you are right, good grades makes it much easier for the schools to recruit the player.
But what people seem to keep missing is that kids with perfect grades and test scores get routinely rejected from the top schools. "using lax" to get into reach schools does not mean you don't have great grades. The acceptance rate at Stanford, Harvard, Northwestern etc ranges from 5-12 percent. Most applicants are very good students. And those acceptance rates include athletes, development kids etc. So lax, or some other skill that the school values, is a great way to get to great schools.
A kid w a 3.7 GPA and 1350 on SATs is a GREAT student. Will have ZERO shot of getting into the top schools. If they are good enough at lax, they r a slam dunk to get in. They are smart kids and will do very well once they get to college and will have many doors opened up for them after graduation.
