Current D1 coach wrote:
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.
I thin his point was if you find a 9:30 kid who ran 25 miles in HS and doesn't come from a HS with a huge running background that might be a kid you an improve a ton compared to a 9:05 kid who runs 65 miles a week.
Still not giving any scholarship especially not a full ride. The guy doesn’t understand how to divvy 12 scholarships amongst 50 guys.
That makes sense but it leaves most of the guys with nothing, as you stated. If a team has a good balance of sprints, throws, jumps, hurdles, and distance and they give out 1 full ride and 1 80% in each of the aforementioned groups, that's 9 scholarships for those 10 guys. Give a 50% to the 3rd guy in each of the groups and scholarships are gone. That will shock people because that is only 3 people getting any type of scholarship. That leaves the 9:10 HS guys and the current 14:15 guys on no scholarship whatsoever. That also leaves your 47.7 HS recruit and current 4th guy on the 4x4 who splits 46.2 with no scholarship either.
caller out of b.s. wrote:
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.
The facts aren’t even laid out. Some of these times were not run in HS.
I ran 4:08 in the late 70's - and yes, that was a top 5 time. And I did receive quite a few scholarship offers. I took one that was less valuable (65%) because of the quality of the school - a mistake - as it turns out - because closing that financial gap on my own was very difficult. Things are far different now.
In any event, I tend to be negative about track scholarships, save for all but the very best who also want to make athletics their career. This concept falls on deaf ears with many parents - they want the scholarship for the kid.
It is speculation, and probably not completely accurate but it does give people an idea of how hard P5 scholarships are to earn.
Some things to consider though--
P5s ask 1:54 guys to walk on for the most part and mid majors offer a partial at that time. The 800m has very limited utility outside of indoor on the men's side.
3.6 is a good guess on scholarships towards distance, but I do think many "well balanced programs" go up to 4.2 and some distance focused programs will go a lot higher.
A lot of really good P5 state schools will have no one on full rides, but a lot of times they will have 3-4 of their best American XC runners on 50-60% with additionaly academic based aid. American runners are often much more affordable than internationals and thus most of the exclusively international rosters are mid-majors trying to be nationally relevant.
A lot of good P5 programs will give out books to the 4:15/9:20 athletes. It is only .03-.05 scholarship at most schools so it is inexpensive and can help sell a recruit (makes them feel like a scholarship athlete). If you have a lot of athletes in that range some will develop.
I pulled those times from Milesplit and Athletic.net. I would be surprised if they are making things up.
I am in agreement with you about the books. Displaying the abundance of high school studs at at a P5 school is a real eye opener for guys who ran D3. Good track schools put most of their money into sprints and throws and very little into distance. I think the 3.6 is pretty accurate for MSU. I may take the time to lay out the rest of their roster so that people can blast me when the 47 second or 10.7 HS guys have no scholarship. You can't have it both ways. The LR community is distance centric so they don't want to recognize that you need good sprinters to have a good team.
And you pulled the amount of scholarships out of your azz.
Predictor wrote:
I pulled those times from Milesplit and Athletic.net. I would be surprised if they are making things up.
Predictor wrote:
I may take the time to lay out the rest of their roster so that people can blast me when the 47 second or 10.7 HS guys have no scholarship. You can't have it both ways.
Yippie, more made up numbers on top of your previously made up numbers.
In a thread about the facts!
I think very few teams are balanced in spending. Anyone that is really good at Track which usually means sprinters/field events is using the bulk of their scholarships for that and little to none on distance. Teams that aren't really good at track but are routinely competitive in XC use the bulk for distance.
Nebraska for example probably uses 0 for distance.
Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin put a huge focus on distance.
Penn State probably in the middle.
Not really sure how Oregon does it with trying to be the best at all of it, but their name pulls some weight.
Does anyone think schools like Colorado, NAU or BYU spend a cent on sprints?
You guys realize less than 20 seniors ran sub-9:00 last year over 3200m? And out of those 20 seniors, maybe 80% are eligible to run Division I. And you do realize there are over 300+ NCAA Division I programs handing out full scholarships to a top stud that fits the program, right?
You realize Nationally ranked P5s will try to get those top 20 Americans to take 50% and add it to academic money?
The studs on full rides are often international
...I would agree that 250+ division I Programs out there would be happy to full ride an American in the top 20; but not in the Power 5 Conferences
Caller out of b.s. wrote:
Predictor wrote:
I may take the time to lay out the rest of their roster so that people can blast me when the 47 second or 10.7 HS guys have no scholarship. You can't have it both ways.
Yippie, more made up numbers on top of your previously made up numbers.
In a thread about the facts!
The Op created a model that assumed a lot of small scholarships to make the point that the scholarships stop at a higher quality of high school PR than you might have expected. It is a “model” with conservative assumptions to make an important point. He could have explained this better but that’s the value of what he/she did.
jlkj wrote:
You guys realize less than 20 seniors ran sub-9:00 last year over 3200m? And out of those 20 seniors, maybe 80% are eligible to run Division I. And you do realize there are over 300+ NCAA Division I programs handing out full scholarships to a top stud that fits the program, right?
Is it safe to say that everyone D1 coach is “willing” to give out a full ride to get that one great runner? And what constitutes a full ride? Tuition or room and board too?
*every
Good question on what constitutes a full ride. I do include room and board, just because it was one of the factors in making my ultimate decision when a P5 did not offer R&B and non-P5 did.
If you are thinking those guys are getting a bunch of money, you are probably incorrect. They could get it if they wanted to but 6 of the sub 9 minute juniors have singed on to either Notre Dame or Stanford. Those 2 teams are absolutely loaded with sub 9 guys already.
Yes it includes tuition, room, board, books, and other expenses. This may be one of the problems here is that people try to classify tuition as a full ride when it is often only 50%. I looked up the cost to Virginia Tech. Total cost is for in-state is $26k but tuition is only $11k. A tuition scholarship for an in-state kid only counts as a 40% scholarship against the program and some of you would call that a full ride. Football and basketball players at Virginia Tech get the full $26k or $43 if they are out of state, but there are probably no track guys getting a true full ride. Many distance runners are smart so they may be down to $13k after academic assistance and then if the program gives them $6500 which is only a 25% scholarship, they are left with only travel, books, and a bit for food. Many kids tell their friends and neighbors at that point that they are on a full ride when it is really only a 25% scholarship.