Abstract
The college recruiting period represents a critical developmental moment for high school student-athletes, when their sense of identity may be reinforced or destabilized depending on the level of interest they receive from college programs. Athletic identity, defined as the extent to which individuals define themselves through their role as athletes, often forms early, as youth enter organized sports in childhood (Brewer et al., 1993). As athletes progress through high school and specialize in a single sport, opportunities to explore other interests may narrow, intensifying the salience of their athletic identity (Heird & Steinfeldt, 2013). Despite broad participation in youth and high school athletics, only 7% of high school athletes compete in college sports, and roughly 2% advance to Division I (NFHS, 2025). For the majority who do not continue their athletic careers after high school, this transition can disrupt their sense of self and prompt questions about their identity outside of sports (Wendling & Sagas, 2025).
Given that college recruiting can impact how student-athletes view themselves, school counselors and parents/guardians play essential roles in supporting these students’ emotional well-being. School counselors offer programming to address student-athletes’ academic and developmental needs (Harris et al., 2020) and provide caregivers with information on the recruiting process, including NCAA Clearinghouse procedures, eligibility requirements, and admission expectations (Gerlach, 2018; Howard, 2023). At the same time, parents/guardians significantly shape their child’s recruiting journey through their sustained involvement in youth sports and their investment in their child’s athletic aspirations (Ortega & Grafnetterova, 2023; Schaeperkoetter et al., 2015). Recent structural changes resulting from the House v. NCAA settlement have reduced Division I roster sizes, which has complicated the recruiting process due to limited opportunities for high school recruits under this new ruling. As a result, while the pressure to commit to a school quickly reinforces a student-athlete’s identity, it can also limit a parent’s/guardian’s ability to help guide their child to choose a college or athletic program that is the best long-term fit (Twaddle, 2018).
Taking a systemic perspective, Stahlke and Cranmore (2021) argued that school counselors should collaborate with professionals and adults within the athletic community to more effectively address the holistic needs of student-athletes, moving beyond educating parents/guardians on the eligibility requirements and the NCAA Clearinghouse. Due to the influential role parents/guardians play in college recruiting, we argue that school counselors must engage parents/guardians of student-athletes to better support these students’ wellness and mental health during this developmentally vulnerable period. Yet existing research offers limited insight into how parents/guardians themselves experience college recruiting, leaving a gap in the guidance available to school counselors on how to engage in such a collaboration. To address this research gap, our phenomenological study examined the experiences of 14 parents whose sons verbally committed to playing Division I lacrosse in college. The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine how parents navigated the complexities of the college recruiting process and to use these insights to inform recommendations for school counselors. This study was guided by the research question: How did parents of student-athletes who verbally committed to play Division I lacrosse in college navigate the recruiting process?
Literature Review
Threat to Athletic Identity and Emotional Toll
School counselors are strategically positioned within their schools to attend to the developmental needs of all their students. Focused less on pathology and more on prevention and wellness, school counselors lean on their preparation in human development to normalize students’ developmental experiences. Taking this developmental perspective, school counselors view college recruiting as a time when a student-athlete’s athletic identity will be tested. A small-group counseling intervention with Black males studied by Harris et al. (2020) offers a strong example of how school counselors can take a developmental approach to engage student-athletes who overidentified with their athletic role. According to Harris et al., school counselors can create interventions to help student-athletes expand their identity to understanding themselves separate from the sports they play. Through this approach, school counselors helped student-athletes explore other parts of their identities while also normalizing their experiences.
Athletic identity underscores the degree to which an individual identifies with being an athlete (Brewer et al., 1993). If salient, athletic identity spans across social contexts, which is evident in how athletes talk about themselves and how they are perceived by others. Brewer et al. (2022) explained that athletic identity saliency is dependent upon how strongly someone sees themselves as an athlete, how much their self-worth depends upon their performance, and how they and others view their role in sports. For many student-athletes, athletic identity develops earlier than other identities, contributing to its saliency. If athletic identity is salient, individuals may limit their development and exploration of other parts of themselves, which could lead to a sense of instability when their athletic identity is threatened (Heird & Steinfeldt, 2013). For the student-athlete population, an overindexing on their athletic identity can occur that can leave little room for other identities to emerge, in what is known as identity foreclosure (Brewer & Petitpas, 2017). Study of adolescents revealed gender differences, with female athletes tending to report higher academic identity and more motivation to engage in academic tasks than male athletes (Niehues et al., 2025).
During the college recruiting process, student-athletes’ athletic identity is both reinforced and challenged. Heird and Steinfeldt (2013) emphasized that athletic identity becomes increasingly salient through repeated validation given over time from coaches, teammates, and parents/guardians. An athlete’s identity becomes vulnerable when opportunities to continue their athletic career appear uncertain. When their recognition as an athlete decreases, individuals who strongly define themselves by their sport may experience emotional distress, diminished confidence, and anxiety regarding their future role (Heird & Steinfeldt, 2013). Edison et al. (2021) found that, during recruitment, athletic identity is intensified as student-athletes face evaluation from college programs. The individual’s perception of success or failure shapes the strength and exclusivity of their athletic identity. Thus, while recruiting can affirm self-concept through external approval, it simultaneously threatens its stability when outcomes fall short of expectations.
Drawing from this developmental frame, school counselors can recognize that college recruiting threatens or validates a student-athlete’s sense of self. If a student’s athletic identity is salient and threatened by coaches’ lack of responsiveness, that threat can generate feelings of self-doubt, stress, and anxiety (Benson et al., 2015). Initially, athletes whose athletic identity is threatened, such as by being overlooked during recruiting, typically lean into their past athletic successes as a defense mechanism (Benson et al., 2015). As a result, athletes who experience a threat to their athletic identity are likely to seek to enhance their athletic performance rather than broaden their view of themselves. Benson et al. (2015) argued that over time an athlete will experience emotional distress when those efforts do not yield anticipated results.
The recruiting process, marked by constant evaluation and uncertainty, can validate or destabilize an athlete’s identity, making it a psychologically formative period where self-worth is negotiated and challenged. When a student-athlete’s identity is challenged, they face a critical crossroads where they will either need to reassess who they are outside of sports or are likely to fall into despair. Unfortunately, student-athletes rarely seek professional help when dealing with mental health issues or emotional distress (Reich et al., 2021). Reich et al. (2021) noted that student-athlete help-seeking behavior was heavily influenced by intrapersonal factors (e.g., beliefs about help seeking) and environmental factors (e.g., acceptance of help-seeking behaviors). As a result, Reich et al. argued that counselors must educate parents/guardians of student-athletes on how to identify the signs of distress in their children and normalize help-seeking behaviors.
Scarcity in College Recruiting
School counselors have been integral to educating parents/guardians on NCAA regulations and the steps to applying to college (Howard, 2023). However, because college recruiting is a developmentally critical time in the lives of student-athletes, school counselors must move beyond logistics and eligibly requirements. School counselors must also acknowledge the changing and complex landscape that impacts how student-athletes and their parents/guardians might experience the recruiting process. For context, in 2025, Division I athletics entered a new era following the House v. NCAA settlement, which permits schools to opt in to a revenue-sharing model and pay athletes directly from athletic department funds, up to an annual cap of $20.5 million for the first year (AP News, 2025). To comply with the 2025 House v. NCAA ruling, Division I programs participating in the revenue-sharing model must reduce roster sizes to effectively eliminate scholarship caps (Pawlitz et al., 2025). This shift further professionalizes college athletics, especially in high-revenue sports like basketball and football, where coaches can now offer lucrative deals to attract top talent. Moreover, student-athletes can now secure name, image, and likeness (NIL) agreements, allowing them to build their personal brand, and earn compensation through endorsements, speaking engagements, and autograph signings (Ohio University, 2024). These opportunities often vary by institution, and affiliation with high-profile programs may enhance an athlete’s earning potential, increasing the pressure to commit to schools with strong national reputations.
Under the 2025 NCAA settlement, Logue (2025) noted that only a small number of athletes will benefit from high-value NIL deals, while most will feel the impact of reduced roster sizes. In men’s lacrosse, for example, 49 of 77 Division I programs were expected to decrease roster sizes from more than 55 players to approximately 48 (AP News, 2025). The NCAA transfer portal, where athletes formally declare their intent to explore opportunities at other institutions, has further limited opportunities for incoming freshman players. In 2022, more than 20,000 Division I athletes entered the portal, leading coaches to prioritize experienced college players over less seasoned high school recruits (NCAA, 2022). Roster reductions, combined with competition from current college athletes, fuel a scarcity mindset.
Flaherty and Sagas (2020) argued that the belief in limited college athletic roster spots creates urgency among parents/guardians and student-athletes. This sense of scarcity, driven by the perception that scholarship opportunities are rare and fleeting, often leads families to make quick decisions due to fear of missing out. As a result, student-athletes may prioritize the prestige of a program and its coaching staff over academic compatibility, a trend Twaddle (2018) warned could lead to mismatches between athletes and institutions. Liang et al. (2023) further found that when opportunities seem scarce, individuals tend to favor immediate, guaranteed outcomes over uncertain long-term benefits. With roster limits tightening and transfer activity on the rise, these pressures are likely to intensify. We contend that to be an influential partner with student-athletes and their parents/guardians, school counselors must acknowledge scarcity as a contextual factor related to college recruiting and attend to how a scarcity mindset could cloud the recruiting experience.
Parents’ Investment in Youth Sports and College Recruiting
Parents/guardians are highly influential and play a dominant role in the college recruiting process (Ortega & Grafnetterova, 2023; Schaeperkoetter et al., 2015). As such, Gerlach (2018) argued that school counselors need to engage parents/guardians of student-athletes to educate them on the recruiting process. Partners engaging in a collaborative relationship must understand each other’s roles, according to Tuttle et al. (2018). Acknowledging and knowing the role that each partner plays in the collaboration strengths the working alliance and sets the expectations for the work (Tuttle et al., 2018). To understand the parent’s/guardian’s role and positionality in the process of recruiting, school counselors should understand both how parents/guardians become invested in their child’s athletic career and the role they play within the recruiting process.
Parents’/guardians’ investment in youth sports is partly influenced by their integration into an athletic community, where social interactions are reinforced by their child’s involvement in sports (Dorsch et al., 2014). Dorsch et al.’s (2014) longitudinal case study explored parent socialization into youth sports, specifically focused on how parents’ experiences within the community shaped their parenting practices. Four parents from four different families participated, with data from interviews and journals collected over multiple seasons. The study’s findings suggested that parents’ interactions at youth sports games were opportunities for them to socialize, exchange parenting ideas, and establish norms for appropriate behavior. Similarly, Sutcliffe et al. (2024) noted that parents of adolescents who played a sport reported higher levels of support from other parents within their sports community compared to parents whose teens did not play a sport. These findings suggest that parents/guardians whose children were on a sports team were better connected to other parents/guardians than those whose children did not play a sport. Thus, Sutcliffe et al. concluded that parents socially benefited from their child’s affiliation to a sports team, and this could play into their level of investment. These studies highlight the influence that parent/guardian athletic communities have on setting parenting norms and social connection.
To better understand why parents continued to invest in their child’s sports activities as the child grew older, Stefansen et al.’s (2018) qualitative study explored the motivations behind sustained parental involvement beyond the need for direct management (e.g., car rides to practice). Stefansen et al. interviewed 44 parents within 43 families from various socioeconomic backgrounds living in Norway. Findings suggested that parents invested in their child’s sport because they believed it was supportive to financially fund and attend their child’s athletic events. Further, parents believed that investing in their child’s sports improved their relationship with their child and gave them an opportunity to monitor their child’s emotional state during adolescence. Last, parents believed that sport participation strengthened important life skills (Stefansen et al., 2018). Parents’ investment in youth sports extends into college recruiting (Schaeperkoetter et al., 2015).
Parents/guardians are very influential in their child’s recruiting process (Ortega & Grafnetterova, 2023; Schaeperkoetter et al., 2015). Schaeperkoetter et al. (2015) interviewed 69 Division III athletes to gain insight into how their parents informed their college decision. Findings revealed that athletes perceived their parents to be intimately involved in helping them make their decision (Schaeperkoetter et al., 2015). Specifically, athletes shared that their parents stressed the importance of being a college athlete and facilitated their recruitment process (e.g., going on college visits, identifying priorities); parents also provided financial guidance to help the athlete select an institution where academic and athletic fit were prioritized. Ortega and Grafnetterova (2023) stressed that parents make significant financial investments to help their child get recruited. Findings from Ortega and Grafnetterova’s case study underscored the financial sacrifices parents made to increase the odds of their child advancing in their athletic pursuits, including paying for training, team fees, recruiters, and travel. The level of parents’/guardians’ investment in their child’s sports career and the adults’ socialization into an athletic community indicate the need for school counselors to engage parents/guardians during the recruiting process when the student-athlete’s athletic identity is challenged and emotional distress is likely when outcomes are not ideal.
Purpose of the Study
School counselors and parents/guardians play a critical role in supporting student-athletes, particularly during periods when the child’s athletic identity may be challenged. Effective collaboration with parents/guardians requires an understanding both of parents’/guardians’ roles in the college recruiting process and of the ways in which they experience that process. To inform recommendations for such collaboration, this phenomenological study centers the perspectives of parents and examines how they navigated their child’s recruitment journey.
Given the limited research available on how school counselors can collaborate with parents/guardians in this context, we sought to capture parents’ lived experiences as an initial step toward developing research-informed recommendations. We focused specifically on parents of male lacrosse players because (a) we reside in a region where lacrosse is highly competitive and (b) athletic identity is often particularly salient in male-dominated sports. Accordingly, the study was guided by the following research question: How did parents of student-athletes who verbally committed to play Division I lacrosse in college navigate the recruiting process?
Methods
Procedures
We received institutional review board approval before opening the investigation. Participants were initially recruited through their lacrosse club teams and contacted via email. The lacrosse club teams were located on the East Coast, and team members were primarily from Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Eligible participants received a recruitment email with a link to the consent form and a demographic survey. Participants were encouraged to refer other parents to the study who met the criteria. If a participant recommended another parent, the first author reached out to that parent, sharing the recruitment email and accompanying forms. Those who signed the consent and completed the demographic survey were contacted for an interview. The first author conducted all interviews online via Zoom. The interviews were recorded and transcribed; transcriptions were deidentified with parent names removed and given an alias (e.g., P1, P2).
The interviews were semistructured and lasted between 30 and 55 minutes. Each recruiting journey is different and we wanted to give parents an opportunity to describe their own experience. Creswell and Creswell (2017) argued that semistructured interviews provide participants with the opportunity to expand upon areas that are of deeper interest, which was important to us. Ahmed (2025) recommended that phenomenological studies include a sample size of 5–25 participants to increase their academic rigor. We interviewed 14 participants, well within the recommended limits. Questions were designed to gain insight into the overall recruiting process and to ask about challenges and support. Sample questions were: “Describe your recruiting process”; “What do you wish you knew about the recruiting process?”; “If there were setbacks, how did you handle them?”; and “What helped you during the recruiting process?”
Participants
Parents were eligible for participation if their male child was a student-athlete in junior year of high school (16 to 17 years old), played lacrosse competitively, and made a verbal commitment to play Division I lacrosse in college. Fourteen parents participated; of these, 12 identified as female (85.7%) and two identified as male (14.3%). Eleven participants (78%) identified their race as Caucasian or White, two (14.3%) as Black or African American, and one (7.1%) as Asian. In terms of ethnicity, one (7.1%) identified as Hispanic or Latino. Parents reported that their child had played lacrosse anywhere from 7 to 14 years, with the average being 10 years.
Data Analysis
Our data analysis was informed by Moustakas’s (1994) modification of the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method of phenomenological analysis. Hayes and Singh (2023) recommend this phenomenological analysis methodology for analyzing data specific to understanding participants experiences. To obtain a comprehensive description of the participants’ experiences with college recruiting, each author engaged deeply with the data, repeatedly reading the transcripts while setting aside their assumptions and documenting patterns through writing memos. The first author identifies as a White, cisgender female with several years of experience in qualitative research. She has served as a counselor educator for over 16 years and practiced as a school counselor for 14 years. The second author identifies as a White, cisgender male who is in his last year of pursuing an undergraduate degree in psychology and received formal training in both quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Prior to the data analysis, the first author collaborated with the second author to familiarize him with Moustakas’s (1994) adaptation of the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method of phenomenological analysis methodology.
Following Moustakas’s data analysis framework, we extracted significant statements from each transcript that captured the essence of each participant’s experiences, discarding statements that were ambiguous or inadequate. Subsequently, we organized the significant statements into identified themes, which we further refined and categorized into tables. Throughout the analysis process, we convened weekly to critically assess our understanding of the data, ensuring fidelity to the participants’ words and experiences. Finally, we developed a textural description of the experience that included verbatim excerpts from the transcripts. These descriptions were further distributed into three primary themes and eight subthemes.
Trustworthiness
Researcher Reflexivity
We both have personal experience with college athletic recruiting. The first author is a parent to two children who were recruited and played Division I lacrosse in college within the last 10 years. The second author is a former Division I athlete who played lacrosse during his first 3 years of college and was recruited to play lacrosse 6 years ago. Although far removed from college recruiting, we held certain assumptions going into this research about recruiting, generated by our different experiences. First, we believed that parents/guardians and student-athletes feel pressure during college recruiting and that parents/guardians have a role in college recruiting and selection. We also believed recruits should take their time before committing to a college and respectfully engage with college coaches. Throughout the data analysis process, we engaged in thoughtful and reflective dialogue that increased our understanding of the data. These reflective dialogues differentiated personal experiences from those of participants and were captured as data memos.
Member Checking
To address credibility, researchers use member checking to verify their findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In our study, member checking was done twice, once when transcripts were transcribed and deidentified, and the second time after analysis to verify the findings. After interviews were transcribed, the first author provided participants with copies of their transcripts to confirm their descriptions of the experience. Participants were given an opportunity to alter their transcripts to better reflect their experience. Of the 14 participants, two requested that we redact their son’s position name (e.g., goalie, middle fielder, etc.) on the transcript and one parent asked that we redact that her son was injured. Those changes were made before transcripts were analyzed, and no other changes were requested by other participants. After we had analyzed the transcripts and written preliminary findings, all participants had an opportunity to review and verify the findings. Of the 14 participants, two asked that we state that parents mentored their child on how to write emails to college coaches. We accepted that feedback and updated the findings.
Audit
We invited an outside qualitative researcher to audit our study, specifically reviewing our methodological approach and data trail. The outside qualitative researcher confirmed that we took appropriate steps to analyze the data and affirmed the transparency of our data analysis process.
Findings
Before offering recommendations on how school counselors could collaborate with parents/guardians during the recruiting process, this phenomenological study examined the recruiting experiences of parents whose sons were verbally committed to playing Division I lacrosse in college. Three themes emerged, each with subthemes. The first theme was Human Side of Recruiting, with three subthemes: Expectations, Scarcity, and Emotions. The second theme, It’s a Business, contained the subthemes Coaches Are Salesmen and Abrupt Communication. The final theme, Parents as Agents, had three subthemes: Increasing Visibility, Addressing Uncertainty, and Managing the Process.
Human Side of Recruiting
Expectations
Parents held certain expectations entering the college recruiting process that included assumptions about divisional level, academic fit, and playing time, and held a belief that how a student-athlete was ranked nationally would predict the schools that would recruit them. First, parents expected their sons to play Division I lacrosse and attend a school with an academic program that fit their ability. P1 recalled what she told her son: “You don’t have to go to D3 school to play lacrosse. . . . I don’t see that happening for you. As your parent I don’t think that would make you happy.” This parent further shared a desire for their son to attend a school with “mid to high academics or you don’t play.” P11 spoke about academic expectations: “[Son] is a good student. I didn’t think he was going to go to Harvard, Yale, or Penn, I mean it would have been a stretch. . . . He wouldn’t be able to handle that. That’s not him.” P8 stressed that, “academically, you must put yourself in a good situation. The lacrosse might match up, you love the coach, you want to play for a certain program . . . and you want the academic piece to match your strengths as well.”
Beyond division level and appropriate academic fit, some parents were mixed on the importance of their child getting on the field. As P5 shared: “He wanted Division 1, obviously. He wanted to be able to be on the field. He didn’t want to go to a school where, yes, it’s the top three in the nation and he sits on the bench.” P11 cautioned their son about being a practice player: “Many days, the whole team doesn’t even practice, so the whole team may do some kind of athletics, but they don’t practice on the field. People go through 4 years of not playing and not practicing.” A few parents shared that attending a good school and getting on the field would not be enough for their son if the team could not compete for a national championship. P3 stated: It's not as simple as you're going to a good school; you're getting a good education. May not be good enough. Some people want more than that. . . . He wants to contend for a national championship. . . . For him, he wanted to go to a team that's going to contend, and if he must compete for playing time, that's what he’ll do versus having the sure thing to get on the field but not win a championship.
P2 agreed: “He wanted to play for a national championship, but he didn’t want to admit that until he knew he was going to hear from them. When he did hear from them, he said, ‘I want to play on Memorial Day.’”
Last, parents expected that national rankings and invitations to elite showcases would predict the type of schools that would recruit their sons. Yet, that expectations didn’t always line up with reality. As P3 shared: How it plays out is different. It feels like unmet expectations to some degree, you're picturing something, but it doesn't necessarily play out quite that way. [Son] had always been highly rated, and he gets invited to stuff, and has gotten positive feedback from coaches. You hear he's a good player, so his top five is going to be the top five that will come after him. But when it plays out, you don’t have those five.
P1 expressed: He was not someone that was just going to commit right away, and that was okay. Where we started versus where we landed surprised me a lot. I always thought Division 1, but I’m not sure I thought it would be an ACC high-level team.
P2 shared: “We assumed based on [son’s] ranking and dad’s involvement that we would at least hear from them. We didn’t know their interest level, but we figured we would hear from them.” P4 stressed: I really had taken a big step back, because you would hear a player got recruited before [son]. And all these rankings have come out, your kid is high up there, higher than a lot, and the other guys are getting recruited. So, you start thinking, do the rankings matter? How come they got the offer?
P9 reported:
Inside Lacrosse put him as a 4-star recruit, and we knew he was in the top 10 of his positional guys. We knew what he could do over others. And then you’d see a player get recruited . . . like what in the world? How did he get that?
Scarcity
During recruiting, parents believed that spots were running out, potentially leaving their son behind. P1 shared: One last spot, because somebody else just took it, they were taking smaller rosters because people were coming back for a fifth and sixth year and really the unknown. I’d say the most stress is the unknown of that. And a lot of this is perception versus reality. You think spots are gone, but you don’t know if they're taking two players versus three or some took five or six, but you just don’t know that.
P13 mentioned: “the coaching staff only committed two or three kids; they don’t have many more they’re going to recruit. This is going to be one of those years where you’re just not going to see many commits.” Parents who focused on limited spots questioned whether their son was good enough, such as P4, who commented: “Three weeks, those were the longest 3 weeks of my life because you hear every day of somebody getting signed . . . the pressure of, Are we shitty? Are we not good enough?” Similarly, P1 stated: I’m guessing who they're going to take, and you see the person they took and you're like, Well, maybe I’m not as good as them. Or am I as good as them? or hey, I’m better than them! How did they get that? It becomes a comparison game and that's never fun. Always worrying that you’re not good enough when you see someone else get recruited and you didn’t.
Emotions
Parents expressed a range of emotions that included anger, sadness, relief, stress, and anxiety. As P3 described: “It’s shady, like it’s not a good process, it’s crappy, it’s emotionally draining.” P13 shared: “It’s sad and frustrating.” Some parents connected their emotions to the financial and time investments they put into the sport. P13 felt “disappointed that we were paying thousands of dollars for [son] to be on a club team that’s promising that you’re going to go to schools and there was minimal promotion.” P9 described their emotional response as “a very painful process. It broke your heart because you know how much time and effort and money you’ve put into giving your child the best opportunity.” P11 mentioned the anxiety they felt driving back from a showcase at midnight: “We were anxious for him. We wanted him to have as many opportunities as possible.” Although feeling stressed was a common emotion shared by parents, not all parents experienced strong feelings of stress. P10 described and normalized their stress as “not overwhelmingly stressful, but if you’re guiding your child into what you think is the right decision, anything that is an unknown brings upon stress.” P14 remarked: “I didn’t feel the stress of it. Because we didn’t feel the stress, he didn’t feel it either. I mean I think he felt it, but it wasn’t every second.”
Another common feeling among parents was relief when their son verbally committed or received interest from the right schools early in the recruiting process. P3 shared: “After recruiting, it’s like a sigh of relief because that’s done, we don’t have to worry about that anymore.” P6 echoed the feeling of relief: Well, once you verbally commit, I was relieved, because I know at least a school was accepting him. . . . When we filled out the early application to get that email saying you are accepted was probably the biggest weight off the shoulders.
P11 added: “So, from the beginning that fear or concern was released because he did get contacted right at 12 o’clock, and he did get good schools.”
It’s a Business
Coaches Are Salesmen
During the recruiting process, parents were exposed to the business side of college lacrosse. Participants reported that they believed coaches, similar to a salesman, would say things to keep an athlete interested in their program while they were pursuing other athletes for the same roster spot. As P11 mentioned, “it’s their business, it’s their livelihood, you’re putting your livelihood in 16- to 23-year-old kids.” Further, P3 compared the business side of recruiting to a funnel where athletes were grouped together to be eliminated: It's very easy for them to do. Okay, we were interested in this kid, so let me get that funnel together and let me get all these kids I like. . . . I’m going to start narrowing it from there, so not everybody's going to feel my love. It's going to be the people that I love, and if you didn't show that day, you're not in my continued funnel. You’re being devalued, in a way that you haven't experienced before.
Within this business framework, parents compared college coaches to salesmen looking to make a sale. P5 stated: “So, of course they love him, yay! But kind of like a used car salesman.” Parents found that a coach selling them on the school doesn’t mean the coach will give the student an offer. As P7 commented: A lot of times, especially after some are really interested, they drop off, and you don't hear anything. So, you start expecting that and you're like, oh, they're just given me a sales pitch versus laying out what to expect.
P10 reported: Coaches tell you that they love you and that you're their number one recruit. I tell my kids, they're just telling you that to reel you in, don't believe anything they say. You must go into it knowing that it's a salesman talking to you.
Parents believed coaches use this salesman approach to keep their child on the hook while they kept their options open, as P4 highlighted: I was disappointed at the way they were led on. So, the coaches, the shitty coaches would talk to them for 2, 3 minutes to just keep them interested, “Hey, you really impressed us, we really like you, but let's keep talking.” When in their mind, they move to the next one, and the next one, and the next one, to see who they would hook, but meanwhile, they have your kid dangling over here.
P9 shared: The university was talking to [son] weekly for three months. And finally, we went up to see it. [Son] was like, “I love it” and the coach was like, okay, let's get this done. I'll have the head coach call you on Monday. We didn't get a call. You're stringing a kid along.
P11 added: They would say, “Oh yeah, the offer is coming tomorrow.” Tomorrow came and went. Nothing drastic there, but that's the gamesmanship, that's their little way to continue to dangle a carrot in case they’re waiting for somebody else that was ahead of you, or whatever, depending on if they accept. I understood that part of it. I didn't like it but understood it.
P6 described: They set up a Zoom meeting, and they're all interested; they did the whole virtual tour of the campus. All about the program, just like you would do if you went there and then at the end, they were standoffish. They were like, oh, we want to watch you play some more. So, they turned.
The salesmen approach and dangling of a carrot created a belief among parents that their child was perceived a commodity or an investment. As P3 shared: “These kids are being brokered . . . You’re reduced to something—like a commodity, you’re just this player that has these attributes and you’re traded like cards where this is a better hand than this one.” P4 stated: “They are an investment; they are investments for school.”
Abrupt Communication
Parents noted that when a coach was no longer interested, communication would be cut off or “ghosting” would occur, in which communication stops abruptly without explanation. This cut off was perceived as coaches’ lack of transparency. P9 shared: When you're having these conversations with a young man who's setting time in their schedule to meet and talk with these coaches daily, or weekly, whatever. And then something happens, and then the communication is just gone. They're not being respectful. . . . Some just left cold turkey, and you’re left asking questions.
P7 highlighted: Coaches are reaching out and yet you don't hear anything back. Not even a “No, we're not interested.” The way they just drop off. They talk to you, they think you're all great and then they just disappear. They ghost you.
P14 reported: Yes, there were a few schools that reached out, and we went to visit and then it's like, ahh, well maybe not. It was almost like the communication piece from some of the schools was, liking him at first and then once he went to the recruiting tournament there wasn't a lot of traction.
Parents as Agents
Increasing Visibility
Parents focused on getting their child seen by college coaches and competing against, and with, the best in their age group. Their visibility efforts consisted of taking their sons to prospect days and showcases, and mentoring their child on how to reach out to college coaches via email. P2 emphasized the importance of attending prospect days: “Getting into prospect days, where he can interact with the coaches and the team and see what the vibe is on campus.” P14 agreed that recruiting events increased visibility and added that there are associated costs: The costs of the recruiting tournament are highly expensive. First you must travel and then it's 2 whole days. A thousand dollars for 2 days? I understand, part of it is a money grab to spend on coaches to look at your child.
Parents also mentored their child on how to reach out to coaches via email and encouraged sending emails to increase visibility. P13 stated: “We started by sending letters to his top 10 colleges. We did that right before the beginning of summer. We included his summer schedule, his highlight video, and major. We did that exact same process in the fall.” P8 monitored email communication between their son and coaches, asking: Any correspondence, prior to a tournament, are you reaching out to any coaches, yes, or no? Okay, once you've written the letters, if you want us to look over and we'd be happy to, we'd like to view it, see what you have there.
Addressing Uncertainty
Parents dealt with uncertainty by seeking guidance from others within their athletic community. P11 shared: “We got very good guidance from [club coach], was very helpful.” P12 stated: “The biggest thing that helped me was talking to [other parent]. She went through a list of things, and she started with the most basic, to play well.”
P3 remarked: To go through it with people who are going through it with me, at the same time, because your family can't understand it. They care about you, and they want what's best, but they don't understand the process. . . . To have that close network was very helpful.
P13 also emphasized: It was talking with other families on our high school team and commiserating, “Oh, this is frustrating!” or “So-and-so's upset too.” We're all trying to do the same thing. It was our surroundings that helped us a lot.
While seeking support from other parents and coaches within their community, parents were attentive to how their child was handling the uncertainty. P14 shared: “It was a little rocky for him. He was not recruited early compared to a lot of the juniors in his class who knew as soon as recruiting started. The first couple of weeks he was frustrated.” P13 stated: It was very hard, and it was day after day of him coming home and feeling defeated, feeling like his self-worth wasn't what he thought it was, and what we thought it was. And [son] is not a child that talks much. And so, we really would have to bring it out of him. And I remember picking him up from sports practice, and we were on our way home, and I said to him, “You've been really quiet.”
P11 shared, He keeps everything to himself, he doesn't ask questions, internalizes everything. . . . He'd get irritated about a game, or a way a kid played, or that coaches weren’t there when they said they were coming. That kind of stuff. And that's when I said to him, “You just do what you must do. You control the 4, 5, 6, 7 things you can control. The other stuff is going to fall into place.” We had a lot of those kinds of conversations.
Managing the Process
Parents believed they needed to take an active role in their child’s recruiting due to their child’s age, inexperience, and the importance of the decision. Related to inexperience, parents guided their child on how to talk with college coaches. P7 shared: “Knowing he was on these phone calls that I was not part of. Yeah, so you’re like, ‘What are they saying to him? What is he saying? How is he presenting himself?’ Because he’s quiet.” P4 commented: “I hated that they were talking to [son] directly because he had no idea how to speak to people; he’s 16 years old. They don’t know how to speak on the phone, let alone in such important discussions.”
Parents prepared their sons on how to respond to phone calls and identified the questions they should ask the coach. P6 prepared their son to talk with coaches by “setting up voicemail, make sure he checks his voicemails, and when he’s answering the phone to be respectful.” P12 shared: “We were very strategic. He asked everybody where he was on their board.” P4 noted: “That was another question we asked in every one of our interviews: ‘Talk to me about your practice squad and what you are looking at [son] for.’”
Last, parents noted the complexities surrounding college financials. P4 mentioned: “I discovered that a lot of offers had no money.” P9 commented: “No one ever talks about finances, and that type of thing, and it does impact or, at least it did with us.” P11 noted that an offer “comes down to the scholarship size and can you ask for more? Can you negotiate? And the advice we were given was no, you don’t do that.” P7 shared: “The financial data was changing constantly in the process which made me a nervous wreck because it’s an expensive school. I was like, well, now we’re going to know how much they really want him.”
Once an offer was made, parents had deeper conversations with their children about money. P5 described: He didn't know what a student loan was, so we had to go through that whole process and educate him, “I know you like this school, but they're not giving you anything, this school you semi-like and they're giving you everything.”
P7 shared with their son: “Okay [son], this is what [university] is for 4 years, this is what I have to give you, and this amount is yours.”
Discussion
Our findings offer school counselors a perspective on how parents/guardians experience the recruiting process, something Tuttle et al. (2018) argued is important to building collaborative partnerships. Situated in athletic identity, our findings provide insight into how school counselors could partner with parents/guardians to help them embrace the complexities associated with this period and more effectively support their children through the recruiting process.
Our first theme, Human Side of Recruiting, uncovered parent expectations, their response to scarcity, and their emotional distress. Similar to the study by Schaeperkoetter et al. (2015), our participants expected their sons to continue their athletic careers in college while also obtaining a quality education, although our participants stressed the need for their sons to play at a Division I level, unlike in Scheeperkoetter et al. Our findings were unique in that while some parents valued playing time for their sons (e.g., right athletic fit) others were willing to forgo it if it meant that their sons would have a spot on a highly competitive Division I team. Further, parents noted that national rankings and playing for high-level club teams did not determine the college team that would eventually recruit their child. Hence, while parents expected that rankings and playing on highly ranked teams would garner attention from college coaches, they recognized that attention from high-level college coaches was not assured. Thus, if rankings inform a student-athlete’s self-perception as an athlete, they could struggle when rank does not lead to expected outcomes associated with recruiting.
Second, a scarcity mindset often drives parents/guardians and student-athletes to prioritize securing a spot over finding the right fit (Flaherty & Sagas, 2020; Liang et al., 2023; Twaddle, 2018). Although our study did not explore the impact of a parent’s scarcity mindset on their decision making and what factored into their sons’ college choices, our findings uniquely highlighted that parents’ perception that spots were limited generated doubt about their sons’ chances of getting a Division I offer. Holding a scarcity mindset, parents compared their sons’ athletic achievements to those of other players, which caused them to question why their son was not selected. This comparison generated uncertainty.
Third, during the recruiting process, parents reported various emotions such as stress, anxiety, anger, sadness, and the relief that came when their child committed. Prior research focused on athletes’ distress when athletic identity was threatened (Benson et al., 2015; Edison et al., 2021), but this study is the first to highlight parents’ emotional strain during college recruiting. Parents experienced distress navigating the recruiting journey when their child’s athletic identity was challenged. In acknowledging how athletic identity becomes threatened or reinforced during recruitment, school counselors can collaborate with parents/guardians to normalize their emotional responses. Normalizing the emotions felt during college recruiting can assist parents/guardians in supporting their child through the process.
Our second theme, It’s a Business, revealed that parents acknowledged the business side of recruiting. Although college coaches are in the business to recruit the best players, parents did not always find the process to be transparent. Our findings are the first to highlighted parents’ frustration with coaches’ inconsistent messaging and their sudden withdrawal of interest, generating stress for families. Parents believed that college coaches viewed their children as commodities and university investments rather than people. When a coach was no longer interested, parents experienced a cutting off or ghosting, which felt abrupt. Because parents understand their children as people, this presented a tension. Such tension could be particularly difficult as parents watched their child experience distress over the possibility that they might no longer play their sport. Recruiting is part of the business of college sports, and we anticipate the business side of college recruiting will intensify as parents and coaches seek the best financial packages in light of the NCAA’s shift toward revenue sharing and NIL deals.
Our third major theme, Parents as Agents, revealed the role parents played during college recruiting. Schaeperkoetter et al. (2015) reported on student-athletes’ perspectives on their parents’ roles in their recruiting journey, namely, to provide financial guidance and help them travel to showcases and school visits. Our study is unique in that it provided a parent perspective on their role, with emphasis on financial guidance, increasing their child’s visibility to coaches, and mentoring them on their communications with college coaches. Parents mentored their children on handling the logistical aspects of college recruiting, such as communication with college coaches. Howard (2023) argued that school counselors must have knowledge of the NCAA regulations and Clearinghouse protocols, but our participants did not include this education as a salient part of their experience. The lack of emphasis on this aspect of college recruiting could be due to timing of the interviews, when the personal experience of the recruiting process was more relevant. It could also indicate that although knowledge of logistics and regulations is important, navigating the recruiting process was most significant to the study participants.
Our study highlighted that parents stay within their athletic community for support, consistent with current research (Dorsch et al., 2014; Stefansen et al., 2018; Sutcliffe et al., 2024). For instance, Dorsch et al. (2014) noted that parents looked within their athletic community for both support and parental guidance. Our findings confirmed Dorsch et al.’s results while also linking community connection to college recruiting. For instance, parents sought out support from other parents to receive reassurance and obtain information on how they could increase their sons’ visibility in the marketplace. Like Dorsch et al.’s participants, parents in this study leveraged their sports community and took cues on how to parent during this time. The significance of this finding suggests that parents/guardians seek support and guidance on the tactical aspects of college recruiting from others who shared their experiences. For school counselors to engage parents/guardians during the college recruiting process, understanding their experiences in college recruiting would be important.
Last, like participants in the study by Stefansen et al. (2018), our parents monitored their child’s emotional state and were concerned when they noticed their sons were experiencing frustration and anxiety. As previously stated, Reich et al. (2021) noted that student-athletes rarely seek help when in distress and if they do, their help-seeking behavior is influenced by intrapersonal factors (e.g., beliefs about help seeking) and environmental factors (e.g., acceptance of help-seeking behaviors). Recognizing that parents/guardians monitor their children’s emotional responses during college recruiting, school counselors can partner with parents to normalize help-seeking behavior.
Implications, Recommendations, and Limitations
The findings from this study hold several implications for school counselors that can aid their ability to collaborate with parents/guardians. First, parents/guardians are involved in their child’s recruiting journey acting as agents to increase their child’s visibility with coaches, attending to uncertainty, which included monitoring their child’s emotional state, and managing the process. Further, parents/guardians desired to have support during this time, often looking to others within their athletic community when faced with uncertainty. Parents stressed that they sought out other parents because they wanted support from someone who could understand what they were going through. Although not all school counselors will be parents whose children have sought collegiate sports opportunities, school counselors can demonstrate empathy and an understanding as to why a parent/guardian may be invested in their child playing sports in college. This understanding may yield more parents/guardians seeking out school counselors.
Second, parents’ experiences during the recruiting process were emotionally laden: Parents felt anxious, stressed, angry, sad, and relieved when a desirable outcome was reached. This finding suggests that parents/guardians, not only student-athletes, can face emotional distress during recruiting when their child’s athletic identity is challenged. Because parents/guardians are influential in their child’s college choice and are engaged in their recruitment journey, parents/guardians could use some guidance on how to handle their emotional responses to better position themselves as guides and advocates for their child. Hence, school counselors can normalize the emotions experienced during the recruiting process by helping parents/guardians see it from a developmental lens.
Third, the business side of college recruiting was evident through parents’ experiences of a lack of transparency, comparing college coaches to salespeople who sell a person on an experience and may cut off communication when someone better comes along. School counselors have typically educated parents/guardians on the logistics of college recruiting (Howard, 2023), but they can also stress the business aspects of college recruiting to help parents/guardians understand the unspoken side of recruiting that positions college coaches as salespeople.
Last, parents/guardians hold certain expectations for their child, which may include playing sports at a collegiate level. Expectations in our study related to divisional level, academic fit, playing time, and belief that an athlete’s rank and association with high-level showcases and club teams would dictate the types of college programs that would reach out. Further, although parents stressed academic and athletic fit, some believed that their child would be happier going to a highly ranked Division I program, even if it meant they would never get on the field. School counselors can offer parents/guardians perspective on how athletic and academic misalignment can impact their child in college. Acknowledging the emotional response to scarcity, school counselors can invite parents/guardians to use a long-term perspective when evaluating college choice.
Informed by our findings, we offer four recommendations for how school counselors can collaborate with parents/guardians. First, in addition to hosting information sessions on NCAA regulations and the Clearinghouse, school counselors should stress the business side of recruiting to prepare parents/guardians for how college coaches approach recruiting and to help them ascertain a coach’s interest. For instance, school counselors could help parents/guardians frame questions their child could ask a coach to gain insight into their position on the coach’s list of priorities. School counselors can also engage parents/guardians in viewing college choice by assessing long-term benefits.
Second, school counselors could connect parents/guardians of student-athletes who have committed to play collegiate sports with those just entering the recruiting process. Building alliances gives parents/guardians an opportunity to strengthen their support systems during this time.
Third, school counselors can lead workshops to educate parents/guardians on how threats to athletic identity can impact their child during recruiting and the warning signs that suggest their child may need professional help.
Finally, school counselors can lead a focus group to normalize the feelings parents/guardians experience during the recruiting process. In that context, they can offer guidance on how to navigate the uncertainty inherent in the process to help their child make an educated college decision that will benefit them in the long term.
Future studies can examine the impact school counselors can have on student outcomes when they collaborate with parents/guardians during college recruiting. Researchers could also explore the origins of parents/guardians distress and how this distress can be resolved when their child does not play sports in college.
Generalization is not the intention of phenomenological studies, and this study was limited to the experience of parents whose sons were committed to playing Division I lacrosse. Parents/guardians who expected to have their child play college sports and did not have that expectation realized could have experienced the recruiting process differently. The intensity of those adults’ emotional experience could be more extreme. Further, parents/guardians whose children were recruited to play in a revenue-generating sport (i.e., football, basketball) may have a unique perspective that enhances one or more of the findings to include the pressures associated with obtaining large financial deals. Last, although our study participants were racially diverse, we focused on parents of male athletes and recognize that parents/guardians whose children do not identify as male might have different experiences. Despite these limitations, we believe that school counselors can benefit from our findings to help parents/guardians whose children decide to pursue college athletics navigate their emotional experience to better support their child.
Conclusion
This phenomenological study was a first step toward understanding how parents/guardians experience the recruiting process, to help school counselors’ efforts to collaborate with parents/guardians during this time. Findings speak to the significant role parents/guardians play in college recruiting, ranging from increasing their children’s visibility with college coaches to guiding them on how to write an email and speak to college coaches. This study shines a light on a scarcity mindset and the emotional toll recruiting can have on parents/guardians when faced with the possibility that their child may not play their chosen sport at a particular level. Due to the strong influence that parents/guardians have in the recruiting process, school counselors can support student-athletes by collaborating with parents/guardians to help them navigate the emotional strain that comes during the college recruiting process.
Footnotes
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.