Walk on options?

Too borad of a question. She will likely be able to walk-on at most schools other than the top 50. Be forewarned though that coaches are terrible at responding. You will find that some good programs respond while many average ones do not.

Don't listen to this. Your daughter is already good enough for scholarship at the division one level. Maybe not teams in the top 15 at Nationals but depending on her background maybe. I coach at a decent d1 and we would have money for her especially if she continued to improve.

However, I suspect this is a troll thread as there are several people on this board who seem to make up stories about girls faster than this "not having any offers"

Why would a college coach care about a walk-on's grades or any other objective measure? Coaches want people who can help build team spirit and participate in workouts with the best runners. This means that when they have a selection of walk-ons to choose from they would look at personality, willingness to play second fiddle, and the ability to take a mostly thankless role seriously.

Thanks and not trolling. She is relatively new to competitive racing and IMO is undertrained b/c of other sports. I think she will dip under 5 and 10:50 as we progress to end of season. I don't have much of a feel for how this will translate at the next level, thus the post. I am also pretty sure the other sports will yield to running eventually, though this will be her choice and hers alone. I am just thinking ahead a bit and appreciate any/all feedback.

How garbage is your school? This dude's daughter runs a 5:01 mile, which would place 11th in a D3 conference meet (UAA) and you're saying you'd give her money?

He said she's a sophomore, dumba$$. Do you not think that a 4:50 female miler assuming normal progression could find a spot?

First, that's one hell of an assumption.

Second, 4:50, that will get you, what, 11th at the MAC meet, competing against notable distance running powerhouses like Toledo, Eastern Michigan, and Kent State? Yeah, great, let me whip out the checkbook.

Here are many from the class of 2028 (HS class of 2024). Assume 800 / 1600 / 3200 / 5k unless otherwise specified:

Wisconsin took a 2:14/4:50/10:43/17:29 (XC) runner

Utah took 2:14/4:54/10:36; 2:12 / 4:28 (1500) / 9:57 (3000)

BYU: 4:48 (mile) / 10:29 / 17:48

Syracuse: 2:12 / 4:50 (mile) / 10:28 / 17:32; 2:12 / 4:57 (mile) / 10:26 / 17:30; 2:14 / 4:57 / 11:02 / 17:59

Florida: 4:57 / 10:43 / 17:44; 2:13 / 4:58 (mile) / 18:09;

Alabama: 4:49 / 9:36 (3000) / 17:31

UNC: 4:56 / 10:26 (2 mile) / 16:57; 2:15 / 4:45 / 10:43 / 18:34; 4:26 (1500) / 10:25 / 17:44

Villanova: 2:15 / 4:59 / 10:45 / 18:03

Wisconsin 2023: 4:55 / 10:44 / 18:09; 5:04 / 10:34 / 17:57; 4:59 / 10:49 / 17:42

Michigan 2023: 4:57 / 10:49 / 17:32 (Colorado); 4:59 / 10:49 / 17:58; 2:13 / 5:03 / 10:50; 2:17 / 5:03 / 16:41 (3 mile)

Since when do you expect freshmen to score at conference meets?

There will be plenty of options, especially if not needing a scholarship. I would say already pretty close to being able to walk on Top 30 programs. Even if not once you go start going down the rankings and not needing a scholarship, the performance drops way off. You can walk on several Division I programs with a 5:20/11:20. You can try out even slower than that.

runcruit.com

College Cross Country and Track Recruiting Standards

Find your college Cross Country and Track & Field matches with Runcruit's prediction engine.

Link:runcruit.com/

The 2 Wisconsin girls are walk-ons. I know one of them very well.

Women score frequently. But his point is that coaches don't give s holarships to runners who don't score and they don't give walk-on spots to women who won't be top 7 in XC and look like they will never score in track. There are 50+ women on a track team.

My daughter is walking on at a B12 school next fall. Her PRs are 2:12-4:57-10:46. Your statement sounds like the coaches who we met on visits. They put Tfrrs on screen and showed parents what the 10th place was in each event. They said that is about where scholarships start because those athletes will never score without improvement. Several parents were shocked on the visits. Some had kids who were state champs and they were expecting large scholarships. One boy walked out 1/2 way through a visit after his Dad said the kid had run 4:18 and should be on a full scholarship. The coach pointed out that 10th in the conference was 4 flat for the mile.

So then she'd be fast enough to walk on...

Thx for this. Helpful tool to plug in times at least.

Says the guy who has no idea about team athletic academic awards in both conferences and NCAA.

Why do the scholarship trolls have to speak their mind in a thread where the OP isn't talking about scholarships, the title itself is "Walk on" and even posted "Athletic aid not real important".

So many butt hurt runners at LR who hoped for a scholarship 4 years of HS and then discovered the hard truth first visits that there weren't that many scholarships available and they just weren't that good. Now instead of a head doc they troll LR.

this is an oddly worded request. (1) most people improve the next 2 years. (2) who dreams primarily of being a walkon? like saying i want to play college soccer and be tryout fodder or barely make the bench. you're missing that part of the point to a scholarship offer is roster security and primacy, not just the money. it says, we want you, it says, we see you as a starter or bigtime prospect. no one shoots for being a walkon. walkon is in 2 years having worked and worked and emailed coaches, you end up borderline with the choice of barely making some D1 (or perhaps getting to try out), vs. do i just do D2 or D3. it's a strange goal. it's oddly giving up already.

no, half the deal on scholarship is you show up not in a cold sweat about the first few days of practice where you have to outrun 10 other prospects for a roster spot as a walkon. and i know there are preferred walkon who don't worry about their roster spot.....that first year. but you're still precarious as they recruit the next classes. even as a starter and MVP in soccer they're recruiting my would be replacement every year, and you never knew what the runners would be next year. so it's always more secure to be towards the "starter" or "core" end of the team -- even if you don't need the money.

that and personally i wanted to be wanted. some people are wired different, want to go to the last roster spot on the best team they can get. that to me is the lowest enthusiasm and leverage slot. to me you want to be closer to your sweet spot where they make special offers and have big plans for you. but like i said, i am wired different than some. i just don't get setting oneself up to be bench. because you can work hard and compete to move up? everyone else is, too. it's a self aggrandizing fallacy you are the only tryout athlete with dreams and work ethic.

it's also strange not just because you have 2 years but because with so much time left and this season too, you don't even know what your sweet spot might be. you don't know what your times would be. unless you're winning state or one of these big national meets it really starts next spring. with those times.

plus, to me, most of us aren't going pro and people should spend more time like where do i want to live in the US, what kind of weather and lifestyle, what major, is the coach cool or not, as opposed to letting sports drive the car. then pick a school that wants you in an area where you want to live, at a school that has your academics and you really want to be there.