Read back a page and you will be proven incorrect.
"I guarantee you these girls don't exist or they hoping to go to stanford or nc state or uva or oregon or etc..."
Dude, you were complaining she couldn't get an offer... that's why I said you were making it up... she got an offer and signed... too bad for you it didn't happen on your timeline. As I said, plenty of schools would take a 2:09 and that's what happened.
I stated that I wasn't complaining and also stated that these girls contacted nearly 100 schools combined and received less than 25% responses. I never said that this one had no offers. She had more interest than the others. There are multiple of sub 5 minute girls who are receiving few responses even from schools where they would be immediate impact makers. Too many posters get upset every time this topic arises. They don't believe that the majority of coaches don't even respond to acknowledge the athlete. Please don't continue to misquote me.
I stated that I wasn't complaining and also stated that these girls contacted nearly 100 schools combined and received less than 25% responses. I never said that this one had no offers. She had more interest than the others. There are multiple of sub 5 minute girls who are receiving few responses even from schools where they would be immediate impact makers. Too many posters get upset every time this topic arises. They don't believe that the majority of coaches don't even respond to acknowledge the athlete. Please don't continue to misquote me.
just saying a number without knowing what schools didn't respond doesn't help anyone contextualize. If they reached out to 30 schools each and 15 of those were big 10 schools then yeah i get them getting told no or not getting responded to. They are only borderline good enough except for Iowa, and i would fully believe Iowa didn't respond because they clearly have no idea what they are doing down there.
I stated that I wasn't complaining and also stated that these girls contacted nearly 100 schools combined and received less than 25% responses. I never said that this one had no offers. She had more interest than the others. There are multiple of sub 5 minute girls who are receiving few responses even from schools where they would be immediate impact makers. Too many posters get upset every time this topic arises. They don't believe that the majority of coaches don't even respond to acknowledge the athlete. Please don't continue to misquote me.
Likewise...
Don't misquote me. Or take my statements out of context, which you did.
I've tried to explain to you that the recruiting game isn't simple for either side. Some schools have no interest in some athletes... some athletes have no interest in some schools. I've given you several schools who would be interest in sub 5 SAs... the opportunity is there for them. Stop saying the majority of coaches aren't interested. It's not the majority of coaches.
You are incorrect. You are not actively involved in the recruiting process yet you call out parents as liars when they provide their experience. I recall that you provided names of some schools and were immediately told that some on your list did not respond. You don't like the facts so just bulldoze right through the facts. The majority of coaches do not respond.
You are incorrect. You are not actively involved in the recruiting process yet you call out parents as liars when they provide their experience. I recall that you provided names of some schools and were immediately told that some on your list did not respond. You don't like the facts so just bulldoze right through the facts. The majority of coaches do not respond.
just looking at smaller D1 schools in my state, they are chock full of girls slower than this and from out of state so its not like there were any in-state connections with the coaching staff.
Maybe they should find schools with slower girls on the rosters and reach out to those athletes on instagram and ask them how they got noticed. Clearly these girls are doing something wrong.
You are incorrect. You are not actively involved in the recruiting process yet you call out parents as liars when they provide their experience. I recall that you provided names of some schools and were immediately told that some on your list did not respond. You don't like the facts so just bulldoze right through the facts. The majority of coaches do not respond.
Wrong.
I am far more actively involved than you are my friend. I have listed several schools and can list several more. Bulldoze that.
As I explained, it's not the 'majority' of coaches that aren't interested in sub 5min SAs.
It is sort of a circular argument. Bad programs are bad because they are poorly coached/managed. That starts with recruiting. Coaches don't read their email or check their questionnaires. They show up at an NXR meet and walk up to a few girls and then their recruiting is done for the year. Or they are contacted by an acquaintance who knows a girl. Is it a surprise that the same 50 or so schools are good while the other 250 are not? Many have the same number of scholarships to work with but they are either lazy or incompetent or probably both. We had many similar posts last year regarding sub 5 minute girls and posters did not believe that the posters were real. Now we some parents posting the same things for the next class. We even have names.
What is your involvement? I am merely a high school coach who has a few D1 runners each year. I will get back to you in a week regarding some of your recommendations. But a few have already been called out as non-responders.
I was shocked by how few coaches reached out to my kid out of the blue. Unsurprisingly, the ones who initiated contact seem to be outperforming expectations in recruiting and in racing.
Sure, from the kid’s perspective they should reach out to coaches. But you would think that programs that want to be successful would try harder. Sometimes it seems like coaches assume kids have a clue how the whole recruiting process should work or assume the kids already know where they want to go. Many don’t.
It is sort of a circular argument. Bad programs are bad because they are poorly coached/managed. That starts with recruiting. Coaches don't read their email or check their questionnaires. They show up at an NXR meet and walk up to a few girls and then their recruiting is done for the year. Or they are contacted by an acquaintance who knows a girl. Is it a surprise that the same 50 or so schools are good while the other 250 are not? Many have the same number of scholarships to work with but they are either lazy or incompetent or probably both. We had many similar posts last year regarding sub 5 minute girls and posters did not believe that the posters were real. Now we some parents posting the same things for the next class. We even have names.
I have no doubt that there are coaches who are lazy and incompetent. But looking at some milesplit confirmed signings just for D1 midwest region schools who were at the bottom of the regional race, there are a lot of 5:10-5:20/11:15-11:30 girls signed to schools. I have a hard time believing that every one of those girls had insider connections to the coaching staff and thats the only reason they are getting picked over significantly faster girls. I'm guessing those girls looked at those school as a first choice and contacted them early rather than hoping for a Big 10 or Big 12 school to write back.
Going through the recruitment process now (Junior - just starting) I am amazed at the number of coaches who are making comments to my athlete that they are surprised the athlete would be interested in attending their College. The athlete is picking schools based on more on the education then on the performance of the track / cross country team. Based on this, I wonder how many coaches therefore ignore athletes or do not fawn over athletes believing they would not actally commit to the school. Coaches therefore settle.
I would be curious to those who actually know, how many athletes for the running programs do schools actively work to recruit, knowing that they will not get all of the athletes they actively recruit.
Going through the recruitment process now (Junior - just starting) I am amazed at the number of coaches who are making comments to my athlete that they are surprised the athlete would be interested in attending their College. The athlete is picking schools based on more on the education then on the performance of the track / cross country team. Based on this, I wonder how many coaches therefore ignore athletes or do not fawn over athletes believing they would not actally commit to the school. Coaches therefore settle.
I would be curious to those who actually know, how many athletes for the running programs do schools actively work to recruit, knowing that they will not get all of the athletes they actively recruit.
oooh now thats an interesting theory to me. Maybe a coach has gotten burned by too many "top tier" athletes who were using them as a safety choice and been left scrambling in the end to secure anyone at all because they were in turn slow playing the other kids. So to avoid wasting time/resources just look for the diamonds in the rough from the start.
Need to look at this way, this is the fall (not even Thanksgiving yet) so coaches want to sign the blue-chip athletes now - a 2.09 is blue chip so she was signed now, by a top tier Big12 program. Anyone else may have to wait (but not give up) until later. Coaches do not always get their wish list (some programs very few of their wishes). As I said earlier, things can open up later (have had a number of athletes visit in the winter or even the spring) as coaches then fill up their roster (not the very top programs of course, they are full early normally) with athletes further down their wish list. But kids do leave (see Okla State) - renege on a commit, transfer out leaving a spot available, etc.
If you only want the best programs, be prepared to walk on (so coaches are not going to be enthusiastic if that is the case). This an American thing mainly, Internationals are generally not that picky (which is also why some programs go after more Internationals). Otherwise there are lots of opportunities to run fast indoors or even outdoors Snr year, to upgrade your running resume.
As stated, I had a girl sign to a Big10 College in July (was running 2.12 at end of Jnr year, but then 2.08 at end of Snr year). Coach (summer hire) said he was scouring the country for an available sub-2.10, she was fortunate to not have yet been signed elsewhere (to a smaller conference). But it also means that later in the process you need to be particular about where you want to go if running resume is getting better. Be persistent then (not early as coaches are inundated with recruiting demands) if you want any money.
Lots of kids have good 1600/3200 times, but no real speed (relatively slow 800m time like 2.15). Coaches I talk to want some speed as they can build endurance on to it. With the transfer portal, girls around 5min and 11min are going to have a tougher time getting a good offer, or at least need to wait until later in the process to see what money is available. Kids with range (2 girls I know signed with Michigan last month as 2.08 kids with good XC cred as well) are far more valuable than those who only have endurance, that could be the result of high mileage. So coaches would be doing their kids a favor by also developing as much speed as possible. Of course the blue-chip sub- 4.45/10.15 girls are never going to have a problem, even if their 800's are not as good.
The process of early signing is not as good for kids who improve a lot their Snr year, but I would rather have that than a kid who runs fast as freshman or Soph, but isn't improving as a Jnr or Snr.
Yes. That is what raises the question about competence. Some of those coaches show up at NXR and talk to some juniors who finished 20th or 30th place. They stay in contact and sign them the next fall. At the same time, the coach doesn't bother to read their 100 emails because they have a handful of girls in the pipeline. So they miss out on many faster girls. The elite programs talk to the top 5 girls. And the regular state champ level girls end up sort of in no man's land. Talking to other parents from the state who have girls in college, they expressed similar situations. Some went D3 because they were able to just show up. Two parents told me that their daughters are at nationally qualifying programs where they were lower level recruits but did not receive responses from dozens perennially not great programs where they would have been mid level on the team on day one. It confirms why good teams are consistently good.
Funny to say 2:15 is slow for a high school girl. Some NCAA all Americans didn't run close to that fast in high school. Paityn Noe was possibly the top freshman in the NCAA this year. HS PRs were 4:41/10:03/16:04. She has no speed.
Yes. That is what raises the question about competence. Some of those coaches show up at NXR and talk to some juniors who finished 20th or 30th place. They stay in contact and sign them the next fall. At the same time, the coach doesn't bother to read their 100 emails because they have a handful of girls in the pipeline. So they miss out on many faster girls. The elite programs talk to the top 5 girls. And the regular state champ level girls end up sort of in no man's land. Talking to other parents from the state who have girls in college, they expressed similar situations. Some went D3 because they were able to just show up. Two parents told me that their daughters are at nationally qualifying programs where they were lower level recruits but did not receive responses from dozens perennially not great programs where they would have been mid level on the team on day one. It confirms why good teams are consistently good.
If everyone knows the coaches are there at NXR, and that a significant step in recruiting happens at NXR, then why don't the girls go introduce themselves at NXR?
Funny to say 2:15 is slow for a high school girl. Some NCAA all Americans didn't run close to that fast in high school. Paityn Noe was possibly the top freshman in the NCAA this year. HS PRs were 4:41/10:03/16:04. She has no speed.
Bad comp. NOE was ranked #3 in her class in distance behind Riggs - Stanford and Baloga - CU. 4:41/10:03 is no slouch on the track either.
It gets talked about here, but coaches are not recruiting slow kids they can coach up to all-american, they want fast real hs times. (In fact it's so bad, it seems the top programs would rather take a fast kid with a known eating disorder than a healthy slower runner with potential).
It's probably better to tell the ad that something went wrong with the star recruit, than to explain how the potential you saw was not realized. I'm always asking, but no one has told me yet, which of the 2:15 4:55 10:45 ladies are a sure thing to be future ncaa all-americans.
Funny to say 2:15 is slow for a high school girl. Some NCAA all Americans didn't run close to that fast in high school. Paityn Noe was possibly the top freshman in the NCAA this year. HS PRs were 4:41/10:03/16:04. She has no speed.
Bad comp. NOE was ranked #3 in her class in distance behind Riggs - Stanford and Baloga - CU. 4:41/10:03 is no slouch on the track either.
It gets talked about here, but coaches are not recruiting slow kids they can coach up to all-american, they want fast real hs times. (In fact it's so bad, it seems the top programs would rather take a fast kid with a known eating disorder than a healthy slower runner with potential).
It's probably better to tell the ad that something went wrong with the star recruit, than to explain how the potential you saw was not realized. I'm always asking, but no one has told me yet, which of the 2:15 4:55 10:45 ladies are a sure thing to be future ncaa all-americans.
Agree with your post. Though you also need to ask which of the 2:21/5:05/11:00 ladies are a sure thing to even be future contributors or conference point scorers at the D1 level.
It's a crap shoot at best which is why for the most part schools who have more scholarships/money and bigger teams do better over the long haul. (More room for error.)