Sub 9:15 3200 get full ride to Big 10 school?

As I stated on the other 3200m post today, you do not deserve anything. Track & field with 12 1/2 male athletic grants means you shouldn't get anything. You were asked on the day you posted your 400/800 times. You obviously cannot run sub-55/2:00 for 400/800 or you would have stated. See what schools like Kent St. or East Carolina tell you. Truth: if I were head coach at either school, I would load up with sub-50 400m kids and ask you to walk-on.

so a lot of info has been thrown out on this thread and I've got questions

1. All are you are talking about the lack of scholarship money kids really get. Is this true for division 1 or everywhere? If you are truly a talented athlete, wouldn't D2/NAIA/JUCO offer the ever elusive "full ride"?

2. I know a lot of people who do get everything covered are on athletic+academic scholarship. are there ANY runners out there anywhere that are purely on a full ride for athletics?

3. Ironside brought up the 400/800 speed being a factor. How big of a factor is that? Of a kid can run fast from 400-5k XC is he more inclined to receive a full ride?

4. How many of you actually are speaking from your personal experience?

He does not deserve anything? Boy, that's a little harsh, eh? That's a solid time and even for Division 1, he's not wrong in expecting "something". I'd love to meet half you guys in person, I really would;). I coached Division 1 some 8 years ago in Ohio. I'd have given you "something".

ironside wrote:

As I stated on the other 3200m post today, you do not deserve anything. Track & field with 12 1/2 male athletic grants means you shouldn't get anything. You were asked on the day you posted your 400/800 times. You obviously cannot run sub-55/2:00 for 400/800 or you would have stated. See what schools like Kent St. or East Carolina tell you. Truth: if I were head coach at either school, I would load up with sub-50 400m kids and ask you to walk-on.

The young fella asked about a full ride at Big 10 D1 schools. The young fella would only state his 3200m and 5000 XC PB. Did you ask these 3200m kids their 400/800 PB when you coached D1 in Ohio? Coach, 12 1/2 athletic grants! I stand by the math that giving anything to distance runners who can't at least race sub-1:50 800 in college is not a good use of 12 1/2 grants. Maybe at your college in Ohio, the football team loaned you sprinters, jumpers and throwers. These days, a track & field program cannot count on borrowing athletes from the football team. If you are ever sitting next to me on a bar stool I will look you in the eye and say the same thing. Give me "something." Funny!

Yep, and you wouldn't be on that bar stool for more than a second after you said it;). My laughing alone would make you fall off before I did anything else. Your compression is what is Funny! As I said before and would gladly say to you sitting on any bar stool in America, he would get something.I never said a full ride or even a half---reading comprehension is really not your strong point. Trust me, after I Iooked you in the eye and said it, I'd still be sitting on that bar stool and I'd still be laughing. You never coached in your life and your math proves it.

ironside wrote:

The young fella asked about a full ride at Big 10 D1 schools. The young fella would only state his 3200m and 5000 XC PB. Did you ask these 3200m kids their 400/800 PB when you coached D1 in Ohio? Coach, 12 1/2 athletic grants! I stand by the math that giving anything to distance runners who can't at least race sub-1:50 800 in college is not a good use of 12 1/2 grants. Maybe at your college in Ohio, the football team loaned you sprinters, jumpers and throwers. These days, a track & field program cannot count on borrowing athletes from the football team. If you are ever sitting next to me on a bar stool I will look you in the eye and say the same thing. Give me "something." Funny!

That is true. Not a full ride, but you're right, they don't have to give halve's either, they can give you money towards school. MSU and U of M both do it in Michigan, so Ironside is wrong on that one. My daughter's friend went to MSU last year, was redshirted and she did get money towards school and it was not a full ride as I know the girl personally. Breaking 1:50 to get a full ride is incorrect as well, I know that one personally.

Reading comprehension? You were making a half threat and I turned into a joke for your sake, clown!

No, I did not coach. I can divide 12 1/2 better than you? You gave me a difficult time because I stated the 9:15 kid shouldn't get anything. He was asked his 400/800 times. No answer! I know track & field. Just because I didn't coach doesn't mean I do not know track & field. Look at baseball. Know-it-all stubborn baseball types have given away to mathematicians in baseball. Look who wins National Championships the past twelve years, t&f. Florida and Florida St. have done well, men. I guarantee neither Florida nor Florida St are giving full-rides to 9:15 guys who can't break 57.5 for 400m! Give us your successful coaching resume. I can tell by what you have stated that you loaded up with a bunch of 9:30 3200m guys and begged the football coach for everything else. A losing coaching philosophy!

Regarding 1:50 800m kids. No, I wouldn't give a full ride to an 800m who couldn't race sub-1:51. I know that's a decent time but what is the opportunity cost of spending a full ride on a 1:51 kid? How many throwers did you give full rides too? Probably none. That was part of your problem!

I did not state a 1:50 800m kid cannot get a full ride. I stated I wouldn't give a full ride to a kid who cannot break 1:50 (unless he's a solid 400m runner also) if I were a coach. I like the way Florida, Florida St. and Texas A&M have put their men track & field teams together over the past twelve years. Load up with guys, 100 to 800 metres. If a team can't get sprinters, get throwers &/or jumpers. This all started with a 9:15 3200m kid who wouldn't give his 400/800 times. Go ahead and build around guys like that if you want. I would build a team with sprinter/throwers/jumpers.

Someone mentioned this on the other thread that is similar to this: XC still counts. It is still 1/3 of the running seasons. A guy who runs 4:12/8:55/15:00XC is likely going to be a Top 5 scorer on a solid national level XC team plus contribute a few points indoors and outdoors by his sophomore year. A guy who will be 1/5 of your XC scoring for 3 or 4 years might be worth a full ride. He might even be good enough to do the 10/5k or 3ksc/5k double during track and get some extra points that way, further increasing his value.

A pure distance guy (which the OP most likely is) is most likely to get a full ride at a school like Stanford, which has a fantastic XC team but got dead last in the Pac-12 at outdoors. Stanford would be smart to double down on what they're best at and invest more in long distance guys than sprinters, jumpers, and MDs. But the opposite is true at Penn State, which was the Big Ten champ outdoors but doesn't seem to really care about XC. In PSU's case, ironside is right. They probably don't give much, if anything, to pure 3200 guys who would be 5k/10k guys. Give the full ride to a guy like Harris who can win the 800 and also anchor your 4x4 and get you 18 points that way.

Now responding directly to the OP. A 9:15 is great and all, but its nothing special when looking at a national stage and most kids know this. DIII powers like North Central and Eau Clare recruit sub 9:15s every single year. Second-tier teams like WashU, Williams, or Geneseo will get one every 2 or 3 years. The top recruit on a top 10 DIII school will at least be a 9:20/4:20 guy. I heard there's even a 9:07 kid going to Wartburg college next year. These are schools that cannot offer any athletic scholarships at all. 9:15 kids would not be going DIII on such a consistent basis if they could get full rides Power 5 teams or even mid-majors. For these kids, the difference between a 10% scholarship and a 0% scholarship is not enough to justify picking your school based on money, so they go DIII based purely on other factors.

***Idiot Alert***If you were really a coach, you knew nothing and simply got lucky. Admitting that YOU would not give a sub 1:50 kid a full ride does not make you look very bright. Glad you're not coaching anymore. I ran in Kansas and both my high school and college coaches would crack up at your scholarship theory. You're wrong, period.

ironside wrote:

I did not state a 1:50 800m kid cannot get a full ride. I stated I wouldn't give a full ride to a kid who cannot break 1:50 (unless he's a solid 400m runner also) if I were a coach. I like the way Florida, Florida St. and Texas A&M have put their men track & field teams together over the past twelve years. Load up with guys, 100 to 800 metres. If a team can't get sprinters, get throwers &/or jumpers. This all started with a 9:15 3200m kid who wouldn't give his 400/800 times. Go ahead and build around guys like that if you want. I would build a team with sprinter/throwers/jumpers.

Ironside is not to quick on the uptake. Trust me, he didn't coach just like a lot users on this forum with the handle Coachthis or Coachthat, etc...

I see one guy on North Central's team who ran under 9:15 in HS.Eau Claire doesn't have a single guy on their cc team who ran under 9:15 in HS.Not sure why you are providing crap information.

The Starved Elephant wrote:

Now responding directly to the OP. A 9:15 is great and all, but its nothing special when looking at a national stage and most kids know this. DIII powers like North Central and Eau Clare recruit sub 9:15s every single year. Second-tier teams like WashU, Williams, or Geneseo will get one every 2 or 3 years. The top recruit on a top 10 DIII school will at least be a 9:20/4:20 guy. I heard there's even a 9:07 kid going to Wartburg college next year. These are schools that cannot offer any athletic scholarships at all. 9:15 kids would not be going DIII on such a consistent basis if they could get full rides Power 5 teams or even mid-majors. For these kids, the difference between a 10% scholarship and a 0% scholarship is not enough to justify picking your school based on money, so they go DIII based purely on other factors.

D2 coach here. I would not give a 1:49 guy a full ride. 10 points max at conference (might make a leg of our 4x4). Won't help in xc. A couple points at NCAA's first couple years. Maybe if they become NCAA champ Jr/Sr year they may work their way up close to a full. I'd give about 60% unless they were a 47.0 open guy then maybe 75%.

You can't WIN year in and out if you are handing out fulls to people that aren't scoring 10+ points at NCAA's immediately. Now...some people don't feel they can win and thus don't try.

ironside is right.

statsman250 wrote:

D2 coach here. I would not give a 1:49 guy a full ride. 10 points max at conference (might make a leg of our 4x4). Won't help in xc. A couple points at NCAA's first couple years. Maybe if they become NCAA champ Jr/Sr year they may work their way up close to a full. I'd give about 60% unless they were a 47.0 open guy then maybe 75%.

You can't WIN year in and out if you are handing out fulls to people that aren't scoring 10+ points at NCAA's immediately. Now...some people don't feel they can win and thus don't try.

ironside is right.

You would be in the minority of coaches. I know a 1:50.high guy who was offered a full ride to a top 15 D1 program.

I guess I'm in the minority of coaches that are trying to win.

Raymond Burr-Side: Look what you did! You stated, "Ironside is not TO quick on the uptake." In so many words, you called me stupid. Hey fella, learn to use TO or TOO. Who's not too quick on the uptake?

That's why you are a D2 Coach.

statsman250 wrote:

D2 coach here. I would not give a 1:49 guy a full ride. 10 points max at conference (might make a leg of our 4x4). Won't help in xc. A couple points at NCAA's first couple years. Maybe if they become NCAA champ Jr/Sr year they may work their way up close to a full. I'd give about 60% unless they were a 47.0 open guy then maybe 75%.

You can't WIN year in and out if you are handing out fulls to people that aren't scoring 10+ points at NCAA's immediately. Now...some people don't feel they can win and thus don't try.

ironside is right.

Trying to zing a guy on punctuation doesn't make you look very bright. I'd try again but I'd say his logic soundly beat you. You must coach high school or perhaps junior high. Keep trying, eventually you'll convince yourself;)

ironside wrote:

Raymond Burr-Side: Look what you did! You stated, "Ironside is not TO quick on the uptake." In so many words, you called me stupid. Hey fella, learn to use TO or TOO. Who's not too quick on the uptake?

I just want you to know. You are dislocating your shoulder patting yourself on your back for your high school 1:50 800m. When I was a freshman in college, I had two sub-1:50 800m freshmen teammates at my D2 school. Teammates were sub-1:50 in high school. Could you run a sub-48 400m? If yes, I would have offered you some tuition assistance.

Before Title IX, didn't football teams have 100 athletic grants? Then NCAA didn't divide football into FCS 63 and FBS schools 85. Football coaches in 1970s may have been more generous with their talent. Loaning football talent to t&f team.

Do coaches want to win Penn/Drake relay with all the longer relays or do coaches want to win NCAA T&F Championship? Oregon women: 100 to 800 athletes with their 800 talent are 400/800 athletes. Florida/Florida St./Texas A&M men: 100 to 800 athletes with their 100m to 800m. With 800m guys, 400/800 athletes.

People calling me stupid/dumb whatever because I do not coach. Instead of just attacking me, state why it's wrong to load up on sprint talent on a college track & field team. This isn't my theory. See Oregon women. See the success of men at: Florida, Florida St. and Texas A&M in track & field over the past twelve years.