Schools that ACTUALLY punch above their weight and aren’t perineal powerhouse, strictly buy international athletes, or have exceptional funding include:
Furman M&W
Portland M (although typically have many internationals)
North Florida M
Charleston Southern M
High Point W
Lipscomb W
Wyoming M
Utah State M
These schools either typically send individuals or teams to NCAAs on a regular basis or have a stronghold on their conferences.
Which college programs are good but shouldn't be. For example, the school is not prestigious, not located in an ideal training environment, or doesn't have any historical significance related to running.
An example that comes to mind is Iona.
I'd put the last 15 years for the Syracuse men in the conversation. Team has made NCAAs 14/15, 1 title, 2 podiums, 4x top-10, individual champ.
Prestige: outside of Journalism Masters, not particularly Location: solid access to some training locations, but in a city that averages 110"+ of wet snow per year; dark at 4pm by end of xc season; no elevation History: bad or mediocre for 40 years; lack of track facilities (no team at NCAAs from 1974 to 2009)
2015 National Champs with all 7 runners from NY or bordering NY; no transfers. 4th) Knight (Vaughan, ON) 8th) Bennie (Princeton, MA) 9th) Hehir (Washingtonville, NY) 39th) Germano (Albany, NY) 47th) Hubbard (Marshfield, MA) 65th) Lennon (Peru, NY) 123rd) Kush (Pittsburgh, PA)
Nah, Syracuse is a power 4 school with a very well known brand and is located in a very populated state/ region. More people in New York than the whole mountain region.
Also, very few Power 4 options in the north east. Syracuse and Penn State really.
Fox was also a great coach and they put 10+ full scholarships into distance each year.
They’re hurdlers on the other hand… very much punching.
D2 we gotta talk Mines right? Granted I think their athletic stature has been growing in recent years - likely resources as well but when I joined the walk on all american club maybe 2 or 3 guys had any money for running?
D2 we gotta talk Mines right? Granted I think their athletic stature has been growing in recent years - likely resources as well but when I joined the walk on all american club maybe 2 or 3 guys had any money for running?
I don't know who has money and who doesn't but D2 Adams State seems like a good choice too right? These D2 schools that seem to always be good and have the ability to beat most D1 schools are the ones I think of on this topic.
Here is are the factors I would consider when factoring who is doing well.
1. Athletic department resources- if a school with money and support wants to be good they can be. Example Ole Miss, Tennessee. Not good until they want to be. Resources for coaches, recruiting, scholarships, travel etc. Also if ALL the teams are successful, it’s a department thing.
2. Training facilities/ location. - Mountain schools have a natural advantage even if they don’t have great facilities.
3. School brand and desirability- Do students want to go to your school and do they know about it.
4. Admission standards. Not all schools are created equal. Look at the International students in the SEC or Big 12 compared to the Big 10.
To me, no Power 4 conference school can be considered punching above their weight. They are at one of the top 60-70 most well funded athletic departments. They may have challenges but if they want to be good they can be.
In general, I think the small mid majors and small private schools are doing the most with the least. Then I would throw in the small mountain schools with no budget.
I'd disagree a bit with respect to power 4/5 - I feel like your Michigan State / Louisville / Oregon State are different than Alabama and other exceptionlally well funded ones / or Stanford / Duke /e tc and you'd expect the formerr to be worse.
I'd disagree a bit with respect to power 4/5 - I feel like your Michigan State / Louisville / Oregon State are different than Alabama and other exceptionlally well funded ones / or Stanford / Duke /e tc and you'd expect the formerr to be worse.
On your schools the issue is 1- are they even fully funded with 12.6 schol for xc and trac? 2- how much goes to distance?
I don't think they put much in distance. They also have little tradition in distance.
Alabama knows they can't get top Americans to go there. Hot, muggy, flat no distance tradition. Hence they go the East African route.
Louisville now has coach and funding; an interesting one to watch.
If you are fully funded and you use all of your scholarship dollars on distance (or the majority), how is that punching above your weight?
It's the schools that don't use 90%+ of the scholarship dollars on distance that are punching above their weight. And the schools who supplement their athletic scholarships with generous academic scholarship dollars fall into the same boat as those who use all their scholarship dollars on distance (it doesn't matter to the kid where the money is coming from). jmo
Iona/Portland/NAU all make sense scrolling through.
Providence as a power conference team that still punches up. Doesn't focus much on shorter stuff for track but always produces good distance runners year after year. Might not fit because that is the history of the program. The women won a recent title. But Providence is the smallest school enrollment-wise in the Big East. All the athletics money is going to basketball & hockey. Impressive to consistently develop runners & that Ray has continued with a handful of pros afterwards.
If you are fully funded and you use all of your scholarship dollars on distance (or the majority), how is that punching above your weight?
It's the schools that don't use 90%+ of the scholarship dollars on distance that are punching above their weight. And the schools who supplement their athletic scholarships with generous academic scholarship dollars fall into the same boat as those who use all their scholarship dollars on distance (it doesn't matter to the kid where the money is coming from). jmo
I agree, I don't think any of those schools punch above weight, OSU, MSU, Louisville and Bama.
If we say Bama does, its with foreigners.
I'm not even sure these schools were fully funded for track.
South Dakota State... only saw one person mention them but coached by former Olympian Rod DeHaven, basically have a limited budget and take a bunch of guys the U of MN doesn't want and beat them easily every single year.
The talent they get isn’t that good but they develop it extremely well. MA mostly sucks at running (other than them and Harvard). Nobody really wants to attend Umass Lowell, but I feel like with how good they’ve been in the past decade that’s changing, for runners at least.
I was going to chime in with ULowell. They are in a tough area, the school isn’t a blue blood school, there is no real prestige associated with the school. Yet, year in and year out Gary Gardiner has a team that is tough as nails coming out to race. Also while we are mentioning teams that punch above their weight Stonehill packed some serious punch for their size, however it seems to have gone down a notch for the last few years.
toledo is the worst example , lmao. The most funded cross country program in the country , bar none. Track season around the corner, they ll get swamped in the MAC like every single year 😂
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.