HS girl - 2:13 in 800 - D1 interest in that?

A little bit faster than that wrote:

Wright didn't run the open 400 much, if at all. She ran 2:15 in the 800, 5:15 in the 1600 and was 12th in XC at state. I believe on a 4 x 400 she split a 57 or so.

Phoebe ran 2:15.96 at Optimist. That's 2:16 in my book. If she was capable of running a 57 split in high school, Hugh, her coach, would have put her in the open. That's fast enough to win state in poor, old Tennessee.

Since the numbers don't tell a coach everything they need to know, you'd need to learn more about their performance history, personality and approach to running.

I pulled up the esults for our state meet's 800 final and I recognize a lot of traits that you wouldn't see in the results:

Runner #

1. She won state, but doesn't have the range to score points in the 1500 or 400 at D1. A few weeks after state she ran a much faster 800 at a post season meet. Based on this breakthrough performance she may be fast enough to score points at a major D1 conference meet and qualify for bats.

2. She was a close second at state after winning the 400 only an hour before. She also lacks endurance for the 1500 or cross but has better raw speed that #1.

3. I have no idea who this person was.

4. This freshman is one to check back with in the future. She finished mid-pack in the final of both the 800 and 1600 as a ninth grader.

5. A senior with a steady history of solid state meet performances but no wins.

6. A junior who was making her first trip to the state meet.

7. A sophomore who is backpedalling after a better freshman year.

8. A sophomore who is a solid performer, from a perennial powerhouse, like number 5, but will not likely pick up a state title.

Looking at this list, and what I know of them, I'd recruit #1 or 2 if I need an 800 specialist or someone who could contribute as a member of the 4x4. If I needed a cross country runner too I might check #5.

Flagpole wrote:

Well, first of all, I didn't say she was from Ohio. And second of all, that site you're using isn't any good. At the D1 state meet, the top 9 girls in the 800 ran under 2:15 with the winner in 2:10.

See here -

http://www.baumspage.com/ohsaa/tf/2013/g1.htm

I noted that Ohio does not post much to athletic.net and then pointed to Ohio results. If she is not from Ohio, fine, I still state that even with limited posting of some states, there are 67 juniors/soph/frosh who have run under 2:14. I did not filter to just juniors, but you get the idea. There are lots of pretty good girl middle distance runners around.

With lots of scholarship money on the women's side in D1 and D2, chances are pretty good this girl will be offered some money. The bottom line is that the top echelon coaches will look for a lot more than just a drop in time from 2:17 to 2:13.

My assumption of Ohio is that I thought you lived there and would be discussing Ohio athletes. Sorry if I am wrong.

opinionated guy wrote:

You mean football scholarships can't be reduced to 83 to accommodate men's track?

Male track & field athletes are okay with football getting the lion's share of scholarships. They keep their mouth shut, do not publically question AD's, boosters (yes there are sympathetic boosters), or anyone. When the question arises, they recite the football mantra that it is someone else's fault, women. Oh, you stupid, weak sheep!

Brain damage, obesity, rampant PED's, ridiculous on- and off-field behavior in athletes, a runaway sense of entitlement... and eating up scholarships from real sports. Why in the world to Americans keep putting up with football?

godhatesfootball23.blogspot.com/

I only read a few posts but some of them show you the ignorance of people talking out their butts.

I have a girl who got close to a full ride D1 with a 2:18.

Two more I coached got more than 50% for running in the 2:17-2:19 range.

I know a girl at another school who ran 2:13 and had many, many offers.

Are they Oregon, etc? No, but they're D1, good schools and they're getting an education for little or no money out of pocket and are running and enjoying it.

runn wrote:

I only read a few posts but some of them show you the ignorance of people talking out their butts.

I have a girl who got close to a full ride D1 with a 2:18.

Two more I coached got more than 50% for running in the 2:17-2:19 range.

I know a girl at another school who ran 2:13 and had many, many offers.

Are they Oregon, etc? No, but they're D1, good schools and they're getting an education for little or no money out of pocket and are running and enjoying it.

Name these schools. According to the dyestat rankings 2:13 puts you about 200th in the country. No one is getting a full athletic scholarship for a 2:18 when there are hundreds of kids who are better.

So what do you make of a girl that runs a 2:14 flat as a sophomore, and junior year runs multiple races in the 2:15's but never has that breakthrough pr race? Say she is a 5:00 1600m runner and 60 sec 400m runner.

jadbow wrote:

So what do you make of a girl that runs a 2:14 flat as a sophomore, and junior year runs multiple races in the 2:15's but never has that breakthrough pr race? Say she is a 5:00 1600m runner and 60 sec 400m runner.

She might be making an adjustment to a new body, additional training, or just a lull in competition. Maybe the races just didn't play out for a faster time. Don't assume a negative unless it is obvious. The fact that she didn't crash to a 2:24 tells me she will "probably" rebound with a good season as a senior or once in college. It will likely happen at some point, but no one knows when. With the 2:14 aside, 5:00/2:15/60 is solid and shows potential. As a college coach, unless she was trained or raced excessively, I would definitely keep an eye on her into this season.

No. Low mileage/low race runner from very small school and apparently got boxed in during large sectional final race. Improved 1600 and 400 time this year. Ran 17:40's 3 mile and 18:50's 5k this year in cross.

jadbow wrote:

No. Low mileage/low race runner from very small school and apparently got boxed in during large sectional final race. Improved 1600 and 400 time this year. Ran 17:40's 3 mile and 18:50's 5k this year in cross.

Why did she run low-mileage? Coaches don't want to spend a year or two to get her mileage up to where she can do college level training. They'll take the kid that ran 20/mpw more and ran 2:11 instead. There's less risk in that investment.

Flagpole wrote:

Well?

Also, this particular HS girl (it's not my daughter by the way) was running in the low 2:20s all season and then busted a 2:17 and then a 2:13 in her final two races.

Do D1 colleges want to see lots of races close to that PR, or do they only care about the PR?

Please educate me.

Thanks.

So did this girl hear from any colleges last week?

Carpet Bagger wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Well?

Also, this particular HS girl (it's not my daughter by the way) was running in the low 2:20s all season and then busted a 2:17 and then a 2:13 in her final two races.

Do D1 colleges want to see lots of races close to that PR, or do they only care about the PR?

Please educate me.

Thanks.

So did this girl hear from any colleges last week?

Do not know yet.

How is this search going. She must have heard by some schools by now.