Finally, the real deal about D1 P5 Scholarships

some of the slower guys may be from Michigan and have in-state tuition and therefore it makes no sense for the coach to offer them anything because no other school will be able to compete with that

I assume you are referencing what I put in another post. But you chose to ignore much of what I said.

My points were that there are 201 non P5 D1 schools to consider. Also one of the posters said as a 9:25 guy they had contacted every single P5 school and had not received any communication back. I know that would not be the case.

Other than that you are mostly on although I bet they might spend more on distance than you think.

I wasn't discounting what you said. The poster said that he had been offered walk-on spots and books but most did not respond. Obviously Michigan State has upwards of 20 walk-ons on their roster and a handful are not fast. I used the post as a Segway into a thread focused on facts instead of a bunch of anecdotal information that probably is not true. I am one who has posted and agrees with the other posters regarding supply and demand and utilizing free resources such as Letsrun. Any coach who offers large scholarships to guys running 9:30 should jump on this post after seeing that P5 schools have many walk-ons who came out of high school with 9:15 and 4:15 PRs. Many of those guys would have loved to get a full ride at an MVC or CSA school instead of paying $100k for their education. I know a handful of high school runners right now who are searching the country for the best offer that they can get. Some of them may even give up running in college just due to the cost of running D3 vs. their D1 state school which won't take 9:35 guys.

A lot of this depends on the time period too. Guys just run a lot faster now. I remember as a senior I was getting about 70-75 percent from all of the distance blue bloods, and all I had going for me was that I made Foot Locker Nats. As for the track, I was just over 9 min and 4:10 that spring. I really don’t think that would get more than half these days at most schools, and less than half at the top ones.

a lot of what you say in this thread is true. scholarship dollars depend a great deal on what college you are talking about... focus of the HC, the conference the school is in, etc... there are not a lot of scholarship dollars for distance kids at most school that take track & field seriously.

what I somewhat disagree with is that you say many guys( girls) would have loved a full ride (or partial assuming they get nothing to walk on) at a non-P5 D1 school instead of paying 100k for their education... I can tell you that many many more simply want to be able to say they run for that P5 school and are happy to pay that 100k instead of running at a MVC or CSA school...

trust me, this is true... they are kids and are often swayed because of what others will be impressed by... or that they think they somehow are getting a better education because it's a P5.

Predictor wrote:

I used the post as a Segway into a thread focused on facts instead of a bunch of anecdotal information that probably is not true.

Sure, except you completely made up a bunch of numbers forhow many scholarships theyputinto distance and how much they allot to particular individuals. Other than that, totally focused on facts.

You are correct. It used to be that 1 or 2 guys would break 9 minutes but we now have 30-35 guys do it. It used to be that 5-10 guys would break 4:10 and now nearly 50 do it. It carries through to the NCAA also. Last year there were 75 guys who broke 14 but just 7 years ago only 40 did. So even guys who recently graduated and were getting recruited 8-10 years ago, things have changed dramatically. The Indiana roster even shocked me a bit. It's hard to believe that teams who don't qualify for nationals have a dozen guys who ran 4:15 and 9:15 and can't even make top 7.

The facts are laid out as are the assumptions. It would be great for you to assign 5 or 6 instead and try to assign the reminder to all of the other event groups because you will fail. When you try to say that a 10.7 100 meter guy gets nothing, your credibility will be gone. Even if they allot say 6 scholarships which is pretty much impossible if you look at the quality of their other events, the 4:20 guys and 9:20 guys still get nothing.

The only facts are the names of the athletes and their high schools PRs. (I have not checked for accuracy, but at least I could). All the other statements are rampant speculation. Notably it includes the assumption that all of those guys are allotted all the scholarship they will ever get when they first start and that number never changes. I would not choose to muddle your speculation with further speculation.

Sprinters OK wrote:

The facts are laid out as are the assumptions. It would be great for you to assign 5 or 6 instead and try to assign the reminder to all of the other event groups because you will fail. When you try to say that a 10.7 100 meter guy gets nothing, your credibility will be gone. Even if they allot say 6 scholarships which is pretty much impossible if you look at the quality of their other events, the 4:20 guys and 9:20 guys still get nothing.

Some coaches like to look deeper than a kid's 3200mPB. My college coach didn't want anyone who couldn't race a sub-52 400m.

I see that you weren't a math major. The scholarships total 3.6 in the equation. That is the current number not the starting numbers so some of those guys may have started at nothing and moved up to those numbers. But let's play your game and assume that they increased so they now are up to 6 or 7 scholarships for distance. That leaves only 5 or 6 for all of the other event groups. There are still only 12.6 max. Their team had guys go to nationals in the decathlon, throws, jumps, and sprints. So do you give money to guys who are placing at the Big Ten meet and going to nationals or do you give it to a guy who didn't make your travel squad for distance?

Where they are going is not that important. The point is that there are only a limited number. I like your point because if you did deeper as you say and give more to some of the slower 3200 guys who ran 50 in the 400, then some of the guys that I assigned small scholarships to end up with nothing. That even more makes the point that many 9:10 guys are getting nothing.

Look deeper or be idiotic?

Not playing any games. You have no idea how many scholarships they put into distance or any other event group. You have no idea how much scholarship money any particular individual gets. But other than that, for a post purporting to be about facts, you provide a post relying almost wholly on speculation. Good job.

Sprinters OK wrote:

I see that you weren't a math major. The scholarships total 3.6 in the equation. That is the current number not the starting numbers so some of those guys may have started at nothing and moved up to those numbers. But let's play your game and assume that they increased so they now are up to 6 or 7 scholarships for distance. That leaves only 5 or 6 for all of the other event groups. There are still only 12.6 max. Their team had guys go to nationals in the decathlon, throws, jumps, and sprints. So do you give money to guys who are placing at the Big Ten meet and going to nationals or do you give it to a guy who didn't make your travel squad for distance?

Hank Moody wrote:

Some coaches like to look deeper than a kid's 3200mPB. My college coach didn't want anyone who couldn't race a sub-52 400m.

Look deeper or be idiotic?[/quote]

Ah! A 9:30 to 9:45 3200m runner with 57 to 59 400m speed who thinks it's ok to be slow. You do know: there are no 4x800m relays and there are no 4 x1500m relays at NCAA T&F Championship.

You have way too many 0.1 scholarships. What is that? It’s not even books. Only 20% of my teams were on scholarship. Maybe I was in the minority, but I would give more 80-100% rides than little piecemeal deals. I wanted to land special recruits who I knew could shape a program and make a big impact. For example, I’d give a 9:30 kid a 100% ride if I knew I could turn him into a 14:00/29:00 guy and XC National scorer.

What the other posters on here are also neglecting is the mat there is a budgetary process. If planned well, you get replenished with 20+ % of your scholarships or more every season with graduations.

Former D1 Coach wrote:

You have way too many 0.1 scholarships. What is that? It’s not even books. Only 20% of my teams were on scholarship. Maybe I was in the minority, but I would give more 80-100% rides than little piecemeal deals. I wanted to land special recruits who I knew could shape a program and make a big impact. For example, I’d give a 9:30 kid a 100% ride if I knew I could turn him into a 14:00/29:00 guy and XC National scorer.

What the other posters on here are also neglecting is the mat there is a budgetary process. If planned well, you get replenished with 20+ % of your scholarships or more every season with graduations.

I'm that 9:30 kid that also runs 16:14 and 4:33 yet nobody is talking scholarship to me for D1. I'll probably end up at a shizitball D2 school that nobody ever heard of.

Former D1 Coach wrote:

You have way too many 0.1 scholarships. What is that? It’s not even books. Only 20% of my teams were on scholarship. Maybe I was in the minority, but I would give more 80-100% rides than little piecemeal deals. I wanted to land special recruits who I knew could shape a program and make a big impact. For example, I’d give a 9:30 kid a 100% ride if I knew I could turn him into a 14:00/29:00 guy and XC National scorer.

What the other posters on here are also neglecting is the mat there is a budgetary process. If planned well, you get replenished with 20+ % of your scholarships or more every season with graduations.

if you 'knew' it??.... hmmm, okay... you must know more than just how to coach up a kid.

That’s why he is a former D1 coach. MSU gives their scholarships to 9:05 kids and the former coach poster was giving scholarships to 9:30 kids. His 20%. Scholarship per year is quite a revelation also. Nobody else realized that seniors graduate every year.