Connect with us

Opinion & Analysis

How difficult is it REALLY to play NCAA Division I Men’s Golf?

Published

on

This article was written in collaboration between Brendan Ryan and Estefania Acosta. To research more on the subject of college golf from these authors, please check out their book, The College Golf Almanac, that is now for sale on Amazon for $19.99.

Just about every client I work for wants the same thing — to play Division I college golf. While I never discourage anyone from pursuing this dream, it is my job to recommend the college that best fits the client from a golf, academic, and social standpoint. So, while it would be nice for all of my students to play at a DI school, it just simply isn’t possible. In many cases I am stuck with the unenviable task of explaining to junior golfers and their parents why they may not be Division I material.

The fact of the matter is that recruits and their families have a hard time understanding how few opportunities actually exist in Division I golf, particularly for men. Only 298 Division I schools have men’s golf teams, most of which will take an average of two players per recruiting class. This means that there are only 596 Men’s Division I roster spots offered per year.

Those chances seem slim, but they get even slimmer when you take an international perspective into account. According to the European Golf Association, there are 47,178 male junior golfers in Germany, 47,333 juniors in Sweden, and 8,478 juniors in Denmark. Add almost 150,000 juniors in America and the juniors from the fifteen-plus other countries I left out, and those 596 spots are significantly harder to land than most people realize.

Because of the ever-increasing amount of prospective student-athletes, coaches need an efficient means to quickly seek out juniors and evaluate their performance. Enter the Junior Golf Scoreboard (JGS) and World Amateur Golf Ranking (WAGR), the most accurate ranking systems for junior golfers around the world. Coaches often use these two systems as a way to quickly examine potential recruits. The JGS and WAGR gather data from junior golf tournaments to provide an objective look at how players perform and where they rank with their fellow competitors.

Junior golfers and their parents should pay attention to these rankings to understand the level of performance they need to play at a DI level. Extensive statistical analysis of the JGS and WAGR rankings of players on the JGS list of 2016 Early Signees could tell you exactly how good you need to be. But nobody wants to do that. It is tedious, daunting, and takes far too much time. Luckily, I did all of that dirty work for you.

So you want to play Division I men’s golf? Here’s how good you need to be:

Recruits from the Top 25 Schools

I split my analysis into three sections of group data, first analyzing the top 25 schools, then the top 26-100, followed by the top 101-150 schools, the top 151-200 schools, the top 201-250 schools, and the top 251-298 schools. Beginning with the top 25 schools, I used data from Golfstats’ Top 25 college teams from the end of the Fall Season. There were 67 players signed, 58 of whom were from the United States and 11 of whom were international players.

In terms of geography, the most recruits in the United States were either from California (12), Florida (6), and Texas (5). Of the 58 American signees, 33 of these players were recruited in-state, 8 were recruited regionally (schools in states near where they live), and 17 were recruited to non regional out-of-state schools. The international students were from Denmark (2), Philippines, Australia, Norway, Sweden (2), France, Thailand, Ireland, and South Africa.

As far as statistics go, the average JGS class ranking was 89.45 and the average WAGR was 533. While this may seem fairly cut-and-dry, these averages do not paint a full picture of the players recruited to the top 25 teams. There are some outliers.

For example, there was a vast discrepancy in the rankings of players. Although the player with the lowest JGS class ranking was an Oregon recruit from California with a ranking of 5, the highest ranked player was a UNLV recruit from California with a ranking of 406. Although a Norwegian player who was recruited to Texas had the lowest WAGR rank at 87, the player with the highest WAGR was a Thai player ranked at 2256 who was recruited to San Diego State. This player drastically skewed the data; if we took him out then the average WAGR would be 349.57.

Schools ranked in the top 26-100

The second tier of recruits I studied were from the next 75 best Division I men’s golf teams. 139 players were signed, 113 of whom were from the United States and 26 of whom were from international countries.

Out of the 113 American players, 67 signed to in-state schools, 23 signed to regional schools, and 22 signed to non regional out-of-state schools. The 26 international players were from Costa Rica, Chile, New Zealand (2), Australia (5), Scotland (2), Malaysia, France, Germany, England (4), Spain, Thailand (2), and Canada (5). One of the Australian signees was also a transfer from a junior college.

The average JGS Class ranking was 191.36 and the average WAGR was 858.09. But again, we see these statistics influenced by outliers. For example, the lowest ranked player on the JGS was a South Florida recruit from Florida who was ranked #1, while the highest JGS ranking was a University of Alabama-Birmingham (UAB) recruit from Alabama with a ranking of 1072. The lowest ranked player in the WAGR is a South Florida recruit from Chile with the #7 rank, while the highest ranked player had a WAGR of 2071 and was a Canadian player recruited to Colorado.

NOTE: The sample size of international students registered with the WAGR was too small and showed too much of a discrepancy to take into account for the rest of the teams in this study. 

Schools ranked in the top 101-150 

70 players were signed to the 50 next best schools. Two of the signees were transfers from junior colleges. Of the 63 players that were from the United States, 34 went to in-state schools, 18 went to regional schools, and 11 went to non regional out-of-state schools. The 7 international players were signed from Sweden (2), Canada (2), Japan, Czechoslovakia, and Scotland.

The average JGS Class ranking was 341.77. The player with the lowest JGS Class ranking of 21 was a Pennsylvanian player who signed to Kansas. The player with the highest JGS Class ranking of 1176 was a player from Wisconsin who signed in-state to Wisconsin.

Schools ranked in the top 151-200

63 players were signed to fourth tier of DI colleges I reviewed. Two Junior College transfers were also signed. Of the 54 United States recruits, 27 signed to in-state schools, 16 signed to regional schools, and 11 signed to non regional out-of-state schools. There were 9 international signees from Canada (3), France, Philippines, England (2), the Dominican Republic, and Japan

The average JGS Class ranking was 482.98. The player with the lowest JGS ranking was an Oral Roberts recruit from Oklahoma with a ranking of 41. The player with the highest JGS Class ranking was an Army recruit from North Carolina with a ranking of 1585. 

Schools ranked in the top 201-250

47 players were signed to the top 201-250 Division 1 men’s teams. Of the 43 United States recruits, 19 signed to in-state schools, 14 signed to regional schools, and 10 signed to non regional out-of-state schools. The 4 international students were from Canada (2), Thailand, and Spain.

The average JGS Class ranking was 516.70. The lowest ranked player was a Rutgers recruit from Maryland with a ranking of 132. The highest ranked player was a Temple recruit from Maryland with a ranking of 1547.

Schools ranked in the top 251-298

Only 19 of the final 47 Division I men’s golf schools even had Early Signings to report. 30 signees were recruited, all of whom were from the United States. 18 signed to in-state schools, 7 signed to regional schools, and 5 signed to non regional out-of-state schools.

The average JGS Class ranking was 573.37. The player with the lowest JGS Class ranking was an Xavier recruit from Kentucky with a ranking of 206.

General Statistics

The following are general statistics and totals I found for my entire study. I decided to keep these general statistics until the end of this article. I believe that it they are misleading if you do not understand the nuances of the group statistics that I explained above.

  • Average JGS Class ranking of all DI Early Signees: 364.54
  • Percentage of International Early Signings: 13 percent
  • Percentage of In-State Early Signings: 52 percent
  • Percentage of Regional Early Signings: 26 percent
  • Percentage of Out-of-State Early Signings: 22 percent

Conclusion

Based on my analysis, the highest average JGS class ranking for any section of the top 298 Division I teams was 573. Therefore in my opinion a male junior golfer must be in the Top 600 of his recruiting class to be seriously considered by a DI program.

But when everything’s said and done, it is important to remember that recruiting is not an exact science. The WAGR and JGS are not the be-all-to-end-all. Other factors such as academics, recruiting in-state, or legacy (having a family member attend a college or university in the past) can influence a coach’s decision. My data should only be a benchmark for knowing how well you have to perform to be a Division I golfer. Hopefully you find this information helpful on your journey to be a collegiate athlete.

Estefania Acosta-Aguirre is a former college coach and player who has won an individual conference championship and two PGA Minority National Championship. She holds an undergraduate degree in Psychology with a minor in International Business, and is a K-Vest, Flight Scope and Putting Zone Certified Coach. She is currently pursuing her masters in Sports Coaching at the University of Central Lancashire, as well as finalizing her second book due out in early 2018. You can follow her on Instagram at steph_acostacoaching

16 Comments

16 Comments

  1. Susan

    Oct 14, 2017 at 3:23 pm

    It is very hard to buy into the WAGR stats given they changed from a 12 month cycle to a 24 month cycle about 18 months ago. That has significantly changed the information as currently who is playing well as it looks at 2 years. That is a lifetime for a junior golfer and now to reach the minimum divisor is over 104 when it used to be around 52. That means that AJGA events (some) invitationals and just a few other junior events and then amateur events are what contributes to WAGR. The AJGA rankings are straight forward and a much better representation of where a player stands, I completely disagree that coaches are watching WAGR for junior recruiting. International players have access to pro events/ elite amateur events and can zip up WAGR quicker than most US Kids. The players that would play toward the top of WAGR are for the most part AJGA players of note. Junior Golf Scoreboard is a good system in that all scores are being shown for each event. To state that only x kids can or are likely to go d1 in the 500’s is kinda short sided. You can have great players that play 25 events a year and a player that plays 6 events a year but played really well have almost the same ranking. As a general rule coaches are not obsessed with rankings. They are obsessed with scores, length off the tee and good putting. They want kids that are ready to go and play at the top level and contribute to the team. You analysis is interesting but the brush is way too broad.

  2. shandy

    Oct 4, 2017 at 8:17 am

    So what you’re saying is that you have to be among the top 600 of your class to garner one of 596 roster spots. Really crunching those numbers, eh?

  3. Riley

    Oct 3, 2017 at 5:23 pm

    Should probably be noted that this is not about gaining a full or even partial scholarship, that number is much smaller. Not all players are on scholarships, the number of available scholarships are not like football or basketball. This is simply to be recruited as a team member.

  4. D

    Oct 3, 2017 at 2:33 am

    D1 scholarships are out there in their hundreds, problem is kids want to play in places like Florida. Having played D1 for a time my conclusion is that their are tournaments all over the US, every week, winning scores at each tournament are in the mid 60’s, seriously good golf but the kid shooting 78 78 78 78 still finishes top 30 out of 100 guys, hailing from Europe my experience of D1 golf was such. The good guys were ridiculously good but the bad scores were worse then regional u16 events in Europe, guys shooting in the high 80s regularly.

    My advise to anyone wanting a D1 school, contact coaches directly, send your swing, your scores and your videos direct, get on their websites and find schools that have a bunch of juniors and seniors. Last but not least schools that have alot of european guys like my team will love to recruit local guys.

  5. HeavyG

    Oct 2, 2017 at 7:16 pm

    While the JGS and WAGR are analyzed,
    Most of us do not understand them. How does that translate to average score or HDCP?

  6. Branson Reynolds

    Oct 2, 2017 at 12:24 pm

    2 recruits a year? Do college golf teams only carry 8-10 players?

  7. Chris

    Oct 1, 2017 at 1:41 pm

    Not to mention it’s nearly impossible to walk-on these days. I tried at a D1 school, had tournament scores in the 70s, and was playing my best golf at the time. The coach refused to take any walk-ons, the school just made him have tryouts.

  8. Guy

    Oct 1, 2017 at 1:37 am

    Playing D1 doesn’t necessarily mean you’re good, it means you were good in high school and had the money to play a lot of junior golf (Get a top-notch recruiting resume). I play D2 and know a lot of guys that would be able to play for some top D1 schools.

  9. Rwj

    Sep 30, 2017 at 1:56 pm

    Or just identify as a girl. Most div 1 female players can’t break 80

    • Mr. Feel Good

      Oct 2, 2017 at 12:23 pm

      Really? I would love to see your statistics. My guess would be that you could not play division 1 mens golf and thought it would be easier if you were a girl. Thinking that makes you feel better. The only thing stopping you is your gender. God made men and women different. The top LPGA players have never been able to really succeed on the PGA Tour and likely never will. That is not a knock on women but a true comparison in terms of size and strength. The skill is VERY similar.

      Those averaging under 80 on top quality courses would not be a huge number but those who “can’t break 80” would be VERY few.

      • Egor

        Oct 3, 2017 at 12:14 am

        How dare you assume his gender (or.. her.. or.. zee, or it..). If it want’s to identify as a fem and play golf in college on the girls team wearing a skirt to hide his twig and berries – so be it. These stupid schools that cave to that agenda deserve every bit of wrath coming to them.

        When you open the “stupid” door, you never know what is going to walk through.

  10. nicelife

    Sep 30, 2017 at 1:33 pm

    It’s been a long time sine Undergrad. What is a Division I (igloo) / DI vs. a Division 1 (number one), D1 school?

  11. wt

    Sep 29, 2017 at 3:47 pm

    596 spots for the seniors only who want to go college and 150K are the juniors from all ages. So the number should be much less if you only count the senior golfs.

  12. The Dude

    Sep 29, 2017 at 2:59 pm

    Wow…someone did their homework

  13. 2putttom

    Sep 29, 2017 at 12:35 pm

    an enlightening article. More complicated than it was three decades ago. This article is something I will use as a reference.

    • matt_bear

      Oct 1, 2017 at 10:23 am

      it got “complicated” when the money got ridiculous. First being the cost of attending college is astronomical, and secondly the money available if you “make it” to pro golf.

Leave a Reply

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Opinion & Analysis

The 2 primary challenges golf equipment companies face

Published

on

As the editor-in-chief of this website and an observer of the GolfWRX forums and other online golf equipment discourse for over a decade, I’m pretty well attuned to the grunts and grumbles of a significant portion of the golf equipment purchasing spectrum. And before you accuse me of lording above all in some digital ivory tower, I’d like to offer that I worked at golf courses (public and private) for years prior to picking up my pen, so I’m well-versed in the non-degenerate golf equipment consumers out there. I touched (green)grass (retail)!

Complaints about the ills of and related to the OEMs usually follow some version of: Product cycles are too short for real innovation, tour equipment isn’t the same as retail (which is largely not true, by the way), too much is invested in marketing and not enough in R&D, top staffer X hasn’t even put the new driver in play, so it’s obviously not superior to the previous generation, prices are too high, and on and on.

Without digging into the merits of any of these claims, which I believe are mostly red herrings, I’d like to bring into view of our rangefinder what I believe to be the two primary difficulties golf equipment companies face.

One: As Terry Koehler, back when he was the CEO of Ben Hogan, told me at the time of the Ft Worth irons launch, if you can’t regularly hit the golf ball in a coin-sized area in the middle of the face, there’s not a ton that iron technology can do for you. Now, this is less true now with respect to irons than when he said it, and is less and less true by degrees as the clubs get larger (utilities, fairways, hybrids, drivers), but there remains a great deal of golf equipment truth in that statement. Think about it — which is to say, in TL;DR fashion, get lessons from a qualified instructor who will teach you about the fundamentals of repeatable impact and how the golf swing works, not just offer band-aid fixes. If you can’t repeatably deliver the golf club to the golf ball in something resembling the manner it was designed for, how can you expect to be getting the most out of the club — put another way, the maximum value from your investment?

Similarly, game improvement equipment can only improve your game if you game it. In other words, get fit for the clubs you ought to be playing rather than filling the bag with the ones you wish you could hit or used to be able to hit. Of course, don’t do this if you don’t care about performance and just want to hit a forged blade while playing off an 18 handicap. That’s absolutely fine. There were plenty of members in clubs back in the day playing Hogan Apex or Mizuno MP-32 irons who had no business doing so from a ballstriking standpoint, but they enjoyed their look, feel, and complementary qualities to their Gatsby hats and cashmere sweaters. Do what brings you a measure of joy in this maddening game.

Now, the second issue. This is not a plea for non-conforming equipment; rather, it is a statement of fact. USGA/R&A limits on every facet of golf equipment are detrimental to golf equipment manufacturers. Sure, you know this, but do you think about it as it applies to almost every element of equipment? A 500cc driver would be inherently more forgiving than a 460cc, as one with a COR measurement in excess of 0.83. 50-inch shafts. Box grooves. And on and on.

Would fewer regulations be objectively bad for the game? Would this erode its soul? Fortunately, that’s beside the point of this exercise, which is merely to point out the facts. The fact, in this case, is that equipment restrictions and regulations are the slaughterbench of an abundance of innovation in the golf equipment space. Is this for the best? Well, now I’ve asked the question twice and might as well give a partial response, I guess my answer to that would be, “It depends on what type of golf you’re playing and who you’re playing it with.”

For my part, I don’t mind embarrassing myself with vintage blades and persimmons chasing after the quasi-spiritual elevation of a well-struck shot, but that’s just me. Plenty of folks don’t give a damn if their grooves are conforming. Plenty of folks think the folks in Liberty Corner ought to add a prison to the museum for such offences. And those are just a few of the considerations for the amateur game — which doesn’t get inside the gallery ropes of the pro game…

Different strokes in the game of golf, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, I believe equipment company engineers are genuinely trying to build better equipment year over year. The marketing departments are trying to find ways to make this equipment appeal to the broadest segment of the golf market possible. All of this against (1) the backdrop of — at least for now — firm product cycles. And golfers who, with their ~15 average handicap (men), for the most part, are not striping the golf ball like Tiger in his prime and seem to have less and less time year over year to practice and improve. (2) Regulations that massively restrict what they’re able to do…

That’s the landscape as I see it and the real headwinds for golf equipment companies. No doubt, there’s more I haven’t considered, but I think the previous is a better — and better faith — point of departure when formulating any serious commentary on the golf equipment world than some of the more cynical and conspiratorial takes I hear.

Agree? Disagree? Think I’m worthy of an Adam Hadwin-esque security guard tackle? Let me know in the comments.

@golfoncbs The infamous Adam Hadwin tackle ? #golf #fyp #canada #pgatour #adamhadwin ? Ghibli-style nostalgic waltz – MaSssuguMusic

Continue Reading

Podcasts

Fore Love of Golf: Introducing a new club concept

Published

on

Episode #16 brings us Cliff McKinney. Cliff is the founder of Old Charlie Golf Club, a new club, and concept, to be built in the Florida panhandle. The model is quite interesting and aims to make great, private golf more affordable. We hope you enjoy the show!

Continue Reading

Opinion & Analysis

On Scottie Scheffler wondering ‘What’s the point of winning?’

Published

on

Last week, I came across a reel from BBC Sport on Instagram featuring Scottie Scheffler speaking to the media ahead of The Open at Royal Portrush. In it, he shared that he often wonders what the point is of wanting to win tournaments so badly — especially when he knows, deep down, that it doesn’t lead to a truly fulfilling life.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by BBC SPORT (@bbcsport)

“Is it great to be able to win tournaments and to accomplish the things I have in the game of golf? Yeah, it brings tears to my eyes just to think about it because I’ve literally worked my entire life to be good at this sport,” Scheffler said. “To have that kind of sense of accomplishment, I think, is a pretty cool feeling. To get to live out your dreams is very special, but at the end of the day, I’m not out here to inspire the next generation of golfers. I’m not out here to inspire someone to be the best player in the world, because what’s the point?”

Ironically — or perhaps perfectly — he went on to win the claret jug.

That question — what’s the point of winning? — cuts straight to the heart of the human journey.

As someone who’s spent over two decades in the trenches of professional golf, and in deep study of the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the game, I see Scottie’s inner conflict as a sign of soul evolution in motion.

I came to golf late. I wasn’t a junior standout or college All-American. At 27, I left a steady corporate job to see if I could be on the PGA Tour starting as a 14-handicap, average-length hitter. Over the years, my journey has been defined less by trophies and more by the relentless effort to navigate the deeply inequitable and gated system of professional golf — an effort that ultimately turned inward and helped me evolve as both a golfer and a person.

One perspective that helped me make sense of this inner dissonance around competition and our culture’s tendency to overvalue winning is the idea of soul evolution.

The University of Virginia’s Division of Perceptual Studies has done extensive research on reincarnation, and Netflix’s Surviving Death (Episode 6) explores the topic, too. Whether you take it literally or metaphorically, the idea that we’re on a long arc of growth — from beginner to sage elder — offers a profound perspective.

If you accept the premise literally, then terms like “young soul” and “old soul” start to hold meaning. However, even if we set the word “soul” aside, it’s easy to see that different levels of life experience produce different worldviews.

Newer souls — or people in earlier stages of their development — may be curious and kind but still lack discernment or depth. There is a naivety, and they don’t yet question as deeply, tending to see things in black and white, partly because certainty feels safer than confronting the unknown.

As we gain more experience, we begin to experiment. We test limits. We chase extreme external goals — sometimes at the expense of health, relationships, or inner peace — still operating from hunger, ambition, and the fragility of the ego.

It’s a necessary stage, but often a turbulent and unfulfilling one.

David Duval fell off the map after reaching World No. 1. Bubba Watson had his own “Is this it?” moment with his caddie, Ted Scott, after winning the Masters.

In Aaron Rodgers: Enigma, reflecting on his 2011 Super Bowl win, Rodgers said:

“Now I’ve accomplished the only thing that I really, really wanted to do in my life. Now what? I was like, ‘Did I aim at the wrong thing? Did I spend too much time thinking about stuff that ultimately doesn’t give you true happiness?’”

Jim Carrey once said, “I think everybody should get rich and famous and do everything they ever dreamed of so they can see that it’s not the answer.”

Eventually, though, something shifts.

We begin to see in shades of gray. Winning, dominating, accumulating—these pursuits lose their shine. The rewards feel more fleeting. Living in a constant state of fight-or-flight makes us feel alive, yes, but not happy and joyful.

Compassion begins to replace ambition. Love, presence, and gratitude become more fulfilling than status, profits, or trophies. We crave balance over burnout. Collaboration over competition. Meaning over metrics.

Interestingly, if we zoom out, we can apply this same model to nations and cultures. Countries, like people, have a collective “soul stage” made up of the individuals within them.

Take the United States, for example. I’d place it as a mid-level soul: highly competitive and deeply driven, but still learning emotional maturity. Still uncomfortable with nuance. Still believing that more is always better. Despite its global wins, the U.S. currently ranks just 23rd in happiness (as of 2025). You might liken it to a gifted teenager—bold, eager, and ambitious, but angsty and still figuring out how to live well and in balance. As much as a parent wants to protect their child, sometimes the child has to make their own mistakes to truly grow.

So when Scottie Scheffler wonders what the point of winning is, I don’t see someone losing strength.

I see someone evolving.

He’s beginning to look beyond the leaderboard. Beyond metrics of success that carry a lower vibration. And yet, in a poetic twist, Scheffler did go on to win The Open. But that only reinforces the point: even at the pinnacle, the question remains. And if more of us in the golf and sports world — and in U.S. culture at large — started asking similar questions, we might discover that the more meaningful trophy isn’t about accumulating or beating others at all costs.

It’s about awakening and evolving to something more than winning could ever promise.

Continue Reading

WITB

Facebook

Trending