Can someone tell us the logic behind these type of decisions?
Last year, Irby ran 49.80 to win NCAAs to become the 64th fastest woman in the history of the world. If a shoe company wants to pay her a lot to go pro, and she wants to take it, we get it.
But she stays in school and guess what? She wasn't nearly as good. While she ran 52.02 - which was #2 in the NCAA this year - she only was 5th at NCAAs. For comparison sake, last year she ran 50.62.
But it comes out today she is now going pro.
https://amp.indystar.com/amp/3370028002
How does the logic work? What shoe company would feel confident in giving her big dough? Or do shoe companies reduce their offers (we think you'd be 100% foolish not to reduce Waton's offer unless their was some medical issue that hasn't been revealed)? Do the athlete's panic?
Lynna Irby pulls a Sammy Watson. Struggling (by her lofty standards) as a collegian, the solution is to .... go pro early
Report Thread
-
-
NCAA doesn't offer her much after 49.8
Missing out on a ton if she stays -
I was and am a huge Irby fan, but she has put on about 20lbs in her legs from last year to this year and just looks (and is) noticeably slower. Not sure if they've done too much weight work or what, but she needs to get lean again. Last year I would have signed her instead of Sydney... both FR, both running equal times. I think she'll get between $20-$40k/year.
-
Maybe her college training is partly responsible for her slower times?
Just because she ran slower this year doesn't erase last year's marks. I mean, you have to have sub-50 ability to run a sub-50 time. What makes you think that potential goes away?
Think about all the big contracts that are signed in other pro sports even though the last year is not as good as the previous one? Bryce Harper, Albert Pujols, etc.
Her time is outstanding - so given her very high ceiling it's worth the risk to pro sponsors.
It looks like perhaps her training has been geared toward a long season, rather than for peaking for NCAAs?
You are implicitly comparing her outdoors best last year to her indoors best this year. What gives. I know you mentioned her indoors best last year but that's just one apples to apples comparison. Hard to know what her ceiling is THIS year when it's early. -
If she returns to form you can use your “Talent doesn’t go away” headline.
-
LetsRun.com wrote:
Can someone tell us the logic behind these type of decisions?
Last year, Irby ran 49.80 to win NCAAs to become the 64th fastest woman in the history of the world. If a shoe company wants to pay her a lot to go pro, and she wants to take it, we get it.
But she stays in school and guess what? She wasn't nearly as good. While she ran 52.02 - which was #2 in the NCAA this year - she only was 5th at NCAAs. For comparison sake, last year she ran 50.62.
But it comes out today she is now going pro.
https://amp.indystar.com/amp/3370028002
How does the logic work? What shoe company would feel confident in giving her big dough? Or do shoe companies reduce their offers (we think you'd be 100% foolish not to reduce Waton's offer unless their was some medical issue that hasn't been revealed)? Do the athlete's panic?
Weird timing, but since her statement made it appear she is leaving school as well, it makes you wonder if there was some academic eligibility issues. -
Oh dear. I remember last year people saying that McLaughlin would never be the future for US at 400m (in addition to her 400h) because Irby was just as young and "better at 400m". That didn't last long.
-
albert not einstein wrote:
Hmm, a dumb sprinter, how unusual?
Stereotypes - what a time saver! -
Rojo has always had major major issues with athletes going pro early.
What right do they have making money! Stay in school!! -
Guessing she got $20k and realized she is going in the wrong direction. So take it now before you run 53. Yes talent goes away. Women even moreso than men will peak in their teens.
-
It sounds like her coaches might have eased off her training a bit to accommodate her super-long season (with Worlds potentially in September). Really this year it didn't make a ton of sense for 400m runners to do the indoor campaign (which is why so few did). To protect her value go pro now and don't diminish your value with a half-assed NCAA outdoor season where she'll probably not be her best as she tries to manage making the US team. Obviously going pro last year was the best move, but maybe she didn't know how she'd respond to easing back for the long haul.
sconehead wrote:
Maybe her college training is partly responsible for her slower times?
Just because she ran slower this year doesn't erase last year's marks. I mean, you have to have sub-50 ability to run a sub-50 time. What makes you think that potential goes away?
Think about all the big contracts that are signed in other pro sports even though the last year is not as good as the previous one? Bryce Harper, Albert Pujols, etc.
Her time is outstanding - so given her very high ceiling it's worth the risk to pro sponsors.
It looks like perhaps her training has been geared toward a long season, rather than for peaking for NCAAs?
You are implicitly comparing her outdoors best last year to her indoors best this year. What gives. I know you mentioned her indoors best last year but that's just one apples to apples comparison. Hard to know what her ceiling is THIS year when it's early. -
Yes that is true but people don't like it. Cross Country teams normally have one of the highest team GPAs of any college team. track teams not so much. Look at the conference recognitions of 4.0 and 3,5 GPAs and there are almost no sprinters on the list. Sprinters are dumb.
-
LetsRun.com wrote:
Can someone tell us the logic behind these type of decisions?
Last year, Irby ran 49.80 to win NCAAs to become the 64th fastest woman in the history of the world. If a shoe company wants to pay her a lot to go pro, and she wants to take it, we get it.
But she stays in school and guess what? She wasn't nearly as good. While she ran 52.02 - which was #2 in the NCAA this year - she only was 5th at NCAAs. For comparison sake, last year she ran 50.62.
But it comes out today she is now going pro.
https://amp.indystar.com/amp/3370028002
How does the logic work? What shoe company would feel confident in giving her big dough? Or do shoe companies reduce their offers (we think you'd be 100% foolish not to reduce Waton's offer unless their was some medical issue that hasn't been revealed)? Do the athlete's panic?
If you know her parents and her club coach.....they think they know best. -
Easy money. I was barely a hobby jogger in college (14s 5k) and if it wasn't for the full-ride to a D1 school with good engineering I might not have ran for the college. After graduation I got considerably faster...enough to scratch by on road race winnings.
-
Get out of town now wrote:
Guessing she got $20k and realized she is going in the wrong direction. So take it now before you run 53. Yes talent goes away. Women even moreso than men will peak in their teens.
Dropping out of a decent university such as University of George for a $20,000 a year job? No more than a two year contract. I assume Irby was receiving a full ride at Georgia. Elite 400m runners often are able to receive 100%. -
I have no idea what they make, but 49.80 for 400 is FAR SUPERIOR to Mary Cain when she EVER RAN 1:59.5 for 800, 4:04 for 1500, and 8:58 for 3000, or Hasay who ran 4:07 for 1500, 15:28 for 5000 and 31:39 for 10000 (Some of these times happened AFTER Cain and Hasay Turned PRO, Hasay' 2:20.57 is probably better, but not by much than 49.80, Heck 49.80 for 400 is likely better than anything Rupp ran BEFORE turning PRO, and 400 is a glamour event probably not as much as the 100 or Marathon, so I guess she got paid well (20-40k is a joke for that kind of talent).
-
You must have had a very crappy team to earn a full scholarship with that time. You wouldn’t even make the travel squad at a top running school.
-
Well, put your money where your mouth is if you think she is worth more than that. A 52 second 400 brings nothing in for her sponsor. It probably even tarnished the brand if people see slow runners getting signed. What she has run is irrelevant to what she can run. She looks like a 51-52 second runner now. Mary Cain is only a few years removed from 1:59 but nobody is signing her based on running 1:59.
-
What is the logic of an “adult” like a BloJo questioning the decisions of teenagers in an amateur sport? Perhaps you should question what is going on behind the scenes at a program like UGA with a sprint coach moving to Tennessee, a highly recruited jumper/hurdler transferring and another jumper also choosing to take control of her athletic career rather than stay there. Why don’t you question the adults getting paid and running things like tyrants? Why don’t you try being a journalist rather than a keyboard warrior? Pathetic
-
I can see the logic behind going pro. Kind of a strike while the iron is hot thing (I know this case seems different because she's not as fast lately).
It's not like they drop out of school like others in other pro sports do. Maybe her window of opportunity is the next few years and I just don't see the value in NCAA competition over making money.
I get the team aspect, but that may actually hurt someone by running in too many events.
