VT Ben Thomas proposal to limit distance scholarships.

What was the last ACC cross country team to win before Syracuse entered the league?

Easy to figure the inspiration for this proposal. I hope Syracuse submits a proposal to limit pole vault scholarships.

So the Director of T&F at Va Tech puts these kind of limits on Ben and now he is proposing a rule change to put everyone in the same boat.

Its bad enough the scholarships are so low for each gender now he wants to tell people how to use them.

Stupid.

There's equity right now. It's up to the coaches to determine where those scholarships are spent. With this proposal, I simply see less scholarship money and opportunities for distance kids, and potentially more opportunities for sprints/field. Am I reading it wrong?

This discussion has been around for 200 years. The federal government shouldn't dictated to the states how and where to spend their funds. States rights!

Not a strong message for potential distance recruits. Boycott VT. Why not fight to add scholarships? Be better Ben,

NC State is rumoured to put most of their money into distance. Is this true?

And not to stoop too low, but Va Tech has bigger problems, it's not like they're only losing to high-scholarship teams.

I agree that it's hard to compete with teams that put 12.5 into distance while fielding a full track team. But I don't think the answer is to limit scholarships at this point.

What sports besides T&F have fewer scholarships than the minimum # of players? And why would you wish the same fate on XC?

question: Why is the NCAA limit 5/6 for cross country only? Could it be because the NCAA policy makers has decided that having a scholarship or more for each scorer is enough? Surely it can't be to penalize schools that don't sponsor track and field. So seriously, think about and answer that question.

Since the NCAA has already placed a 5.0/6.0 limit on schools that sponsor ONLY cross country, meaning they don't have a track and field team, please answer this question: What is it about having a track and field team that necessitates spending MORE than 5/6 on cross country.

A third question: while there are wonderful and talented cross country coaches at cross country "powerhouses" is it not true that a significant amount of their success is simply because they are "outspending" the majority of other NCAA teams that don't choose to decimate their track and field program for the benefit of their cross country program? Cross country championships at the invitational, conference, regional and national level are being won (for the most part) by schools that neglect their track and field team.

The spending of track and field scholarships should affect the outcome of track and field meets, it should not also affect the outcome of cross country meets.

So are we imposing a limit of 7.6 and 12 on sprints & field events? Or can the sprint schools load up their scholarships on sprinters but distance schools can't load up on distance runners? Why should the NCAA dictate how a program allocates their funds? Silly

VagTech wrote:

So are we imposing a limit of 7.6 and 12 on sprints & field events? Or can the sprint schools load up their scholarships on sprinters but distance schools can't load up on distance runners? Why should the NCAA dictate how a program allocates their funds? Silly

Not hard to get around.

Pick 12.6 X country runners and enter a few 400s

the ncaa limit for track and field is 12.6/18. You can spend 12.6/18 any way you want. But you have to declare your cross country team before the first xc meet and it is limited to 5/6 scholarships.

You can still put zero in cross country and put it all in sprinters.

You can still put ALL in distance runners, but only 5/6 scholarships worth can compete in cross country each season as declared at the start of the season.

The NCAA won't dictate how a school spends its money. It will just ensure that each team lining up at a cross country meet have the same maximum spending, like every other sport AND consistent with its own rule book that says 5/6 is the maximum for a cross country only program.

What we tend to forget is that distance runners (800-10K) represent a University in three different sports (CC, Indoor Track and Outdoor Track) so you can get more bang for your buck if you give a scholarship to a distance runner. 1500m-types are especially valuable because they can run a leg on the 4x4 and also might be in your top 7 at an NCAA CC Championship. The 5/6 rule makes sense for CC-only schools but why penalize a school that offers all three sports by limiting scholarships to athletes that can cover-down all three sports?

The answer to these questions is Title IX. The NCAA did not sit around in 1973 and then again in 1992 and conjure up, "how about we set a limit of 5 scholarships as a recommendation for how much should be spent on distance running". The factors have been Title IX, sport sponsorship and cost containment. These are the influences for 12.6/18/9.9 for soccer, and other equivalency sports.

"Let me hold a long drawn out press conference regarding some scholarships!!"

That's qanqster talk for this idiot coach and two of his star runners just got their winter track schedule completely wrecked. The 3 Hokies were just personally handed 3 search warrants and 2 subpoenas for the upcoming trial in a Blacksburg Circuit Court. Apparently Eisenhauer is shifting blame to anyone else he was with that night and is throwing some of his former team members and a member of the PHCC XC team under the bus.

Ben Thomas' reaction? Distraction! Lets talk about scholarships for a while..

acccccc fan wrote:...What sports besides T&F have fewer scholarships than the minimum # of players?...

DII Golf allows 3.6 scholarship for men, a scoring team in most competitions is 4.

DI Soccer allows 9.9 and DII Soccer allows 9.0 scholarships for men. Team size is 11 on the field.

DI and DII Volleyball allows 4.5 scholarships for men. 6 players on the court at any given time.

DI and DII Water Polo allows 4.5 scholarships for men. 7 players in the pool at any given time.

For women, DII Field Hockey, Soccer, and Softball are sports with scholarship limits below the minimum # of players.

I might have missed a sport or two.

d2xccoach wrote:

acccccc fan wrote:...What sports besides T&F have fewer scholarships than the minimum # of players?...

DII Golf allows 3.6 scholarship for men, a scoring team in most competitions is 4.

DI Soccer allows 9.9 and DII Soccer allows 9.0 scholarships for men. Team size is 11 on the field.

DI and DII Volleyball allows 4.5 scholarships for men. 6 players on the court at any given time.

DI and DII Water Polo allows 4.5 scholarships for men. 7 players in the pool at any given time.

For women, DII Field Hockey, Soccer, and Softball are sports with scholarship limits below the minimum # of players.

I might have missed a sport or two.

Interesting. Would one think those sports wish they had more scholarships or are happy with what they get? In all honesty, outside of men's soccer, those sports are niche sports. I would hope cross country, one of the oldest awarded NCAA titles, aspires to more.

Why would it be bad to put limits on each event area? Would this not make Track more competitive and also give the schools that try to win 3 times a year a more even playing field in Cross Country? (Arkansas and Oregon are really the only two that try to do this at a National Level).

He should propose a limit to his $70k/year salary for his dismal results.

All Power 5 conference teams should be expanding scholarships for non-revenue sports. We have stupid things happening with ridiculous facilities and million dollar weight training coaches occurring. Why not share the wealth with the student-athletes? They are the reason for university athletics.

XC needs at least 7 men and 7 women with 5 scoring for each gender.

Track needs 100m/200m/400m/110mH/400mH/800m/1500m/3000 or 5000m/10000m, 4x1,4x4,sprint medley, distance medley, pv, lj, hj, shot, discus, hammer, etc. So, track should have at least 25 scholarships per gender and xc should have at least 7 per gender (more with injuries as likely as they are).

Bottom line is that they need to be adding distance and track scholarships for the men in particular (already down six from the women), not limiting anything.