I have seen that coachs and some athlete's have comments. But not to many from experienced parents. Having been through this process as a parent I would like to share my thoughts.

First, I agree with everything that has been said by Alan and Jay…..well mostly. The cost of a college education is crushing. Now, with the economy in a down swing there is more pressure on the family education budget. Sure there are parents who just want little johnny “elite runner” on the front page of the newspaper signing with School X, however most reasonable parents who love their children and just want them to have an opportunity to get an education and want to be able to afford it. Everything else is gravy.

So when you say to me for instance “I can give your son (hypothetical here) 20% to come to CU” that means I'm coming up with 30-32 thousand a year as an out of state parent. ( note: Parents it is a really bad idea to plan on getting bumped in money after johnny gets there that is not a reasonable outlook and you should not plan on it. Expect no more money and if it comes I'm sure you won't be disappointed.)

Jay I saw your precious sweetheart on the video, I have four of those
(mine are less rubbery now) and 30-32 thousand is cost prohibitive to me keeping in mind I have three other children to think about. That is a sad fact.

I think what I am saying is that many parents would love for their children to take that offer and attend a good school with a great program but it just can't be done. Instead reality strikes and they have to persuade Johnny to go where they can afford. Money (like it or not) is the biggest factor from most parents perspective. ( our philosophy has always been the best education we can reasonably afford). I do not want my child saddled with college and post graduate student loan debt .

Maybe I'm totally wrong and the coaches, who again do this more than us parents can set me straight.

One other point I would like to make, at the risk of sounding like a commercial, there is a four letter word I would urge and do routinely urge parents to take a look at. ROTC. I know, I know, there is a perception that this is bad in many circles but in keeping with this discussion and the subject of Track scholarship money I think a word needs to be said here.

ROTC has a ton of money and they will give it to your child for college if they are willing to spend 6-8 years in the Army National Guard. (I only have experience with the army. but the other services have ROTC also) If you and/or your child is interested in or (at least ok with) that prospect this is a great way to go. My experience is that ROTC is compatible with varsity sports, especially track, at a lot of universities. The ROTC department will work with you because they view your varsity athlete status as prestigious to the ROTC program.
Little Johnny will be running track, getting an education paid for and literally making money while he is in school. Contrary to some things I have heard in the past, your child (as an ROTC cadet) will also have a normal college experience I don't want to turn this into an ad, but I do want to make this point : ROTC would make it possible to now say to mythical coach at CU, that Little Johnny is going to take your offer of 20% we are thrilled and by the way have you ever met COL so and so down at the ROTC department………..

This is all first hand experience. Both myself and my oldest son went to college on combined ROTC and Athletic scholarships. I was never sorry that I did, my son will have to speak for himself!

David

Another interesting thing is the fall off of quality. Kids know where they stand (it is their parents and occasionally a coach who doesn't).

Compare Michigan for example where I put together the top fifty from our four divisions at the state meet in a “dream” race. The top fifty boys are separated by 25 seconds (and our top boys are pretty talented most years). The top fifty girls are separated by 98 seconds! So the qualitative difference fifty deep suggests that girls don't have the same level of talent through the field.

Girls: http://michigancrosscountry.com/michigan_track_…

Boys: http://michigancrosscountry.com/michigan_track_…

Does this beg the question? Are boys trained better? But that is for a different thread.

So back to the topic, recruiting ….

Let me ask another question to get on your list. I have a “national” quality athlete. The school she is most interested in gives her a schedule of times vs money. For each second she improves she gains $1000 x 4 years. Her goal then becomes to run as fast as she possibly can. My goal is to win as a team (meaning she will seldom have the opportunity for a purely time driven race). Of course it cannot be a relay split either. Is that fair for the college to do to me? While I certainly want to find opportunities for the athlete to succeed, my primary goal as a school coach should be team in my humble opinion. Fortunately in this case the athlete was unselfish and agreed, and ultimately got a great time … but what is fair for a college coach to set as standards for my athlete. Should they take into account that she ran in two-four races in most competitive meets?

Thanks for the observations. Your percentages of girls and boys in the top 50 sounded about what I would have guessed. Intrigued, though, I went and checked. For 2008 in Colorado, at least, it was 28 or 29 boys out of the top 50 who were seniors and 15 out of 50 girls. That is an important difference to take note of. That said, I think the implication of the original remark that I quoted was to look at the top 50 finishing seniors (i.e., those who could be recruited). I've always understood it that way, at least, though I don't recall it being said that way. Anyhow, I suspect the very fact that so many girls struggle with improving their performances through high school is part of the reason, as you suggest, that many are fully ready to give it up before they go to college. Like you, however, I'm a little puzzled by the phenomenon. Most of the girls in our program also continue to progress through high school. They typically do not progress as much as the boys, but we do see improvement.

… and I called some college coaches to make sure I was on track by saying that sub 1:54 and sub 4:10 is pretty good. And if you’re the parent of young women who as a junior will run 2:12 and 4:54 this year you should be thinking the same thing.

You might also want to discuss the differences in how athletes achieved these marks. If I take a 2:12 out of a high volume program and a 2:12 out of a modest volume program — and by this I mean the level of training — as a college coach, to the extent I can know the two programs and their histories, I'll take the latter every time if I am a college coach. More potential for improvement.

As a high school coach of girls, I am happy to say that most of my athletes improve throughout their high school career. Not always, but usually. However one of the things you will find not apples to apples in your above discussion … in the mens top fifty, 70% of them will be seniors. In the womens top fifty only 25-30% will be seniors. Women tend to peak and then taper out (more on this in a moment). Men are rapidly improving. The really successful women runners who will go on and improve, but for many of them, they have already seen their peak performance or are at a diminishing marginal returns point in their careers.

Why women peak early: I don't know. Many suggest it is the physical maturation they will undergo (many skinny little freshmen aren't skinny little seniors). Some suggest it is in fact that they simply are not as interested in the long term in competing. Some say it is how we train them (and partly this is true I believe).

I look forward to your continued discussions. I might add that the italics is hard to read. Maybe blue and black colors instead or something?