Or more likely die outside the big 5 Conferences.
Or more likely die outside the big 5 Conferences.
Spot on wrote:
vpathletics.com nailed it, spot on.
No, he did not. To all you speaking of a club system as such a great thing, you don't understand the differences between America and Europe. We already have clubs, tons of them in fact. They are filled with hobby joggers, for the most part. You'll still get your competitive clubs in Boston and Portland, but for the rest of the nation, the clubs will be where hobby joggers go for their 3 mile run a few times a week. These clubs won't be travelling to the US half marathon championships; they'll be travelling to whatever rock n roll has the prettiest flyers with people looking like they are having the most fun. The coaches won't be coaching athletes to compete at a high level, instead coaching Bob Hobbyjogger and Susie Weekend 7 mile long runner to finish, not place well in, a half marathon or marathon.
Think of it this way. You're looking to make a living as a coach and you have 12 guys who will pay you to coach them to run as fast as possible and 51 people who will pay you to coach them to finish a 13.1 mile race, who are you gonna pick? You can't do both because you have to work a part time job to make ends meet. Secondly, the people who would supposedly be paying this coach to coach them to run a fast 5000 on the track or whatever are in the 19-22 range. Think they have money? Sports teams only work because all the students have a part of their tuition or fees go to them and they get money from sponsors and alumni donations. Every student has a right to attend and watch xc and track meets. If they don't they are wasting their money.
There needs to be some austerity in college sports. Stanford should play Cal instead of flying across the country to play Virginia. North Carolina should race at NC State instead of driving up to PA for Paul Short or flying to Oregon for the Dellinger (sp?) meet.
Here's an idea: what if runners from these power conferences were no longer allowed to run as "amateurs"? The NCAA D1 Championship would consist of the power conferences and other major conferences but D1 athletes could only compete at junior championships, national championships or professional races outside of that. D2 and D3 athletes could compete in anything they are able to qualify for, from amateur to club to junior to national
Another idea: The USATF makes Club Nationals into Amateur Nationals, for anybody not paid by a team or on a D1 team, and the National Championship into Open Nationals, where anybody can compete no matter what division or age as long as they have the qualifying time.
oh yeah? wrote:
Take a look at what has happened at USC--traditionally one of the powerhouses for men's T&F and then ask yourself if the end of this sport at D-1 schools hasn't been in process for some time now. Let's count the ways: 1. No men's cross country team for how many years now? As a result how do you have any decent T&F distance athletes? 2. The hiring last year of a female head coach who had never before coached a men's team. Speaks for itself. 3. Assistant coaches who, let's be honest, have minimal coaching experience (don't waste your breath asserting that a former athlete can instantly morph into a coach). In fact, the only assistant coach with real experience saw the handwriting on the wall and bailed after only one season. 4. A women's team almost twice the size of the men's. Don't make a headcount of the roster--very few of the men actually competed. And, by the way to the previous poster, it's been the PAC12 for some time now, not the PAC10. USC is leading the way into the brave new world...sadly.
I agree that USC is a prime example, but take a look at what their head coach did prior to USC. And take a look at what USC did at NCAAs this year. Not bad compared to the previous year...
Won't happen because of Title IX. However, this nutty oligopoly will mean that student-athletes will be purely para-professional. A power-conf school's APR won't matter.
All of the points scored by the USC men's team at this year's NCAAs were by two seniors--that was work that had been in process for years. The women's team peaked in April/May--the only improvement in time for any USC women's event at the NCAAs was the 4x100 which was a mere .21 seconds (previous season best was 43.21). The teams were worn out. Yes, let's give the coach credit for that.
Just some facts wrote:
To paraphrase Dylan (that'd be Bob), times they are going to change.
I think we'll see more young stars go pro--and we're already starting to see that with Andrews, Cain, Wilson in recent years-or maybe some will get paid to run in college but probably only at a few schools. Some sprinters/jumpers and women distance runners will go pro earlier. The development road might get harder for males, who usually don't start hitting peak times until their early 20s.
Might see more of an Ivy League model, no more athletic scholarship for non-revenue sports at the major schools/conferences.
Wonder if this will be a boon to DII type schools--they'll get the up and comers.
Maybe more young runners will forego NCAA running and join clubs. There could be lot of good out of that--more interest in long term development rather than short-term, i.e., lets get points here and now and worry about consequences later.
Your last point is excellent. But, first people have to understand that, with very few exceptions, there are no revenue sports in college.
But a club system would benefit our sport. Bringing runners along gradually and it could help the sport grow with regional, team competitions.
Look at all the lesser schools who have cut track. Recruiting must be a nightmare.
If this decision survives the 60-day override period (it is NOT a done deal...yet) the transition could begin in January. Anything that the P5 want still needs the approval from the rest of the D1 membership.
"If 75 of the 350 DI schools sign the override measure, the board must take a second look at the plan. If 125 schools oppose the plan, it would be suspended until the board schedules a vote to reconsider.
Please read & educate ourselves:
http://www.pressherald.com/2014/08/07/ncaa-board-hands-5-biggest-conferences-more-power/
Areas P5 could change:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/06/sports/ncaa-autonomy-translation.html?_r=0
Already some of the P5 don't have men's track despite the money they receive from the conference bowl games. In order to keep up with the Alabamas, all schools with National aspirations and hopes for further exposure will have to follow suit with the P5 or be left behind. In order to fund the football team, the funding for track and other nonrevenue sports will have to be cut. Less money means less participation which hurts future development and depth. That means a smaller pool of future coaches. The possibility of a college scholarship is a pretty good driving force for a lot of decent high school runners. It may not mean much to the top 5 runners nationally, but it does to the top 5000.
Even if the NCAA track system isn't perfect for long-term development, it does give a lot of kids a coach, who is paid by the college, for 4-5 more years where they'd be unlikely to find a decent coach with that much time to devote to a 4:30 HS miler.
end of ncaaa
This will ultimately become an era of Football, Men Basketball, Women Basketball and probably Women Rowing to balance Title IX for Football. Even schools in the Big 5 will start to see that it will only be the top 4-5 schools in the Big 5 in each conference will be making money because of success. Coaches Salaries across the board will be reduced as well. This is truly the beginning of the end for College Sports as we know it. It may seem great at first for the Big 5, but many schools will drop like flies and then it will become truly the Big 5; the top school in the Big 5. The NCAA is/was tired of these schools asking for more and more. It started with the unlimited meals for college athletes; here take that and figure out how to pay for it. Now take this...No whatever you want.
Let us see how this plays out.
Actually theres a big market for participation in the sport for high school , which leads to a demand to run afterword. I think the big conference track will probably get cut on the men's half, but there will still be thousands of prep seniors wanting to be in it. What will happen is the smaller conference schools who already don't generate major revenue anyway and yet have track, will continue to have their team, and a lot more blue chips will have to go to those programs.
Just a thought
I can't predict what will happen, but will admit that I felt a little guilty not having to pay for my daughter's college education just because she could run fast compared to her piers. One seems totally unrelated to the other. It just can't last forever.
Would you feel equally guilty not paying if she could play the flute better than her peers or could take the SAT better than her peers? She stands out because of a mix of talent and hard work, no guilt necessary.
I started this thread a couple years ago when the first schools started realigning conferences for football/money. I can't seem to find it, though.
I may be getting this article completely wrong because you all seem to be so concerned. But... Why is it a bad thing for athletes to get more money? They surely train hard enough that they deserve the money and if the school has the money, I agree the athletes should get it. It's not fair that the ncaa prevents them from giving out money the school has. It's their money let them do what they want with it.
That being said you all are right in that there still needs to be some rules as to where/which sport the money is going to. Maybe they could keep the rules but if a school has extra money in there athletic funds they split up the money equally among all sports at that school to give to the athletes.
Giving their money to only basketball and football, as most of you have expressed as a concern, would pretty much be prejudice against other sports. Just because some sports have a lesser fan base does not mean they should be treated any differently because the athletes work just as hard in each sport.
Do any other countries have a college track and field system?
I can't think of one. Maybe Canada?
Most other western countries seem to have competent governing bodies backed by government funding.
Commuter wrote:
This will ultimately become an era of Football, Men Basketball, Women Basketball and probably Women Rowing to balance Title IX for Football. Even schools in the Big 5 will start to see that it will only be the top 4-5 schools in the Big 5 in each conference will be making money because of success. Coaches Salaries across the board will be reduced as well. This is truly the beginning of the end for College Sports as we know it. It may seem great at first for the Big 5, but many schools will drop like flies and then it will become truly the Big 5; the top school in the Big 5. The NCAA is/was tired of these schools asking for more and more. It started with the unlimited meals for college athletes; here take that and figure out how to pay for it. Now take this...No whatever you want.
Let us see how this plays out.
I think you're right and maybe soon there will be fewer decent programs in football and basketball for college kids- fewer teams but the ones left will be elite.
Basketball can have a minor league like baseball but football is just too expensive a sport to support a minor league.
I would love to see a club program for track/xc/road racing in the USA.
This could connect the elite with the hobby jogger and help to grow the sport's popularity.
If you think a club system will be better than what you got now then dream on! The club system over here, in the UK, has been in existence for a 100+ years and is now on it'e arse. The drop out rate of young athletes past 16 yrs is nothing short of catastrophic. In the states young athletes have the golden carrot of a NCAA scholarship to encourage participation into their late teens and beyond, without that T&F in the U.S. is stuffed.