Ms. Echia

EVALUATIONS ARE BROKEN For years, one of the first things we have done when evaluating a high school athlete is put a level next to their name. “D1 kid.” “D2 player.” “NAIA prospect.” “D3 guy.” “JUCO player.” I’ve done it. ALL Coaches have done it. Recruiting services have built businesses around doing it. Parents ask about it constantly. But I’m starting to believe that way of evaluating prospects is becoming outdated. College athletics simply doesn’t operate in those neat little boxes anymore. The transfer portal has completely changed roster construction. Players move from Division II to Division I. Division I players transfer to Division II. JUCO players become high-level Division I contributors. NAIA players move into the NCAA. Players transfer down, dominate, and sometimes transfer right back up. The NCAA itself describes the Transfer Portal as a centralized system that makes transferring student-athletes available for recruitment by other schools. (see for yourself on their website). The rules surrounding transfers continue to evolve, including significant changes again in 2026, that already seem outdated! The movement isn’t the exception anymore. It is part of college athletics. So why are we still pretending we can permanently label a 17-year-old as belonging to one particular “level”? I think we need to change the language. Instead of immediately saying, “He’s a Division II player,” maybe we should start with something much simpler: He’s a college prospect. Then evaluate what that actually means. Is this athlete potentially a full-ride scholarship talent? Partial athletic scholarship talent? Someone who could receive significant academic and institutional aid? A developmental prospect? Someone who can absolutely play college athletics, but whose eventual destination will depend heavily on fit, academics, position, roster needs and opportunity? Those descriptions tell me far more than simply attaching “D1,” “D2” or “NAIA” to a teenager. There are obviously exceptions. If you’re evaluating a legitimate high-major basketball prospect with multiple Power Four offers, we don’t need to overthink it. That kid has clearly established a level. But those athletes represent a very small percentage of the recruiting population. For everybody else, the lines have become increasingly blurry. A kid might be good enough to play at a lower-level Division I program but receive a better financial package from a Division II school. Another might have Division II ability but find the perfect academic and athletic fit at Division III. An NAIA program might offer better facilities, coaching and resources than some NCAA programs recruiting the same athlete. And none of those decisions permanently determine that athlete’s ceiling. That is the part we have to understand. Where you start college athletics and where you are capable of eventually playing are no longer necessarily the same thing. Recruiting itself already varies significantly by division and sport, something the NCAA acknowledges in its own recruiting guidance. (See for yourself in their website). Add the amount of roster movement happening today, and rigid labels become even less useful. I’d rather tell a family: “Your son or daughter is a legitimate college prospect. Now let’s figure out where the best opportunities are.” Then we can discuss scholarship potential, academics, roster fit, playing opportunity, geography, development and finances. Because ultimately, recruiting shouldn’t be about proving someone guessed your “level” correctly when you were 17. It should be about finding the best place to start. And in today’s college athletics landscape, where you start doesn’t necessarily determine where you finish. In fact, it rarely determines that.