HOW long should a college track coach get to keep their job without winning anything?

Some school swill never have the facilities or budget to attract enough quality athletes to win a conference. I was at a D1 midmajor with a budget of only 3k cross and 30k tf. We had a track that had grass and a tree root growing through it and to top it off rotted mats. We had absolutely 0 athletic department support. Compare that to D1s in that same conference with budgets of over 100k and top line facilities.

Coaches need to be judged relevant to their situation. I do believe you must see some kind of improvement whether it is grades, numbers, school records, or position in conference standings. To assume any school can win conference especially at the D1 level is not logical. And do not forget that some programs in the same conference may not even be full funded scholarship wise. Would you expect a 6 scholarship team to be competitive against a program with 18?

You are correct in that there is not a priority on winning in most programs. ADs don't care about track and XC. Most track and XC programs exist for the sake of the 'ball sports to maintain their Division x status. With this in mind, most programs have very limited budgets for coaching, scholarships, travel, facilities, etc. Most track and XC coaches fill a role - fill and maintain a team, with the smallest possible budget.

But what about teams in major conferences.

The question was asked about the PAC 12. Just about every team in the pac-12 is funded much higher than your average division 1 team. Its relative. What is the excuse for Teams to not win within that context? Big Ten or sec or acc all have teams with very generous budgets, facilities and are fully staffed. It's a very rare exception for them to not have all that. What then is an excuse for a coach to not win within a fair amount of time? And what is that fair amount of time? Maybe not 5 years but certainly not long as ten I'd say.

Can a business still be good at what they do and not even be the top earning business of that type in their own community? As lo g as they are providing a good product or service that satisfies some of the market, they can still remain viable within that market. Yes, they always look for ways to improve their market share but not always desirable or possible to be the very best.

Should i be fired...

14+ teams in conference

1 team in the conference has won 40+ straight indoor, xc, outdoor championships?

We have a great budget, scholarships, facilities.

Half a dozen top 12 finishes at ncaa's. A couple runner up conference team finishes. Probably top 5 at indoor ncaa's this year.

Doubt ill ever win win if resources and my leadership remain similar..but can see lots of 2nd place conference finishes and top 10 ncaa finishes in our future.

Been around 10+ years. We graduate students. They come back and support the program. Nothing spectacular but i think i do a fine job. No wins.

Splianer wrote:

Their whole career. Track isn't a real sport like football and basketball. No AD ever lost a job because the track coach sucked.

Wrestling is also crazy how much pressure is put on coaches to win, Tom Chesbro coached his team to an NCAA title in 1971, after that his team kept getting 2nd or 3rd in NCAA (12-13 years in a row) and he was fired (actually FORCED to resign).

Inquired wrote:

HRE wrote:

But the lack of priority on winning usually exists with a school's administration and/or athletic department, not with the coaches.

That's the point. There needs to be a change by ADs. Hold coaches accountable.

No. There would need to be a change OF ADs.

If the team has the lowest budget in the conference, resources and facilities far inferior to others, a smaller student body to draw from (i.e. a school of 1700 students while others have 3000 or more) and part time coaches competing against full time ones it's hard for an AD to expect championships. A solid support structure or lack thereof obviously makes a difference in this matter.

Malcolminthemiddle wrote:

Should i be fired...

14+ teams in conference

1 team in the conference has won 40+ straight indoor, xc, outdoor championships?

We have a great budget, scholarships, facilities.

Half a dozen top 12 finishes at ncaa's. A couple runner up conference team finishes. Probably top 5 at indoor ncaa's this year.

Doubt ill ever win win if resources and my leadership remain similar..but can see lots of 2nd place conference finishes and top 10 ncaa finishes in our future.

Been around 10+ years. We graduate students. They come back and support the program. Nothing spectacular but i think i do a fine job. No wins.

You should be removed. There's coaches out there trying to get a chance where you are occupying a spot. You've failed to win. You listed a bunch of peripheral accomplishments that don't get to the crux of it - team titles. Lol "we graduate students" "they come back and support the program". Wow. I thought those were given expectations, they aren't unique or app-laudable. Cease making excuses about resources or get out and let someone else have a jab @it

By the way, what's your opening address to your team? "We don't have the resource to ever be the champion, so be ready to be mediocre, because we can't do better."?

Or do you keep that to yourself while you tell your team to be dedicated to a coach who doesn't believe he can overcome challenges?

What an anti-climactic son of a gun you are

Sometimes those things, "graduating students" and having alums "come back and support the program" are the ADs definition of winning for a non-revenue sport like track and field.

The only thing I'm addicted to is winning.

Charlie Sheen

"That's the point. There needs to be a change by ADs. Hold coaches accountable."

Almost ALL ADs hold track coaches accountable because ALL ADs are held accountable for fielding the best football team possible. The ADs hold the coaches accountable to do more with less. If they happen to win one year, they will soon be given less support to see if they can still win. The ADs do this so they can provide as much money as possible for football.

Angry Willy wrote:Most track and XC coaches fill a role - fill and maintain a team, with the smallest possible budget.

Bingo. If the school can draw a few more students at full tuition, then all the better.

It depends entirely on the expectations placed on the department. If they are expected to WIN that's a different program than the typical filler program.

*&%UIHasliu^$ wrote:

"That's the point. There needs to be a change by ADs. Hold coaches accountable."

Almost ALL ADs hold track coaches accountable because ALL ADs are held accountable for fielding the best football team possible. The ADs hold the coaches accountable to do more with less. If they happen to win one year, they will soon be given less support to see if they can still win. The ADs do this so they can provide as much money as possible for football.

Allrighty thanks...for discussing the way it IS in the current moment with respect to winning vs the not caring about anything cept' football.

The point is how it should be. Here's a thought, why not make another post stating the way it currently is, accepting the validity there of

Then someone else can make yet ANOTHER post telling the way it is in most programs. Then another.

"This is how it is NOW in athletics with respect to track, therefore it must be fine"

Wrong.

Please remove yourself from all connections to college sports. Thank you.

His point, I'm not going to try to reproduce his name, is that holding coaches accountable for their teams' failure to win anything is misplaced because it's really ADs who decide what sorts of resources and emphasis cross country and track will get. Yes, if a school's athletic administration prioritizes cross country and track and the team is bad maybe the coach should go. But in those circumstances he probably will.

If you want to discuss how it should be then a coach should get 3 years. A year to recruit his or her talent. A year to develop them and finally a year to try and show some worth. Then the school should make their decision in the off season of the third year. But then again success is relative to the institution.

theory wrote:

If you want to discuss how it should be then a coach should get 3 years. A year to recruit his or her talent. A year to develop them and finally a year to try and show some worth. Then the school should make their decision in the off season of the third year. But then again success is relative to the institution.

I agree mostly, however give them 2 years to recruit.

lease wrote:

I basically agree with those who think winning is important. I do, too, because I think it's the best reinforcement for the kind of lessons we're trying to teach through athletics.

As one data point, in response to the thread title's question: at my last coaching job, I spent 14 years without ever winning a conference meet. I finally left on my own, without being asked to do so--primarily because I was sick of not giving my athletes the winning experience (aka education) that they deserved.

Thank you for your decency Sir