.............................. wrote:
Cons:
.... So if you live in a place where the weather isn't as good for outdoor running from December-February, you will probably be opposed.....
Ya you eliminate like half the country due to weather , as it is the northern schools have a hard time when the season is ending.
If you run CC, it wold count toward the 5 CC scollys. The 12.6 could be mid-distance guys who don't run CC. So 4-5 sprinters, 4-5 field events, 2-4 400-800 type guys who don't run CC. You still have the 5 distance guys who could also run the 800 and up. How is this not great for both sports?
When you look scholarship counts vs participation in track/XC and athlete need. It is clear it is one of the worse funded sports and I can see why the large schools would want to fund more runners. For example Lacrosse can give the same number of scholarships as track but track has over 5x the the participants at the high school level and much larger rosters in college.
I don't think scholarship counts should be limited for the sole purpose of keeping the little guy strong, but they should be able to compete still (I am also for a football playoff with fair access to the little guys).
http://scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html
http://www.nfhs.org/ParticipationStatics/ParticipationStatics.aspx/
More is needed wrote:
I don't think scholarship counts should be limited for the sole purpose of keeping the little guy strong
Seriously, this rule is trying to give more money to more runners and this thread is completely against it.
How is more kids getting access to running scholarships anything but good for growth of the sport? It's already not a spectator sport, people that aren't already huge fans aren't gonna randomly show up at a XC meet. But pumping more money into the sport makes high school kids eyes light up at the chance for a free education.
gimmedatmoney wrote:
More is needed wrote:
I don't think scholarship counts should be limited for the sole purpose of keeping the little guy strong
Seriously, this rule is trying to give more money to more runners and this thread is completely against it.
How is more kids getting access to running scholarships anything but good for growth of the sport? It's already not a spectator sport, people that aren't already huge fans aren't gonna randomly show up at a XC meet. But pumping more money into the sport makes high school kids eyes light up at the chance for a free education.
What about when schools decide to cut track because they can’t keep up, which ultimately means less money and opportunities? Because it will happen. A majority of schools don’t fully fund track as it is
The power 5 schools are trying to kill the sport. Yes in the short run more scholarships will be offered for distance runners. As smaller D1 schools who are barely surviving begin to get rid of track you will have less opportunities for athletes over all. The power 5 schools are greedy. What makes the sport fun is seeing schools who don't have a shot at winning track titles go all in on distance. It is also nice seeing mid majors or even smaller D1 schools compete on occasion with bigger programs. As a coach you should not want this. This will allow larger schools to hoard more talent. If a kid who might be a better fit for a smaller school gets an offer from the big school, where do you think this kid is going 8 times out of 10. Coaches at the highest level do not care about coaches below them. Which is very sad, I understand the drive to win. I just don't understand why they want to change the rules so that they can win at everything. I really don't want to see power 5 schools dominating xc. The sport won't be the same. Makes you appreciated the years Arkansas dominated all 3. There is a disconnect with what is happening at the lower level. The small schools are providing opportunities for kids to continue running in college. Yes some are terrible but if the kids like to run that is good for the sport. You don't make a sport popular by limiting participation to the sport. These power 5 coaches would have a completely different opinion on the matter if they were at smaller schools. If you are a coach and mad that schools invest in mainly distance then you don't understand what makes the sport great. The playing field is not level at every school. Most of the good schools for sprints are in warm weather parts of the country. This is not fair to school located in areas that experience colder weather. We should change the weather so good sprinters will want to go to these schools.
This will hurt all of the distance only schools performance. What I see as the major issue is the small to mid major schools who will now decide it isnt worth it to sponsor a track team on the mens side. This is the biggest unintended consequence I see.
Being "all distance" isn't also killing track and field?
If you aren't fully funding track now, then adding cross country scholarships doesn't change the situation.
But a fully funded cross country program is now more possible since 5/6 is doable where as 12.6/18 is less doable.
If distance is all you care about, then just be a cross country school and don't worry about the sport of track and field. Or at least don't pretend to care about the full sport of track and field when all you really want is the additional scholarship spending for the cross country season.
If you care about both cross country and track and field, then fund both.
The point is that cross country results should be determined by cross country scholarships.
Track and field results should be determined by track and field scholarships.
I like a lot of the ideas here. Different distances for men/women is a joke it todays world. There isn't a womens marathon distance. Surprised XC isn't consider more sexist, 10k vs 6k.
Only problem I see is half the country can't run XC from mid-December to mid-January due to snow on the ground. Not fair to all those school to race in the South for 2 months.
It is different because with this rule you would only be allowed to have 5 scholarships compete in XC.
You could still have a distance only program, but if you have 8 scholarships in men's distances, only 5 of those scholarships could actually run for the team in an XC meet.
This would make it harder, but not impossible,for schools to stockpile distance runners because a lot depth athletes would be sitting out beyond a red shirt year.
College Football is the only other NCAA sport that strategically tries to favor the power 5 conferences, and they do this with a 4 team playoff. Basketball sometimes has a small mid-major win the 1st round tournament game, but they don't win the national title (sorry Butler, so close). Is it good for the sport of XC to NAU, Iona, Portland schools (to be honest the rest of the country have never heard of) be the flagship for the sport. Wouldn't it be better to have Oregon, Arkansas, etc win larger alumni base and marketing potential help spread word of the sport. Sure its fun to see a small guy, win, but they don't promote the sport like the big schools.
The only changes in scholarships should be to equalize funding between men and women and put in a minimum number of scholarships. Certainly women's sports should be well-funded, but it shouldn't be at the expense of men's sports.
Men's teams at mid-level D1 schools have less than 5 scholarships. Imagine trying to recruit anyone when you can at best offer 3-4 guys a year a half scholarship, and then the women's team basically has money to give away. And then you get the men's team not being nearly as successful as the women's team (shocking when it has 1/3 the funding) and then the admins can point at that lack of success as a reason to cut the sport. The only inequality in college sports is the complete lack of resources available to non-revenue men's sports.
God, runners are cheap. So much talk about poor schools that lack the money to fund full teams, and not one person saying “maybe I should open my checkbook and fund a scholarship or two at my alma matter.”
Science departments have alumni donating eight figures for new buildings. Track teams have alumni who cry that someone else should pay for our sport.
If you’re worried about your mid major’s financial situation, call them today and ask what you need to do to donate a scholarship. I promise that once you manage to pry some money out of that tightly clenched fist to benefit someone else, you’ll realize that it actually feels kind of good to help a cause that you care about.
The wording of the proposal is ambiguous but I think this is not the rule change being proposed. I believe the 5 is a carve-out from the 12.6. Would help if this was clarified as I could be for that.
gimmedatmoney wrote:
Seriously, this rule is trying to give more money to more runners and this thread is completely against it.
How is more kids getting access to running scholarships anything but good for growth of the sport? It's already not a spectator sport, people that aren't already huge fans aren't gonna randomly show up at a XC meet. But pumping more money into the sport makes high school kids eyes light up at the chance for a free education.
Maybe reduce the events on the track in order to prevent a school from only focusing on distance runners to win a national championship. Eliminate the 10k on the track?
Hey, FairPlay1: Paragraphs are your friend (and your readers').
FairPlay1 wrote:
I am a current NCAA Division 1 Cross Country and Distance Track coach at a mid-major university in the mid-west. I currently on the fence on this one. There are so many questions from every size of university. First, I do believe that we need to better legitimize the sports of Cross Country and Indoor and Outdoor Track and Field. All of which are considered separate sports for NCAA purposes, but at most universities are lumped into one budget line and per the NCAA are lumped into one scholarship line. Many coaches across all of the divisions would love to have split budgets, added staff, scholarship dollars for each separate sport, etc. However, most administrators don't see the need or feasibility for those changes to happen and see very little difference from running XC to running track. It's all the same to administrators and honestly the general public. Also, the budget discrepancies in Division 1 are astronomical in our sport. Most schools at the Power 5 level are fully funded per gender in scholarships, have a budget that allows for the full allotment of coach and support staff and the operating budget to purchase equipment and travel to any destination that they may to obtain marks and compete against the best. There are many more institutions at the mid-major level that fund less than half of the allowable 12.6 and 18 scholarships available, have a budget that is typically significantly less than their Power 5 counterparts and have an operating and staff budget that is insufficiently funded. The universities proposing and typically voting in favor of the addition of scholarships are the Power 5 universities. Also, with our combined sports being funded jointly, each institution is allowed to disperse their funding the best way they see fit. There are a number of schools that only invest their money in distance, just as there are universities that invest in sprints and jumps only, or a high percentage in throws, or mid-distance, etc. That is a choice by that institution. However, I do understand that some of the Power 5 institutions have gotten pressure to go after national championships in XC without sacrificing their prowess on the national level in track and in order to do that, you must spread the money around to get points from other areas. Those schools are the ones that are truly proposing the "increase" in XC scholarships. The rich get richer, or better yet, the rich buy out the rich in another area. I am all for giving more scholarship opportunities to our student athletes. However, I think that if we were sincere in doing that, we would unite, regardless of our economic standing and promote that our sports be treated the same as top tier sports and any university that offers scholarships should be required to offer the full 12.6 and 18 scholarships to its teams. Or push legislation with the other underfunded programs in our universities and regions in other sports to mandate a higher level of minimum funding for our "tier 2 sports". I do understand that would be a bold move that could force administrators to make a call on keeping programs or not. But in my opinion, that is the only way you will get everyone on board for a common goal of better our sport as a whole. As track coaches we all feel disrespected that all of the other programs have XYZ and we do get the shaft on facilities or funding or scholarships, etc. We need to stand up and start doing something about it and the way you sway votes for a scholarship increase is by fixing what's going on at the bottom first. There are a lot more mid-major schools than there are Power 5 schools. Lets work together to make the sport better and more relevant.
Two things
1 - why should smal institutions fund full coaching staffs for niche non revenue generating sports? It’s one thing to give free tuition which carries minimal marginal cost. But to add expense? What is this, can’t pump your own gas in Jersey?
2 - please be a model for your student athletes. Use paragraphs. Make recommendations. Rambling on end in long never ending prose is not that.
mdrunner12 wrote:
The only changes in scholarships should be to equalize funding between men and women and put in a minimum number of scholarships. Certainly women's sports should be well-funded, but it shouldn't be at the expense of men's sports.
Men's teams at mid-level D1 schools have less than 5 scholarships. Imagine trying to recruit anyone when you can at best offer 3-4 guys a year a half scholarship, and then the women's team basically has money to give away. And then you get the men's team not being nearly as successful as the women's team (shocking when it has 1/3 the funding) and then the admins can point at that lack of success as a reason to cut the sport. The only inequality in college sports is the complete lack of resources available to non-revenue men's sports.
If all schools with men’s and women’s programs have the same rules, why would the women’s teams be more successful with more scholarships? Relative to other schools they have the same. Same as the men. Men have fewer. But competitor men’s schools do too.
Maybe the women at your school are just better.
They really should add more relays to the championships..... Distance medley.... 4x800......4xMile...I never understood why they do the DMR indoors but not outdoors....It is so much harder for the distance runners to double....If you are a sprinter you have relays where you only have to run the final and not the rounds..... that way schools can justify using scholarships on distance guys......It would also make the championships more fun to watch
Serious question: Is there any other sport where the number of full scholarships is less than the number of starting competitors on a varsity team? 5 scholarships for 7 varsity athletes?
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday