Leroy Burrell out does former Tennessee coach - cuts 30 athletes this week

There are two sides to this argument. One side is yes, this is culling the field in order to recruit better talent and be more competitive in the toughest conference in the U.S.

However, there are lots of those kids that end up becoming coaches themselves...some quite good coaches of the future. Cutting them might be aborting some of those careers before they ever start.

We still have no source for "30 athletes cut!" besides the OP. We don't have confirmation of the number or of the manner that any people were separated from the program. But if, as a previous poster stated, SEC athletes retain their scholarships, it's hard for me to see a problem here.

Burrell ran a very successful program at Houston for 20+ years and was regarded as one of the top NCAA coaches. Because of family events he was ready to leave there, but I'd still bet that he's making major bank at Auburn and was not hired to have a participation program. I had a good friend who was hired at Auburn as a head coach, years ago, and he was given clear marching orders about the kind of results that were expected.

So people were upset when BAS pre-emptively canned some SAs, and now people are upset when Burrell cans them after a year to prove themselves. In all seriousness, what do you want? No cuts at all? When a coach has been hired to move a team in a different direction, do you nevertheless think that coach should keep everyone on the team through the student's four/five years? Would you expect that from a new football coach who'd been hired to raise his team's competitive level?

And to the previous poster who suggested the costs of keeping currently-unproductive SAs on the team are minimal: I'm afraid that's not how it works. If someone is on the roster at all s/he's entitled to certain resources, and those can be rawther expensive.

There are 93 men and women on the Auburn TFRRS rosters right now. There's plenty of people in that mix who don't belong on an SEC squad.

No shoot!

That may change my perspective a bit. Lol.

Seems like you're assuming he only cut underclassmen. Maybe he cut 30 crappy Juniors who skated by with the old coach and won't buy into the new program they're being held accountable to.

I don't get this perspective. Our sport is harsh and meritocratic: there is one winner, and it's usually the same guy who won last week. There's no hiding behind your teammates or a weak opponent--the clock always gives you away.

Or the other hand, participation is universal and democratic. There's little cost to having an extra heat at a meet or sending an extra body through a track workout. In a large road race, that extends to the number of competitors as well: if you want to beat Kipchoge, just enter the same race he does and try your best. You won't win, but that's only because of your lack of elite talent and/or training, not because of some artificial barrier (at least until recently).

When people suggest more cuts, I think they're conflating the challenges of the sport itself with the challenges we artificially put in athletes' way. Allowing anyone and everyone to participate doesn't make it any easier to win the race (perhaps it even makes it harder). It doesn't take away from the battle in the front pack or the fast heat to have slower packs or slow heats. The only thing a more inclusive sport makes easier is crossing the starting line, not the finish line. And the latter is the grail that every runner chases, as it should be.

(I'm not saying there's no legitimate reason for track to make cuts, even big cuts. There are plenty, almost all of them coming back to money in one way or another. But I'm tired of the argument that exclusivity is somehow its own reward. Sometimes a necessary trade-off? Of course. But it is very much a trade-off rather than somehow being a good thing on its own merits.)

As far as I know, around 25 athletes between both the men's and women's team have been cut, and many have been freshmen. I understand that this is a business and coaches are trying to win titles, but cutting freshmen should never really fly.

Adjusting to college life is incredibly hard, and then you throw in an entirely new training regime on top of that? It's common for athletes to struggle in their freshman year and then find a rhythm after that. If your athletes are still underperforming their second year, sure, give them the boot, but at least let these guys develop before giving up on them.

I love when people go with the "WHY ISN'T ANYONE TALKING ABOUT THIS!?" assuming everyone has a direct line to 30 athletes on the Auburn team.

I'm checking back to see if the OP provided the names and performances of the cut athletes, as I requested, so that we can have a meaningful conversation.

Apparently not yet. And probably not ever.

So, he threw some flame and wondered why we "aren't having a conversation," but then won't provide anything meaningful to have one.

The reason nobody is talking about this is because Auburn is an afterthought at best in NCAA track and field these days.

And that’s why Burrell is trimming fat.

Not cutting a kid because they might be a coach one day is one of the weirdest non-trolling takes I've ever read here, and that's saying something.

Go read the bios of the distance team and you see guys with stuff like

Posted a season-best 8k performance at SEC Championships with a time of 27:47.80... Ran a 33:51.65 in his first career 10k at the NCAA South Regional.

I don't think he was cutting 14:30 runners who might develop into scores. We are talking about D3 level runners.

30 at least sophs.

Clearly walk-ons etc who didn't meet the standard.

Its not college daycare. There has to be room for the incoming freshmen / fresh persons.

It costs resources to coach. You have to make sure you aren't carrying dead weight.,

I suspect there is a cull every year

For a lot of distance runners this makes sense take in some 4:25/9:40 kid and see what happens when you up him from 40mpw to 80. He either gets good or you cut him.

D3 level? C'mon dude. Check tfrrs. Those times are just horrible. Juco at best.

Welcome to pursuing excellence in D1. This is the Tom Tellez model, and now Burrell is in a place where he can afford to implement it in terms of AD investment, resources, and expectations. Auburn was a bum program before Burrell got there, Florida and Arkansas had been the class of the SEC and NCAA. Burrell made this move to go after national team titles, not just SEC titles. Good for him, freshmen who can't score at SECs should go to Southern Miss or South Alabama or Troy.

30 athletes refused to get on the PED regiment that made Leroy so fast.

Look at the bottom of D3 not the top.😋 Seriously is an SEC program not getting sub 16 HS XC runners? Kids like that should be well sub 26 after a season or two..

You’ve clearly never been a track coach and if so definitely not at the D1 or even college level. It’s not about the extra ppl being In the workouts or not taking away from the top pack like the examples you used. It’s time, it’s energy, it’s the headaches that come with the bottom line, theyre typically not as dedicated and aren’t doing the coaching staff any favors. It’s not about talent you can have a talented Athlete performing terribly, or doing things not conducive to being a Competitive athlete or getting in trouble. Most slower distance kids are a pain in the arse. Always complaining, looking for an out, cry cuz they can’t travel, faking or exaggerating injuries, or just there to say they are apart of something I.e it’s been their identity since 6th grade but no one told them they aren’t good enough for that level. So yes I get your point but bro if it’s 30’ppl trust me they’re all getting cut for a multitude of different reasons different cases and it’s all getting done at once. This is necessary to that programs Future it’s a restart and he waited a year that’s a lot of patience