I thought the proposal was for min 5 for xc but now people are saying it is max 5.
I thought the proposal was for min 5 for xc but now people are saying it is max 5.
Frustrated Coach wrote:
So tired of these schools that put all their resources into distance and then are lauded as being great programs with great coaches, when really all they are doing is dumping more resources and scholarship into cross country that was never intended for cross country alone. It's overkill.
Here is what the NCAA should do, keep the scholarships at 12.6 and 18, but only allow schools to have a certain amount of scholarship invested into their cross country roster each fall. Let's say those figures are no more than 50% of the track & field scholarships, so that would be 6.3 and 9 in cross country. Figuring out what those exact figures should be is a little tricky, but 50% of the scholarship intended for track & field seems more than fair. If you can't get it done with 6.3 and 9, then you're just not a good coach, because you're still investing far more than other schools who actually invest in the sport of track & field.
Thoughts?
Why not let schools do whatever they want instead of having the Overlords dictate?
And what is wrong with a resource allocation emphasis on XC? Bama can spend one trillion dollars on their football program yet something is wrong with NAU wanting to focus their measly recourses on distance running? Are you insane?
That is not a good analogy.
A good analogy would be if Bama put 75+% of their football scholarships into kickers, so they could win the kicking statistics, but neglected the rest of their team, and therefore weren't even trying to win FOOTBALL GAMES.
....................................... wrote:
That is not a good analogy.
A good analogy would be if Bama put 75+% of their football scholarships into kickers, so they could win the kicking statistics, but neglected the rest of their team, and therefore weren't even trying to win FOOTBALL GAMES.
Also, not a good analogy, because the XC choice is allocating heavy to win in one area at the expense of being competitive in another area. Your bama example doesn't allow for winning in any area, which is absurd.
But putting that aside, I go back to my original idea of schools allocating however they want. We don't need overlords dictating.
John Utah wrote:
....................................... wrote:
That is not a good analogy.
A good analogy would be if Bama put 75+% of their football scholarships into kickers, so they could win the kicking statistics, but neglected the rest of their team, and therefore weren't even trying to win FOOTBALL GAMES.
Also, not a good analogy, because the XC choice is allocating heavy to win in one area at the expense of being competitive in another area. Your bama example doesn't allow for winning in any area, which is absurd.
But putting that aside, I go back to my original idea of schools allocating however they want. We don't need overlords dictating.
many schools allocate resources towards sprints, jumps and field events. That's their decision to make.
The NCAA doesn't allow for allocating a set amount of scholarships across any other 2 sports except for XC and track. Every other sport has its own set of scholarships.
cross country results should be a result of cross country scholarships
track and field results should be a result of track and field scholarships.
If you are a cross country only school, the ncaa mandates a cap of 5 men and 6 women's scholarships. Yet if you "sponsor track" you can now spend 12.6 and 18 on cross country......why? No other sports have this configuration. In fact, volleyball and sand volley ball have rules to avoid such a dismantling of one program to the benefit of the other......same with swimming and water polo.
I am fine with anyone spending their additional track and field scholarships anyway they want. I just don't think those spending choices should influence cross country beyond the 5/6 limit the NCAA has already set for cross country only programs.
If this proposal is to truly add scholarships to the current total, it will not be good for the overall impact of the sport.
The positives
- more kids will have the opportunity to receive scholarship $ and run DI
- more HS coaches can say they sent kids DI
The negatives
- there is an extremely large number of schools who will not be able to fund these additional scholarships, unless you are a P5 this is going to be a huge financial burden that most places simply won't be able to fund. If you figure a very modest total cost of attendance at $20k, you are asking athletic departments to magically come up with an extra $220k+ per year to fund both M/W. Most people would be surprised at how few scholarships many schools are working with as it stands now.
- with additional scholarships and resources that mid-majors can't compete with, P5 schools will scoop up even more athletes and put them on shelves or run them through the ringer; these same kids previously considered mid-majors over P5 walk-on spots. Many of those kids who choose a "Brand School" and piles of gear to go P5 will rarely run instead of traveling and racing for a mid-major
- this pushes mid-majajors to recruit the next level of athlete which will further widen the gap of "have" and "have not's" and further dilutes the level of competition, the trickle down effect will even roll down to DII as mid-majors try to scoop 'up those top kids instead of them being tops in DII
The argument that this will put XC/Track on par with other sports or the "dual sport" comparison with VB/SandVB will be 100% correct, XC will become exactly what VB is, which is one of the most competitively unbalanced sports in the NCAA.
Many administrators will see this as an additional financial burden, we will lose programs. We are already losing programs.
Mid DI Coach wrote:
If this proposal is to truly add scholarships to the current total, it will not be good for the overall impact of the sport.
The positives
- more kids will have the opportunity to receive scholarship $ and run DI
- more HS coaches can say they sent kids DI
The negatives
- there is an extremely large number of schools who will not be able to fund these additional scholarships, unless you are a P5 this is going to be a huge financial burden that most places simply won't be able to fund. If you figure a very modest total cost of attendance at $20k, you are asking athletic departments to magically come up with an extra $220k+ per year to fund both M/W. Most people would be surprised at how few scholarships many schools are working with as it stands now.
- with additional scholarships and resources that mid-majors can't compete with, P5 schools will scoop up even more athletes and put them on shelves or run them through the ringer; these same kids previously considered mid-majors over P5 walk-on spots. Many of those kids who choose a "Brand School" and piles of gear to go P5 will rarely run instead of traveling and racing for a mid-major
- this pushes mid-majajors to recruit the next level of athlete which will further widen the gap of "have" and "have not's" and further dilutes the level of competition, the trickle down effect will even roll down to DII as mid-majors try to scoop 'up those top kids instead of them being tops in DII
The argument that this will put XC/Track on par with other sports or the "dual sport" comparison with VB/SandVB will be 100% correct, XC will become exactly what VB is, which is one of the most competitively unbalanced sports in the NCAA.
Many administrators will see this as an additional financial burden, we will lose programs. We are already losing programs.
+1
I can understand the need for parity among all schools competing. But this just sounds like a way to kill of the sport even more. Track and field already takes up a lot of resources because the sheer size of the teams sometimes. Adding even more scholarships to the schools bottom line will not make them happy. The top schools win out becaue they are limiting the distance only programs, and they themselves are the only ones that can fit the bill of adding more scholarships.
F distance only schools. Nothing wrong with only sponsoring cross, but having a jogging club in place of a track team is totally bogus.
F sprint and field only schools. Nothing wrong with only sponsoring track, but having a jogging club in place of a cross country team is totally bogus.