Why US High School Rowers Get Sick of Rowing

In US rowing, there is a massive gap between the numbers of high school and collegiate athletes. There are both institutional and personal reasons for this, and it threatens to gradually erode US rowing’s role in collegiate athletics. Once this erosion gets dramatic enough, and the teams that depend on domestic athletes cannot find the numbers they need, US rowing will degrade on a national level if it has not begun to do so already.

Most high school rowers do not continue their careers into any form of collegiate rowing. Unfortunately, there is no vast study that provides an exact number of individual high school or collegiate rowers so I’ll have to engage in a bit of rough estimation. In the US, most high schools do not have official teams, so athletes must row and compete under clubs near to the school if geography permits. According to USrowing.org, there are approximately 1300 diverse clubs across the country, ranging in membership from 2 to several hundred rowers. While these rowers range dramatically in age from 12-65+ it is fair to assume that the majority of these clubs have high school level rowers that compete in some way, providing a rough idea of the number of high school athletes. The Next College Student Athlete website (a long trusted recruitment service) there are 84 recognised varsity collegiate teams ranging in size from about 10 to 40 rowers. Given the vastly lower number of collegiate teams, it’s fair to assume from a statistical standpoint that there are significantly less collegiate rowers than there are high school rowers. 

So what accounts for this apparent drop off in participation? One contributing factor is almost certainly institutional red tape, an excellent example is the NCAA regulations on recruited athletes. The Rules of Recruiting – USRowing are extensive and potentially damaging for most teams and athletes. For example, Division I and II teams are permitted to offer scholarships to potential recruits, however, according to the NCAA regulations these offers are non binding by default, meaning the university or the student could cancel the offer at any time. The only way to make this agreement fully binding is to include a third party, called the National Letter of Intent (NLI) program, which then provides both parties with a binding contract that will penalise the athlete for breach of contract. 

While this system of offers and contracts appears fair on the surface, in reality they’re often incredibly unbalanced. For example, if the student breaks the contract because they get a more enticing offer from a better program, or if they simply do not want to row anymore, they are punished permanently with the interaction being made a part of their record and most likely will get a monetary fine. This punishment often derails a student’s future, and rightly discourages many from entering into these contracts. However, if the institution breaks the contract with the student for any reason then the worst that can happen is the program pays the student some compensation, usually a few thousand dollars. This obviously does not impact the institution as severely as the student because the colleges that have varsity rowing programs devote hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to them annually. Meanwhile, the student has lost a scholarship that they were counting on to pay for their education expenses as well as their chance to go to college and row. This is just one example of a regulation that discourages promising high school rowers from carrying on into the collegiate sphere.

Separate from institutional regulations, there are factors at the individual level that prevent many US high school athletes from continuing rowing into college. While there is no vast study on this subject either, in my personal experience as a high school and then college rower the most common answer given no matter the level of the team to the question “why did you quit” is simply, “it’s just not that fun anymore.” Obviously fun is subjective, and on any competitive team the coach is under no obligation to make the sport more “fun”. However, when done correctly and coached properly rowing is can be naturally enjoyable, no matter how competitive the team is. As a result, if team morale is perpetually low and no rower is enjoying themselves, it is fair to assume that the program requires a change. Perhaps the coach is using draconian methods and this attitude leads to a constantly tense and stressful atmosphere, or maybe the team praises the erg above all else and those who love rowing but hate the erg decide enough is enough. Whatever the reason, it’s up to a good coach, captain, or coxswain to recognise the issue and take steps to adapt and fix it while at the same time pushing the team to reach its competitive goals. This is the precarious balancing act many coaches struggle with, leading to scores of rowers being driven away to the detriment of the sport as a whole. 

Ultimately, high school rowers must recognise that the purpose of the NCAA and its regulations is not to protect the athletes or the institutions-its to make competition as fair as possible. And while this function is both essential and respectable, its complex and occasionally one sided regulations often drive away potentially valuable athletes. On a more individual level, while it is inevitable that many rowers will just naturally lose interest in the sport, it’s also up to the coaches and team leaders to listen to the culture of the team and inspire a love of sport in the dedicated athletes. Of course, winning should be the end goal of any good program, but if a coach or team leader attempts to drive a team with a consistently negative atmosphere then eventually this will drive good rowers away. At that point not much winning can be done.

About The Author

Caleb Chiesa

See author's posts