How's University of Michigan's women's distance program?

Stanford and Michigan have very similar standards. What exactly is you question? Stanford has much better weather. A fast girl from Arizona is more likely to choose Stanford over Michigan. Many runners would.

There are only about 4 schools that are fast and can offer scholarships and are on the level of Michigan academically, Stanford, Duke, Notre Dame, and Northwestern. Northwestern does not have men. So your son is at Stanford?

It has been pretty well explained already but here is the summary. It is very hard to get into Michigan. Many runners who could get in want to be in a warmer climate.

That is laughable. Michigan is not on par with Stanford or Duke academically. With the additions it is no longer top 3 in the Big Ten academically. You must be one of those brainwashed Wolverine grads.

Rather than show your ignorance, please point to a source that lists the top academic schools. Then cross reference with cross country rankings. You will see that there are no others than the 3 named regardless if they are better.

Neither team made nationals last year. There were some rough UM squads with less talent in recent years that still managed that.

Coach McGuire grinds the women into dust, and team culture in recent years has been awful. Had an athlete who had a horrific visit and said all the girls seemed to be angry with each other. Yes he’s had phenomenal athletes but there has been a serious decline in the last ten years. Maybe he should move on and give it someone who knows the younger generation a little better.

both programs seem hell bent on going all in on 800-1500m runners and hoping you luck out with the occasional Tom Brady. Look at the men’s 5k to 10k times over the last 5 years or so and outside of Brady, there are D2 and D3 teams with deeper squads. Womens 5k-10k is a total joke, check tfrrs.

Your statement was ridiculous.

And you try to defend it with.... 'better weather in Palo Alto.'

So is it the weather or the academic standards?

Michigan is a fine school but the womens distance program isn't struggling because their standards are too high.... plenty of cold weather academic power houses do quite will in XC.

Try again.

Agreed.

Which is the only reason I even posted in this thread.

Name them.

These schools all competed at the NCAA women’s championships and are closer academically to Michigan than Michigan (29th ranked) is to Stanford (2nd ranked) Georgetown, Brigham Young, Washington, Wisconsin, Boston University

But....seemingly far more often lately is what we ae saying. maybe just a temporary pattern.

Aversge ACT

Stanford 34

Michigan 33

Georgetown 33

BU 32

Washington 30

Wisconsin 30

BYU 29

Tens of thousands of students can get admitted to Wisconsin or Washington who would be rejected at Michigan. Whether the school is better or not is irrelevant. We are talking about reasons why Michigan's XC teams could be better. It is a difficult school to be admitted to, it is expensive, and it is in a cold climate.

Cost

BYU $24K

Wisconsin $48k

Washington $67k

Michigan $80k.

The winter weather doesn't help recruiting much and smart kids from Michigan often want to go to the best private schools (Stanford, Harvard, Georgetown...). Out of State tuition in Michigan is very high so if you have a partial scholarship and you're from out of state, it will still be expensive to run in the snow and ice

Michigan State has/ had a bigger roster and does a much better job recruiting the "in state" diamonds in the rough from the rural schools. MSU has developed a culture of tough rural Michigan runners where Michigan hasn't found a reliable recruiting niche

UM is between a rock and a hard place as they don't compete well "in state" and they can't bank their academic excellence to attract the best "out of state" talent. I'm not sure how the expanded Big Ten will affect things in the future. The smaller roster sizes that are coming will probably help the good but not great schools

My last comment on this because it really doesn't matter whose opinion is correct. That said, but you have zero idea how many distance athletes have been or would be rejected by Michigan relative to all of the other schools. None. It's simply your perception.

You continue to add more and more reasons to your original statement to justify it.

It was an arrogant invalid statement which is why you are getting push back.

Michigan is a fine school and academically excellent but as you yourself have shown the womens XC team is currently struggling for a combination of reasons... not the 'school is too good for most people' (or whatever your nonsense was.) cheers.

Merely providing data. Sorry that facts are hard to face for some people. Michigan is more expensive. Michigan is tougher to be admitted to. Of course we know that 95% of athletes arent smart enough to be admitted. Average ACT of test takers is 19. Only 2% score 33.

You are really grasping. Women running at those other schools did not choose those schools because they couldn’t get admitted to Michigan. As high level runners competing at good academic schools they would have also been admitted to Michigan. I also like how you left Georgetown and Boston University off the cost list. In addition in state topcoat at Michigan is about $30,000. Discussion earlier in this thread was about losing in state talent.

The University of Michigan built a beautiful state of the art indoor/outdoor track in 2018. Its an incredible facility, but it was a bit of a devil's bargain. The old facility was walking distance to campus right near the football stadium. Now the track is 2 miles away and its kind of a hassle to get to. I wonder if that has any affect.

Mich isn't 80K. 20K in, 63 out.