(04-27-2021 09:23 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote: (04-27-2021 08:53 PM)illiniowl Wrote: Men's track and field has 12.6 scholarships. It has to be the toughest Div. I sport by far for recruiting and scholarship management purposes, both in terms of the ratio of scholarships to team size (a typical squad is probably at least 40 guys) as well as the profound disparity in skill sets across a team. A football or baseball coach can move a kid to a new position (within reason) if he's not working out at his recruited position but a weights guy can't be turned into a sprinter/jumper or distance runner and vice versa. Coaches simply cannot recruit equally for every event, and the premium is on athletes who can be projected to score in multiple events. Some teams focus on sprinters/jumpers, others on field multi-eventers and middle distance, and there's other strategies as well. Remember that the 12.6 scholarships also cover cross country.
At least strictly in terms of T&F, if a school is not recruiting a particular kid -- even if he's a blue chipper -- it may just be "business, not personal." The kid's event(s) may not fit the type of squad the college coach is trying to build, and/or the coach may know that given how the rest of the scholarships have been allocated, he can't be competitive with how much he can offer versus what other programs are likely to offer.
Just general observations, no knowledge of the kids in question or our coaches' views on them.
Agree with everything.
Sure, but it leaves out so many things I hardly know where to start
1) Most of the kids mentioned are also potential football recruits. A number of our best male track sprinters have also been football players.
2) Recruiting to a place like Rice with a massive endowment for scholarships and focusing solely on 'athletic' scholarships is the sort of skillset that I'd think is vastly below our coaches. It is especially notable when you're speaking of the children of Rice graduates (thus likely solid students) AND speaking about having athletes who can score in multiple events to NOT think about having athletes who can play multiple sports and/or qualify for academic or need based scholarships. If we're not doing that (and I'm 100% confident we are) then we're not doing it right.
3) I am sick and tired of this 'it's business, not personal' excuse. It completely ignores what people are saying and is dismissive and insulting to their intelligence.
This isn't about recruiting 'this' kid or 'that' kid.... and CERTAINLY not about recruiting any specific athlete.... so the 'it's business' comment is so far off base... It's about the potential to recruit an OUTSTANDING athlete... One who might not otherwise come here but instead would go to a p5 school (I know that conference doesn't matter as much in track, but p5 schools generally have vastly more resources and it often shows)... SPECIFICALLY because of their familial connection.
If you disagree that this has any merit, that's fine. But you ALL need to lay off on this apparent myth that you have created that anyone is upset that their kid isn't being recruited. These kids are just EXAMPLES of opportunities that Rice has had (and mostly neglected) for decades. Sure, some of us look at a kid and see speed and skillsets that are ALREADY competitive and potentially superior to anything we yet have on campus and see potential, but its not OUR jobs to assemble a team. Arguing that NONE of these kids are worth a scholarship?? Much less a shot at a merit or needs scholarship?? That's just ridiculous.
Excuses, excuses, excuses. I'm sick of them.
ETA/Clarify that last statement...
Creating a network of former students that focuses on their kids athletics as a means of trying to recruit kids that we might not otherwise get and/or get PWOs and/or continue to improve the culture of athletics/academics integration at RIce is an idea... and a GOOD one... and one that CAN set us apart, at least initially, because of our size. If you disagree that this has any merit whatsoever, that's fine... but if you're just going to keep telling us why 'some new idea' will never work, then PLEASE stop making excuses for why we shouldn't be at the forefront of athletics/academics/generational integration as opposed to waiting for UT to do it first. WE are supposed to be 'the smart kids'.