Barnard is going to be somebody. The TN kids, among some other less prominent XC states, get forgotten about unless they are wayyy out in the top tier( Aaron Templeton, Bumby, Kathy Kroeger). But there have been several kids with flashes of brilliance show up there in the past few years. Adam is one I think we'll eventually hear from.
Barnard is defiantly one of the pioneers that is reviving TN running once again! I can't wait to see what he does at Georgetown.
Jose Pina Lincoln (San Jose) 4:19/9:24 to San Jose State
(should run faster this coming spring).
Oregon might make an offer to Anderson, but it would have to be a partial. As others have tried to explain, it is rare that Oregon can afford to offer a full just due to the fact that they try to field competitive XC AND track and field programs. It works out to only about 3 scholarships a year, divided amongst 8 - 10 athletes each year. As to your comment that there are lesser athletes on the Oregon roster, that is correct. But, most of those athletes are on small partials, or walk on status.
Well i think it's unrealistic for a good hs runner to find everything they want in a school. They could find a full ride if they're good, but then they'll probably get shit coaching and competition. I'm hoping that Anderson isn't looking for a full ride, because I bet cheserek is the only oregon guy to get a full one. And I doubt any of the colorado guys have a full either. My friend who runs for Ucla told me that they start you out with like a small portion of the pie or even just paying for books, and then increase it the longer you stay and improve.
Excellent post! This is something that a lot of people don't realize. Full rides are mostly "mythical". Egos get hurt, but even most exceptional runners have to realize that they are going to get only partial aid. This is not Football we are talking about.
Dawson ran 2:32 in the 1k when he was fray so he is pretty legit
Dani Jones CU Boulder
John Dressel CU Boulder
Matthew Maton University of Oregon
Lucy Biles University of North Carolina
Morgan Lucey commits to Princeton...hasn't run elite high school times yet (10:59 3200), but has 2 3rd place state medals after only one track and cross country season. She's got a lot of potential and room to improve
Well that would be interesting if Anderson could get through admissions... not the sharpest in the spike drawer...
Anderson: Washington, Wisconsin, UNC, NAU, or Syracuse
If he's worried but scholarship money, wisconsin isn't likely. But I'm only a commenter.
HSCoachhere wrote:
This is really helpful. I also want to hear your thoughts on women and recruiting. But for now, I'm curious as to who you think the top 3 track distance boys are? Ones who might be good/lucky enough to get an offer, whether they are seniors or not this year.
There is so much more scholarship $$$ in women's track and field (and NCAA athletics in general) that it has inflated the market. In no universe does a 2:12/5:00/10:50 girl deserve a full ride, yet there are mid-majors tripping over each other to throw big $$$ at these women. Sorry dudes, you were born the wrong sex if you wanted your education paid for by running mediocre marks. I'm not saying there aren't deserving, talented and competitive women out there by any means. I'm just saying there's a whole lot more $$$ out there for those that aren't...
The top of the top P5 schools are still going to recruit in a manner consistent with my previous explanation, but most of those P5's are still going to have to pay up & buy their talent - at least far more than they'll have to do for equal caliber men. The only ones that *may* be able to strategize like they do the men would be Stanford and maybe Oregon.
Maton is one of the top 3 track distance boys out there this year...and it's no secret Tamagno is likely another. Beyond that, I'm keeping that to myself...that's part of what I get paid for.
Power 5 Recruiter wrote:
Maton is one of the top 3 track distance boys out there this year...and it's no secret Tamagno is likely another. Beyond that, I'm keeping that to myself...that's part of what I get paid for.
I don't know if I read your post wrong, but Tamagno is only a Junior. Extremely talented for his age though, particularly on the track.
Power 5 Recruiter wrote:
There is so much more scholarship $$$ in women's track and field (and NCAA athletics in general) that it has inflated the market. In no universe does a 2:12/5:00/10:50 girl deserve a full ride, yet there are mid-majors tripping over each other to throw big $$$ at these women. Sorry dudes, you were born the wrong sex if you wanted your education paid for by running mediocre marks.
I get your point, and you're right about track, but wrong about "athletics" the way it's used in U.S. (all sports, not track and field). Football is where the money is at. So, guys, if you complain, complain that all the money goes to football, not that it all goes to women track and field/xc. Not just the scholarships (85 full scholarships at 120 FCS schools, 63 full at 125 FCS schools... and then 36 scholarships at 156 Div II schools), but all the other money too.
And don't tell me that football makes money. It does at some schools, but it loses money at many others. And among those that make money, only a small number make enough to cover the whole athletics budget - Yes, at many of the Power 5 conferences, but even that is not guaranteed if they don't get to a good bowl game (at minor bowl games, teams can spend more money going to the game than they take in -- honestly, I've seen the budget of a Power 5 school where that happened 2 years in a row).
Meanwhile, a woman distance athlete is very attractive to these schools because they can count as 3 athletes: 1 for XC, 1 for indoor track, 1 for outdoor track. So yes, they can get scholarships more easily. But it's not because schools are just throwing money at them instead of the guys. They're just throwing the money at different guys.
who's to blame? wrote:
Power 5 Recruiter wrote:There is so much more scholarship $$$ in women's track and field (and NCAA athletics in general) that it has inflated the market. In no universe does a 2:12/5:00/10:50 girl deserve a full ride, yet there are mid-majors tripping over each other to throw big $$$ at these women. Sorry dudes, you were born the wrong sex if you wanted your education paid for by running mediocre marks.
I get your point, and you're right about track, but wrong about "athletics" the way it's used in U.S. (all sports, not track and field). Football is where the money is at. So, guys, if you complain, complain that all the money goes to football, not that it all goes to women track and field/xc. Not just the scholarships (85 full scholarships at 120 FCS schools, 63 full at 125 FCS schools... and then 36 scholarships at 156 Div II schools), but all the other money too.
And don't tell me that football makes money. It does at some schools, but it loses money at many others. And among those that make money, only a small number make enough to cover the whole athletics budget - Yes, at many of the Power 5 conferences, but even that is not guaranteed if they don't get to a good bowl game (at minor bowl games, teams can spend more money going to the game than they take in -- honestly, I've seen the budget of a Power 5 school where that happened 2 years in a row).
Meanwhile, a woman distance athlete is very attractive to these schools because they can count as 3 athletes: 1 for XC, 1 for indoor track, 1 for outdoor track. So yes, they can get scholarships more easily. But it's not because schools are just throwing money at them instead of the guys. They're just throwing the money at different guys.
I'm not going to disagree with anything you just said. This situation still has women getting VASTLY more athletic aid in NCAA sports in which both genders are sponsored. It has made the men's $$$ market overly scarce and the women's $$$ market overly inflated in just about every sport but football. Yes, I realize you can argue that many male football players don't deserve their full rides. And yes these women serve a very valuable purpose (3 for 1 as you describe) so it does make sense. I was just pointing out the differences in the recruiting dynamics.
Seyta wrote:
For schools like Oregon and NAU that have such high acceptance rates, you get legions of these morons, which results in a bad reputation for the programs, since they all graduate and can\'t get jobs.
Not all of those morons (elfie rupp) graduate.
Trevor Reinhart to Yale 12th and 7th at footlockers
Any updates on Tanner Anderson? Has he heard from Oregon? If so, does that ruin the chances of all the other schools?
Wisconsin just added another quality runner to their stable in Zack Snider from Indiana.
It's not as top heavy as last year's class on paper, but they have damn good class nonetheless. The ones we know about are Hacker, Snider, Clevenger, Eidenschink, and Nameth. 4 of the 5 qualified for NXN and/or FLN. Eidenschink, the only one who didn't, has a ton of upside as well.
Tanner had Wisconsin in his list at one point, but I can't imagine their would be very much dough leftover.
high times wrote:
Wisconsin just added another quality runner to their stable in Zack Snider from Indiana.
It's not as top heavy as last year's class on paper, but they have damn good class nonetheless. The ones we know about are Hacker, Snider, Clevenger, Eidenschink, and Nameth. 4 of the 5 qualified for NXN and/or FLN. \.
Seems that is what they value most - high mileage guys who do well in cross. That's why their Mid-D is thinnnnnnn