Is the NCAA trying to kill off distance-only schools?

typo... it should be 'their'

Since football players can run track without their scholarship being funded by track, then it would seem that this would only be an addition of 5 male or 6 female scholarships to xc, without taking away any from track or preventing track scholarship recipients from competing in xc.

However, if this were intended and had the purpose of expanding xc, then why would it be justified by reference to increasing diversity, since the statistics say that xc is 24% non-white, vs. 42% in track?

That, and the reference to financial aid limits, imply that it is intended to restrict xc to the use of 5/6 scholarship athletes. But then the 12.6/18 could only compete in track, meaning that 400/800 runners couldn't run xc for the aerobic benefits and no distance runners on the track team could compete in xc, and conversely, it seems, unless the 5/6 were counted there. So, track scholarships would surely go only to sprinters and field athletes, because who ever heard of keeping distance runners from competing in xc and who would want to go to such a program?

So, the proposal does not make sense unless construed as a way of adding scholarships to xc so that fully funded programs can compete in both xc and track by having 5/6 full scholarships to use in xc (enough to score a team with distance runners) AND having 12/6/18 to score a full team of sprinters, field athletes, and distance runners in track. And in that case it does not serve diversity interests. It adds distance scholarships, though, which is a good thing for distance runners AS LONG AS the programs decide that they want to fund xc. I am quite sure, however, that this interpretation of the rule change would hurt xc, because it would provide an excuse not to have it at all, since it would now cost 5/6 scholarships instead of none (or 12.6/18 spread out over potentially three sports) and the scholarship balance would no longer be significantly in favor of women, in contrast to track. They want that balance in favor of women because of football and Title IX proportionality constraints. There is a reason xc ranks so high in total participation and programs: there are no xc only scholarships.

Maybe the diversity interests would be thought to be aided in the non-distance only programs because they would now be able to give 5 more slots in track to non-distance runners, since they'd have the separate 5 scholarships to allot to men in xc that they ordinarily gave out from out of their track allotment. But if they did that already, then they'd already be competitive in xc but possibly not as much in track. All in all, the diversity argument seems like a red herring, since it is unlikely to be served by the proposal. Diversity in track would probably increase, but not in xc certainly, and xc diversity was supposedly the issue.

All in all, I'd be in favor of increasing scholarships for xc without impacting track but I'm sure that many university presidents would use it as an excuse to eliminate xc.

This proposal is to strengthen xc and weaken sprint schools. Schools won’t eliminate xc. This proposal strengthens diversity because the current 12.6 scholarships have a disproportionate percentage of scholarships going to blacks as compared to the general population.

The fact is that football and basketball programs are bringing in large amounts of money at numerous schools where most of the benefits have been funneled right back into those programs, instead of benefiting the other programs.

No, that's not the claim. The complaint is that xc teams are not diverse enough now and that the distance runners that fall under the 12.6 are not as diverse as the other track athletes. So, with 5 going to xc scholarships, the xc teams would be no more diverse, and the overall balance wouldn't be more diverse, probably less so, but the track team would potentially have more people of color with the distance scholarships potentially not being taken from out of the 12.6.

I didn't mention a claim, just stated facts. Where is this so-called complain? More scholarships won't change the racial makeup of the xc team. It will merely provide more money to the xc runners.

Title IX strikes again.

this is good news for the guy/girl who gets an xc scholarship and then doesn't have to compete in 3 sports for the price of 1.

...................... wrote:

Being "all distance" isn't also killing track and field?

If you aren't fully funding track now, then adding cross country scholarships doesn't change the situation.

But a fully funded cross country program is now more possible since 5/6 is doable where as 12.6/18 is less doable.

If distance is all you care about, then just be a cross country school and don't worry about the sport of track and field. Or at least don't pretend to care about the full sport of track and field when all you really want is the additional scholarship spending for the cross country season.

If you care about both cross country and track and field, then fund both.

The point is that cross country results should be determined by cross country scholarships.

Track and field results should be determined by track and field scholarships.

No. To all of this.

guy who donates money wrote:

God, runners are cheap. So much talk about poor schools that lack the money to fund full teams, and not one person saying “maybe I should open my checkbook and fund a scholarship or two at my alma matter.”

Science departments have alumni donating eight figures for new buildings. Track teams have alumni who cry that someone else should pay for our sport.

If you’re worried about your mid major’s financial situation, call them today and ask what you need to do to donate a scholarship. I promise that once you manage to pry some money out of that tightly clenched fist to benefit someone else, you’ll realize that it actually feels kind of good to help a cause that you care about.

Here's a solid troll attempt

Money isn’t the problem, it is the limit on the number of scholarships. Many schools would live to pour more money into many sports but title ix and the NCAA’s implementation is the problem for men’s track and xc. 12.6 scholarships for 59-60 guys is not much.

Coaches are creative. They can just have the sprinters run some cross country meets and give them the 5 scholarships so it may not change much.

Predictor wrote:

Coaches are creative. They can just have the sprinters run some cross country meets and give them the 5 scholarships so it may not change much.

Ahh! That is not what this rule would do at all. The rule would not force programs to spend 5/6 scholarships in XC. Nor would it add to the overall amount of potential scholarships for track athletes. Distance athlete or not, track would still only get 12.6/18 and any XC runners on scholarship who also runs track would count against that total.

The proposed rule simply limits a declared XC roster to 5/6 scholarships. The rule is most definitely aimed at distance heavy programs. A program could still go all in on distance (as some do now). But only 5/6 scholarship athletes could race in a fall.

*to be clear, I should have said a cross country program could race 5/6 equivalent scholarships

That's not at all what this proposal is about.

What kills track is when events like the 10K have zero effect on the outcome of the meet. The 10K in the 2018 national meet on the men's side was completely irrelevant. If a team champion is going to be crowned then they system needs to be changed in many ways and it starts with the scholarship allotment. The next changes should involve automatic qualifying for certain teams in all events, but that is a discussion for another thread.

Volleyball, golf, tennis

still resent football wrote:

Serious question: Is there any other sport where the number of full scholarships is less than the number of starting competitors on a varsity team? 5 scholarships for 7 varsity athletes?

This letter and the actual text is ambiguous about the process of carve-outs. No way to tell definitively.

An actual coach wrote:

That's not at all what this proposal is about.