"Blue Chip" and "Recruited Athlete" technical meaning at USAFA.

Recruiting is "no holds barred" business. Just because a coach tells a recruit they are wanted on the team and are considered a blue chip recruit, this does not guarantee they will follow through with their verbal or written intentions. The forum can dispute this all they want, but I have irrefutable proof of this practice. All 2023 blue chip recruited athletes should heed this advice or you may be "sitting on the tarmac" for a year if you don't have a plan b in place and on the go simultaneously.
 
The pendulum swings both ways - recruited athlete and coach. Ultimately, a blue chip recruit is allowed to go on 5 D1 visits - it is the athlete's best interest to use all 5 visits going to some SAs and some traditional colleges. My DD did and received 5 full ride offers. I didn't see a huge difference from a coach/athlete discussion between the traditional schools and SAs. The hard part was narrowing down to one on the initial signing day (November) when there was so much of the SA process to go. One point of advice I would have is make sure you know what is important to you - excelling in your sport or your academics, it may be difficult to excel at both and it is really important that you understand that going in. As my DD reminds me all the time, "I only have a few years of my sport left to compete, USAFA is preparing me for the rest of my life - I really need to focus there". Good luck!
 
This may have already been said, but worth emphasizing: If you quit your sport at a civilian college, you could lose your scholarship. If you quit your sport at an academy, you don’t lose your scholarship — because there’s no scholarship to lose. Worth considering, especially if finances are an important consideration.
 
Recruiting is "no holds barred" business. Just because a coach tells a recruit they are wanted on the team and are considered a blue chip recruit, this does not guarantee they will follow through with their verbal or written intentions. The forum can dispute this all they want, but I have irrefutable proof of this practice. All 2023 blue chip recruited athletes should heed this advice or you may be "sitting on the tarmac" for a year if you don't have a plan b in place and on the go simultaneously.

Unfortunately no matter how much a coach might want an athlete, if said athlete does not pass DODMERB, have the academics, extracurriculars, etc., there is not much they can do to get them into an academy. At USNA the only "help" (I am aware of based on my dd experience) offered as a blue chip is a nomination. The athletic department has an admissions counselor that presents applications for potential athletes to the board, but those applications must have the total package.

I am sorry it didn't work out for you this year. Use this set back to launch you forward.

Best of luck.
 
BBBRRRTT: what is this great proof you have? There are many "recruited" and "blue chipped" athletes on this site, and many parents of same.

If Johnny is a great football player, has great academics, fully qualified DodMERB, but is arrested and convicted of selling pot when he's 16, guess what? He's probably not getting a nomination over others who don't have this huge disqualifier, and he is not getting an appointment - especially if he doesn't disclose same.

It's a big example, sure, but there are many things that go into athletic recruitment at a Service Academy which simply are not part of the equation at Flagship U or the Ivies, or any other civilian colleges.

Got asthma? Plan B. Got a felony conviction? Maybe Plan B or Plan C. Foreign citizenship? We'll look into it. Been on ADD/ADHD or anti-depression meds after age 13 (or sometimes before)? Plan B.

And even the best athletes, the brainiest students, the "legacy" students, may not be in the running for nominations and appointments.

I challenge you to prove a WRITTEN COMMITMENT LETTER from any coach at USAFA or other SA "guaranteeing" a spot for any student at USAFA or on any of their Division I teams that does not include the caveats of academics, medical, legal, etc. measures. It is simply not the same as at civilian colleges.

As you may be aware, many coaches at civilian colleges do promise the moon to great athletes/athlete-scholars. But they don't put things in writing and only a fool would think that what's said on a recruitment visit is legally binding.
 
BBBRRRTT: what is this great proof you have? There are many "recruited" and "blue chipped" athletes on this site, and many parents of same.

If Johnny is a great football player, has great academics, fully qualified DodMERB, but is arrested and convicted of selling pot when he's 16, guess what? He's probably not getting a nomination over others who don't have this huge disqualifier, and he is not getting an appointment - especially if he doesn't disclose same.

It's a big example, sure, but there are many things that go into athletic recruitment at a Service Academy which simply are not part of the equation at Flagship U or the Ivies, or any other civilian colleges.

Got asthma? Plan B. Got a felony conviction? Maybe Plan B or Plan C. Foreign citizenship? We'll look into it. Been on ADD/ADHD or anti-depression meds after age 13 (or sometimes before)? Plan B.

And even the best athletes, the brainiest students, the "legacy" students, may not be in the running for nominations and appointments.

I challenge you to prove a WRITTEN COMMITMENT LETTER from any coach at USAFA or other SA "guaranteeing" a spot for any student at USAFA or on any of their Division I teams that does not include the caveats of academics, medical, legal, etc. measures. It is simply not the same as at civilian colleges.

As you may be aware, many coaches at civilian colleges do promise the moon to great athletes/athlete-scholars. But they don't put things in writing and only a fool would think that what's said on a recruitment visit is legally binding.

Tempting challenge fencersmother. In today's world not only are letters legally binding, but official emails and public conversations of commitment are also legally binding. But getting back to the challenge, I would probably be willing to take that challenge if the SA had a technical definition for the term "blue chip". Now, if there is no technical definition, I would suggest that SA officials stop using the term in official emails to recruits. This is the crux of my original post.
 
Tempting challenge fencersmother. In today's world not only are letters legally binding, but official emails and public conversations of commitment are also legally binding. But getting back to the challenge, I would probably be willing to take that challenge if the SA had a technical definition for the term "blue chip". Now, if there is no technical definition, I would suggest that SA officials stop using the term in official emails to recruits. This is the crux of my original post.

As per a Google search of LOI: A party that has signed a letter of intent (LOI) may be legally bound to it depending on how the letter is drafted. For public conversations: Assuming that the contract is valid, the verbal agreement between two parties is binding. However, verbal contracts may have unique complications to them. It seems that if all the stars are aligned, your post could be technically correct. And as we all know, that situation doesn't always occur. Also, since there seems to be no technical definition of "Blue Chip" why should only the AFA give up using it? It reminds me of the famous Supreme Court Justices' quote on the destination of pornography, I know it when I see it. Same can be said for the blue chip athlete. I suggest that since the term really bothers you so much, the next time a AFA coach uses it in their communications with you, elaborate your concerns with them.
 
SAs do not participate in the NLI program, so none of that matters. A top recruit will get an LOA with all the caveats. We see it every year of some kid ‘committing’ to a SA even in July of the summer before senior year. It doesn’t mean a thing. They haven’t even completed their app. It means you complete x, y, z and we want you bad enough that a Supt’s nom will be used for you. That is as good as it gets in the SA recruiting world. They can call them a blue chip, super star or whatever. Bottom line, attrition in sports at a SA is extremely high. For many teams it can 50%+ for those who play 4 years. If someone doesn’t want to attend a SA and become an officer, regardless of sport, they won’t stay. Recruiting is cut throat, always have a Plan B.
 
SAs do not participate in the NLI program, so none of that matters. A top recruit will get an LOA with all the caveats. We see it every year of some kid ‘committing’ to a SA even in July of the summer before senior year. It doesn’t mean a thing. They haven’t even completed their app. It means you complete x, y, z and we want you bad enough that a Supt’s nom will be used for you. That is as good as it gets in the SA recruiting world. They can call them a blue chip, super star or whatever. Bottom line, attrition in sports at a SA is extremely high. For many teams it can 50%+ for those who play 4 years. If someone doesn’t want to attend a SA and become an officer, regardless of sport, they won’t stay. Recruiting is cut throat, always have a Plan B.

I agree with Navyhoops, except for applicants not being finished their application. Anyone being recruited take note, DD had her application finished in June (highly motivated), CFA completed at Summer Seminar, DODMERB scheduled for early August, nomination applications completed, BGO interview early July, received her LOA July 24th. While it is RARE, she wanted it bad and was willing to do everything to make it happen. If you want to know how dedicated the coach is to your appointment get your application in ASAP!

She was given a Supts nom and appointment on FEB 2nd (senator finalized slate on Jan 31st). Yes, LOA in July appointment in FEB.

If you want to attend an SA PROVE it! Recruiting is complicated and not always fair, BUT neither is life. No one OWES you anything. If it doesn't work out, dust yourself off and move on to plan B.

DD still made plan B and C as accidents and injuries happen.
 
@BBBRRRTT Glad you asked the question, great thing about forums when questions are asked - it allows new members to share experiences and respond - where as there would probably be no sense in responding to older threads...

My nephew was recruited to play Football at USAFA - they handed him a VP nom and he received an LOA like the second he finished his application - just like Mermaidmom202 shared - He did start all 4 years.

Then, the other end of the spectrum, my DS tried to get recruited to USNA - went to run and jump camp - put his numbers up for all to look at - ha, never heard a single word from anyone. Then about 2 weeks prior to I-day this year... as a re-app to boot... receives a letter from coach “now that you are a recruited track and field scholar athlete...”. We kinda shook our heads and chuckled a bit. It is a very interesting process.

I was a bit surprised to find out the Athletic departments are private outsourced 501(c)3 not for profit entities. USNA was the first, USAFA and West Point more recently. One can imagine the delicate balance of SA needing to develop warriors and the athletic department wanting to be competitive.
 
Tempting challenge fencersmother. In today's world not only are letters legally binding, but official emails and public conversations of commitment are also legally binding. But getting back to the challenge, I would probably be willing to take that challenge if the SA had a technical definition for the term "blue chip". Now, if there is no technical definition, I would suggest that SA officials stop using the term in official emails to recruits. This is the crux of my original post.

As per a Google search of LOI: A party that has signed a letter of intent (LOI) may be legally bound to it depending on how the letter is drafted. For public conversations: Assuming that the contract is valid, the verbal agreement between two parties is binding. However, verbal contracts may have unique complications to them. It seems that if all the stars are aligned, your post could be technically correct. And as we all know, that situation doesn't always occur. Also, since there seems to be no technical definition of "Blue Chip" why should only the AFA give up using it? It reminds me of the famous Supreme Court Justices' quote on the destination of pornography, I know it when I see it. Same can be said for the blue chip athlete. I suggest that since the term really bothers you so much, the next time a AFA coach uses it in their communications with you, elaborate your concerns with them.
"Wishful", thanks for the information. This forum dialog is a great source to future recruits and it's my goal to make sure that athletic recruits realize that a blue chip list means absolutely nothing, don't fall for it. What really matters, will a coach follow through with a "Recommendation for Appointment". A coach that blue chips an athlete in November, tells the recruit they are wanted on the team in December, and then tells them in May that they just can't write a letter of recommendation for an appointment because they over committed is, in my opinion, not exactly a person of high integrity. That's just my opinion, I am sure many will disagree and I totally understand. I get it, the blue chip term will never go away at SA's nor at public universities (I never expect it to either). I just think this forum should be the place for recruits to know the real truth about the term blue chip. So many will tell you what blue chip means early in the recruiting cycle (coaches, wikipedia, forums,etc), then when the over committing of blue chips becomes a reality in May, they will tell you what blue chip "is not". Pretty clear after that process, that the term is useless. That's all I was trying to relay to others in the future. And yes, you can bet, I know a useless term like blue chip "when I see it":) Oh and by the way, I did elaborate my concerns regarding the term with many levels at the SA. "Wishful", you truly have sound advice.
 
Just another note for this thread: many "blue chipped" athletes still have to "try-out" for their teams during BCT. Crazy but true.
 
To add to what navyhoops said so accurately. According to the NCAA, the fact that the academies don’t offer scholarships of ANY kind, makes any reference to letters of intent, blue chip, recruited athlete, etc. words without NCAA meaning.

In other words, because non academy schools offer scholarships, those words mean something. The academies don’t offer scholarships, therefor those words are only used by the academy to give the applicant a means of comparing.

And by the way, if you look at schools like Harvard, who also don’t have athletic scholarships, they are the same as the academies. No “binding” letter of intent.
 
Right, Christcorp! One of mine stayed just a year, the other three years. Neither one "lost his scholarship."
 
Just to add two cents from anecdotal hearsay with absolutely no evidence, I have heard there is a difference between "blue chip" and "recruited athlete" in that if you are a "blue chip", the coach might have a couple of spots (depending on the sport) which he/she can use to influence the admissions process or gain a Superintendent Nomination although he/she may or may not use that influence. If you are a "recruited athlete", the coach may indicate that to admissions and it is worth points on your Whole Candidate Score but the coach purportedly does not have or does not use influence with admissions. You pretty much have to get in on your own but your WCS may get a bump in your total score.

Has anyone heard this or does that seem accurate?
 
My DD was told she was a blue chip athlete and one of top two recruits. BUT they encouraged her to get everything in early so she could be looked at in the first or second board. They really pushed and she got all her items in by the second board meeting. I think this definitely helps ANY applicant to get all their items in early as it shows your level of commitment. If you’re taking forever to get your items in and at the same time coaches know you’re getting recruited by other schools then they might not feel you’re that serious about a Service Academy. We were told in previous years that coaches were convinced by the athletes that they were choosing Navy only to change their minds last minute and go with other schools. It works both ways. If you are 100% serious about committing to a service academy as an athlete then get your package completed early.
 
Just to add two cents from anecdotal hearsay with absolutely no evidence, I have heard there is a difference between "blue chip" and "recruited athlete" in that if you are a "blue chip", the coach might have a couple of spots (depending on the sport) which he/she can use to influence the admissions process or gain a Superintendent Nomination although he/she may or may not use that influence. If you are a "recruited athlete", the coach may indicate that to admissions and it is worth points on your Whole Candidate Score but the coach purportedly does not have or does not use influence with admissions. You pretty much have to get in on your own but your WCS may get a bump in your total score.

Has anyone heard this or does that seem accurate?

That’s how we understood it. On a conference phone call after a recruiting visit: Coach would go ahead and ‘flag’, DS’s application. That he needed to proceed and try to obtain a nomination on his own. If unable to secure one, the coach could help ‘find one for him’. DS, dad and I all heard that call.

DS received his LOA (turned into an offer after returning a form) within the week. So there must be a physical element to ‘flagging’ the application. He also already had 3 nom’s. So it was pretty easy for the Coach.

One thing also requested earlier in the process from his Coach, was that DS let him know who, and when he completed his MOC applications. I dont know if the Coach reached out to MOC’s or not? But leads me to believe there is that potential at least. And PERHAPS that is another opportunity to ‘help’ get a nomination. Perhaps not. I have no idea but something I have thought about. And obviously the whole MOC process is another whole different bird....

On another note, DS has a buddy, who was ‘blue chipped’, 4star recruit that had maybe 20 D1 offers. He took too long to decide. Despite being told not to hurry. Many of those “promises” disappeared. And yes he was “promised” the moon by many. So it’s just what recruiting is. Period.

Add all the other unique elements of a SA? And it’s an even STRANGER bird. But to imply the lack of integrity (which is how I am taking OP’s posts....) is unique to SA, is wrong. It’s simply the way it can work. Overall. Period. Everywhere. We have a coach in our state who “offers” before legally he can offer...and “offers” more than he has!! Well...those “offers” are verbal. Not actual. But the recruits are anxious to post their “offers” all over social media. So IMO, it’s a two way street, and recruits are also part of the whole issue/problem.

Bottom line though, is a SA doesn’t participate in the LOI, as already discussed.
 
In today's world not only are letters legally binding, but official emails and public conversations of commitment are also legally binding.

> Wow, now the Forum includes legal advice. Yes, a letter can create a legal contract, but I could create a whole law school course about conditions and caveats to the statement about the letters being "legally binding." As a starting point, there are a number of federal statutes governing admission to Service Academies, and if you don't meet those statutory requirements, you aren't going to get into the Service Academy, no matter how many letters you have.

As to Fencermother's challenge, its a trick question-- asking for a letter "guaranteeing" a spot at a Service Academy. I've never had to deal with Blue Chips or Recruited Athletes in any context, but have been playing the lawyer game long enough to be confident in thinking that any letter from a Coach or other school official "guaranteeing" a position has been properly vetted by legal counsel, and has enough conditions, caveats, and weasel words that there really is no enforceable "guarantee".
 
In today's world not only are letters legally binding, but official emails and public conversations of commitment are also legally binding.

> Wow, now the Forum includes legal advice. Yes, a letter can create a legal contract, but I could create a whole law school course about conditions and caveats to the statement about the letters being "legally binding." As a starting point, there are a number of federal statutes governing admission to Service Academies, and if you don't meet those statutory requirements, you aren't going to get into the Service Academy, no matter how many letters you have.

As to Fencermother's challenge, its a trick question-- asking for a letter "guaranteeing" a spot at a Service Academy. I've never had to deal with Blue Chips or Recruited Athletes in any context, but have been playing the lawyer game long enough to be confident in thinking that any letter from a Coach or other school official "guaranteeing" a position has been properly vetted by legal counsel, and has enough conditions, caveats, and weasel words that there really is no enforceable "guarantee".
You know what they say about assuming.
 
Back
Top