I have been seeing this trend on social media. Athletes wanting to act disrespected when in fact the only school that didn’t value them is the one they chose. Some athletes I know for a fact we’re offered full rides.
Do they have the right to brag about being a walk on?
Even Kessler didn't get a full ride. Nobody was offered a full ride.
Is one of those supposed to say ‘A’?
I’ve seen this too, especially in the throws. They lament that they didn’t get an offer anywhere, but managed to walk on to a P5, 4 or 5 years later they’re at NCAAs. When actually researched, they received several offers from small schools, but it wasn’t what they wanted. Big difference
Provide 3 examples if you have researched it. You can't. Nobody knows what somebody was offered.
binare wrote:
Provide 3 examples if you have researched it. You can't. Nobody knows what somebody was offered.
People certainly know what offers kids get. If you are a college coach you are often recruiting against friends and acquaintances and you best believe these people talk. I have many times told other coaches “I can’t believe athlete whatever went to school X after we and 2 other schools I know about offered them a full or close to it, they won’t even travel”.
binare wrote:
Even Kessler didn't get a full ride. Nobody was offered a full ride.
What are you talking about? Lots of people get full rides. You can bet most Kenyan athletes you see, big school or small, are on 95-100% scholarships.
If you can run sub 4:07 or 9:10 in HS you can get a full. Maybe not to the school you want, but the opportunity is there.
"But nobody gets a free ride" - Rush, Marathon
12.6 scholarships per team. If a team only cares about distance they might have more full scholarship people, but a balanced track team will have at most a few full scholarship athletes. And another 15-20 on roughly half. I was on a P5 conference championship track team, we had a few fulls, a few 0.7, several 0.5 types and quite a few 0.1-0.3.... you were only getting a full if you were expected to be a conference champion and score some points at NCAAs
maybe a few per team wrote:
12.6 scholarships per team. If a team only cares about distance they might have more full scholarship people, but a balanced track team will have at most a few full scholarship athletes. And another 15-20 on roughly half. I was on a P5 conference championship track team, we had a few fulls, a few 0.7, several 0.5 types and quite a few 0.1-0.3.... you were only getting a full if you were expected to be a conference champion and score some points at NCAAs
Most schools have academic aid… so often times an athlete on a .5 scholarship is essentially on a “full” because they got a .5 academic and need based scholarships. If your school has good aid packages you can easily have 20-25 men and 35-40 women on “full” scholarships. You are right that a big program with 80 people likely doesn’t have a ton of full scholarships but they defiantly have a few mixed in.
Waiting for the 3 names of any kids,........
So by your own admission, guys were on fulls.
And within the last half decade fulls have become more common, for a few reasons reasons
1) academic aid--on women's side especially, there are cross teams where every girl in the top 5 is on a full. Some of those women may be 60% athletic, 40% academic, but still an institutional full
2) conferences got bigger, but scoring remains at top 8--getting point is tough. Look at SEC results. Even the best programs only have 16 to 17 guys bringing in points at conference. Bottom half programs have fewer than 10 scoring points. Those 12.6 scholarships get concentrated into those athletes that score
3) more schools are fully funded
Moral of the story as a distance runner--score points, get paid. If you are not getting an offer and want one, go contact schools in conferences where you can compete for All-Conference in track
Not my place to out anybody. If you’re that hard up to find out, research it yourself.