Is Cayla Hatton update?

cripes this thread is scary. I truly believe athletic scholarships should be banned. Thought experiment: Imagine no school offered athletic scholarships. Then Stanford starting paying shot putters to come...would you not laugh at them?

I think we see athletic scholarships as normal in some way, when they are an absurd concept for an institution of learning.

agip wrote:

cripes this thread is scary. I truly believe athletic scholarships should be banned. Thought experiment: Imagine no school offered athletic scholarships. Then Stanford starting paying shot putters to come...would you not laugh at them?

I think we see athletic scholarships as normal in some way, when they are an absurd concept for an institution of learning.

But they aren't just institutions for learning. So scholarships aren't an absurd concept.

ppd wrote:

agip wrote:

cripes this thread is scary. I truly believe athletic scholarships should be banned. Thought experiment: Imagine no school offered athletic scholarships. Then Stanford starting paying shot putters to come...would you not laugh at them?

I think we see athletic scholarships as normal in some way, when they are an absurd concept for an institution of learning.

But they aren't just institutions for learning. So scholarships aren't an absurd concept.

well that's a bit of a stretch, no? Why not offer cheerleading scholarships or theatrical lighting scholarships, or jewelry design scholarships?

Taxpayer money going to someone who can run fast rather than someone who can do well in school?

I'm staying with the absurd label. But prove me wrong.

I was the recipient of an athletic scholarship 30 years ago.

I needed that scholarship to go to school. My mother was a single mother, marginally employed, and soon to lose a house (she lost it my freshman year in college). So even the local junior college - which did not have easy access to public transportation - would have been very problematic for me to attend. The scholarship solved a number of problems. And the school I attended had and has an excellent academic reputation, so I certainly was privileged.

This having been said, I agree with the poster above who relates that athletic scholarships are absurd. Athletics clearly compromised my undergraduate academic record, although since that meant I ended up attending a top 10 ranked graduate school rather than a top 3 ranked one, I certainly will not gain much sympathy from anyone. But I really was unhappy at the compromises I had to make, and the athletic scholarship route worked to delay my adolescence, and put me at an odd position with the university. In some sense (and I understand it), coaches have to isolate their charges from the rest of the school's resources and distractions. This is of course a bit antithetical to what college is supposed to be about, where obtaining the most resources of what a college has to offer is key. In this sense the athletic scholarship route just makes no sense.

The elephant in the room is the cost of college, which has risen orders of magnitude beyond inflation over the last 30 years. I am just finishing paying for the second Ivy League education for my last kid, and but for the fact that I wanted to make both of them happy and not suffer in the least like I did, the costs really were not worth it.

Refund Ruler wrote:

ppd wrote:

Why should she lose anything that she did in high school based on what she did in college? High school running is completely independent of college running. It exists on its own. You don't have to go to college just because you ran footlocker.

In my system this would be a penalty. You can't argue against it. It's just the rule.

Putting forth a rule that is close to absurd on its face is for what purpose, exactly?

Hey, you shouldn’t make accusations like that on the internet, thats how rumors get started. Do write things you don’t know about. I was amazed with how had Cayla trained and raced last season with what she was going through. Most people wouldn’t have finished the season, or if they did, they would have been bitter and self absorbed. She was positive, passionate, and supportive of teammates with much lesser issues. She is a real inspiration. I can’t wait to see what she does once shes back racing again.

Stanford seems to recruit the distances better then Oregon does yet their runners seem to get worse and worse at Stanfruad while Oregon distance runners get better and better. I almost feel sorry for thier Women's distance crew at Stanford almost lol

pac12fan wrote:

Stanford seems to recruit the distances better then Oregon does yet their runners seem to get worse and worse at Stanfruad while Oregon distance runners get better and better. I almost feel sorry for thier Women's distance crew at Stanford almost lol

I see your point, but Stanford did finish 3rd at NCAAs without a front runner - their top runner was 17th. That shows some good collective team fitness.

I can't speak to how individuals have done - maybe by their recruiting classes they should have won the thing, negatign my point.

Stanford Women's track and field recruiting reminds me of Arizona Basketball and U$C football recruiting they get almost every single recruit they want so great recruiting just terrible coaching once they get to school seemingly making thier recruits worse after High School. Got to give it up for Lane Kiffen at U$C he is the worst Football coach in the Country let recruits like a champ to shall we say a not so nice place to play football or any sport to be nice. Boyz in the hood status lol

No one is accusing Cayla of anything. Questions were raised about why she quit the team, but in response posters have said she looks healthy (ie. no eating disorder suspected), and that from all reports it seems she did not over-train in high school (so that is probably not a factor either). This secondary discussion of girls high school training and college recruiting is not related to her so much as a general tendency, which we've also stated clearly--so no worries.

That said, the girl ran an Olympic B standard in high school, and was the top freshman finisher in PAC-12 xc. But then she's gone from the Stanford roster, and therefore we can conclude she's not just red-shirting. Can you blame people for being curious about what happened, given her talent? If this situation isn't private and you are free to fill us in, please do, 123run.

nordicmama wrote:

That said, the girl ran an Olympic B standard in high school, and was the top freshman finisher in PAC-12 xc. But then she's gone from the Stanford roster, and therefore we can conclude she's not just red-shirting. Can you blame people for being curious about what happened, given her talent? If this situation isn't private and you are free to fill us in, please do, 123run.

FWIW, she wasn't the first freshman at Pac-12 XC 2012. She was an All-American though taking 28th at the NCAA championships (fifth freshman).

I heard she is being trained by her high school coach and is going to race unattached for now.

Is it true her high school coach was her dad, or at least it was him planning her training?

a little birdie wrote:

I heard she is being trained by her high school coach and is going to race unattached for now.

Any clue which races she might do this year? I assume Jr outdoors?

nordicmama wrote:

That said, the girl ran an Olympic B standard in high school, and was the top freshman finisher in PAC-12 xc. But then she's gone from the Stanford roster, and therefore we can conclude she's not just red-shirting. Can you blame people for being curious about what happened, given her talent? If this situation isn't private and you are free to fill us in, please do, 123run.

Hopefully she gets better and can talk about it when she returns to help others in her situation. If I had to guess (and this is purely speculation!) I would put my money on her having depression/sleep disorder. I went to a college on par with Stanford, and I knew many people (not just athletes) who had to go on medical leave as a result of the pressure. Off the top of my head, I can think of several elite athletes that struggled with those issues (tera moody, a male but I can't recall his name--he did an interview on flotrack).

It's incredibly difficult to function, nevermind run at a high level or focus on schoolwork, when you have too much anxiety and not enough sleep. But again, this is only speculation. There are many medical reasons why someone would force someone to leave school. We can only hope she can get the help she needs and makes a full recovery. It would be great to see her running well again.

Back in the fall, I watched two interviews of hers and took note of the fact that she used the word "overwhelming" more than once to describe her experience at Stanford. I noticed because I have another runner coming up the ranks, and so I pay attention to what top girls say about their schools.

I think it's clear that if you want your kid to be successful at RUNNING, you don't send them to Stanford unless your kid is some perfect person that can handle crazy classes and intense training. But if you want them to get a great education and take a chance with their running, send 'em there.

nordicmama wrote:But if you have a girl who's been flying all over the country to run in elite meets for the last two years of high school, and you know she's been training hard and running high mileage (70+), I'm thinking she's a risk to burn out quickly. Or if you have a kid who breaks the high school national record in middle school but spends most of her high school career injured and never comes close to running that time again, then I'd say she's a risk too. And if Mommy or Daddy is a nut job and it coaching her, that's another red flag. Yet coaches take these girls, and the folks back home just shake their heads because they, without being expects, can see the writing on the wall.

The problem is is that most high-end college coaches are never going to care about development to the point where they are recruiting above average low mileage girls. For example, let's say you have two girls you could give a scholarship to. Girl A runs a 5:10 mile and does ~35 mi/week. Girl B runs ~65 mi/week and runs 4:50 for a mile. How is a coach going to justify to his AD that he would prefer to give Girl A a scholarship over Girl B? The thing is, Girl B might not adjust to high mileage well, and might not be able to handle this change at all.

In these situations, Girl B is heavily recruited because they know she has the dedication and ability to handle high mileage, which is common in collegiate programs (as it should be). While the idea of long-term development is a fantastic idea (See Rupp), it's not realistic for collegiate programs because taking on a slower, but lower mileage recruit is a huge gamble!

To get recruited now to Stanford with a scholarship, a girl would have to be sub-4:50. So no, I don't think you try to sell the AD on the 5:10 girl with low mileage. You sell him on the 4:53-54 girl with low mileage.