What is the slowest 1600 time that will allow a girl to walk-on to every college track team?

Betting the coach takes her at 4:20 because he gets a big bonus for her national championships. I still think a coach takes a girl at 4:50 and thinks she will mature.

ContextisKing wrote:

if she 4:50 but mentally unstable a coach Will turn her away

If she's 4:40 but completely detrimental to the team and is showing warning signs of being dangerous than a coach will turn her away

That's why the question is pointless because obviously no time guarantees you anything oh, cuz there are always other factors

The reasonable question would be assuming you're a decent person and would present no problems fitting in on the team, what time would allow you to be part of at least practicing with the team

And as I've already said on multiple occasions no coach in their right mind would turn a girl who fits those qualifications and is currently in five minute mile shape away. If the coach is turning such a girl away then clearly there is more to the story with either the girl or the coach.

^ This

ContextisKing wrote:

if she 4:50 but mentally unstable a coach Will turn her away

If she's 4:40 but completely detrimental to the team and is showing warning signs of being dangerous than a coach will turn her away

That's why the question is pointless because obviously no time guarantees you anything oh, cuz there are always other factors

The reasonable question would be assuming you're a decent person and would present no problems fitting in on the team, what time would allow you to be part of at least practicing with the team

And as I've already said on multiple occasions no coach in their right mind would turn a girl who fits those qualifications and is currently in five minute mile shape away. If the coach is turning such a girl away then clearly there is more to the story with either the girl or the coach.

I've never heard of the scenarios on your first two sentences. There's no scholarship involved for a walk-on and she might never become a scorer on the team,, so the coach is only likely to consider her PRs. A girl that had self-discipline to run a 4:40 and get accepted to the school is not going to be mentally unstable. What would these warnings sign be? For a walk-on, is recruiting much more than a couple of emails?

Everyone knew that Suzy Favor was mentally unstable but it didn't stop a coach from giving her a huge scholarship. Of course a coach will allow a girl to walkon if she is fast enough. These posters can't process more than one thing at a time in order to provide an educated guess. I guess a girl breaking 4 minutes wouldn't be allowed on their team if she wasn't a nice person.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

I've never heard of the scenarios on your first two sentences. There's no scholarship involved for a walk-on and she might never become a scorer on the team,, so the coach is only likely to consider her PRs. A girl that had self-discipline to run a 4:40 and get accepted to the school is not going to be mentally unstable. What would these warnings sign be? For a walk-on, is recruiting much more than a couple of emails?

At top programs, walk-ons will typically still do a visit and spend time with the team. Some traditional powerhouses are very protective of their culture and will not allow someone to join if they don't fit in with the culture. I've haven't had any of the girls I've coached turned away for culture reasons/fits, but former of athletes of mine that have hosted recruits have communicated that offers/roster spots have been revoked if a visit went poorly.

Not for a girl that ran 4:40 in high school.

hs girls coach wrote:

At top programs, walk-ons will typically still do a visit and spend time with the team. Some traditional powerhouses are very protective of their culture and will not allow someone to join if they don't fit in with the culture. I've haven't had any of the girls I've coached turned away for culture reasons/fits, but former of athletes of mine that have hosted recruits have communicated that offers/roster spots have been revoked if a visit went poorly.

Correct.

And another thing many who think they know aren't considering is that many teams have team number limits.

(And for the silliness this question has come to... no 4:40 girl is going to be a walkon anywhere.)

15_50 wrote:

hs girls coach wrote:

At top programs, walk-ons will typically still do a visit and spend time with the team. Some traditional powerhouses are very protective of their culture and will not allow someone to join if they don't fit in with the culture. I've haven't had any of the girls I've coached turned away for culture reasons/fits, but former of athletes of mine that have hosted recruits have communicated that offers/roster spots have been revoked if a visit went poorly.

Correct.

And another thing many who think they know aren't considering is that many teams have team number limits.

(And for the silliness this question has come to... no 4:40 girl is going to be a walkon anywhere.)

I saw that the Stanford women's XC team roster has 20 athletes. I assume that they have at least 5 on scholarship at all times so it seems a walk-on would rarely score at the NCAA championships. I doubt the coach would spend too much effort in recruiting someone who is basically a lottery ticket.

There was no roster limit at SDSU and about a dozen walk-ons would show up every year. We had 2 scholarship runners and with walk-ons for 3-5, we weren't very competitive so I don't believe the coaches cared too much about team scores.

Make up your mind. Above, you agreed that a 4:40 girl can't walk-on with a bad attitude but now you say that no 4:40 girl wouldn't earn a scholarship.

omg wrote:

Make up your mind. Above, you agreed that a 4:40 girl can't walk-on with a bad attitude but now you say that no 4:40 girl wouldn't earn a scholarship.

So I tried not to reply to you because of the frustration it causes you but here's the deal...

I know you are the smart one here just trying to educate the simple minded but my position is that there are too many variables in this equation to pinpoint an exact time. This is not something you understand because you think you have eliminated all variables... you haven't, they are limitless.

There is undoubtedly some coach (or several coaches) who would be happy to take a 4:40 athlete even if she were a huge disrupter and a bad team member.... however, not all schools would - team chemistry is hugely important. So you can probably bank on the fact that a 4:40 girl would be on a scholarship somewhere and never be a walkon.

You are free to disagree. I am fine with you thinking your 4:50 (or is it 4:40?) number is correct.

My answer remains that there are too many variables to know.

This isn't a test and there will be no grading it... there is no correct answer.

(I will now do my best not to reply to this subject again because I have already wasted far too much time on it.)

You have sort of ruined this thread. Most people seem willing to provide an answer. Are you afraid to make a prediction about the Superbowl score also because you don't know who will have Covid and who may be injured?

What is the absolute slowest time that a girl could run and still get on every team? You have stated that some coaches would turn down a 4:40 if a distraction. That means it is a faster time. That is how this question works. IT doesn't matter that some coaches would take her if one would not. Do you believe that a coach would turn away a girl who runs 4:30 in high school? How about 4:20? How about 4:10? IT really isn't hard to think about the absolute slowest time that a girl would have to run to have every coach take her even if she has a bad attitude or is a distraction.

If we’re assuming worst-case scenario in all other factors, I don’t think a time exists. Like, what if the girl is suspected of murder, has hijacked numerous cars, or is a known/convicted child molester? Sure, they’ll probably get a shot at some Last Chance U, but there’s no time fast enough that every coach would take them.

Do those examples seem extreme? Well, that’s probably a sign that *some* guardrails are needed for this to be an interesting discussion. As long as someone says what they’re assumptions are, puts some thought into their answer, and isn’t entirely clueless (oh! And also isn’t a raging prick to others on the thread…) then their assumptions and contributions aren’t worth getting angry about.