Donavan Brazier says he wanted to go to Oregon but they didn't offer him a scholarship

that's an interesting little nugget there. good post!

Sounds like a terrible recruiter. If you have a chance to get the #1 guy in the country, or at least a prolific athlete. You get that guy.

Other athletes can come in for less money when the program is more esteemed.

Donavan Brazier was being recruited before he dropped down to 1:47 with a huge negative split and even before "Grant Fisher isn't the best hs runner in Michigan." So, I think that Oregon didn't realize how great he was going to be. They don't prioritize the 800m or xc, but they have had some very good 800m guys.

zvxczxcv wrote:

Donavan Brazier was being recruited before he dropped down to 1:47 with a huge negative split and even before "Grant Fisher isn't the best hs runner in Michigan." So, I think that Oregon didn't realize how great he was going to be. They don't prioritize the 800m or xc, but they have had some very good 800m guys.

I was talking about the other guy’s program. Oregon is amazing at recruiting.

That's how 99 percent of the world works. Otherwise, you're Mike Ditka choosing Ricky Williams.

prezzy wrote:

Sounds like a terrible recruiter. If you have a chance to get the #1 guy in the country, or at least a prolific athlete. You get that guy.

Other athletes can come in for less money when the program is more esteemed.

Pop quiz: who was the #1 high school boy in the country in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, or 2020?

I bet most people here couldn't name one.

This is one thing that really frustrates me with colleges recruiting 800 and sometimes milers.

You wouldn’t require a 400 guy to have good marks, and the 800 is much much closer to the 400 than it is 8k-10k. Even the mile is applicable sometimes. Yes, some good 800/mile guys can run really well at the D1 level for XC, but a lot can’t.

I think you’ve gotta recruit mid-d and XC differently. Of course your 1500-3k guys will probably do just fine at XC, but you may be missing out requiring 800m guys to be good at a distance 10x longer than their race distance.

I know physiologically it’s a bit different than this, but imagine asking a 100m recruit if they can run the 800-1k fast?

imagine missing out on engels, brazier, hoppel, and murphy because you wanted to force them to run XC. I understand recruiting guys that will fit into your program, but fast is fast.

CopperRunner wrote:

This is one thing that really frustrates me with colleges recruiting 800 and sometimes milers.

You wouldn’t require a 400 guy to have good marks, and the 800 is much much closer to the 400 than it is 8k-10k. Even the mile is applicable sometimes. Yes, some good 800/mile guys can run really well at the D1 level for XC, but a lot can’t.

I think you’ve gotta recruit mid-d and XC differently. Of course your 1500-3k guys will probably do just fine at XC, but you may be missing out requiring 800m guys to be good at a distance 10x longer than their race distance.

I know physiologically it’s a bit different than this, but imagine asking a 100m recruit if they can run the 800-1k fast?

This. I was an 800 (with decent PRs in both the 400/mile) guy personally experienced a college coach with a very good history of xc and distance results who wanted me be a miler an run xc. I had a bunch of crappy seasons because I was training to be a runner that I wasn't. It was probably for the best Brazier didn't go to Oregon though, Texas A&M has had a much better track record at the 800 than Oregon, especially with 4/8 guys.

this is exactly why i am an A&M stan

there's an alternate reality where Devin Dixon is running incredibly mediocre 8k/10k and not splitting 43/44 on the 4x400

Drew Hunter 2016

Reed Brown 2017

Brodey Hasty 2018

Nico Young 2019

Covid-19 2020

2015 Grant Fisher (Donavan Brazier)

2016 Drew Hunter

2017 Cooper Teare (#2 mile, #1 2M)

2018 Hasty

2019 Young

2020 Young

I really hope that this love affair that HS kids have with Oregon U ends.

It’s definitely frustrating. By the end of HS I was also a 4/8 guy and was having quite the rough time even getting walk on offers at schools. By the end of senior year, I was fast enough to be a mid-packer at most mid-major D1 meets, and many of the teams I reached out to had more than half of their roster slower than me in the 800.

I had a lot of coaches tell me that I basically wouldn’t be worth the roster spot because I wasn’t D1 fast for XC, even though I was already D1 fast in the 800 and nearly fast enough to be competitive in both the 400 and 1500 as well.

Luckily I found a good program with nationally strong middle distance along with an XC team just starting a rebuilding phase so I fit in to both sides of the program.

I know a lot of kids with my similar skill set that wanted to run in college but just didn’t get recruited, even though they ran sub 50 and sub 1:58, cause their XC times were in the 16s or 17s

my two pennies wrote:

Drew Hunter 2016

Reed Brown 2017

Brodey Hasty 2018

Nico Young 2019

Covid-19 2020

I meant #1 in the 800. My bad for not clarifying.

2016: Sean Torpy

2017: Cameron Cooper

2018: Josh Hoey

2019: Darius Kipyego

2020: John Lester

Not exactly what you build your T&F program around.

CopperRunner wrote:

.

I know physiologically it’s a bit different than this, but imagine asking a 100m recruit if they can run the 800-1k fast?

Imagine you are trying to win an XC title and you can recruit a 10.1 guy. Should you spent a scholarship on him or recruit 2 9:00 guys? Sure the 100m guy might win ncaa but is that better than potentially picking up a 4th/5th guy for your XC team?

If you knew 100% a guy would win ncaa in track, you take probably take him for the PR. But what if the odds are more like 10%?I totally get why coaches don't recruit guys outside their focus.

There are many 10.8-11.1 guys who could be trained up to run a fast 800m. They're doing nothing in the 100 as far as higher levels go. Why not use their quality speed?

ddidididid wrote:

CopperRunner wrote:

.

I know physiologically it’s a bit different than this, but imagine asking a 100m recruit if they can run the 800-1k fast?

Imagine you are trying to win an XC title and you can recruit a 10.1 guy. Should you spent a scholarship on him or recruit 2 9:00 guys? Sure the 100m guy might win ncaa but is that better than potentially picking up a 4th/5th guy for your XC team?

If you knew 100% a guy would win ncaa in track, you take probably take him for the PR. But what if the odds are more like 10%?I totally get why coaches don't recruit guys outside their focus.

Exactly. This is a product of only having 12.7 men's scholarships (max, most DI's don't have 12.7) and a very limited number of roster spots for men. You have to pick what you want to be good at and go all in on that. Sure, fast is fast...but most 800 guys can't score in the 1500 or 400, and don't add much to the 4x400 & sure don't add anything to XC. I'm not saying all...but most. Therefore most programs aren't going to put much money (or sometimes even roster spots) into it when you get so little bang for your buck. But Texas A&M has decided to and it works for them.

Is this why Vin was pushed out of his Assoc. AD position at Oregon??