Coaches, how would you handle this?

They may throw him some money if he preforms at Conference in Track. Being top 7 in XC isn't as big of a deal as being a top 3 performer and earning all conference honors in track. That's when he would probably get a bone of some kind of athletic scholarship thrown his way.

Scholarships aren't given out lightly, he'd have to have some kind of breakthrough performance to get noticed, IE win a big meet or beat the number one or two runner on several occasions. Scoring consistently also will help, as will having an outstanding work ethic in practice. Many coaches will divvy the money up and give half's so they have more to go around.

xcrunner6 wrote:

They may throw him some money if he preforms at Conference in Track. Being top 7 in XC isn't as big of a deal as being a top 3 performer and earning all conference honors in track. That's when he would probably get a bone of some kind of athletic scholarship thrown his way.

performs************************** Damnit.

Do you know for sure that 12.6 scholarships are currently funded and awarded for track? How many are for XC? A lot of this may depend on the head coach (or director) of T&F. Some coaches may have a preference or specialization for sprints, jumps, throws, multis over distance events. They may get more "bang for the buck" by awarding a scholarship to a sprinter who can potentially score in 1-2 individual races and a relay over a distance runner who may score in only 1 distance race for conference or nationals. Look at Jenna Prandini at Oregon last year. (The opposite of this would be a school like U Portland or Iona that emphasize XC over track.)

Consider also that there will be a priority to invest in a freshman who will be on the team (and contribute) for 4 years versus a walk-on who's a sophomore or more. On average, every year 3-4 scholarships should be freed up for new freshman.

You or your son should find out who is receiving a scholarship (full or partial) and see if your sons contributions to the team are comparable, then talk to the coach about your interest to be considered for scholarship funding.

I walked on to D1 power 5 (good track team, bad xc) and had slightly slower times. I missed scoring at conference track by less than a second a few times.

I was given "books". So about $300 in books free per semester. Not much. The real catch was that if I didn't turn them back in at the end of semester I had to pay for them. At my school, a sprinter of equivalent ability would get 10-20%, so was pretty lopsided.

I will say that if he doesn't ask he probably won't get much at all. If they think he'll run for free then they'll save it for a new recruit. It's just the way it is. I second the suggestion to find out what everyone else is getting, and then approach the coach.

If your son is a top 5 guy on a mediocre cross country team then it would not make much sense for the coach to give him a scholarship of any amount. If he can run under 8:10 he might be able to score at the conference meet (not MPSF or BIG 10) then we might be talking books. It really doesn't matter what anyone else is on because if they are over scholarshipped, it definitely does not help the team to overscholarship your son as well.

Score at the conference meet, score at the NCAA meet, help lead the team to NCAA cross and then talk about scholarship.

Here was my philosophy:

You use scholarships (shorthand for "athletic grants in aid") to get or keep someone on your team, who otherwise might not be on it.

What makes it interesting is that sometimes you'll give scholarship $$$ to A so that (in part, at least) you'll be better able to get/keep B--the "reward" for A's performance, attitude, scoring ability, and/or leadership serves as an example of what B might (in time) achieve.

As I've often said on this board, I started the women's programs at three universities. At one, the announcement of the women's gaining varsity status came relatively early (about midyear), so we knew that women would start receiving scholarships--and that the (then) men's coach would take over the whole program (and I would go). He asked me about my current athletes and incoming recruits, and I recommended that my current top kid should get some money.

Well, he didn't give her any, and in retrospect I think he was right: she was already well-supported by other financial aid, and committed to the team. He only had the equivalent of two full rides (initially) for the entire women's program; he divvied up those scholarships to persuade people to enroll who otherwise wouldn't have, and he was able to field a fairly competitive team (in a *tough* conference) from Year One.

Thanks for all of the thoughtful responses.

For what it's worth, I would never discuss this with the coach (whom I think very highly of and have actually never spoken to). As far as I'm concerned, this is at the coach's discretion and if there's any discussion, the coach should initiate it with my son.

I find it interesting that the bar is so high. If you don't get a scholarship walking in the door, you have to be a world beater to get any material scholarship. That's kind of what I expected, though, especially since scholarship amounts are private.

___________________________________________________________

The kid deserves money. You run sub 5:00 per mile *(sub 24:50 for 8K) and score you deserve it. You regularly score even if only in X-C, then you are no longer a walk on. If he ran 14:15 then improved in X-C, that's 13:55-14:05 this year. Give the kid some money!!!! Then tell him to go out and break 31:00 in NCAA Regionals and make the Finals X-C!! If you put 5 guys under 24:40 for 8K with a couple of lower sticks--you should make NCAA Finals as a team.

Based off of expenses and costs, Power 5 conference results, and the general description it isn't a team in the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, or PAC 12. Vanderbilt doesn't have men's funding or even a men's track team. Big 10 and 12 last place teams are public schools. Which leaves us to the ACC...you could have referenced Wake Forest since they were next to last, and have invested a lot of money in distance but are struggling...

30:45XC1978 wrote:

The kid deserves money. You run sub 5:00 per mile *(sub 24:50 for 8K) and score you deserve it. You regularly score even if only in X-C, then you are no longer a walk on.

How does a person "deserve money" for doing something that produces no revenue?

must be a millennial wrote:

30:45XC1978 wrote:

The kid deserves money. You run sub 5:00 per mile *(sub 24:50 for 8K) and score you deserve it. You regularly score even if only in X-C, then you are no longer a walk on.

How does a person "deserve money" for doing something that produces no revenue?

Advertising is expensive. Good teams are a form of advertising for the school/institution. You must be a socialist/communist, since you don't seem to understand how capitalism works.

They call it advertising wrote:

Advertising is expensive. Good teams are a form of advertising for the school/institution. You must be a socialist/communist, since you don't seem to understand how capitalism works.

Clearly giving the guy money isn't the market driven outcome. If it was, he would be getting money right now.

must be a millennial wrote:

They call it advertising wrote:

Advertising is expensive. Good teams are a form of advertising for the school/institution. You must be a socialist/communist, since you don't seem to understand how capitalism works.

Clearly giving the guy money isn't the market driven outcome. If it was, he would be getting money right now.

You sound like a newly minted JC econ professor who never worked in the real world nor ran a business. Human behaviour doesn't automatically adjust to the "market driven outcome."

I'd say if the OP's son improves dramatically and can get a significant offer elsewhere, he should transfer. Sitting out a year will improve his performance even more. Now that's a real market-driven outcome, son.

Textbook answer is wrong wrote:

You sound like a newly minted JC econ professor who never worked in the real world nor ran a business. Human behaviour doesn't automatically adjust to the "market driven outcome."

I'd say if the OP's son improves dramatically and can get a significant offer elsewhere, he should transfer. Sitting out a year will improve his performance even more. Now that's a real market-driven outcome, son.

Yeah, you're right. I'm a communist socialist JC econ professor. By definition, the outcome produced by the market is a market driven outcome. If the guy is running, and not getting money for it, the current market rate for his performance is $0.

Tell your son to speak with the distance coach about what he needs to do to earn a scholarship. A good coach shouldn't be threatened by the question.

must be a millennial wrote:

Textbook answer is wrong wrote:

You sound like a newly minted JC econ professor who never worked in the real world nor ran a business. Human behaviour doesn't automatically adjust to the "market driven outcome."

I'd say if the OP's son improves dramatically and can get a significant offer elsewhere, he should transfer. Sitting out a year will improve his performance even more. Now that's a real market-driven outcome, son.

Yeah, you're right. I'm a communist socialist JC econ professor. By definition, the outcome produced by the market is a market driven outcome. If the guy is running, and not getting money for it, the current market rate for his performance is $0.

Anyone bandying terms like "market driven outcome", who doesn't understand the role or cost of advertising, is simply ignorant.

Actually, just ignorant wrote:

Anyone bandying terms like "market driven outcome", who doesn't understand the role or cost of advertising, is simply ignorant.

I do understand the role of marketing. Can you explain how it would improve the school's marketing to pay the runner in question to do something that he is already doing for free? Wouldn't it be better to offer that scholarship to an athlete who wouldn't attend the school without it?

must be a millennial wrote:

Actually, just ignorant wrote:

Anyone bandying terms like "market driven outcome", who doesn't understand the role or cost of advertising, is simply ignorant.

I do understand the role of marketing. Can you explain how it would improve the school's marketing to pay the runner in question to do something that he is already doing for free? Wouldn't it be better to offer that scholarship to an athlete who wouldn't attend the school without it?

Keep trying, you almost got it!