Don't we already have some form of a club system here?
Don't we already have some form of a club system here?
Re the club idea: I do not see a strong US club structure capable of handling developing athletes.
I like the idea.
Bringing it back to running wrote:
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 peers. One seems totally unrelated to the other. It just can't last forever.
I understand where you're coming from. It doesn't seem to make sense: if the goal of a college is to provide an education, why are they giving money to attract students who sometimes are less proficient in the classroom but are amazing athletes? It's no secret that a fast runner can get in to a school that their test scores/grades wouldn't always get them into if the coach really wants them.
The amount of student athletes accepted into a school that are below the avg scores are probably insignificant so I would assume that it's not really an issue, but my point is this: if a kid is athletic, he/she can get into a better school based on their athleticism and may even get money for their EDUCATION based on their skill in a SPORT. The two aren't really related, but, eh, life isn't fair.
vpathletics.com wrote:
Is title IX only for scholarships? If players no longer got stipends or scholarships but were allowed to make money off their likeness, would that eliminate the need for womens sports?
How many athletes do you think would make money off their likenesses?
Edward Teach wrote:
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.
Let's do some math. Let's say each of the 50 hobby joggers pay a coach $50 per month for a training plan. Ideally you would keep 50 on the books all the time. That is $2500 per month. The 12 elites need to pay more because quite honestly they would be getting more from the coach and that costs $200/month. That is $2400. You are at almost $5K per month or $60K per year. That would be a decent salary.
Hurray! We are one step closer to European style club track and field. Perhaps there will now be an easier avenue for us old guys to compete against the young guys at distances other than 5k
Edward Teach wrote:
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.
No offense but you are being over dramatic. First, having college programs in America is a privilege not a right. You can't be mad at football that xc makes no money. Secondly, what makes you think every good coach will automatically have to coach bad runners? The coaches don't have any say? I got news for you, there are tens of thousands of coaches who work full time and coach on the side. They are called teachers. But in a club system instead of the best coaches having to only work with the kids in the hallways, coaches and athletes from different schools can connect with each other without restraint of school districts and contact rules.
DKCCC wrote:
Bringing it back to running wrote: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 peers. One seems totally unrelated to the other. It just can't last forever.
I understand where you're coming from. It doesn't seem to make sense: if the goal of a college is to provide an education, why are they giving money to attract students who sometimes are less proficient in the classroom but are amazing athletes? It's no secret that a fast runner can get in to a school that their test scores/grades wouldn't always get them into if the coach really wants them.
The amount of student athletes accepted into a school that are below the avg scores are probably insignificant so I would assume that it's not really an issue, but my point is this: if a kid is athletic, he/she can get into a better school based on their athleticism and may even get money for their EDUCATION based on their skill in a SPORT. The two aren't really related, but, eh, life isn't fair.
Why does a school offer athletic scholarships now? It is called marketing. Also successful athletic programs lead to increased donations from alumni and not just to the athletic department but campus wide. It helps build pride and pry money from alumni and sometimes non-alumni.
It gets you TV exposure for several hours each week.
What seems to have happened is that it is now an arms race in terms of building incredible locker rooms and weight facilities. At times those strength training facilities can also be used by other athletes or the other athletes get the old space (if new space was built).
My prediction is that some predictions will pan out and others will not.
This whole thing is nature adjusting to balance itself. This is Darwinism at its finest. The problem is that you have all these schools outside of the Power 5 conferences who should have never been D1 in the first place. 90% of them should be in D2. They jumped to D1 with absolutely no chance of being competitive on a national level in D1 due to their paltry resources in comparison.
Of course there are some outliers, like Butler, VCU, Wichita State, etc... in basketball. But for every Butler & VCU, there are 50 D1 basketball programs that would struggle to win 60-70% of their games in D2. The gap is even wider in Football.
Every administration thinks by going D1 they will raise their national profile, therefore increasing enrollment, alumni giving, etc... But how exciting is it for alumni if your basketball team is 5-20? You may be D1, but if you never qualify for the NCAA tournament(or get to a bowl game), it's not going to put you in the national spotlight or rally your alumni.
A large portion of the schools outside of the Power 5 should go back to D2 where they will have a chance to be competitive.
The idea of a club system to replace the NCAA sounds all nice and beautiful but it will be the death of the sport in the states. The NCAA provides more of an incentive for athletes to continue their training and careers. The NCAA system provides coaching, travel expenses, training partners/team atmosphere, tuition if you're lucky to get a scholarship. How many clubs would have the funds to provide most of those things? How many kids graduating from high school who are 4:20 miler talent that would be able/willing to pay for a club to provide resources or pay to travel to meets. With the club system most of those runners would do it recreationally at best and only the true elite high school runners might continue their career for the sake of going to the olympics, but even then there are probably some sub-4:20 talents that will give up because its not worth struggling to try to improve for the sake of maybe representing the USA or bettering themselves.
If the NCAA gets rid of track & XC then you basically have the problem with the current post-collegiate runners struggling to make ends meet except the problem will start when the athletes 18 instead of 22.
Wisconsin is already ahead of the game: they've got a varsity team and a club team. #forward
The dregs of D1 might just decide to drop football where it can't cover its own costs. Then some of the non-revenue sports might flourish at a fraction of the cost of football.
There are a lot of schools forever mired at the bottom of the D1 conferences with one shot every two decades at a bowl game, and with little or no support from the student body.
luv2run wrote:
Why does a school offer athletic scholarships now? It is called marketing. Also successful athletic programs lead to increased donations from alumni and not just to the athletic department but campus wide. It helps build pride and pry money from alumni and sometimes non-alumni.
It gets you TV exposure for several hours each week.
What seems to have happened is that it is now an arms race in terms of building incredible locker rooms and weight facilities. At times those strength training facilities can also be used by other athletes or the other athletes get the old space (if new space was built).
My prediction is that some predictions will pan out and others will not.
I don't agree with that use of marketing because again, it should be about the schooling, and attracting students through athletics is lame if athletics spending is in excess (which in most D1 schools it is).
trollist the third wrote:
Wisconsin is already ahead of the game: they've got a varsity team and a club team. #forward
Yeah and so are Penn State, Maryland, UDel (men), heck even smaller schools like Towson in Maryland has a club team. Club running has their own league at
http://www.clubrunning.org/membership/about.phpIf this happen, I see it helping programs in the NAIA- the small schools who haven't defected to ~NCAA D2 (cause of football) and who bring in revenue by student-athletes paying into the universities. This esp. applies with XC athletes, who are usually good students and a bit wealthier. As compared to other sports like ~basketball/football/baseball where the athletes usually expect a "full ride", with XC/track, partials are often intentionally given so the athletes are paying something into the university as a source of revenue.
Of course, none of this matters at the Big 5 conferences who get their revenue from football/basketball (and could freely ax XC/track), but the smaller non-football schools are relying on revenue generated from paying student-athletes. This is why a lot of programs continue to have at least XC programs.
The NCAA is dead! In less then 2 years only football schools will be standing and the rest will die.... Greed by the NCAA killed it, and track and XC will be just a few of the victims.....
That coach was one of the best in the USA before she got to Usc. I love how people ignore what people have done and the speak on topics as if they have inside information. She has coached males.
Well, I'm now going to compete against professional athletes, who get paid for their sport...there are no words to describe how stupid this whole situation is.
xcisking49 wrote:
With the club system most of those runners would do it recreationally at best and only the true elite high school runners might continue their career for the sake of going to the olympics, but even then there are probably some sub-4:20 talents that will give up because its not worth struggling to try to improve for the sake of maybe representing the USA or bettering themselves.
If the NCAA gets rid of track & XC then you basically have the problem with the current post-collegiate runners struggling to make ends meet except the problem will start when the athletes 18 instead of 22.
What is wrong with this outcome, if this is what the market dictates? ESPN and the Networks are spends millions of dollars for television rights to basketball and football, and those athletes haven't been getting anything except a (marginally-useful) degree and one free meal per day. All the while, those sports have been (unfairly) subsidizing the Olympic sports.
There's money out there, but the USATF (and NCAA) can't seem to figure out how to make T&F profitable. Road races - and their $ rewards and appearance fees - are likely the future of our sport. And the Olympics every 4 years is just a big enough carrot to keep under-funded athletes in the sport - for glory.
Although not an exact comparison, I find many parallels between NCAA student-athletes and student-musicians. An aspiring musician enrolls at college for a music degree. What if, while this woman is in college, she wants to start a band/ record music to sell? By the NCAA's historical stance on "amateurism", if she did that she would lose her scholarship and her spot in the school orchestra. And that is just ridiculous.
Running, much like music, is a passion. If you want to try to make a living off your passion, expect to spend thousands of dollars and years of hard work to help make that a possibility. STOP EXPECTING ASPIRING FOOTBALL AND BASKETBALL PLAYERS TO HELP SUBSIDIZE THIS SPORT.
Things you can do to help make up the difference:
- DONATE TO YOUR ALMA MATER'S TRACK AND FIELD PROGRAM.
- BECOME A CARD-CARRYING MEMBER OF USATF. Volunteer as an official if you can.
- SIGN UP FOR LOCAL ROAD RACES THAT OFFER CASH PRIZES.
- WATCH EVERY TELEVISED TRACK MEET THAT YOU CAN. Better ratings = more $ for television rights.
- ATTEND, AS A PAYING SPECTATOR, EVERY (LOCAL) TRACK MEET THAT YOU CAN. Make the pilgrimage to Eugene if you can.
- Do you have a favorite professional athlete? BUY SHOES FROM THE COMPANY THAT SPONSORS THEM.
xcisking49 wrote:
The idea of a club system to replace the NCAA sounds all nice and beautiful but it will be the death of the sport in the states. The NCAA provides more of an incentive for athletes to continue their training and careers. The NCAA system provides coaching, travel expenses, training partners/team atmosphere, tuition if you're lucky to get a scholarship. How many clubs would have the funds to provide most of those things? How many kids graduating from high school who are 4:20 miler talent that would be able/willing to pay for a club to provide resources or pay to travel to meets. With the club system most of those runners would do it recreationally at best and only the true elite high school runners might continue their career for the sake of going to the olympics, but even then there are probably some sub-4:20 talents that will give up because its not worth struggling to try to improve for the sake of maybe representing the USA or bettering themselves.
As above. ^^^
vpathletics.com wrote:
Long term it would probably actually benefit the sport here in America. Consider a European style club system. Many might say that the current NCAA system is already producing better athletes than those club systems in Europe, but is that really the totality of the issue? Many of the Americans that are currently world players had some sort of abridged NCAA career which allowed them to train differently than the average runner, similar to club system where peaking 3 times a year was not deemed necessary. Next, we have far more runners in this country than any European country, therefore that doesn't prove the NCAA works, it just proves that we have more runners. Foreigners aren't coming to run in the NCAA because of the great development they can get from it, they come for the free education. A club system would benefit many athletes by allowing them to seek out coaches they see eye to eye with and not feeling like they will lose something (have a year of ineligibility) if they decide they need to move to a coach they feel more comfortable with.
Where will we hold the club track meets? At high school venues???? Our state T&F championship is held at a DII university because the only DI university in the state has a crappy track and not enough seats. The DI schoolhas been scheduled to host the Big Ten outdoor championship but has had to defer due to inadequate facility. Not sure what this ruling means for a new T&F venue there.....