BBHD,
I don't think the time of year mattered as both were before 1 July. Probably just different interpretations of the rules.

CaDad,
While pitching at CSM is not the same as at Sunken Diamond, the real issue, at least when our son went, was the exposure to college coaches.
One thing your son will receive is the evaluation. He can provide that evaluation to any college coach and it will be respected as a good evaluation of his college potential. The evaluation is a recruiting tool your son can use effectively and it will be helpful to him in identifying the level at which he can compete.
But, one other aspect of that camp is how much coaches talk. On Saturday I was talking with a local high school coach who had been at Palo Alto High on Friday. He was talking with one coach about a player from his high school program who was at the camp. He told me that within 15 minutes of speaking with just one coach, he had upwards of 15 other coaches approach him about that player.
The coaches talk and communicate about players. There are DIII coaches who know they don't have any chance at some kids but they will talk them up to other coaches. There are DI coaches who do the same for kids who might not fit their program but are very solid DIII types.

Do not lose sight of the fact that this event is a camp not a showcase

infielddad,
Agreed that exposure is the key. Exposure in person is the preferred approach. Exposure in front of 30 to 35 coaches plus an evalution is superior to exposure to 4 coaches plus an evaluation. I believe the kid who pitched well at CSM on day 1 was referred to the Emory coach. Now if he's got a way to be seen by the Emory coach at some point and he ends up going there it was all the exposure he'll ever need, but the parent still wasn't thrilled at the lack of exposure. Also, I don't believe the coaches who aren't working at the camp get much information other than name, grades and SAT scores.

no11,
There was nothing in the literature sent out saying that not everyone would get to pitch at sunken diamond. That was something Stotz told everyone the first night. Common sense would make one realize that would be the case going in, but I think we still all go into the camp thinking our kid is going to get a chance to pitch in front of a lot of coaches.

Yes, I saw a few coaches roaming the workouts. That was certainly a positive for position players. The pitchers didn't do any pitching related workouts for obvious reasons.

Once again, the camp is great for position players. If you are a pitcher you have to go in with the realization that you have less than a 50/50 chance to pitch in front of a lot of coaches. You will certainly get evaluated by a couple coaches when you pitch and your team coach and the other team's coach will see you pitch. If you are at one of the more local sites which most pitchers are at there's some chance a few coaches might wander over. If you happen to pitch at CSM there's not much chance of that happening. In the words of the coach who did come over to see CASon throw "That was quite a trek."

I don't want people to get the wrong impression. Knowing that he'd get exactly the exposure he got and knowing how he'd perform, good not great, I'd send him just the same. We got our money's worth.

My son went to the camp last year as a position player. He didnt play on sunken diamond until the last day and it was late, majority of coaches had already left.Personally for us it was not one of my sons favorite camp. He didnt have the grades or SATS to get into the more prestigious schools anyway. The evaluation was good .the coach that evaluated my son said over and over "your offense surprised me since in my opinion you were overmatched,but again you continually surprised me with your ability to hit the pitching even though in MY OPINION you were overmatched.He kept saying my son needed to get stronger, he had the fielding tools, hitting tools, on and on but needed to get stronger. so his opinion was passed on Im sure even though my son hit very well in the games.No errors in any games , 5-12 in the games with 7 rbis but overmatched in his opinion. He said in the eval that with added strenth my son would have a lot of fun hitting at the next level.So we took the eval seriously though and my son worked with a trainer all fall and lifted with his hs coach three days a week all season.And my son had a great year, hit with power,avg etc,was an all area selection and was offered a D1 scholarship. So the eval. is a tool. The part I didnt agree with was his constant IN my opinion, OK thats your opinion, but 5-12 against good pitching is not being overmatced. thats why I say all the time some coaches look at the players size. But thats ok because it just made my son more determined and he grew from that eval. But other than that unless you have great grades, great SATS, and are a very good player most those schools there are not going to give you a lot of looks.
But take the eval. and really look at it. It did say my son would have the ability to play at a 4 year school, it did say what tools he had and what he needed to work on, i think all in all it was a fair eval. some kids received very low marks there and I knew of some parents that were upset,but I think my sons marks were pretty fair overall. And as I said we took it and took each weakness pointed out and honed in and worked on all of it.and hes a better player a year later, no comparison to last summer.So for those that get their evals. dont get offended if they dont give your player all rosy marks, thats not what they do they say it like it is so if you cant handle that dont go to the Stanford camp.

I think the fact that it isn't all that rosy is why, as infielddad pointed out, coaches tend to trust their evaluations. Actually, I'm hoping for a fairly positive evaluation based on what he heard from the coaches although I'm certain there will be some significant areas needing improvement.

The evals. are trusted Im sure. But in the end it still takes one coach to love your son and thats it.

I think the first question Stanford asked my son was, "Is that SAT score for just the two traditional parts of the test, or for all three parts?"

(It was for just the traditional 2. )

My point being, I think you may find that who they really look at most closely first, are those they think they can get through admissions. Stanford has a reputation for being a place where the coaches get no grease with the admissions department.

quote:

But in the end it still takes one coach to love your son and thats it.

That is the whole secret.

fanofgame - Always appreciate your honesty and how you speak from the heart. Some people even on the hsbbweb use "in my opinion" as a shield to protect against something harmful they might say. In your son's case, I think the coach's "opinion" was valuable as it caused your son to change his whole workout (and probably diet) regime because of it. That type of criticism is like gold if it it falls into the hands of the right person. It sounds to me as though your son was the right person to appreciate it.

Midlo,
Coach Stotz spoke to the kids and parents about recruiting one evening. He used the example of a kid with a 3.7 GPA and an 1850 on the SATs and said that would put the kid in the bottom 2% academically at Stanford. He suggested that maybe a school like USF which he said has a really good coaching staff would be a better fit for that player. My son heard that and turned and smiled because those are pretty much his grades and SATs and said "Dad, I don't think I'm going to be going here."

quote:

He used the example of a kid with a 3.7 GPA and an 1850 on the SATs and said that would put the kid in the bottom 2% academically at Stanford. He suggested that maybe a school like USF which he said has a really good coaching staff would be a better fit for that player. My son heard that and turned and smiled because those are pretty much his grades and SATs and said "Dad, I don't thing I'm going to be going here."

Nice sense of humor . According to the common data set for Stanford for last year's incoming class, the bottom 25th percentile new SAT score is 2000 (75th percentile is 2310), and I think something like over 93 percent of the class have GPAs above 3.75 on a 4.0 scale. They are generally most concerned about GPA from what they have said. This year's class was even more competitive so I imagine those numbers are just going to go up for a few more years until the demographic bubble pops.
Of course a lot of the recruited athletes are going to be in that bottom 25% and I have no idea what the lowest scores and grades are, but it is tough, no doubt about it......

quote:

He used the example of a kid with a 3.7 GPA and an 1850 on the SATs and said that would put the kid in the bottom 2% academically at Stanford.

WOW!

Obviously Stanford students are very bright, but still the stats mentioned above are amazing!

My guess is that if you've got a 95 mph fastball they'll do everything they can to get you accepted. That may not happen as the admissions process is not beholden to the baseball program. However, based on what they've said in their literature if you do get in you'll probably do just fine if you're willing to work hard enough.

.
Ah, but Stanford's or any other extreme academic schools threshold thing can work the OTHER way as well...

Older has a 4.3 GPA at a quality HS, AP Classes, decent test scores, activities, and his baseball press gets him an invite and heavy spring recruiting from The Cardinal...

Gets to Stanford Camp, does well...Stanford ceases contact...We call...

"We can't get him in...."

Your kidding me right?....AT A 4.3 GPA?

You might convine me he lacks athletic talent, but your going to have a hard time convincing me that he lacks brains...


44
.

There are some misconceptions being being created in this thread re/ Stanford admissions. I don't know the "secret formula," perhaps no one on the outside does?? I even believe it changes from year to year...but the following book gives great insight (including a lengthy chapter on the role of athletics in the admissions process) on the admissions process at one point in time...authored by a former Dean of Admissions at Stanford.

Its an excellent read for anyone considering applying to a competitive admissions process.

Questions and Admissions by Jean Fetter

In addition I once had an enjoyable conversation on this topic with one of their admissions officers a couple of years ago. I think its fairly safe to say that there is no hard line at the levels discussed in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Bordeaux:
According to the common data set for Stanford for last year's incoming class, the bottom 25th percentile new SAT score is 2000 (75th percentile is 2310)...

I think that this statement is misleading. The common data set lists percentiles for the three sections of the SAT individually. The 75th percentile scores were 760 for Critical Reading, 790 for Math, and 760 for Writing, and those do add up to 2310. But the student who scored 760 on Writing likely scored lower than 790 on Math, and vice versa. Applying the percentiles to the sum would only be valid if the scores on each section were completely correlated for every student.

So probably the 75th percentile for the sum of all three sections of the test was lower than 2310. Conversely, the 25th percentile was likely higher than 2000.

However you slice it, Stanford students are pretty darn smart!

.

quote:

Originally posted by justbaseball:
There are some misconceptions being being created in this thread re/ Stanford admissions. I don't know the "secret formula," perhaps no one on the outside does?? I even believe it changes from year to year...

...In addition I once had an enjoyable conversation on this topic with one of their admissions officers a couple of years ago. I think its fairly safe to say that there is no hard line at the levels discussed in this thread.

I would agree...Obviously more complex than just GPA and test scores....and given the value of a Stanford degree and the great experience, kids and parents nationally are wracking their brains trying to figure it out...

I'll pass on this story for what it is worth...Early in the recruiting process one of the Stanford coaches told me that admissions informed him that one of the characteristics that they were looking for beyond the "slam dunks" was....extremely high test scores, and a lower corresponding GPA. Why? Because that meant that students had "academic upside". They figued kids with high GPA AND high test scores were more likely operating at capacity....less upside...Kids with high GPA's and lower test scores were over acheiving and were already operating beyond capacity and would likley get buried.

Interesting take.

44
.

O44 - I think that story illustrates an interesting aspect of the admissions process at competitive admissions universities.

That aspect is that there are no solid lines on yes and no. An admissions decision is based on the sum of the total attributes of the applicant. Grades, SATs, ACTs, athletics, alum children, faculty children, geographic diversity (easier to get into Stanford from Idaho than across the street from Palo Alto HS), teacher recommendations (yes they call your principal sometimes to get their take), essays, interests, activities, science projects, etc..., etc..

Bottom line advice that I have to offer...if you think your son is somewhere close to being in the ballgame (i.e. possibly admittable), then let the coaches drive the process. Don't eliminate yourself based on a speech you heard or a story someone told you or an 'expert' posting online. The coaches know if they have a shot or not...if they're proceeding and you want to attend that school, run with it!

That's why they say a kid should apply to a couple of "reach" schools, some good fits, and a couple "safe" schools. You never know. However, trying to include both baseball and academics makes it hard to figure out which is which at times.

A friend was telling me at lunch how he had planned to go to CCNY, because his parents really couldn't afford to send him anywhere. A friend told him about Cooper Union and he asked his HS counselor. The counselor didn't think he had much chance but asked "Can your parents afford $15 for the application. Then why not?" He ended up getting into Cooper Union and got a top notch free education.

I really don't think Coach Stotz was telling the kids not to attempt getting into Stanford. I think he was saying that it was probably going to be a lot more work for a kid with the "lower" scores to keep up if they did get in and they better factor that into their decision making process.