People on here refuse to believe this. They look at some nowhere D1 program, see on TFRRS that their best miler runs a 4:30 or something, and then come on here and think that borderline D3 times will get you money. They will also say "D1" but mean power conferences when it comes to talking about their goal programs and mean all D1 regardless of quality when talking about standards. It's a dumb, bad-faith conflation.
The truth is that actual money, even partial, is more limited now than it has ever been. At least half of D1 schools don't offer any scholarships at all.
If you want money of any kind to run at a school that actually has scholarships to give, it's 4:10 at the very least. If you want to run at some garbage D1 school that would lose a dual meet to North Central and has no money to give just to say you ran D1, then the standards are considerably lighter.
Yes. We were not educated enough about that. I assumed that my son was a scholarship runner but he is going D3.
Honestly, who cares what Division you run in. At the end of the day it is a sport, have fun with it, enjoy the atmosphere, and learn a little about yourself/ what your capabilities are. The obsession with D1 is hopefully losing its grip on society. Sure they get the biggest facilities, more free gear, and all of that nifty stuff. At the end of the day, 99% of athletes are just a statistic to them. D3, in my opinion, is the only true old school school atmosphere in the running world these days (idk if that is good or bad?). This is coming from someone that ran at one of the extreme low level D1 schools back in the day. I wasn't great by any means, but I enjoyed the time/ opportunity. The only reason I went to the school I did over a few D3 schools that were interested was because of the money. I straight up could not afford the private tuition at D3. That would be my only gripe with D3 schools, is that many are private and wildly expensive. When it all boils down, programs should develop athletes to their best, teach them to compete, and enjoy the process. I had a buddy transfer to a large D1 school (national championship track team) for his senior year, and he hated every second of it. The athletes were all stressed, nobody enjoyed the process, and he has zero continued friends from his time there. Honestly he didn't even run much faster than the school we were at. Athletes can be great at any place they are, there is no magic sauce (unless you are Seth Clevenger) to get great. An athlete can run just as fast going to Oregon as they can at UW LaCrosse. It is more about their attitude throughout the time.
Centro win the Olympics in 3:50. The current top 8 times in the B10 for 1500 range from 3:31 to 3:35. Posting championship times is either just ignorant or purposely misleading.
It's not misleading at all. It's championship, non-rabbited race times, which are the only kinds of races you get to run as a high schooler. What did Mr. 3:31 Simeon Birnbaum run at NCAAs last year again? Oh, 3:41? I don't give two craps what an Oregon runner can run in the "Oregon Invitational."
Centro win the Olympics in 3:50. The current top 8 times in the B10 for 1500 range from 3:31 to 3:35. Posting championship times is either just ignorant or purposely misleading.
It's purposely misleading and highly stupid.
There's what, like a thousand high school kids running 1:56 this year. They're all going D1? Right.
I hate these threads because for the millionth time, there's a huge difference between power-conference D1 and the long-tail mid-major D1. And even within both groups themselves! If I just zoom in on the former, huge difference between Boston College and Notre Dame and Miami.
It's impossible to come up with an across-the-board accurate standard, but I can basically guarantee it is faster than 95% of the posters on these threads think.
Yea, nope. Everybody has a super false sense of how fast the typical D1 runner is.
The following is real data from conference meets in 2025:
Typical P5 conference (Big Ten):
800 fastest: 1:46.99
800 median: 1:49.70
800 minimum (40th place): 1:52.59
1,500 fastest: 3:42.27
1,500 median: 3:48.59
1,500 minimum (36th place): 3:57.99
5,000 fastest: 13:31
5,000 median: 14:01
5,000 minimum (33rd place): 14:25
Typical mid-major conference (Missouri Valley Conference):
800 fastest: 1:47.74
800 median: 1:52.24
800 minimum: 1:58.46
1,500 fastest: 3:45.30
1,500 median: 3:56.81
1,500 minimum: 4:04.21
5,000 fastest: 14:14
5,000 median: 14:42
5,000 minimum: 15:23
Typical low major conference (Patriot League):
800 fastest: 1:47.91
800 median: 1:52.31
800 minimum: 1:56.56
1,500 fastest: 3:49.60
1,500 median: 3:56.37
1,500 minimum: 4:05.40
5,000 fastest: 13:55
5,000 median: 14:59
5,000 minimum: 16:00
Based on that, these would be my high school standards for a future D1 runner:
800: 1:56
1,600: 4:25
3,200: 9:50
Decent teams get walk-ons who have run 9:00. Why would they take a 9:50?
You need to define "decent." There are 287 D1 men's programs right now.
My high school teammate was 4:23/9:23/15:31, ran in the Big Ten, and went on to be a top 20 finisher in the conference in cross country. Another teammate was 1:59/4:46/10:13 and managed to make a roster at a low D1 school (I mean, he's like the bare minimum you need to be to be on a D1 roster at all, but he was).
Number of programs that wouldn't take a 9:10 guy on the roster is probably like 15-20. That's it. I just randomly pulled up Notre Dame, who finished 7th in cross country this year. They have like 6-7 guys on their roster who didn't even break 9:10 for 3,200 (or equivalent) in high school.
Centro win the Olympics in 3:50. The current top 8 times in the B10 for 1500 range from 3:31 to 3:35. Posting championship times is either just ignorant or purposely misleading.
It's purposely misleading and highly stupid.
There's what, like a thousand high school kids running 1:56 this year. They're all going D1? Right.
I hate these threads because for the millionth time, there's a huge difference between power-conference D1 and the long-tail mid-major D1. And even within both groups themselves! If I just zoom in on the former, huge difference between Boston College and Notre Dame and Miami.
It's impossible to come up with an across-the-board accurate standard, but I can basically guarantee it is faster than 95% of the posters on these threads think.
I think a lot of PR times really stretch the bounds of imagination, so I think a lot of college coaches evaluate based on what guys do in championship meets. I just pulled up Ohio's 2025 state meet results, because I'm from Ohio, and there were 26 guys who broke 1:56 at the state meet across 3 divisions. Of those, 10 were seniors. 6 are running D1, 1 is running D2, 1 is running D3, and 1 is playing college basketball. Ironically, two guys ran 1:52 and aren't running D1.
There may be 1,000+ kids who can run sub-1:56 in high school. How many of those go D1? Probably over half actually. There are 13,530 men on D1 track and field teams. More people can end up on D1 rosters than you would think. Now, how many can compete at their conference, contend for NCAAs, etc.? Not many, and that's also the point you make about being a huge difference between power conference D1 and the long tail of mid-major D1.
Decent teams get walk-ons who have run 9:00. Why would they take a 9:50?
You need to define "decent." There are 287 D1 men's programs right now.
My high school teammate was 4:23/9:23/15:31, ran in the Big Ten, and went on to be a top 20 finisher in the conference in cross country. Another teammate was 1:59/4:46/10:13 and managed to make a roster at a low D1 school (I mean, he's like the bare minimum you need to be to be on a D1 roster at all, but he was).
Number of programs that wouldn't take a 9:10 guy on the roster is probably like 15-20. That's it. I just randomly pulled up Notre Dame, who finished 7th in cross country this year. They have like 6-7 guys on their roster who didn't even break 9:10 for 3,200 (or equivalent) in high school.
Great, your teammate would have finished dead last at like 10 different D3 conference meets, just so he can say that he ran D1. What a honor. He must be proud.
You need to define "decent." There are 287 D1 men's programs right now.
My high school teammate was 4:23/9:23/15:31, ran in the Big Ten, and went on to be a top 20 finisher in the conference in cross country. Another teammate was 1:59/4:46/10:13 and managed to make a roster at a low D1 school (I mean, he's like the bare minimum you need to be to be on a D1 roster at all, but he was).
Number of programs that wouldn't take a 9:10 guy on the roster is probably like 15-20. That's it. I just randomly pulled up Notre Dame, who finished 7th in cross country this year. They have like 6-7 guys on their roster who didn't even break 9:10 for 3,200 (or equivalent) in high school.
Great, your teammate would have finished dead last at like 10 different D3 conference meets, just so he can say that he ran D1. What a honor. He must be proud.
That's what he ran in high school. Obviously, he improved in college and ran a 4:08 mile. He would have won the conference by 8 seconds in the first D3 conference I pulled up.
Seriously, does nobody check actual college times? There are not as many fast runners as anyone on this stupid board thinks.
A juco friend of mine ran 1:50 and was talking to a p4 coach in the same city as him and basically got told he needs to pr again before he can be brought on the team. The team is not ranked top 50 (coaches poll) in d1
A juco friend of mine ran 1:50 and was talking to a p4 coach in the same city as him and basically got told he needs to pr again before he can be brought on the team. The team is not ranked top 50 (coaches poll) in d1
That's a case of the coach not believing the 1:50 being legit. Hence, why he wants to see it again. Almost every program in the country would give a roster spot to a legit 1:50 800 runner.
Nope. 50 guys in the Big 10 have run 1:50. 27 guys have run 1:48. This kid is a transfer, not a 17 year old. If you aren't scoring, you are merely a drain on resources from coach to trainers to doctors to compliance to admin. You seem quit out if touch. Real people are telling you their experiences. Your D3 stuff from 20 years ago has not given you any insight.
Every time these threads come up...it's always the same things...not all D1s are created the same (same with D2 and D3)...
In WI...UW-Madison is an elite D1 program...but then for D1 schools, it falls off fast...buncha kids at UW-Green Bay (D1), UW-Milwaukee (D1), Marquette (D1) couldn't make UW-Lax's (D3) squad.
This post was edited 57 seconds after it was posted.
Reason provided:
mislabeled a school
Actual D1 Coach here at a successful program. I tell kids:
-9:20/4:18/1:54
-11:05/5:05/2:15
As a junior to have a conversation.
-9:15/4:14/1:52
-10:55/4:59/2:13
Actual D1 coach? How many times has your team actually been to Nationals in XC? How many times have your runners actually competed in Nationals in track? FWIW I dont see anything wrong with your guys, but there have been plenty of National Champs, Olympians, World Class that were slower than them.
I've pointed this out before because D1 status doesn't confer excellence. The great majority of D1 track athletes suck. Not meant to be an insult, its just a cold reality check. Too many here try to capture unearned gravitas by boasting about their connection to D1.
Look at the numbers. How many D1 track/XC athletes are there? Look it up? Track coaches love to boast about their credentials. Even our beloved rojo falls victim to his own hubris. Every chance he gets he boasts that he is the best coach in the history of the ivy League. Only he's never had a team qualify for Nationals.
Have you ever noticed that people who were actually successful runners in college dont need to say D1? Does the guy who went to Villanova say he was D1? Or does he just say 'Nova? D1 is meaningless. 'Nova means something.
A few years ago I looked up the numbers on D1. Something like 6000 D1 track athletes. It turned out that 95% of D1 sucked. That bar is really low. When I get a chance I'll look it up again. You're going to be butthurt.
This is kind of a weird post. It seems like you are really upset by what I have to say. Sorry you have to deal with that.
Actual D1 coach? How many times has your team actually been to Nationals in XC? How many times have your runners actually competed in Nationals in track? FWIW I dont see anything wrong with your guys, but there have been plenty of National Champs, Olympians, World Class that were slower than them.
I've pointed this out before because D1 status doesn't confer excellence. The great majority of D1 track athletes suck. Not meant to be an insult, its just a cold reality check. Too many here try to capture unearned gravitas by boasting about their connection to D1.
Look at the numbers. How many D1 track/XC athletes are there? Look it up? Track coaches love to boast about their credentials. Even our beloved rojo falls victim to his own hubris. Every chance he gets he boasts that he is the best coach in the history of the ivy League. Only he's never had a team qualify for Nationals.
Have you ever noticed that people who were actually successful runners in college dont need to say D1? Does the guy who went to Villanova say he was D1? Or does he just say 'Nova? D1 is meaningless. 'Nova means something.
A few years ago I looked up the numbers on D1. Something like 6000 D1 track athletes. It turned out that 95% of D1 sucked. That bar is really low. When I get a chance I'll look it up again. You're going to be butthurt.
This is kind of a weird post. It seems like you are really upset by what I have to say. Sorry you have to deal with that.
Original question asked about Juniors I believe. So I listed times people run as Juniors to get on my radar.
Every time these threads come up...it's always the same things...not all D1s are created the same (same with D2 and D3)...
In WI...UW-Madison is an elite D1 program...but then for D1 schools, it falls off fast...buncha kids at UW-Green Bay (D1), UW-Milwaukee (D1), Marquette (D1) couldn't make UW-Lax's (D3) squad.
Which is exactly my point. There are way more crappy D1 programs than anyone realizes, and there's even "name" programs that stink too. I had high school teammates run in the Big Ten, ACC, Big East, AAC, and the Northeast. Only the guy that ran in the Big Ten was legit good (31:11 in NCAA XC regionals). You would be surprised at how bad most of the runners were at the ACC program my buddy was at.
Actual D1 coach? How many times has your team actually been to Nationals in XC? How many times have your runners actually competed in Nationals in track? FWIW I dont see anything wrong with your guys, but there have been plenty of National Champs, Olympians, World Class that were slower than them.
I've pointed this out before because D1 status doesn't confer excellence. The great majority of D1 track athletes suck. Not meant to be an insult, its just a cold reality check. Too many here try to capture unearned gravitas by boasting about their connection to D1.
Look at the numbers. How many D1 track/XC athletes are there? Look it up? Track coaches love to boast about their credentials. Even our beloved rojo falls victim to his own hubris. Every chance he gets he boasts that he is the best coach in the history of the ivy League. Only he's never had a team qualify for Nationals.
Have you ever noticed that people who were actually successful runners in college dont need to say D1? Does the guy who went to Villanova say he was D1? Or does he just say 'Nova? D1 is meaningless. 'Nova means something.
A few years ago I looked up the numbers on D1. Something like 6000 D1 track athletes. It turned out that 95% of D1 sucked. That bar is really low. When I get a chance I'll look it up again. You're going to be butthurt.
This is kind of a weird post. It seems like you are really upset by what I have to say. Sorry you have to deal with that.
Essentially what we have seen in the past 5 years is a market correction. Kids/families realizing improving times by 15-20sec in the 2mile meant better access to college/money. The question is, what market inefficiencies exist right now? Is 9:05/9:10 2mile still relatively slow for making a team than where it should be compared to other sports? If not, what sports should that profile of kid focus on?
I feel the throws are particularly weak - 2018 to 2026 depth in the shot put and javelin are largely unchanged - 63ft and 200ft rank similarly in each year. If a relatively strong/athletic kid puts all their effort into training those events for 4-6 years instead of football/baseball/whatever, they could get fairly close to those marks. Those distances might be what the 9:00 2mile was in 2018 - achievable for way more kids that put in the years of effort. While sprints have gotten significantly faster over the same period as the improvement in distance running, we've seen less of an improvement in the jumps. I'd recommend for quick but not elite sprinters (say the 10.6 to 10.9 type) to put all their focus into the jumps if college admissions/rosters is the goal.
That might also be the best route for the fringe 800m runners. Sophomore 2minute 800 runners might have as good a chance making a squad in the triple jump as I see jumpers in the 47-48 range with good grades getting on decent D1 rosters. With GREAT technique, you really only need lowish 11sec 100m speed and a 21 ft. long jump to go that distance, which might be trainable for a middling 800m specialist that puts all their eggs into the triple jump basket starting in 8th grade. Of course, hard to identify at that age what the potential of an 800m runner truly is. Would be hard to tell an 8th grader with a 2:10 800 to go all in on the triple jump!
Overall, I wouldn't complain about the roster crunch for long distance runners - they have it the best - large college rosters due to cross country. Imagine if there was a fall sport dedicated entirely to jumps!?
Enlightening post.
I like the logic but han 800 kid ever tried to become a triple jumper?
D1 is pretty broad, very different for the national qualifying P5 types as compared to the smaller conferences.
In general I'd say male times to walk on to P5 and get some scholarship at smaller:
800 sub 1:55
1600 sub 4:15
3200 sub 9:20
XC times they really don't care that much but sub 15 on a fast (i.e. short) course does have a nice ring to it. So does all-state
If you were the type to get aid at a P5...you'd know it
sadly this is extremely out of touch... roughly 1:53/4:12/9:05 is the starting point to even consider a P4 roster spot. in the SEC, you're looking at 1:50/4:05/8:50 bare minimum. roster limits have killed what used to be possible. when you have 10 spots, why sign a HS kid at all who won't score for 2-3 years when you can land a 30 year old semi-pro Kenyan who's already run 13:30 (which still may not even score at conference)? the entire game is ruined right now, it's hard to watch as a D1 coach myself.
D1 is pretty broad, very different for the national qualifying P5 types as compared to the smaller conferences.
In general I'd say male times to walk on to P5 and get some scholarship at smaller:
800 sub 1:55
1600 sub 4:15
3200 sub 9:20
XC times they really don't care that much but sub 15 on a fast (i.e. short) course does have a nice ring to it. So does all-state
If you were the type to get aid at a P5...you'd know it
sadly this is extremely out of touch... roughly 1:53/4:12/9:05 is the starting point to even consider a P4 roster spot. in the SEC, you're looking at 1:50/4:05/8:50 bare minimum. roster limits have killed what used to be possible. when you have 10 spots, why sign a HS kid at all who won't score for 2-3 years when you can land a 30 year old semi-pro Kenyan who's already run 13:30 (which still may not even score at conference)? the entire game is ruined right now, it's hard to watch as a D1 coach myself.
Also, FWIW, 186 HS kids have run 4:12 or faster this year already (majority of states haven't even entered postseason yet). 153 kids have gone 1:52 or faster. Running 9:04.98 only gets you the 200th(!!!) best time in the country. Ten years ago, that same time got you ranked 81st in the U.S.