[Mick]

I know a former (heavily recruited) scholarship football player who didn't really like football and used it to get a scholarship.  He "went through the motions" to stay on the team for four years, and in his fifth year, as soon as his last semester of financial aid was locked in, he quit the team in October.

There really is no way to prevent this from happening, other than vetting kids more strictly.  It's not practical to set some sort of athletic performance measures to stay on scholarship, but maybe there could be a requirement to show up for practices, meeting, conditioning, etc., and if a certain threshold of presence is not met, the scholarship can be revoked.  The problem with this latter approach is these are the kinds of things that make being a scholarship athlete tantamount to being an employee. 

...came from a Stanford assistant coach speaking recruiting truth to a bunch of 14 year olds.  He obliquely referred to the phenomenon you describe above which is actually worse in the non-revenue sports without many scholarships to give.  In his sport, there were. about 300 athletes a year recruited by all the NCAA teams.  Only about 50 of those athletes are actively sought after and recruited by the coaches.  They are recruited because they have the most talent, they are targeted starters and key backups.  Therefore, the coaches actively and aggressively recruit those athletes.  The other 250 athletes recruited annually don't receive scholarships[/u], but they are still a key part of the team.  They are the second and third and fourth stringers who played on the practice squads and acted like the opponents, and pushed the starters to improve, but only in rare instances did those athletes actually become starters.

Therefore, the coaches needed second-tier recruits who were essentially sturdy; who didn't mind (or at least could live with) the fact that they would work just as hard as the starters yet play infrequently at best.  So you can imagine the kind of athletes the coaches wanted for those roles; first and foremost, "team" players, also highly desireable were "very coachable kids" (level-headed and mature), and other characteristics indicative of a talented, selfless player.  So those players had to show active enthusiasm about the program and the team and the school.

In essence, then, the recruiting process turned itself on its head.  The top 50 recruits were recruited by coaches.  The next 250 recruits essentially recruit themselves.  These were the kids who actively pursue the coaches of a course of years, who praised the school, who visited more than once, who were recommended by their club owners and coaches and high school coaches as "the ultimate team guy" or "very coachable" or other euphemisms designed to indicate that no matter what, this non-scholarship player will stay on the varsity for four years, spending many hours a week at a sport that he has no hope of ever playing on a varsity level.

Coaches have mixed records on that score, particularly for very prominent schools who can recruit very high level athletes.  They get the best recruits, but if they don't play them, they tend to lose them.  Take, for example BYU.  Six freshman, seven sophomores on their MVB roster...but only three seniors and three juniors.

My son's coach is pretty good at spotting those kinds of players.  Only one player in the past four years has quit the team.  That's pretty critical for selective schools; when a selective school offers a recruit, it is with the intention that the recruit will stick with that school's team come hell or high water.

[Mick]

I know a former (heavily recruited) scholarship football player who didn't really like football and used it to get a scholarship.  He "went through the motions" to stay on the team for four years, and in his fifth year, as soon as his last semester of financial aid was locked in, he quit the team in October.

There really is no way to prevent this from happening, other than vetting kids more strictly.  It's not practical to set some sort of athletic performance measures to stay on scholarship, but maybe there could be a requirement to show up for practices, meeting, conditioning, etc., and if a certain threshold of presence is not met, the scholarship can be revoked.  The problem with this latter approach is these are the kinds of things that make being a scholarship athlete tantamount to being an employee. 

...came from a Stanford assistant coach speaking recruiting truth to a bunch of 14 year olds.  He obliquely referred to the phenomenon you describe above which is actually worse in the non-revenue sports without many scholarships to give.  In his sport, there were. about 300 athletes a year recruited by all the NCAA teams.  Only about 50 of those athletes are actively sought after and recruited by the coaches.  They are recruited because they have the most talent, they are targeted starters and key backups.  Therefore, the coaches actively and aggressively recruit those athletes.  The other 250 athletes recruited annually don't receive scholarships[/u], but they are still a key part of the team.  They are the second and third and fourth stringers who played on the practice squads and acted like the opponents, and pushed the starters to improve, but only in rare instances did those athletes actually become starters.

Therefore, the coaches needed second-tier recruits who were essentially sturdy; who didn't mind (or at least could live with) the fact that they would work just as hard as the starters yet play infrequently at best.  So you can imagine the kind of athletes the coaches wanted for those roles; first and foremost, "team" players, also highly desireable were "very coachable kids" (level-headed and mature), and other characteristics indicative of a talented, selfless player.  So those players had to show active enthusiasm about the program and the team and the school.

In essence, then, the recruiting process turned itself on its head.  The top 50 recruits were recruited by coaches.  The next 250 recruits essentially recruit themselves.  These were the kids who actively pursue the coaches of a course of years, who praised the school, who visited more than once, who were recommended by their club owners and coaches and high school coaches as "the ultimate team guy" or "very coachable" or other euphemisms designed to indicate that no matter what, this non-scholarship player will stay on the varsity for four years, spending many hours a week at a sport that he has no hope of ever playing on a varsity level.

Coaches have mixed records on that score, particularly for very prominent schools who can recruit very high level athletes.  They get the best recruits, but if they don't play them, they tend to lose them.  Take, for example BYU.  Six freshman, seven sophomores on their MVB roster...but only three seniors and three juniors.

My son's coach is pretty good at spotting those kinds of players.  Only one player in the past four years has quit the team.  That's pretty critical for selective schools; when a selective school offers a recruit, it is with the intention that the recruit will stick with that school's team come hell or high water.