NTangible bets it can predict how athletes will perform under pressure
NTangible, a sports technology company, says its Clutch Factor assessment can help predict how athletes perform in high-pressure situations. The tool aims to give college recruiters a measure of mental composure alongside physical statistics, potentially informing rankings, scholarships and recruiting decisions.
The assessment, developed by CEO Dan Connerty and psychologist Ed Levine, asks people to interpret ambiguous scenes and scores their word choices using a psychological scoring guide. Scores range from 0 to 1,000; Connerty says athletes scoring above 750 are twice as likely to commit to a Division I school. The article raises concerns that recruits could tailor their answers to impress coaches: the writer scored 584 when answering honestly and 802 when imagining ideal responses. NTangible supports nine sports and says it has exercises to help athletes develop their mental skills.
- NTangible says its assessment measures athletes’ ability to perform under pressure.
- Scores range from 0 to 1,000, but answers may be easy to tailor.
- The company supports nine sports and sees potential beyond athletics.
New here? Start with this
College recruiters assess prospective athletes using measures such as speed, strength and past results, but these may not show how someone responds to pressure. Decisions about recruitment and scholarships can shape a young athlete’s education and sporting opportunities.
NTangible is a sports technology company whose chief executive, Dan Connerty, worked with psychologist Ed Levine to develop its Clutch Factor assessment. It uses people’s interpretations of unclear scenes to produce a score intended to reflect mental composure. The company says the measure could add another source of information for recruiters, while the reliability of any assessment and how athletes answer it matter to how its results are used.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Recruiters have limited ways to assess how a prospect may respond when competition is intense, and physical statistics alone cannot capture composure or decision-making. A structured assessment could add useful information to recruiting and help athletes identify mental skills to develop, provided its scores are treated as one imperfect measure among many.
The case against
A score that may influence rankings, scholarships or recruiting decisions needs strong evidence that it reliably predicts performance and works fairly across athletes. If answers can shift substantially when someone tries to give the expected response, the assessment may reward test-taking strategy rather than composure, creating a risk of misleading coaches and disadvantaging recruits.