I don't remember being fodder but the gist of this is correct. Although I was on Track scholarship for 2 years and Football for 3. Like mentioned, that rule eliminated schools from giving tennis scholarships to 300 lb lineman. IMO, having elite sprinters on our football team and allowin them to compete in outdoor track after spring ball is a great thing.
Wiltz doing track
- Thread starter amishclone
- Start date
I would think that if they're on football scholarship then they wouldn't be able to join the basketball team until football was over. For UK and KU this is the end of November, but for some teams that bowl berth may hurt the basketball team.
But I'm sure this has been tried. PFs make good TEs and vice versa.
Why not take a big center and use him on short yardage situations and two point plays after Td? Create a jump ball? Also as a middle jumper on pats and field goals?
Sorry, I was going off of memory which is failing in my old age. No offense intended by the word fodder. I was simply trying to get across that you were stuck on the practice squad and could never see the field regardless of whether you were good enough to see the field in a limited role if you had simply been a walk-on those first years. I guess I should have used a different word.
Danny Harris was an elite hurdler already in high school and had NFL aspirations. A leg injury early in his college football career and elite success as a track freshman made him rethink his football career.
http://results.deltatiming.com/big-12/tf/2016-big-12-outdoor-championships/160513P002
Wiltz 10.86 in the 100m prelims at the Big 12 Outdoor Championships.
Wiltz 10.86 in the 100m prelims at the Big 12 Outdoor Championships.
http://results.deltatiming.com/big-12/tf/2016-big-12-outdoor-championships/160513P004
Trever Ryen 22.02 in the 200m prelims.
Trever Ryen 22.02 in the 200m prelims.
So, one reason I always hear for not adding hockey and/or baseball would be that ISU would also have to add another women's sport to balance the scholarships. Is there a rule that ISU just couldn't add more scholarships to women's track to equal out the scholarships? Not that ISU would do that or that it even makes sense, but if you're only giving 12 scholarships out of 60 athletes, seems like an easy adjustment to make.
The NCAA sets the number of scholarships, not the school. So every Division 1 school that has a track & field team gets 12.6 scholarships to divide however they want.
These divisible scholarships are a lot more common than "head count" sports where each person on scholarship gets a full ride and they can't be broken up. Football, basketball (both genders), women's gymnastics, women's tennis, and women's volleyball are the head count sports and all the rest are equivalency
Makes sense. Thanks.
Every once in awhile you hear of a small high school with only 1 track athlete winning a state meet because that 1 athlete is phenomenal and they win every event they're entered in. Probably wouldn't work at the D1 level, but it would be interesting to see a school only recruit the top elite track athletes by offering them full ride scholarships and then just trying to win certain events. Just a crazy thought. That's why I'm not a coach.
I don't know the rules for sure, but when I ran track in high school (eons ago) in Iowa we were limited to three running events one of which could be a relay and up to one additional field event. I believe you could sub an additional field event for a running event. I don't know if this was a state rule or just a conference or even school thing, but I think all of the schools we competed against followed the same or similar rule. My coach would usually put me in the long jump, 400, 800 and one of the sprint med, distance med, 4x400 or 4x800.
Most college coaches do something like this. Most schools spend more scholarship $ on distance runners because they can run multiple events (800-10k) in addition to running for the XC team in the fall as opposed to a jumper or thrower who only does one event. Some schools like LSU, Texas A&M or USC focus more on sprints and give most of their money to those athletes. Only a few schools like Oregon and Arkansas are truly balanced and successful.
Interesting anecdote, allegedly the Oklahoma State head Track and XC coach, Dave Smith, went to the OSU AD back in like 2008 and told him something along the lines of "were only going to have an XC team, im going to give all 12.6 scholarships to distance kids. We're going to suck at track but we will win in XC" Alot of people thought it was stupid, but not so much after Dave won back to back to back XC national titles. OSU has since moved away from this approach and consequently their XC team has dipped but it worked.
No kidding. Who does he think he is competing in two D1 sports at the same time? What a bum!
