Provocative read by Wichita State coach: How I would solve the problems of college track and field

he jumps to his scoring without addressing the problem he doesnt even see! If a basketball player scores 30 points that has an overwhelming effect on how the team is directly competing with the other team. However in track if a runner wins by a huge margin and breaks a world record in the process, their points do not mean anymore than someone who barely wins in a very slow time. That is why a press release will talk about individual results in track even when the team loses. If he is proposing a point system based on time or distance as opposed to place(like in the decathalon) then maybe we are on to something.

5k 1st place 13:30, 2nd place 14:20... should not have the same scoring as 1st place 14:19, 2nd place 14:20.

Another peripheral I ssue is that our sport has no "scarcity." Every kid who couldn't make any other athletic team, is allowed to be on the track team. It is both a blessing and a curse.

Familiarity breeds contempt, and regular people who know they are non-athletic but "ran track in high school" somehow don't gain a lifelong love of the sport, or even an appreciation for the opportunity this sport gave them that no other would. They will attend their colleges football game or baseball game, but don't have even a simple curiosity to watch their colleges track meet.

Even if you make the basketball team, no guarantee you will play at all during a game. Yet the slowest kid on the track team gets to race regularly. Again, blessing and curse. Nice to be able to compete, makes for much longer meets.

We have to make the sport better for US. It benefits US to make the meets shorter, more meaningful, and more understandable. Stop trying to be all things to all people. Stop allowing special interests like event coaches to lobby for models of our sport that benefit a small population to the detriment of the sport as a whole.

I've ranted on this before and will try to be a bit briefer this time.

First, I agree with those who say that no change in meet format is likely to increase the number of spectators much. I regret that--I can remember when Sports Illustrated had a t&f article almost every week during the spring (shoot, I can even remember when SI had t&f guys as Sportsman of the Year!)--but American tastes have changed, and I accept that reality.

No, my concern is with keeping track as a college sport--and I just don't see how, when teams persist in filling their schedule with unscored meets. You go to a regular-season meet, the AD asks how you did, and you can never say "we won!" (or even "we got beat"). You have one scoring meet, the conference championship, where you finish maybe seventh; and possibly you qualify a kid for Nationals.

Really? That's a program you can justify, when it's time to trim budgets? Even ADs who see the value of t&f (and plenty do--don't kid yourselves) have trouble justifying the expense of a looong season of competition that results in no won-lost record, when the school's bean counters start reviewing budgets.

Not to mention: even at the college level, students love to win meets. Winning meets--even more important, *trying* to win meets--is a major aid to instilling those educational benefits of track participation that coaches are always talking about.

Coaches who can't be bothered to learn more t&f events; who can't be bothered to arrange scoring competitions with other teams at a similar level; who can't be bothered to develop all-event programs that would actually have a chance of winning such meets; and who go to one scoring meet a season...had better be *winning* that scoring (conference) meet, or they shouldn't be surprised when their team is the next one on the chopping block.

[Grump, grump, grump. Okay, that wasn't much briefer than usual. Sue me.]

John Wise, the pride of Eastern Brown HS. I'm really hoping that NE Runner Magazine is not your fellow EBHS alum, but there are plenty of other skeptics, so who knows.

While I'd love to have way more scored meets at the University level, my concern is that it's a shift too far in the other direction. Part of what allure is left of our sport are meets such as Penn and Drake relays. Getting to travel to such a meet is, IMHO, part of the attraction for athletes. I will say that mandating the week off before conference meets is long over due and I do like the notion of people running races at distances other than their primary distance. Part of what allows high school kids with good coaches to develop is getting to run over and/or under their primary distance. Watching middle distance kids and short sprinters mix it up in the 4x4 is exciting and true to form.

I will also freely admit that seeing people run artificially inflated PRs at Mt. Sac, Stanford etc only to see them jog and sprint at NCAA's makes me long for a drastic change. Our athletes don't get to learn how to race in scored meets that count often enough and have trouble producing the goods in a championship atmosphere.

We can keep saying that we want the best for our athletes, but we have long overlooked the people who can breathe some much needed life back into the sport. Spectators draw interest which draws $$ and resources that are sorely lacking at all levels of the sport.

Good job, Wise. It's been a long time since mactrack.com.

A couple of questions regarding this topic?

Who wants to make changes- athletes, coaches, fans, administrators?

Why do they want to change things?

These two questions would result on such a diverse response from each group and even within each group. As such changes are going to be more difficult.

I am a distance coach and have no problem with changing things in the name of progress. Also, i have no problem with the proposed schedule of mixing scored meets on certain weekends with non scored meets on other weekends.

Scoring meets (and winning) implies a better track team. I see teams that succeed with this team concept but yet cant produce national level athletes. Kind of being pretty good in everything but elite at nothing.

Also, the national championship is a collection of individuals not a group of full rostered teams (like football, basketball, baseball). Until team scored events focus primarily on excellence (national qualifying vs winning the meet)or until the national championship takes only full teams and not the most elite individuals then it appears the sport will have two purposes that dont share the same goals.

If your team scored meets dont do anything except show you beat someone and nothing more (such as conference,ncaa qualifying) then how does this work. A win in november in basketball contributes to a w/l record and possible post season. A win in a scored track meet in early february has no bearing on post season.

NCAA is pushing for a team concept. Ideally they have said they would love a head to head championhsip game. You must make wins and losses count towards something.

- teams with best win/loss records go to conference if only duals are counted Or do it all quad or tri meets and each place counts to ranking: First place team gets 3 points, second place gets 2, last gets 1 towards standings.

-Conference champions go to a regional meet split into a minimum of 4 regions.

-regional winning teams go to Nationals.

Cap each team at 30 or so. Allow for as many athletes on the team as they want but you can only dress 30. This will help talent spread out to other programs more while also helping numbers driven programs to keep after numbers.

Yes power teams will still be power teams and teams that aren't full funded will still be at a disadvantage but guess what those are always going to be constants.

This push by the ncaa is simply to make it more marketable. Not because track is boring or exciting. They want to be able to sell match ups and rivalries not individuals. a king chess jersey does not sell but oregon apparel does.

I have experience in D1 and D2 athletics and one of the key limiting factors is not recruiting talent at less-competitive schools. I know of D2 schools which are fully funded for scholarships to be compliant with Title IX, but can't afford to pay their coaches more than HS coaches.

For these schools, it makes sense to specialize in only one or two event groups (distance+throws or sprints+jump). Otherwise, you'll have token jumpers, throwers, and pole vaulters being coached by volunteer coaches.

chef? wrote:

I have experience in D1 and D2 athletics and one of the key limiting factors is not recruiting talent at less-competitive schools. I know of D2 schools which are fully funded for scholarships to be compliant with Title IX, but can't afford to pay their coaches more than HS coaches.

For these schools, it makes sense to specialize in only one or two event groups (distance+throws or sprints+jump). Otherwise, you'll have token jumpers, throwers, and pole vaulters being coached by volunteer coaches.

Or the coaches can make it work and actually coach. Too many coaches out there do not understand other event groups. I know programs that have only two coaches making high school wages but damn they make it work and have a full squad. Stop making excuses for your in ability to coach. The great thing about team/win record concepts is it will force the frauds out of jobs.

We need more track and field coaches and fewer, sprint, distance, jump or throws coaches.

News flash - Cross Country is a team sport and for 95% of the teams - track is an individual sport.

I ran 5 years D1 in college and thoroughly enjoyed it. I eeked out a 24:56 8k and a 3:52 1500m so I am by no means elite. Let me put in my two cents.

I think the system put in place exists mainly for the elites. For me just to get in shape to run 3:52 took 80 to 90 mile weeks. We had a 10K guy run under 30:00 and he was running way more than me. Winter training was absolutely critical for this so he only ran a mile and two 3ks indoors (one might be a 5k). Then outdoors he ran a 10K, and two 5ks and regionals. If you asked me to run a mile every weekend indoor (even 800M) I think i would get burned out. I went something like 3K, mile, 800M, mile. I was honestly pretty drained by the end of the year.

This is boring, this is not entertaining, it will never be as entertaining as major DI football but this is what it takes to be really good. Most sports are boring to watch to be honest, only the elite are entertaining. I don't think many of us could watch the 25th best soccer team play the 35th best D1 soccer team. That is basically watching a 4:01 miler race against a 4:04 miler.

They do this in swimming as well. Honestly swimming is our only comp and it faces the exact same plight as cross country / track and field.

Whoever suggested tennis as a comp is a terrible comparison. The best tennis players don't even go to college, the best guys in the NCAA don't really make the ATP top 10 ever. Same with soccer.

The only success story of a sport gaining popularity is lacrosse. I played in high school, it is a really fun game to play. It has elements of violence and coordination which make it way more entertaining than baseball or soccer

The season is not what the NCAA is after. They want brand recognition for the championship. Easier to sell the brand when there are clear defined teams competing. As it is right now only a couple events factor towards a teams win. Hard to package and sell that when people winning events do not factor into the championship. With a team championship every event will matter to who wins it. The only fair way to get teams to a championship is through some sort of meaningful season.

The NCAA is NOT pushing for team championship as incorrectly stated by one poster. There are a few coaches that want it. But the NCAA has no intention of changing nor do they care.

As another poster alluded too it is a sport that is very difficult to make an equal playing field.

Some geographies are significantly advantaged, scholarships are cheaper at some schools versus private schools, some facilities are nicer than other (this is an administration thing).

Honestly in a way basketball there is great parity. You really only need 5 (in some cases 1) capable starters to have a great team. How many teams can suit up 7 really really good runners year in year out. Like maybe the top 10?

Track and field it gets even more difficult. Bc you need at least 10 guys that can score at nationals (this is not easy).

The state of Texas, the largest state in the continental United States, has 3 competative indoor tracks. One was destroyed this year in a snow storm. 2 tracks... You want the 15-17 NCAA DI universities to all do quad meets at A&M and Houston every week.. Seems realistic....

What's not realistic is indoor track and field period. It needs to be done away with. This is a model for outdoor track. Hell lets have I door be individual driven and outdoor team driven now everyone is happy.

Once again I'm the guy who wrote the original blog.

This has been entertaining to read all of your responses. There are so many ideas that I can't respond to them all. They range from good to absolutely insane! Many of you obviously didn't read the blog in detail because some of your concerns were spoken to. I didn't post it on Letsrun but I'm glad it's getting people talking about the topic. Everyone can agree that there's a significant portion of the t&f family that are frustrated. Most people who agree with my post won't write in agreement because there's not as much to add as someone who disagrees but I enjoy and respect seeing everyone's opinion.

If you want to seriously discuss it feel free to email me -

jwise@goshockers.com

. I never would've posted it on Letsrun because of how most of the crowd can post anonymously but I am happy to have an actual back and forth with anyone interested.

Now I am off to the MVC Championships - Go Shockers!

I find this thread quite interesting, but note that many are doomsday pontificators or status quo seekers. Been like that since the 60's when track and field started to decline in popularity. Unfortunately, my post isn't going to be much different. And I feel very sad about that.

Track and Field has more than popularity problems. The sport is not very appreciated by both the public and the school administrators and changing up on how meets are run or how you qualify to nationals, unfortunately, does not change how others look at our sport.

However, and I would like to think there is a bright side to our sport, baseball and softball were both sports that were dying on the vine and both have come back to be appreciated by fans and the administration. Both worked hard at building a fan base with a foundation of scoring games that lead to conference tournament play and eventually to a "World Series", much like basketball. Many of their fans never played organized baseball, but have learned to enjoy watching and supporting the college game.

Track and field may have a rougher road because the individual athlete is highly valued by a coach wanting to have athletes at the NCAA Championships and by the level of performance the elite athlete can generate for the fan and casual spectator.

It is a dicey problem that won't be easy to get around until the major schools and their coaches and administrators decide that a different approach is needed to keep track and field as a viable sport at the college level. I am not sure anyone is close to thinking a major change needs to take place.

There is a reason why so many schools have dropped track and field over the years, money being only one reason. If you put yourself in the shoes of an AD who was either a team sport competitor or comes from the business world, as more are doing now, it is obvious to me that track and field is pretty insignificant in the overall picture of a healthy athletic department, particularly on the men's side of the ledger. Track and field is a square peg trying to fit in a round hole.

I wish I could be more positive in the future of college track and field, but after 40+ years in the sport, I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel.

The overall sport of track and field is struggling here and around the world and no matter how popular LRC might be in our small community, the world has moved on.

We are headed for the same pasture that now has roller derby, six day bike racing, and marathon dancing grazing contently out in the back nine..

The only solution, in my mind is to have the drive, determination and desire to rebuild the sport to fit the new generation of sports enthusiasts. And to be honest, there isn't one track coach who can do that, since we are all to entrenched in what we are used to doing.

If any changes come about, it must come from administrators who feel a need to include track and field in the overall athletic department or at the NCAA championship level. At this point, I don't see that happening.

If scored meets matter then you will see rivalries build more competition and runners really learning how to race. Coming from a small school who couldn't always send their faster athletes to time trial type meets I only ran in a rabbited race a couple times in my college career. Most of the meets we attended were attended by the same handful of schools, so even without "Scoring that mattered" rivalries within competition groups with different schools did develop and a lot of awesome racing occurred. Come time for our conference meet many guys would have faster times on paper yet I routinely finished ahead of them.