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

Make indoors optional for west coast and southwest universities, and start a winter outdoor NCAA sport in the southwest Jan to mid-Mar.

Plus Coach wise is trying to format NCAA Indoor T&F into a 'coaches competition' just the same as many have tried over the decades with regards to NCAA Outdoor T&F. The reality is that Olympic sports at the college level are prep sports for international competitions.... an undergrad league in preparation for R&D, Research, professional grad schools. Just look at the legendary top four medalled Olympics schools where IAAF Worlds/Olympic medals are their only focus. The top 4 by the way are USC, UCLA, Stanford, and California.

I think the problem is- people on this message board are too young to remember that track and field was once popular in the USA.

Look back to the 60's and 70's- it was on TV- people knew Ryan, Liquari, Prefontaine, etc.

Why is not as popular now?

It was an individual sport back then.

My absolutely un-athletic girlfriend liked Coe and I liked Ovett.

She didn't follow track, she was a typical 18 year old (1970'2) girl.

Is it the media? I don't know.

I hate to say this but how about the rest of us who are now not going to be able to get into your Quad meets because you limit the number of teams competing?? You need to live in the real world and not just your team think about everyone. Or is it only you and your school that count??

My program would die under this type of schedule because we could not compete in your meets. I have a full team a very full team 55 men 30 women we hit all events but we are a small school with no track!!

I don't see how this won't hurt XC. Fully funded teams will be fine, but teams with less funding often choose one sport over the other (i.e. Oklahoma State, Villanova). Many schools also have roster limits and XC athletes count against that roster. Forcing teams to field a full team in this situation is wrong. The NCAA should not push their philosophy on a program in this way.

Here's a way to fix things: make meets more exciting and fun. Some people do this but then they move on from it in a tear or two. Change takes time.

There seems to be a growing concern of large sweeping changes across Division I track & field will hurt the smaller/less funded mid-majors.... even potentially resulting in the shut down of some programs. Can the solution be (as earlier posters suggested) to allow the power 5 and mid-majors to have separate national championships, scholarship limits, definitions of what constitutes a meet, etc.... to effectively follow a similar format to football. Would anybody that coaches at Division I be actually for this?

It's constant political battle in NCAATF with the Mid-Majors vs Power Five vs the Olys Four. In the end Oly Medals is all that matters.

conference help wrote:

With all the big meets it seems many schools barely have home meets. I like the idea of at least one traditional rivalry and one or two other conference meets. Schools seem to be sending elite athletes (14) to a few big meets and having most of the team do a few local ones against DII, DIII teams. If these conference meets were required for teams then the big meets where NCAA qualifying marks are made could be vastly improved by requiring better performances to be entered. Watching 20 heats of women's 200m run with some run in 30 seconds at Valentines is pure torture.

I agree that too many heats is one problem. I turned into a live stream a few weeks ago to find there were 19 heats of the mile for women. I have two daughters that run distance in high school. One is going on to run D1. The number of heats is one problem for me at some meets at HS and college level. Another problem is the announcers do not know how to create excitement. New Balance Nationals tries to create excitement like when they invited the remaining fans to go onto the outer lanes of the track to cheer on the 5000 meter runners who ran after most fans left. At many meets the announcers only talk about the front runner or two and do not discuss the moves that are occurring in the back. They have no clue as to who is running. If they mentioned runners' names, schools, and who to watch for in a race then those watching may connect with the runners and the race.

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

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

THIS !!!!!!!

We need coaches who can actually coach. It is called track and field, not distance and throwers OR sprinters and jumpers.

We need scored meets every two weeks. This will give the coaches time to coach; athletes time to develop, rest/taper; and the administration/equipment managers time to prepare venues and confirm travel arrangements.

The non-scored meet nonsense has got to stop!!! Alabama's Crimson Tide Football does not play Auburn's Eagles and say,"This is just for fun, so this does not really count". It is all business. It is for this very reason that the SEC has the best football - I said it, quote it, and take a picture.

We need to bring back real rivalries and not the pervasive pseudo rivalries that are trotted out as real competition or "beef".

If I wanted that I would have a Facebook account.

I want to see all the schools in Texas go head-to-head. What about the Conference Clash earlier this year. That was exciting. It lets people (athletes, coaches, and fans) know what competition is all about and provides a potential preview for the NCAA contenders.

The whole issue of development of individual athletes versus team athletes is a bit of a non-issue. Look at Marcus Dendy he doubled and still made the National Team. Being a one-trick pony (unless you are a pole-vaulter) will not cut it, especially on the male side of the equation given the amount of scholarships available.

Multi-eventers (Disclaimer: My past life) run, jump, and throw. Why can't a sprint run a 60, 200, and 4x400m. Between the "pure sprinters" and the middle distance crew you should have enough legs to get in good runs.

The idea that you will run your athletes ragged is just an idea.

This is why we have Sports Medicine and Kinesiology departments. Spread the "competition load" across the team (recruit, rotate, rest, red-shirt - you get the idea). Do not expect an event group to carry you.

Actually do that . . . and have the throwers from your conference rivals wipe the floor with you.

The concept of "Athlete of the Meet" is a testament to being a well-rounded, a high-scoring individual who needs to be respected and recognized for their hard work and contribution to the team.

The team concept will also "encourage" and "expose" those who are there just to where the uniform.

The counter-argument would be what happens if a sprinter can not score points as an individual because several athletes in his evens are All-Americans. He or she can add points in the relays -DMR, 4X100, 4X200m, 4X400m, 4X800m.

Speaking of relays - bring back Sprint Relays, Super Sprint relays, and Swedish Relays. This would make athletes who could not "medal" or "podium finish" become heroes if they can edge out a "star" athlete in a relay.

We all know better . . . so let's be better.

Sorry for the long post.

Curtis Anderson of Track Town USA is the OP

College coaches should be trying to turn track and field into a participation sport at their schools. The NCAA has hamstrung the sport with scholarship limits and title IX, it will be almost impossible to have competitive track and field for many schools around the country, especially on the men's side. There should be no surprise when a coach has their program cut when no one takes an interest in their distance only program and their meager couple of dozen distance runners.

Instead coaches should be pushing the participation numbers on their teams as high as possible. If high school coaches across the country can manage teams with 200-300 athletes on them a full time college coach or two with a small army of volunteer coaches, graduate assistants, interns etc should be able to manage a team with 400+ athletes. No administrator in their right mind would kill a program that was bringing in 100+ paying students a year through their recruiting efforts. If Title IX is still a problem you have 200 girls and 150 boys, or whatever it takes, make the AD love your program for the sheer quantity of girls on your team. You could fill the stands at your duel meets with just the parents of the kids on your team. Half the school student body is going to have a friend on the track team, more than a few will come to watch their friend's compete.

Have open tryouts every year, advertise them all over campus, invite everyone to come out and watch, make it a big deal. Run your tryouts like the NFL combine, anyone on campus who is even semi-athletic will be curious to know what their vertical is or what they can run a 40 in. Rank and post the results on the internet.

In the end you will build a huge community around your program. You'll create thousands of alumni of your team over the years that will become donors and advocates for your program. If talk ever comes up of cutting the track team, you'll have an enormous community of athletes, alumni and parents to rally to your side.

They say it's impossible but why not try and please everyone:

Outdoor Championships:

Meet #1: D1 Team Championship (Power 5)

Meet #2: FCS-D1-AA Team Championship (Mid Majors)

Meet #3: Track & Field Meet of Champions/All-Star Weekend (Individual meet including everyone)

How to qualify for team championships? Create an RPI system for your conference championship final that would separate Top 15-20 teams. You could also create "NIT" type championship meets for teams 20-40th ranked teams in both divisions.

What's cool about these meets:

D1 Team Championship: Power 5 get what they want, TV ratings would get what they want, dual meet scoring would create a lot of excitement.

FCS-D1-AA Team Championship: Gives the mid-major schools with great well balanced teams a chance win an NCAA title (think Akron, Southern Illinois, Wichita State, Navy, Ivy league). TV ratings would be solid for this too.

Track & Field Meet of Champions (Individual meet including everyone): This benefits everyone and would make for very exciting races. People wouldn't have to double/triple if they didn't want to and could put out great performances. It would also allow those really small school individuals to mix it up and give them a platform if they didn't qualify in the team championships. Maybe even allow D2/D3 to qualify?

Other Notes:

Get rid of the preliminary/regional

Change or keep indoor? That's a tough call because the indoor meet is very exciting as it is, not sure here. Maybe leave the meet of champions just for the outdoor season?

I think it's hard to require certain competitions for teams to have a "regular season" because programs are just going in too many different directions from a geographical/financial standpoint. Instead create your own meets/rivalries, it's really not that hard. The power 5 created a meet this indoor season, it wasn't that difficult. Football has traveling trophies, why can't track and field? If you want to "train through" and not focus on a team program because you can't why force it?

I think mid-majors need to accept that it is so rare to win an NCAA championship, George Mason did it in 96 but that was 20 years ago and it's damn near impossible. And trust me, it would be much more meaningful to a school, community, student-athlete to win a FCS-D1-AA team title than finish Top 10 in the nation in the current format.

The other problem with my suggestion is would the NCAA sponsor 3 different championship meets? Maybe not, but you could have a different sponsor for the meet of champs, maybe even include it with a pro meet? Just some ideas.

Football figured it out, the FCS pretty much saved a lot of programs from being cut and gave them a chance to compete for something.

Anyone NOT enjoy their conference championship weekend atmosphere?

I'm not saying that EVERY meet should be scored, but the kids sure to engage and rise to the occasion when something other than a personal best is on the line.

I think there are a couple of different goals to be addressed with any of these changes.

- How do you make track and field more valuable to the department to help avoid cuts and hopefully lead to enhancements?

---This one, we can make at least a symbolic effort that may pay off all out of proportion to the actual effort. Score the NCAA Championships to 16 places, not eight - that expands the number of schools in the final standings, and that earn Directors Cup points (which DO move the needle at least to some degree with ADs). Right now, you could qualify 40 kids to NCAAs, and if they all place 9th or lower, you didn't officially participate as a team. That doesn't lead to a very good cost-benefit analysis. Swimming already has a 16-place scoring system you could borrow (hell, they even have a 24-place if you want for outdoors) that places a premium on winning, and a premium on getting in the top 8 vs. 9th or top-16 vs. 17th. All this would take is changing an option in Meet Manager, no extra officials, no extra competition, nothing. I'd have to run the analysis again, but when I did this last summer for the last five years there weren't any major placing changes between top-10 teams, and no change as to NCAA title winners.

- Can we make the regular season and regular meets more compelling to athletes, fans, administrators, and media?

--- Absolutely. I think some level of what John is suggesting can make sense, sure, but I think the trade-off is that (like several others have suggested), you need to decrease the number of events on a regular basis, and/or learn to be satisfied with non-best marks at a majority of meets. For instance, in swimming, a dual meet will have 75% of the events you see at a championship meet, and the times (unless some kid wakes up and eats a big bowl of wheaties) are going to be nowhere near good enough to place in their conference, much less NCAAs. They truly train to peak once, maybe twice a season, and the rest doesn't particularly matter beyond beating the kid in the next lane. What I would suggest is that for a dual- or quad-meet (anything but one of the big invitationals), the USTFCCA come up with a rubric that says you need at-least X events, or which A must be sprints, B middle-distance, C throws, etc. Maybe even a default program that if the coaches can't agree amongst themselves on other events, you do. For instance:

- Dual-Meet -- teams must compete a minimum of 10 events, of which at least:

a) - two must be events 500m or shorter

b) - one must a hurdle event

c) - one must be a relay

d) - one must be an event between 501m and one mile

e) - one must be an event longer than a mile

f) - one must a vertical jump

g) - one must be a horizontal jump

h) - two must be throws

Coaches must agree on which events to compete two weeks prior to the meet, if they cannot agree, then the default program below applies in whole or in part (if they can agree on all but group E, then the default for E will be used). Coaches can agree to compete more than the minimum events, but no fewer than the minimum in each group.

- Default 10-event program

a) - 100m (60m indoors) and 400m

b) - 100m/110m hurdles (60m hurdles indoors)

c) - 4x400m Relay

d) - Mile

e) - 3,000m

f) - high jump

g) - long jump

h) - shot put and javelin (weight throw indoors)

Not necessarily in that order, and maybe you place things according to the current NCAA "meet order" list as it stands now.

- How do you make teams develop a whole team rather than focus on one niche?

--- Tougher one to crack, but in the end, I think the answer is that you shouldn't. The beauty of the American system of higher ed is that not every school is exactly the same, and that extends down to varying degrees to athletic departments and teams. A team that recruits only distance runners and relies on walk-ons for the rest is little different in my eyes from a football team that recruits only running backs and relies on walk-ons for QB and WR. They each have their distinct advantages and disadvantages, and if a coach and AD feel that is what they need to do to be successful, well, we pay them to make those decisions and they accept those consequences.

I think it would be interesting to set up either a dual or tri meet series.

At the end of, let's say three series, beginning/middle/end of the season, a cumulative performance list for each event is collected. You could either score from the best of the 3 meets, or having a weighting system sort of like how decathlons are scored.

I honestly don't think any change to the current system will do anything for the sport. The only time anyone cares about team wins are the championship meets anyways.

Ok so I have read through the comments here and took some time on a plane ride today to respond in detail. I'll just link to my blog so there isn't 8 pages of text overflowing this page.

I thought it was great that everyone has so many ideas on the topic!

Here is my response .....

http://johnwisewsu.blogspot.com/2016/03/my-long-response-to-comments-about-my.html

NE Runner Magazine wrote:

One thing that needs to be kept in mind that, no matter how much WE all love track and field, we are no more popular than wrestling, tennis, rowing or any other non-revenue sports to the average sports fan. Changing this will not change that fact.

Untrue. People love a good race. The Olympics are proof of that. When I ran at a major D1 program about 15 years ago I never saw so much as a poster letting the student body know about our home meets. Part of the problem is lack of promotion.