What D1 programs should be great but aren't?

Ohio State

Do they even try? They have many successful sports programs outside of the big revenue sports but in XC/Track they suck.

rutrutrutrutrutrut wrote:

Rutgers

Can't over emphasize rutgers. New Jersey has so much talent every year and no one wants to run for the state's flagship school. Those who choose rutgers and improve are the exception.

I'm fairly certain that an allstar team of NJ D3 schools would whoop rutgers in a h2h meet

This thread has happened before.

The answers may change every few years.

i have a lot of thoughts wrote:

Notre Dame, Duke, UNC, Texas, UCLA, Cal come to mind

This is a pretty good list. I'd put Duke and Cal at the top of the underachievers.

Minnesota and Wisconsin

chargeoff wrote:

What D1 programs have the potential to be great due to academics, recruiting base, training locations, etc. but aren't? Cornell jumps out for me. Ivy league but not as academically intense as their peers plus certain majors have the perk of the state-school tuition, Ithaca has great access to trails, New York and the northeast is a strong area to recruit from. Haven't made NCAA's since 1992.

Vanderbilt men. No men's track so top runners don't go there. They basically light money on fire by pouring it into their terrible football program.

W&M - years of bad coaching weakened a once great program

App State - they have some of the best places to run on the east coast but struggle to get recruiting classes analogous to Duke and UNC

I can name a few schools that cut men's programs all together that would be good too, like JMU.

Hartford

chargeoff wrote:

What D1 programs have the potential to be great due to academics, recruiting base, training locations, etc. but aren't? Cornell jumps out for me. Ivy league but not as academically intense as their peers plus certain majors have the perk of the state-school tuition, Ithaca has great access to trails, New York and the northeast is a strong area to recruit from. Haven't made NCAA's since 1992.

All SEC schools in xc. I know there are some exceptions but still

Oregon may be on this list in a year or two.

App State does well with what they have, I think. They always have a pretty big roster on the women's side, and their ladies run consistent times. I don't know as much about the men.

What are Duke's problems? Does anyone have an inside scoop (a real one) as to why they consistently underperform? A lot has been hinted at on these forums but never clarified.

rutrutrutrutrutrut wrote:

Rutgers

Seconded. NJ is one of the best states in the country for high school runners - just scoop up all the NJ kids who aren't quite good enough for a scholarship somewhere else, pair them with a coach who will actually develop them, and you'll have a very solid XC team within 4 years. Unfortunately, Rutgers seems convinced beyond all evidence that they can become a top-notch football school and continue to throw money down that hole.

Villanova.

Cal Berkeley is a good answer. Probably suffers from lack of scholarships, but you think the school and area has enough appeal to at least attract top in-state talent.

vivalarepublica wrote:

Cal Berkeley is a good answer. Probably suffers from lack of scholarships, but you think the school and area has enough appeal to at least attract top in-state talent.

Cal Berkeley actually not a good answer. They do very well with what they have, but correct, I don't believe much scholarship is put into distance. Plus think of it this way, if you aren't getting money and your choice is Cal or Stanford, which would you choose.

JohnNgugi wrote:

Villanova.

+1

Wake Forest

??? They have won their conference for the past nine years on the mens side and have constantly been second or third with the ladies in XC. Occasionally will get a runner to qualify for nationals.

This was for the guy that referenced central Connecticut state