This is why I think the international boom will go down!!!!
44 kids on roster right now, some not even on the regional squad. These coaches will stop investing in distance running at this rate. 15 of these kids won’t score a point on the track. Too many bodies.
Itll be easier to score in the other events. Remember when Petros won multiple trophies without a runner!
Seems like the football coaches and ADs are getting their way. Fewer roster spots to support and over a third are foreign.
The sad thing is, the depth of competition at the US high school level is fantastic, so a lot of talented kids are not getting the chance to even compete at the collegiate level.
Seems like the football coaches and ADs are getting their way. Fewer roster spots to support and over a third are foreign.
The sad thing is, the depth of competition at the US high school level is fantastic, so a lot of talented kids are not getting the chance to even compete at the collegiate level.
In the 90s a lot of schools had no roster limits at all. It was awesome. I walked on to a decent D1 team and worked my way on to the travel squad over a couple of years. First it was Title IX, now it is revenue sharing reducing sizes. Either way, Late bloomers like me don't get that chance now.
We had 50 guys and 25 girls at the start of XC each year. Attrition cut that in half by the end of the season. With no restrictions, those were the numbers. Twice as many males as females chose to run. My take on that is that Title IX enforcement limits men's team size and leaves women's the same in the name of "equality".
What's the big deal? Only 7 can compete and it only takes 5 to get the team score minus pushers. Id say that coach gets a raise for recruiting the right people. The athlete's reward is that they earned their ticket without the pressure from other teammates trying to get their spot. Maybe they should limit all rosters to 9? I suppose even more coaches would go shopping abroad in desperation.
What's the big deal? Only 7 can compete and it only takes 5 to get the team score minus pushers. Id say that coach gets a raise for recruiting the right people. The athlete's reward is that they earned their ticket without the pressure from other teammates trying to get their spot. Maybe they should limit all rosters to 9? I suppose even more coaches would go shopping abroad in desperation.
How many are on a golf or tennis team anyway?
Men's tennis: 5 of 7 are foreigners.
Men's golf: 1 of 7.
Women's tennis: 7 of 11.
Women's golf: 3 of 8.
You’d probably get more viewership / interest if there were zero.
Known. However my alma mater and many others did not limit rosters until much later, many after 2000, to create "equality" of athletic opportunity for females. FYI, I am FOR equality, but it should not be done in a way that limits another group's opportunity. There is no football equivalent for women, so schools started cutting other men's teams while allowing unlimited women's rosters to make up for those 100 men.
You’d probably get more viewership / interest if there were zero.
Yeah, I already knew the answer to this question as it hasnt changed much over the last 40+ years. I forgot to include men's soccer but I already know that answer as well.
No. Most of them will not fund 10 XC scholarships. Most won't fund any.
Normally I would agree with you, but SEC is trying to move to every rostered athlete in all sports having a full ride. It's doable with the TV money, and you can see it already happening in the post above that shows the Internationals.
Even Vanderbilt has woken from a 75 yr slumber and invested seriously in football and wbb. Xc lagging, but on the way.
SEC/Big10 also considering long term to just leave ncaa, and be a 40 team national athletic league, with all the best athletes in every sport.
Question is just when, and if they bring ACC and Big12 along with them.
If I was still in college, I'd love to run for Georgia. Imagine how much more fun football games are there than say NAU, Ok State or Stanford. Plus take a look at that women's roster. I'd love to hang out with those ladies.
Thirsty Old former 4:40 miler has entered the chat
Over half the people here do not know what “has entered the chat” means
No. Most of them will not fund 10 XC scholarships. Most won't fund any.
Normally I would agree with you, but SEC is trying to move to every rostered athlete in all sports having a full ride. It's doable with the TV money, and you can see it already happening in the post above that shows the Internationals.
Even Vanderbilt has woken from a 75 yr slumber and invested seriously in football and wbb. Xc lagging, but on the way.
SEC/Big10 also considering long term to just leave ncaa, and be a 40 team national athletic league, with all the best athletes in every sport.
Question is just when, and if they bring ACC and Big12 along with them.
Do they rent out university facilities and maintenance until they can afford to build their own or just make a permanent plan to pay for new infrastructure, research centers, performing arts buildings etc.. as needed? Or will the taxpayers keep getting stuck with the bill?
Will non athlete tuition go down from the revenue? IF they pull out of ncaa does that mean they dont associate/affiliate with the university anymore and just become level B pro leagues?
This is the part Im interested in as all this pay for play evolves. Let's see how much they are willing to pay when board of regents decide to start charging Phil Knight, T Boon Pickins, Texas Tech type billionaires for rent.
I can't believe American society is so willing to support these entertainment distractions from real societal problems but here we are.
Id like to see a college division formed to stay loyal to the student athlete experience. The Oregon State, Washington States of the world are already realigning with mid majors. Maybe they could just focus on degrees and community vs $$$$$ but the best will always get poached. They'll need a binding contract as well with a repayment clause before legally being allowed to join the pro league or something.
NCAA XC is nothing like football or basketball and I don’t believe there are expectations that would cost anyone their job. It’s not a revenue sport.
Unless there is a rules change / limit instituted, coaches will continue to stack their rosters with foreigners. It’s just the reality. They created an arms race and you get fired if you get left behind. Looking at the foreign composition of the SEC teams at the regional meets:
Alabama - 4 of top 7
Georgia - 4 of top 6
Oklahoma - 4 of top 7
Arkansas - 4 of top 7
Missouri - 2 of top 7 (3 others on roster)
Texas A&M - 2 of top 7 (2 others on roster)
Texas - 1 of top 7
Kentucky - 4 of top 7
Tennessee - 3 of top 7 (3 others on roster)
Ole Miss - 1 of top 7 (2 others on roster)
Florida - 2 of top 7
Auburn - 2 of top 7
LSU - 1 of top 6
Vanderbilt - 0 of top 7.
So, 44 total foreigners. 34 of the 96 whom ran at regionals (35%). Seems like most coaches are shooting for 4. Is this the highest percentage of any conference, or does the Big 12 have more?
Track and Field News editor Sieg Lindstrom has a good column on the increased foreign impact at NCAAs.
“Foreign recruiting numbers are up — in the distance ranks, for sure… 89 of 225 top-15 male placers (at conference meets) were foreigners, 39.6%. The women’s figure: 91 of 225, 40.4%.”
And of those foreigners, his stats reveal roughly 40% of them were Kenyan.
Chris Bucknam also defends using foreigners in a nice Q&A in another article in TFN.
How does the fact that a team with 6 athletes making it to Nationals in any way prove that roster limits are not killing the sport?
The idea is that small or smaller rosters, limits development which in turn kills the sport because it allows fewer to participate.
Stupid thread title but good click bait I suppose.
Maybe just say congrats to them for getting through the year healthy enough to qualify given the limited numbers they have.
As I emphasized in a different thread yesterday, the internet adores outliers. And that's especially true of sports oriented sites.
It could not be more pathetic. I'm forever amazed at the mindset of desperately scrambling for an outlier and somehow believing you have won the argument, or even made the slightest contribution to the topic.
No kidding not everything is 100%. What a revelation. Right wing males are particularly bewildered. That's why scare tactics are so successful with that group. Give them one trivial irrelevancy and they'll blab all over each other while clutching it as damning evidence toward how someone would govern.
But If you're dependably bad person from birth, that's fascinating.
Do they rent out university facilities and maintenance until they can afford to build their own or just make a permanent plan to pay for new infrastructure, research centers, performing arts buildings etc.. as needed? Or will the taxpayers keep getting stuck with the bill?
Will non athlete tuition go down from the revenue? IF they pull out of ncaa does that mean they dont associate/affiliate with the university anymore and just become level B pro leagues?
This is the part Im interested in as all this pay for play evolves. Let's see how much they are willing to pay when board of regents decide to start charging Phil Knight, T Boon Pickins, Texas Tech type billionaires for rent.
I can't believe American society is so willing to support these entertainment distractions from real societal problems but here we are.
Id like to see a college division formed to stay loyal to the student athlete experience. The Oregon State, Washington States of the world are already realigning with mid majors. Maybe they could just focus on degrees and community vs $ but the best will always get poached. They'll need a binding contract as well with a repayment clause before legally being allowed to join the pro league or something.
The Big 10 and SEC football TV contracts pay $60-80 million to each school annually. There is also revenue from bball tv, Tickets, merah, food, album donations etc.
Taxpayers, in theory, are not paying for big time sports.
The ncaa is nothing special. It's just an admin association created and run by college presidents. It does not even make money. After expenses, ncaa earnings are distributed back to the schools.
If 40 big schools left, ncaa would just continue operating for remaining 95 football schools and all the other divisions.
The new division, however, would get all the TV money as all the brand name programs would be in the new group. For reference current College Football Playoff, all bowls, and new NIL enforcement commission are already not part of the NCAA.
OSU and WSU did not leave the big time voluntarily. They were left standing like musical chairs when the PAC12 collapsed.
Next year the PAC resumes with new lesser schools. In the next league restructure they will again expand in hope of getting back on level of Big12.
At the top of college sports, the only thing that would halt this change would be if fans stopped watching live college football on TV. Sounds impossible, who would have ever thought that TV and cinema would crumble?
There is always naturally a battle between academics and sports. On the whole though big time sports generally seen by u presidents as a positive. It brings in money, improves vitality of the campus, builds university brand, and attracts students.
The schools that don't want to play have really already opted out. Ivy, Patriot and D3.
