Name D1 schools who use all Track Scholarships for distance runners

"Why not let each school and coach figure out how to allocate their resources to get the optimal results for their school..."

A coach may figure how to allocate their resources to get optimal results for their school, but in so doing may be acting against the well being of the sport.

The point of this arguement is that self-serving coaches/schools are doing what benefits them but to the detriment of the sport and other coaches/schools.

While it is distasteful to create legislation to force schools out of an all distance approach to track AND field, the time may have arrived to do so. This will shake up some applecarts, but will also prevent certain schools from maintaining a strangle hold on cross country in many conferences across the country.

The problem with football and baseball analogies to track and field is that football and baseball have all their different positions on the field at the same time operating as one unit. Track and field does not. A lineman clearly has a different job fomr the QB and the receivers, but doing their job right ensures the the QB and the recievers get the chance to do their job right so they can score. The sprinters do not help the distance guys score, and the throwers do not help the jumpers score, and the pol vaulters don't get clear the lane so the 100m guys can have a clear path to the finish line, and on and on. The sports are completely different. Each event is run as an individual, with the exception of the relays. Track and field is basically a bunch of different sports brought together as one and points are added up from all areas. It is not football, baseball, or baseketball - the analogies just do not work.

just look wrote:

A coach may figure how to allocate their resources to get optimal results for their school, but in so doing may be acting against the well being of the sport.

You clearly do not understand the purpose of collegiate track and field, or the job description of college coaches.

equation wrote:

just look wrote:

A coach may figure how to allocate their resources to get optimal results for their school, but in so doing may be acting against the well being of the sport.

You clearly do not understand the purpose of collegiate track and field, or the job description of college coaches.

Well, just for clarity's sake, my purpose in making these points is to promote the well being of collegiate track and field as a whole, as opposed to a specific program. What is good in the short term for isolated programs may not be what is good in the long term for collegiate sport. It may come as no surprise to you, then, that the majority of coaches may band together to protect themselves and the sport from certain coaches who exploit the situation in ways that benefit their programs but hurt the sport as a whole.

over the rainbow... wrote:

Gonzaga.

If you count 100% of zero, then your statement is true. Tyson is working on getting scholarship increases, but they haven't had any scholarships recently.

There's a lot more to it than just deciding you don't want to be bothered fielding a full track team. Fielding full teams requires more (experienced/proven) staff, more facilities and equipment(field event equipment is not cheap), more scholarships, more travel, and usually more favors from admissions for sprint/jump athletes. Many schools (especially in the current economy) are not in a position to spend MORE money on track and field. Oh yeah, then there is the issue of Title IX and the restrictions many men's teams are facing.

If you look at the majority of the schools mentioned in this thread, they are small schools that don't have the resources of the FSU's and LSU's and Arkansas' of the world. Providence and Butler (just as examples) are Private northern schools. They have horrible weather for spinters/jumpers, no indoor tracks and don't even have full-time coaches in some of the event areas. If you check the public record budgets for those programs, they are around $50k/year. And I doubt those athletic depts are in a hurry to spend the cash required to remedy those problems.

In the case of Oklahoma State, Dave Smith says in the article that they are only allowed 20 guys on the team. Well, that isn't going to provide you a whole lot of fire-power for a Big12 track team. Same in the case of Butler and Providence. And in their cases, it doesn't seem they are even at the 12.6 limit. Might as well pick the fight you can win, put your money and resources into giving yourself an identity as a powerhouse distance program.

There's not a collegiate or scholastic track coach in the country who got hired to improve the overall status if track and field in the US. They're hired to get the best results they can for their school. And there's nothing perventing walk-ons from sprinting, throwing or jumping unless they're at a school where gender equity issues limit the number of athletes a school can have.

The problem is not with the schools and the decisions they make. It's the system that forces those decisions upon them. Treat cross country as a separate sport allowed to give scholarships that won't count against the track team's and this iassue mostly goes away.

I agree its the system that dictates a lot of these decisions. Although, I don't think separating XC and track scholarships is the answer. If you imposed a limit on distance scholarships (say 6), I bet most of the schools mentioned above would REDUCE their scholarships to only 6. They're not going to spend the balance on track athletes, they're just going to eliminate them completely. Nobody wins in that situation. Plus the lines get very blurred when you have athletes in two sports. I assume distance runners would be allowed to run track. What is to stop a school from having their sprinters run XC on distance scholarships and then be eligible for track competition as well (same as a distance runner would be)?

Also, the problem with walk on field eventers is those events are expensive. There is a reason why universities (usually in the name of gender equity) want 30+ distance runners. Because all those athletes require is 2 pairs of shoes a year, some shorts and a bus trip to some local meets. Field events require expensive specialty shoes, poles, hammers, javelins, discs, shots, mats, etc. Plus its a lot easier and safer for a distance coach to send those runners out on a distance run than for a field event coach to try to coach 20 pole vaulters at one time.

American U.

I meant that if you separated the two sports and allowed track 12 scholarships and cross country 7 scholarships you'd improve the situation. But if you keep to the same 12 and simply treat the sports as separate nothing would improve.

I also made the point that you did. A program based on distance runners is the cheapest way to go.

Queens University - Scott Simmons land.

HRE wrote:

I meant that if you separated the two sports and allowed track 12 scholarships and cross country 7 scholarships you'd improve the situation. But if you keep to the same 12 and simply treat the sports as separate nothing would improve.

That wouldn't improve anything. Schools would simply cut cross country.

ridiculuous wrote:

Yet you knuckleheads say with a straight face that having a track and field program with just distance runners is a legitimate strategy.

2000 NCAA Men's Outdoor National Champion: Stanford University

800m: Michael Stember(4th) - 5 points

1500m: Gabe Jennings(1st), Michael Stember(2nd) - 10 + 8 = 18 points

5000m: Brad Hauser(1st), Brent Hauser(4th), Jonathan Riley(6th) - 10 + 5 + 3 = 18 points

10000m: Brad Hauser(1st), Jason Balkman(2nd), Brent Hauser(4th) - 10 + 8 + 5 = 23 points

Pole Vault: Toby Stevenson(4th) - 8 points

Taken from:

Coaches are not hired to improve the overall status of track and field in the US, but coaches do not have to sit idly by and watch the sport get trashed either. In other words, we all have a stake in this sport and if we don't like something about the way it is working - and if the majority of coaches feel the same way - we can and should step forward and do something about it.

the new coach is running a similar program. going after some internationals and then some from the midwest. should be interesting to see if they bring anyone in next year because i heard they have everybody back.

the new coach at Butler is running a similar program to what Franklin was running. going after some internationals and then some from the midwest. should be interesting to see if they bring anyone in next year because i heard they have everybody back.

(apologies for the repost. thought I quoted an earlier question)