So I’ve been told on other discussions that my sprint time is record breaking? 11.2s for 100m sprint. I only know my time because during PE we had a running competition and the teacher timed me and that’s what I got.
I’ve never entered competitions or done athletics outside of school because I don’t have time. I’m starting an app startup right now so it’s hectic!
Can I get recruited even if I have never done competitions or had formal training, but merely am just naturally good at athletics?
If you can truly run 11.2s without formal training or coaching, then I would think you would gather considerable interest given your upside and potential, but I’m not very knowledgable in this area. I’m also guessing there will be much less interest in a sprinter who runs 12.12s. I would think you need to put together a clip and get in touch with the Stanford track and field coach. @sherpa is the CC expert about athletic recruiting, and he may be able to give you much better advise.
11.2 in the 100 is a decent time, but it is not record breaking. I ran 11.2 in HS 30+ years ago (male). I am going to assume you are female, as the time would be more competitive as a HS girl. For women, the top times are all under 11 seconds, for men, under 10. HS girls record in the US is right around 11 seconds depending upon what timing you use.
Another important thing to remember is that the time you get in PE class is not ‘official’ The can be significant differences, especially in a race measured in hundredths or thousandths of a second.
Assuming your time is valid and you can continue to improve, yes, college will recruit a raw athlete with little or no formal training…especially in something like Track and Field where it is more about your individual ability.
The OP is a female, as discussed in her other post.
@Torveaux, you will be more knowledgable about this than me, as I have no direct track experience. But I would think that the “raw athlete” angle can work both ways: it’s a disadvantage, because there is a lack of established times and the athlete is not on coaches’ radar; but there is also the “untapped potential” lure of what might happen with good training and coaching. An 11.2s time for a HS female without formal training and coaching could perhaps become something special under the guidance of the Stanford coaching staff.
I would expect that college track coaches would be interested in and intrigued by a raw athlete with competitive times. I agree with @renaissancedad that you should probably reach out to the Stanford coach, but I’ll summon who I think will be a better informed poster, @varska, for his opinion.
Is that any different than saying I am a 16 year old international student who took a practice SAT in class and scored a 2400 - would Stanford be interested in me?
I imagine that if you put under “Event 1” 100m and best performance “11.2s” or thereabouts, and then wrote in the “additional athletic information” something like this, you’d get their attention: “I am a 17 year old HS sprinter in Australia. I have never formally trained or competed. The times listed are hand-timed. I would love to compete in NCAA track.” You can also list your distance times if they are competitive.
I think the goal would be to get a coach’s attention to the point where they might have a local contact scout you personally to determine if your speed is really as fast as you say. If it is, I think they could possibly be very interested. I suspect that they have enough of a network that they could find someone they trust within reasonable distance of you. Even if the coach views it as a long shot, it’s worth having someone check you out if possible.
Again, I’ll gladly defer to someone who actually knows what they are doing in this area.
Versatility is nice, and Stanford asks for 2 events, but I don’t know of any elite sprinters who are also competitive distance runners. Do you run the 200m, 400m or the hurdles or any other sprinting event?
Here’s the Stanford profile of some top recruits from 2 years ago:
So the USATF Junior Olympic 100 champ had a best time of 11.66. 11.80 seems recruitable, along with accomplishments in other events. Unless your times are hand held and wildly inaccurate, it seems like you could be in that range, and possibly faster.
Just for a little perspective - if that 11.2 is accurate (hand-timed PE times are often not), that 11.2 would put you 2nd in the PAC-12 conference champs and 7th in the NCAA National Champs.
If you have accomplished this with no formal training, you are every college track coach’s dream - a diamond in the rough that nobody else knows about.
In the absence of any documented FAT times, it may be difficult to convince a coach that your times are legit. My advice would be to seek out a sanctioned track meet with a Fully Automated Timing system and run. If you can do that 11.2 under those conditions, your ticket is punched, IMO.
@varska, thank you for your experienced perspective. I had wondered about the accuracy of hand-held times. But form the recruiting info that I could glean, it seems that the times would have to be wildly off for the OP to not be in the recruitable range, given that 11.66-11.84 were the times listed above for recruited sprinters in 2014. I’m assuming that 0.6s would be an incredible amount of timing error .
I’d suggest that the OP work on shaking off her sprinting rust so that she can put up some strong times.
There is a great deal to know about the details of the time as well. What was the surface. Indoor or outdoor. Straight or on a curve (really only applies if indoor). Hand-held times can certainly vary by as much as a second for something like 100m. Official timing is based on equipment that is synched up with the starter’s pistol and on the finish line. Typically, when someone does a handheld time and does ‘on your marks, get set, go’ there is a lag before the clock is started. 1 second is huge in the 100m.
That being said…I would get some confirmation times. Run a race if you can and see if this was a valid time or just a poorly clocked one. If it is valid, send validation to the coaching staff with a letter. Explain your situation. They may want to see you run themselves.
I agree that if those times are indicative of your current ability, coaches will be all over you. Yes, they prefer someone with multi-event talent. The 100m also translates well to the 200m, 4x100m relay, Sprint Medley and possibly even jumping (long and triple jumps primarily). If you are that good untrained, they may be willing to take the chance to teach you another event or two.
11.2s in women’s 100m is better than the wind assisted HS world record for your country and better than anyone from your country achieved in the recent 2012 Olympics. The Olympic competitors and other record breakers endured large amounts of carefully planned diets/training, likely had taken performance enhancers (some types are legal), etc; all with a plan to peak and get their best times at the major competition events. They were not able to get anywhere near that level in gym class without training, so it seems unlikely that you’d get a better time than all of them in PE class without any formal training. I’m not saying you are lying, but I think there are other more likely explanations such as the PE teacher had a timing error, you had a premature start, measuring under different conditions (not really 100m), something was remembered wrong, etc.
You might want to have some formal times done with automated electronic measurement, starter blocks, etc. If the times look promising, you might join your school tack team and/or do other training with experts to get a better idea of how far you can go.
Nobody competes at NCAA level in both sprints and long distance. They require different body types, different genetic traits, different training, etc. However, most 100m sprinters also compete in other short sprint events, like 60m or 200m, possibly 400m, long jump, etc.
@theivyleague, the more I think about your situation, the more incredible it seems. If that 11.2 is correct, you are currently one of the fastest women in Australia. You are also tied for the women’s U20 100m Australian record set way back in 1968 in Mexico City. With proper training and coaching, it boggles the mind what you’ll be able to accomplish.
Never mind Stanford, I think this has the makings of a great book and movie.
I ran on grass on the oval - does that slow me down? Also, I think the time is accurate or less than 11.2s since I run faster on hard floor and I have a slow reaction time to when the bullet fires. Literally it will fire and in one second I’ll start running and I’m behind but then I get in front and I’m way in the lead.
@Falcon1 already PM’d me that idea. Great minds think alike.
So let’s make some assumptions:
Let's assume that the 11.2 is off. Well off. The OP claims to run a 12.02 right now. Let's assume that a properly automatic timer would add at least a second to her time.
But the OP also ran on "bad" grass, and perhaps with less than optimal equipment. Let's assume that adversely effects her time.
Even if the “real” time is 12s, that’s untrained and raw, and with 0.16s of a recruitable sprinter at Stanford. With some polishing, she could be competitive.
If, in fact, the OP is truly running 11.2s 100s on grass with poor training and equipment, it kind of boggles the mind. I’m a bit dubious, but even with conservative corrections she’s still damn fast.
I think the trick is to get her evaluated quickly by a professional track coach.
Do I need to be a long distance runner too because I’m more of a sprinter.