What You Can (and Can't) See as a Club Director

Last reviewed: July 2026

As a Director using Club Licensing, you can see whether your student-athletes are working their recruiting. You can’t read their messages, see what our AI helped them write, or look at the raw numbers behind their relationship health. One line of AI-written commentary does reach you for each school — the same line their parents see — and this article is specific about which one and why.

The Promise, in One Line

See who’s working. Not what they’re doing.

That’s the design. Your job is to know which student-athletes on your roster are building relationships with coaches and which ones have gone quiet — not to read their inboxes. The point is to give your athletes the infrastructure to compete on effort, not just talent, while the conversations stay theirs.

What You Can See

Your director portal shows two layers.

Roster and presence. Who’s on your roster, whether they’ve connected their email, seat usage against your subscription, and aggregated activity across your team. This is the “is everyone set up and moving” layer.

The recruiting pipeline, per student-athlete. On each athlete’s page, you can see which schools are in their pipeline and the coaches at them, the contact direction with each school (Inbound, Outbound, Mutual, or None), and an engagement tier (High, Moderate, or Low). You’ll also see a health tier — Active, Warm, New, or Cooling — plus the exact number of days since the last message in either direction, when the athlete last took an action and what kind it was, how many schools they’re tracking, and which events they’ve attended.

You’ll also see which relationships are heating up, cooling off, or new this week. Those are lists of school names. The sentence our AI writes about why a school moved is written for the athlete’s parents and stays on their side.

None of this is a raw score. Every field here is a tier, a count, a direction, a date, or a plain-language label — never a number pulled straight from an athlete’s underlying relationship data.

Under each school on an athlete’s page is a one-sentence read on where that relationship stands. Something like a coach is waiting on a reply, or this one has been quiet for three weeks.

Two things to know about that sentence.

It’s written by AI, not calculated. Every other field on the page is derived from activity metadata — timestamps, direction, counts. This one is generated language. It describes where the relationship stands; it never quotes an email.

It’s the same sentence the athlete’s parents see. Not a version written for you. The identical line, from the same weekly summary. This was a deliberate change: your read on a relationship and the family’s read should be the same read, so a conversation between you and a parent doesn’t start from two different stories.

Before that summary exists — a new athlete’s first week — the line falls back to a plainly calculated one, like “Cooling — no outbound contact in 21 days.”

There’s a second piece of AI writing you get that parents don’t: the Weekly recruiting snapshot at the top of each athlete’s page, and the support prompts on your Dashboard. That one is written for you, in a director’s voice, and it’s built differently. The model producing it is never given a school name, a coach name, or any per-school narrative — only aggregate signals about that one athlete. It can’t name what it was never told.

What You Never See

Message content, threads, and the athlete’s own AI assistance never leave their experience. That means:

No email or message bodies, sent or received
No AI-drafted suggestions, talking points, replies, or Coach Call notes
No raw relationship health scores — only the tier and the sentence explaining it
No thread summaries written for the athlete’s own use
No labels the athlete applies to a school, like Target, Reach, or Backup
The rest of what parents see: the full activity write-up, the recruiting-timeline read, and the conversation starters written for them

If an athlete is behind on follow-ups, the health tier tells you: Cooling. You won’t see what a coach said to them, or what we suggested they write back.

How This Is Enforced

The boundary is architectural, not a promise you’re asked to take on faith.

The part of our codebase that powers your portal is not permitted to import the code that handles athlete messages, AI drafting, or relationship scoring. If an engineer wired a message body toward a director-facing screen, the build fails before it ships. A second check scans every field your portal can return and blocks anything that looks like message content or a raw score, by name. A third confirms you can never reach another club’s data. All three run on every code change.

The shared-with-parents line and the director snapshot are governed differently — by what data the AI is given when it writes, and by the disclosure your athletes accept. Those are design constraints, not build-breaking tests. We’d rather say that plainly than let three green checkmarks imply more than they cover.

What Your Student-Athletes Are Told

Before an athlete accepts your invitation to join Club Licensing, they see this same boundary in plain language: what a Director will see, and what a Director won’t. That list names the AI-written line and says it’s the same one their parents get. They agree to it before they finish joining.

There’s no gap between what you were told and what they were told. That’s on purpose — it’s the only version of this that survives a parent asking your staff a direct question.

If a screen ever looks different from what’s described here, flag it to support rather than assuming — the portal is built to match this article, and when they drift, this article is the thing that’s wrong.

Was this helpful?