I do too. But it's different AI's for different players. As you know they figure it out. They take a certain number of lower AI guys who might be impact/ must have players and balance it with some who have high AI's and probably won't play very much. In the end it all works out. For some select players a 3,5 and a 1200 is all they need. The others make up for it.
There is not a different AI for any applicant. The applicant has an AI based on the academic inputs. They (the Ivy institutions) don't take marginal students who are very good athletes and make attempts to figure out or modify what to do. That is the whole point of the AI so that the institutions and programs are not chasing a lower common denominator for a kid who is not qualified, and would likely struggle with academics in addition to denying an admissions spot to a higher qualified kid. A 3.5 and a 1200 are not lousy inputs I would only guess.
There are enough excellent recruits in sports like lacrosse who are also very good students so that going down the AI tables for a ringer is not in the best interests of the coach, the program or the institution. Refer to the NY Times articles on this topic. They are quite good and quote some coaches including the Yale basketball coach. Some programs are given some lower AI bracket spots, and it is impossible to say if the 3.5 and SAT kid is in that category because the formula is proprietary to the Ivy admissions and athletic departments.
I think the point here is it would be a bridge too far for any parent to be presumptive and go on thinking because my son is a lacrosse savant there are exceptions or modifications to the AI calculations or criteria. That plainly is not true.
