At least in Olympic sports where ND has some nice advantages.

Namely the $60k tuition. You think a soccer or lax or hockey player who gets a 30-40% scholarship offer doesn't have a serious financial decision ahead of him/her- especially when there is no possible or likely pro career at the end of the rainbow? In that case I don't care if Pep is coaching the boys on the pitch I would think long and hard about going to ND and living the rest of my life in debt. Remember unlike football and basketball (85 scholarships and only 11 play at a time) the Olympic sports are very under underfunded by NCAA regulation relative to the number of players on the side.

At least one NCAA title each of the last 39 years. Tuition is a disadvantage, but they are finding a way to overcome

35 are in mens/womens tennis. 16 are in mens/womens swimming. 15 are in water polo. 9 are in mens/womens golf. 5 are in mens gymnastics. Stanford dominates in the country club sports and a few other low participation sports.

If you look at baseball, a sport you'd expect to be fairly tuition sensitive due to scholarship limitations and the demographics of those who play, Stanford has actually declined noticeably in the past 10-15 years. I have no idea, however, if tuition increases have actually contributed to that decline or if it's just a coincidence.

Particularly warm weather sports like swimming and water polo.

I would proffer that kids that play HS lax, volleyball, soccer come from higher socioeconomic classes than other sports. In my experience, families with kids in these sports look for sports participation to get their kids into better schools than they would have otherwise. They are willing to pay most or all of the tuition. Foe example, I have a friend whose daughter was recruited as a non-scholarship field hockey player to a top 25 school. She received admission into that school because of field hockey. She would have struggled to get in as a non-athlete.

participation is increasing across all socioeconomic groups, particularly for boys.

Other kids are doing it as much as a cultural activity or to go pro in one of the growing academy systems (which is a good thing for soccer in the US), not to earn 1/10th of book money or whatever.

DI women's volleyball is a head-count sport, meaning the number of student-athletes on scholarship cannot exceed the NCAA limit for scholarships. In theory at a school like ND that offers the NCAA maximum of 12, all scholarship volleyball players are on full rides.

So a scholarship to ND for volleyball is worth more than a full ride to State U.

Mentioned only soccer, hockey, and lax and could have tossed in baseball as well as indications of where Olympic sports are at a possible net disandbatage given the tab that a student athlete has to pick up if they only garner a partial scholarship.

...Ivy schools are nationally competitive in lacrosse. I don't think absence of full rides is a huge barrier to success in either sport given the backgrounds of those who grow up playing them.

In most major (i.e. power 5) college sports, the majority of top schools are at least a flagship state school or well-known private school in terms of academic prestige. If you look at the top 20 in hockey, you'll see names like St. Cloud State, UMass Lowell, Minnesota Duluth, Bemidgi State, Michigan Tech, etc. I would think this contrast would help ND. Paying a $100k premium for a school like ND over a school like Iowa would be a tough call. Paying a $100k premium for a school like ND over St. Cloud State would be a no brainer.

ND for less than the state univ.

... home equity is a consideration. I know someone who's parents had "lower-ish" income level (maybe 40k in early 90s), but owned a home (which they bought cheap in the 70s, and exploded in value based on location). ND told them no need based assistance because 2nd mortgage (or I guess new mortgage) was an avenue they could pursue.

Are you saying that a football player coming from a family making less than $50k can come to ND on a need based scholarship and not count against the 85? If that were the case and given the demographics of who plays football these days there would for all practical purposes be no limit of scholarships for a college football team.

Thus no official visit, limited contact and scouting, no admissions factor, etc. And once on-campus their benefits like the training table and medical coverage would be limited.

presumably due to the demographics of the kids that play the sport. About half the top programs are elite universities similar to ND. I also don't think it's all that much of an issue in hockey because hockey has high scholarship limits. It seems like it could be somewhat of an issue in soccer, especially mens soccer which has lower scholarship limits, but private schools seem pretty well represented in the top 25. I again think this speaks to the demographics of who plays soccer in this country, although I suspect that's changing rapidly.

I suspect it hurts the most in baseball and track.