The NCAA doesn't want to have scholarship limits anymore because they keep getting sued for anti-trust issues as well as they don't want to have huge rosters anymore because it gets costly. They are now setting a roster limit and you can fund as many of those on the roster to a full scholarship and pay them if they please. There will still be walk-on athletes on every college program as 90+% of schools will not fund the 17 and 45 limit. Some programs will decide to still have 30 distance runners, but they will hide them on the 45 person track roster and they may not race XC until they have proven to be helpful. Certain schools will most likely do this as they want to win NCAA XC championships and know they can't win the indoor or outdoor championships. Vice Versa, some programs will hide speed/power athletes on the 17 person XC roster so they can use them in indoor/outdoor track and field.
P4 schools are currently cutting scholarships below the current maximum (12.6 & 18) because they can't fund it due to having to pay for their football and basketball programs. They are also cutting operating budgets for next year. It gets costly to fly 10 14:00 5k runners to Stanford to not qualify for the NCAA regionals. This is also one of the reasons why there is a push to bring the NCAA 1st round from 48 qualifiers to 32 qualifiers. It did not pass this year, but they will keep trying.
I agree with everything you said except for the walk on spots. If schools are on the hook for 4 years if they scholasrship a kid whether the kid is on the team or not after year one then I do not think they will give money to everyone on roster and may just decide to leave spots open for transfers where they can. Especially in Indoor. If you have to set your roster in December before the first meet but you have 5 transfers you are trying to get then you better have 5 open spots. If you dont get them can you fill those spots or are they set for the season? If you make a roster but get no money then get ready to go in the portal because they are currently trying to recruit your replacement. Even with football this roster limit kills walk on opportunities. If they dont think you are worth money why have you on the roster at all.
I'm not sure what you disagree with that I wrote, but yes some schools may decide to hold roster spots for transfers instead of having a walk-on athlete. They also may cut a walk-on in the middle of the year to open that spot up if it's in their best interest. The other thing that you will need to understand is that the roster spot will be just as valuable as the scholarship to some athletes. A roster spot at the University of Florida is already valuable, but now it will be very difficult to get, so it's worth even more.
I at least understand this answer. Where I got confused is NIL money is not the same as an athletic budget. So larry ellison's GF can still fund that one athlete for 10 mil out of HS, but its still one spot. I think i got it. BUT, why would having non scholarship non nil spots harm anyone? or create unfair advantage?
only point i can see is the schools collectively benefit financially. its a cartel. they get together and agree to not spend too much money on small sports. they dont want to get in an arms race in the small sports. they enforce the agreement with roster limits. just my theory. but this is what i was asking above and justtopalready kind of agreed.
ncaa trying to keep a competitive balance with roster limits, which is now only way to do it as schools can pay athletes unlimited money.
roster limit keeps Tennesee from spending a couple million in nil for a roster of 60 instead of just using the 12.6 scholarships.
So now Tenn still free to spend as many millions as they want, it just can only go to 10 athletes on the roster. (SEC)
So at ncaa regional, you will have well funded 10man Tenn, competing against unfunded 17man Elon.
Tenn will still win, but they won't be able to stockpile athletes, by giving them NIL money.
The roster limits force talent to be spread among more schools
I at least understand this answer. Where I got confused is NIL money is not the same as an athletic budget. So larry ellison's GF can still fund that one athlete for 10 mil out of HS, but its still one spot. I think i got it. BUT, why would having non scholarship non nil spots harm anyone? or create unfair advantage?
I agree with everything you said except for the walk on spots. If schools are on the hook for 4 years if they scholasrship a kid whether the kid is on the team or not after year one then I do not think they will give money to everyone on roster and may just decide to leave spots open for transfers where they can. Especially in Indoor. If you have to set your roster in December before the first meet but you have 5 transfers you are trying to get then you better have 5 open spots. If you dont get them can you fill those spots or are they set for the season? If you make a roster but get no money then get ready to go in the portal because they are currently trying to recruit your replacement. Even with football this roster limit kills walk on opportunities. If they dont think you are worth money why have you on the roster at all.
I'm not sure what you disagree with that I wrote, but yes some schools may decide to hold roster spots for transfers instead of having a walk-on athlete. They also may cut a walk-on in the middle of the year to open that spot up if it's in their best interest. The other thing that you will need to understand is that the roster spot will be just as valuable as the scholarship to some athletes. A roster spot at the University of Florida is already valuable, but now it will be very difficult to get, so it's worth even more.
I was disagreeing with the fact that there will still be walk on spots. I think there will be more unfilled spots and fewer walk on's than we think. Otherwise you are spot on and I could be wrong about the walk ons but this thing is evolving fast.
Basketball and Football are both losing roster spots too, but like others they are gaining scholarship opportunities. Many football coaches were very opposed to having to go down to 105 spots as it hurt development, while also not being able to having practice players.
There are some Power 4 schools that can fund this all day long, but some of the P4 schools can't fund all of this without making cuts. Think of schools like Boston College, Wake Forest, West Virginia, Northwestern... They do not have the same resources as Oregon, Texas, Florida, Ohio State and Stanford.
Part of my concern with 10 or 17 XC numbers is that isn’t actually big enough to run a great program. Distance runners improve as they have sequential years of collegiate level training. Almost half of recruits don’t pan out and for the most part only junior and senior are at their peak.
With a roster cap of 10 or 17, it will soon be a rarity that a team will podium with just American kids brought in as freshmen. Podium teams will have mostly transfers and international studs.
Not what I would consider ideal for a collegiate framework.
Part of my concern with 10 or 17 XC numbers is that isn’t actually big enough to run a great program. Distance runners improve as they have sequential years of collegiate level training. Almost half of recruits don’t pan out and for the most part only junior and senior are at their peak.
With a roster cap of 10 or 17, it will soon be a rarity that a team will podium with just American kids brought in as freshmen. Podium teams will have mostly transfers and international studs.
Not what I would consider ideal for a collegiate framework.
Yes, you will begin to see even more internationals, but you will still see American runners in the Power 4 NCAA programs. What will happen is the lower level programs from the mid majors to NAIA will become the minor leagues for the Power 4 schools. This is already happening, but it will just be more prevalent. Kid can't get a spot at Colorado, so they go to Colorado School of Mines until they can run 13:50 and then transfer in. Those international athletes require full scholarships and many programs are not going to fund 17 full scholarships for cross country.
Schools that do not opt into this are going to get better because they are going to have more roster opportunities and there will be a trickle down effect. You may actually see more smaller programs making runs at qualifying for DI national meet because they can get better athletes due to the P4 schools not hoarding all of the talent in hopes of developing them.
Very valid points. I have spoken to coaching friends at the Power 4 schools and they are already cutting scholarships so they can fund paying for the football and basketball players and it's only going to get worse. You can't sue a school for cutting scholarships. That is their business.
What is going to happen from here is the schools that decide to not pay athletes and don't have to opt into the roster limits, will get better athletes that can't make it to the P4 level. Division II will get better, Division III will get better, NAIA will get better, JUCO will get better. No longer can the P4 school hoard all of the top athletes for themselves, while also not even giving many of them the opportunity to compete.
There are many small DI, DII, DIII, NAIA and JUCO coaches that are as good or better than that P4 coaches. They just don't get as much talent.
You realize that right now, before anything happens, a student athlete can decide to go to a non-P4 school, right?
It's their choice to be on that team that is 'hoarding all of the top athletes and not even giving them the opportunity to compete'.
You can't blame that on the P4s... that's on the student athlete for making the decision to go to the "big name" school.
Just thought I'd point that out.
I do realize that. I was one of those athletes that was recruited 25 years ago by Power 5 schools, but made the choice to go mid-major. I didn't want to be one of 30 distance that got thrown through the meat grinder. I don't blame the schools for hoarding athletes, its just the reality of the situation and the game that is played. Many athletes want to go to the big state school, have some opportunity to compete while being able to say they run for (insert big state school) and they are a division I athlete. I put that fully on the student athlete. That will no longer be the case anymore.
What’s the point of having an un-scholarshipped runner on a team if they make no contribution whatsoever for the cause? should we start handing out participation trophies?
there used to be this interesting thing called development. an 18 year old would come in as a freshman and not compete on varsity, then they would get better over time and be varsity as a junior/senior. this was back when roster sizes were larger than the travel squad. it was a pretty cool concept actually
everyone always argues "potential future olympians are getting their roster spots taken away." how many us olympians are former walk-ons compared to blue-chip athletes? im not saying there aren't any - natosha rogers, eric holt was close, etc - but from a finanical standpoint (though looking at entirely through a financial stand point hurts peoples feelings) does keeping walk-ons around benefit us distance running that much? Let's be honest with ourselves here guys. go look at a team like tennessee and tell me how much developing is going on. are people going to tennessee with the intentions of "developing" into something, or are they just there for the student-athlete status symbol so they look cool in team gear on campus? are those kids making travel teams? are they on the coaching staff's priority list? or are those coaches focused more on the top scholarship athletes? if athletes care more about development, wouldn't it make much more sense to go to a mid-major, or d3? are sec academics really on the same level as d3? people on here argue so much about development and act like SEC schools, with their fancy facilities and neat team apparel, are producing olympians out of walk-ons on the regular. is drew griffith getting his roster spot taken away because of the new house v. ncaa rules? are the underclassmen who are in need of development really getting their roster spots taken away? or is it just the sec party kids who loathe around and make no contribution to the team score? the roster limits are a product of revenue sports getting the money that they are in line for, because they are the ones who bring in the money. its just the way it is.
I already pushed for examples and was told that some people moved onto varsity but nothing bigger than that. I guess I am arguing both sides because I have a daughter who was national class in high school and is likely to get cut next fall but I also don't think any future Olympians will be cut.
Go to a good D3 school folks. There are good D3 schools out there with their own outdoor and indoor track, they travel, have full coaching staffs, run in meets vs D1 athletes, go to Penn relays, you can make it to USATF Nationals and Olympic trials when appropriate. You just have to do well academically in high school to get some money and well, what a novel concept that is.
there used to be this interesting thing called development. an 18 year old would come in as a freshman and not compete on varsity, then they would get better over time and be varsity as a junior/senior. this was back when roster sizes were larger than the travel squad. it was a pretty cool concept actually
everyone always argues "potential future olympians are getting their roster spots taken away." how many us olympians are former walk-ons compared to blue-chip athletes? im not saying there aren't any - natosha rogers, eric holt was close, etc - but from a finanical standpoint (though looking at entirely through a financial stand point hurts peoples feelings) does keeping walk-ons around benefit us distance running that much? Let's be honest with ourselves here guys. go look at a team like tennessee and tell me how much developing is going on. are people going to tennessee with the intentions of "developing" into something, or are they just there for the student-athlete status symbol so they look cool in team gear on campus? are those kids making travel teams? are they on the coaching staff's priority list? or are those coaches focused more on the top scholarship athletes? if athletes care more about development, wouldn't it make much more sense to go to a mid-major, or d3? are sec academics really on the same level as d3? people on here argue so much about development and act like SEC schools, with their fancy facilities and neat team apparel, are producing olympians out of walk-ons on the regular. is drew griffith getting his roster spot taken away because of the new house v. ncaa rules? are the underclassmen who are in need of development really getting their roster spots taken away? or is it just the sec party kids who loathe around and make no contribution to the team score? the roster limits are a product of revenue sports getting the money that they are in line for, because they are the ones who bring in the money. its just the way it is.
Scholarship athletes are losing their spots. No room for injured runners to get better and contribute with such low roster numbers. Typically XC runners are the motivated high achieving academic athletes. Yes, I think some R1 D1 schools are better than many D3 when it comes to STEM degrees and access to large career/job fairs with access to top name companies.
there used to be this interesting thing called development. an 18 year old would come in as a freshman and not compete on varsity, then they would get better over time and be varsity as a junior/senior. this was back when roster sizes were larger than the travel squad. it was a pretty cool concept actually
everyone always argues "potential future olympians are getting their roster spots taken away." how many us olympians are former walk-ons compared to blue-chip athletes? im not saying there aren't any - natosha rogers, eric holt was close, etc - but from a finanical standpoint (though looking at entirely through a financial stand point hurts peoples feelings) does keeping walk-ons around benefit us distance running that much? Let's be honest with ourselves here guys. go look at a team like tennessee and tell me how much developing is going on. are people going to tennessee with the intentions of "developing" into something, or are they just there for the student-athlete status symbol so they look cool in team gear on campus? are those kids making travel teams? are they on the coaching staff's priority list? or are those coaches focused more on the top scholarship athletes? if athletes care more about development, wouldn't it make much more sense to go to a mid-major, or d3? are sec academics really on the same level as d3? people on here argue so much about development and act like SEC schools, with their fancy facilities and neat team apparel, are producing olympians out of walk-ons on the regular. is drew griffith getting his roster spot taken away because of the new house v. ncaa rules? are the underclassmen who are in need of development really getting their roster spots taken away? or is it just the sec party kids who loathe around and make no contribution to the team score? the roster limits are a product of revenue sports getting the money that they are in line for, because they are the ones who bring in the money. its just the way it is.
You are correct that the future Olympians argument does have some holes it it, but many college coaches do seem to agree with it according to the open letter from the coaches accociation, and I can attest personally to many first hand examples. I think it's important to clarify here that we aren't talking about 4:25 miler walk ons here. Those guys have mostly already been cut in the last 5 years or so. The 11th, 12th, 13th, ect. guys who will potentially be cut from some of these teams are quality athletes, either freshman former elite level high schooler or guys who have proven themselves on a P4 team for multiple years.
Regardless, this line of argument is not my favorite anyway, as I do concede the vast majority of these guys have no profesional future in running. I would contend that the purpose of the NCAA is not simply to be an Olympian factory, and the rate of pro athletes is not a good way to measure its success. If it was we should simply disband the whole thing and set up a Soviet style state funded athletic program.
The Ivy Leage understands this, and their rules regarding transfers, academic rigor, and an obvious unstated policy against the farsical importing of over- age athletes that that unfortunately become more and more common in other conferences. This is the type of philosophy that the NCAA was built on, as an athletic supplement to the academic institutions it is attached to. I think more American young men and women getting opportunities to compete in college and have it paid for is always better, even if they don't become world beaters. What to do you gain by severely uprooting the lives on these kids other that some sick sense of satisfaction that they "learned that everything in life isn't free" or boomer platitude like that. No one has genuinely been able to explain to why DECREASING opportunities for our young people is something I should support, and that absolutely is what this entails, regardless of the constant cope on this board that the cuts will lead to some D2 Renaissance.
everyone always argues "potential future olympians are getting their roster spots taken away." how many us olympians are former walk-ons compared to blue-chip athletes? im not saying there aren't any - natosha rogers, eric holt was close, etc - but from a finanical standpoint (though looking at entirely through a financial stand point hurts peoples feelings) does keeping walk-ons around benefit us distance running that much? Let's be honest with ourselves here guys. go look at a team like tennessee and tell me how much developing is going on. are people going to tennessee with the intentions of "developing" into something, or are they just there for the student-athlete status symbol so they look cool in team gear on campus? are those kids making travel teams? are they on the coaching staff's priority list? or are those coaches focused more on the top scholarship athletes? if athletes care more about development, wouldn't it make much more sense to go to a mid-major, or d3? are sec academics really on the same level as d3? people on here argue so much about development and act like SEC schools, with their fancy facilities and neat team apparel, are producing olympians out of walk-ons on the regular. is drew griffith getting his roster spot taken away because of the new house v. ncaa rules? are the underclassmen who are in need of development really getting their roster spots taken away? or is it just the sec party kids who loathe around and make no contribution to the team score? the roster limits are a product of revenue sports getting the money that they are in line for, because they are the ones who bring in the money. its just the way it is.
You are correct that the future Olympians argument does have some holes it it, but many college coaches do seem to agree with it according to the open letter from the coaches accociation, and I can attest personally to many first hand examples. I think it's important to clarify here that we aren't talking about 4:25 miler walk ons here. Those guys have mostly already been cut in the last 5 years or so. The 11th, 12th, 13th, ect. guys who will potentially be cut from some of these teams are quality athletes, either freshman former elite level high schooler or guys who have proven themselves on a P4 team for multiple years.
Regardless, this line of argument is not my favorite anyway, as I do concede the vast majority of these guys have no profesional future in running. I would contend that the purpose of the NCAA is not simply to be an Olympian factory, and the rate of pro athletes is not a good way to measure its success. If it was we should simply disband the whole thing and set up a Soviet style state funded athletic program.
The Ivy Leage understands this, and their rules regarding transfers, academic rigor, and an obvious unstated policy against the farsical importing of over- age athletes that that unfortunately become more and more common in other conferences. This is the type of philosophy that the NCAA was built on, as an athletic supplement to the academic institutions it is attached to. I think more American young men and women getting opportunities to compete in college and have it paid for is always better, even if they don't become world beaters. What to do you gain by severely uprooting the lives on these kids other that some sick sense of satisfaction that they "learned that everything in life isn't free" or boomer platitude like that. No one has genuinely been able to explain to why DECREASING opportunities for our young people is something I should support, and that absolutely is what this entails, regardless of the constant cope on this board that the cuts will lead to some D2 Renaissance.
You shouldn't support it. It's not good and I don't support it either.
Unfortunately it's happening for reasons beyond your control (or mine).
everyone always argues "potential future olympians are getting their roster spots taken away." how many us olympians are former walk-ons compared to blue-chip athletes? im not saying there aren't any - natosha rogers, eric holt was close, etc - but from a finanical standpoint (though looking at entirely through a financial stand point hurts peoples feelings) does keeping walk-ons around benefit us distance running that much? Let's be honest with ourselves here guys. go look at a team like tennessee and tell me how much developing is going on. are people going to tennessee with the intentions of "developing" into something, or are they just there for the student-athlete status symbol so they look cool in team gear on campus? are those kids making travel teams? are they on the coaching staff's priority list? or are those coaches focused more on the top scholarship athletes? if athletes care more about development, wouldn't it make much more sense to go to a mid-major, or d3? are sec academics really on the same level as d3? people on here argue so much about development and act like SEC schools, with their fancy facilities and neat team apparel, are producing olympians out of walk-ons on the regular. is drew griffith getting his roster spot taken away because of the new house v. ncaa rules? are the underclassmen who are in need of development really getting their roster spots taken away? or is it just the sec party kids who loathe around and make no contribution to the team score? the roster limits are a product of revenue sports getting the money that they are in line for, because they are the ones who bring in the money. its just the way it is.
You are correct that the future Olympians argument does have some holes it it, but many college coaches do seem to agree with it according to the open letter from the coaches accociation, and I can attest personally to many first hand examples. I think it's important to clarify here that we aren't talking about 4:25 miler walk ons here. Those guys have mostly already been cut in the last 5 years or so. The 11th, 12th, 13th, ect. guys who will potentially be cut from some of these teams are quality athletes, either freshman former elite level high schooler or guys who have proven themselves on a P4 team for multiple years.
Regardless, this line of argument is not my favorite anyway, as I do concede the vast majority of these guys have no profesional future in running. I would contend that the purpose of the NCAA is not simply to be an Olympian factory, and the rate of pro athletes is not a good way to measure its success. If it was we should simply disband the whole thing and set up a Soviet style state funded athletic program.
The Ivy Leage understands this, and their rules regarding transfers, academic rigor, and an obvious unstated policy against the farsical importing of over- age athletes that that unfortunately become more and more common in other conferences. This is the type of philosophy that the NCAA was built on, as an athletic supplement to the academic institutions it is attached to. I think more American young men and women getting opportunities to compete in college and have it paid for is always better, even if they don't become world beaters. What to do you gain by severely uprooting the lives on these kids other that some sick sense of satisfaction that they "learned that everything in life isn't free" or boomer platitude like that. No one has genuinely been able to explain to why DECREASING opportunities for our young people is something I should support, and that absolutely is what this entails, regardless of the constant cope on this board that the cuts will lead to some D2 Renaissance.
I agree with you. We should not being viewing the NCAA as an Olympian factory / look at the pro athlete rate. That was just me highlighting how flawed the "American's are losing out on Olympic potential" argument we always hear.
Again, I agree with your point on how the Ivy League operates. It's not coincidence the Ivy League is the most consistent distance running conference in terms of distributed talent (meaning the worst Ivy League programs are horrendously bad, like you see in the Big 10, Big 12, or SEC).
As for your decreasing opportunities question, obviously its not a good thing to decrease the opportunity. It's just the result of how a revenue sharing model will work. Football makes money, they have previously funded non-revenue sports (especially in football heavy conferences), and now with revenue sharing, they need that money to support that system. I would not say decreasing opportunity is a good thing.
That said, I think if we take an honest look at some power 4 programs in the country, there's a good percentage of people on teams who are there for the student-athlete card. No intentions of competing, are in no shape to travel with the team, and aren't making an effort to train to get to that level. This is especially a program at big school programs like in the SEC. I mean look at Texas A&M. They cut distance guys every year - way before this whole roster limit era. SEC athletics is a meat grinder and if you don't make it, then they'll move on.
PS: I'm not entirely sure how a girl who never broke 5 minutes in the mile in high school, or never won state or qualified for NXN or footlocker, is supposedly on "a large athletic scholarship" at an SEC program who recruited 30 girls from her graduating class. Factoring in that she hasn't raced in the 1.5 years she's been there, is the roster limits really the reason why she isn't getting a spot next fall? or is that just a scapegoat? if staying at the school is such a big deal to you, medically retiring is a viable option where you'd keep that money and get your degree from that school. if developing is something you care about, go to a school where you'll run meaningful races for a program and actually make the travel squad.
I think what most current student athletes want is to be grandfathered in and not be cut while in the middle of their college career/education. It's not fair to have the rules changed after they have committed 1,2,3 years already at a school. Also, schools will continue to carry the amount of roster spots they can afford like they do now.
I agree but this is about money now. Schools will honor scholarships best case scenario but they are under no obligation to provide opportunities for competition. They have never guaranteed the ability to play or stay on the team. Kids get cut all the time. Everyone thought that college athletes should be paid so here you go. Welcome to the pro college league. Can't produce.....bye, get hurt........bye. Your lawsuit will likely kill whatever opportunities kids have left at the D1 level.
I would like to point out that this is a common misunderstanding of the situation I see all time to from people not familiar with current D1 running. Most athletes, especially males, at these schools are not on a particularly large scholarship, but they receive many other benefits namely meal plans, equipment, counseling, tutoring, stipends ect. that can easily be in the 5 figures yearly when added up. Losing their roster spot does not mean just no competitions, it means losing out on all this to. I personally know some lower income athltetes who rely on these services to eat and pay their rent.
As you correctly noted, the vast majority of conferences require scholarships to be paid out over four years, but that ignores all of these other benefits which can often be worth many times the nominal value of the scholarship. I think it would stand to reason that these rules should be amended to allow student athletes to keep these other benefits as they signed four year contracts with the understanding they would be provided four their four years. There as actually a legal concept for this known as promissory estopel.
You are correct that the future Olympians argument does have some holes it it, but many college coaches do seem to agree with it according to the open letter from the coaches accociation, and I can attest personally to many first hand examples. I think it's important to clarify here that we aren't talking about 4:25 miler walk ons here. Those guys have mostly already been cut in the last 5 years or so. The 11th, 12th, 13th, ect. guys who will potentially be cut from some of these teams are quality athletes, either freshman former elite level high schooler or guys who have proven themselves on a P4 team for multiple years.
Regardless, this line of argument is not my favorite anyway, as I do concede the vast majority of these guys have no profesional future in running. I would contend that the purpose of the NCAA is not simply to be an Olympian factory, and the rate of pro athletes is not a good way to measure its success. If it was we should simply disband the whole thing and set up a Soviet style state funded athletic program.
The Ivy Leage understands this, and their rules regarding transfers, academic rigor, and an obvious unstated policy against the farsical importing of over- age athletes that that unfortunately become more and more common in other conferences. This is the type of philosophy that the NCAA was built on, as an athletic supplement to the academic institutions it is attached to. I think more American young men and women getting opportunities to compete in college and have it paid for is always better, even if they don't become world beaters. What to do you gain by severely uprooting the lives on these kids other that some sick sense of satisfaction that they "learned that everything in life isn't free" or boomer platitude like that. No one has genuinely been able to explain to why DECREASING opportunities for our young people is something I should support, and that absolutely is what this entails, regardless of the constant cope on this board that the cuts will lead to some D2 Renaissance.
I agree with you. We should not being viewing the NCAA as an Olympian factory / look at the pro athlete rate. That was just me highlighting how flawed the "American's are losing out on Olympic potential" argument we always hear.
Again, I agree with your point on how the Ivy League operates. It's not coincidence the Ivy League is the most consistent distance running conference in terms of distributed talent (meaning the worst Ivy League programs are horrendously bad, like you see in the Big 10, Big 12, or SEC).
As for your decreasing opportunities question, obviously its not a good thing to decrease the opportunity. It's just the result of how a revenue sharing model will work. Football makes money, they have previously funded non-revenue sports (especially in football heavy conferences), and now with revenue sharing, they need that money to support that system. I would not say decreasing opportunity is a good thing.
That said, I think if we take an honest look at some power 4 programs in the country, there's a good percentage of people on teams who are there for the student-athlete card. No intentions of competing, are in no shape to travel with the team, and aren't making an effort to train to get to that level. This is especially a program at big school programs like in the SEC. I mean look at Texas A&M. They cut distance guys every year - way before this whole roster limit era. SEC athletics is a meat grinder and if you don't make it, then they'll move on.
PS: I'm not entirely sure how a girl who never broke 5 minutes in the mile in high school, or never won state or qualified for NXN or footlocker, is supposedly on "a large athletic scholarship" at an SEC program who recruited 30 girls from her graduating class. Factoring in that she hasn't raced in the 1.5 years she's been there, is the roster limits really the reason why she isn't getting a spot next fall? or is that just a scapegoat? if staying at the school is such a big deal to you, medically retiring is a viable option where you'd keep that money and get your degree from that school. if developing is something you care about, go to a school where you'll run meaningful races for a program and actually make the travel squad.
According to her high school coach, he had never seen an XC offered that much in all his years. Well, while she never broke the 5 minute mile in the two years she competed in track (she started as a soccer girl playing ECRL), I think it is pretty impressive she didn't start her running career until Sophomore year where she went to state in the 800m, 1600m and 3200m. She had the fastest 3200m time for all Sophomores in the state of Texas and the fastest 3200m for all Junior girls in all of Texas. She had a personal best in the 5K 17:32, 2:15 in the 800m and yes, she only has a 5:03 in the mile. She is also a 17-time 6A individual gold medal winner in the state of Texas. During that time she sustained and recovered from a fractured growth plate in her ankle, then twisting each ankle separately, and unknown to us at the time ripped in half one of her tendons in her ankle. She worked through the ankle/tendon injury during her Senior XC season and because she was overcompensating in her running with the torn tendon, she ended up with a stress fracture right before her Senior track season (hence she didn't have a chance to improve times) causing her not to run for over 6 months and then slowly adding back the miles. At this time, she started her college career with just starting to run 30 miles per week. She had to gain back her fitness which took longer than expected. She has had slight injuries here and there, but has always worked hard and is finally back in shape. She had visits to many D1P4 teams that were interested in her because they saw potential. She also was an awesome student with a 1520 SAT and straight A's through her whole high school career while having numerous honor and AP classes. (She has since been on the dean's list every semester as an engineering student) She did select her team very carefully and did pick a smaller team where her times were in line with the girls on the team when they were freshman. She was told by the new coach that he was only recruiting 6-10 girls. Well he lied and ended up with the 30 girls you mentioned. She had already signed her NLI and had told the other schools she no longer was interested. Knowing that many schools carried larger teams she decided to take a chance. Little did she know that not only did her previous coach screw her by recruiting too much, but the NCAA would turn around and screw her out of a roster spot in a sport historically with no roster limits. She is keeping her athletic scholarship but is losing something very important to her, her roster spot. So keep your snarky put downs to yourself because you don't know the whole story. You are a real piece of work trying to put down my athlete. As a side note, not many schools carry her engineering degree so it's not so easy to just pick up and go to another school to run.
This post was edited 16 minutes after it was posted.
I agree with you. We should not being viewing the NCAA as an Olympian factory / look at the pro athlete rate. That was just me highlighting how flawed the "American's are losing out on Olympic potential" argument we always hear.
Again, I agree with your point on how the Ivy League operates. It's not coincidence the Ivy League is the most consistent distance running conference in terms of distributed talent (meaning the worst Ivy League programs are horrendously bad, like you see in the Big 10, Big 12, or SEC).
As for your decreasing opportunities question, obviously its not a good thing to decrease the opportunity. It's just the result of how a revenue sharing model will work. Football makes money, they have previously funded non-revenue sports (especially in football heavy conferences), and now with revenue sharing, they need that money to support that system. I would not say decreasing opportunity is a good thing.
That said, I think if we take an honest look at some power 4 programs in the country, there's a good percentage of people on teams who are there for the student-athlete card. No intentions of competing, are in no shape to travel with the team, and aren't making an effort to train to get to that level. This is especially a program at big school programs like in the SEC. I mean look at Texas A&M. They cut distance guys every year - way before this whole roster limit era. SEC athletics is a meat grinder and if you don't make it, then they'll move on.
PS: I'm not entirely sure how a girl who never broke 5 minutes in the mile in high school, or never won state or qualified for NXN or footlocker, is supposedly on "a large athletic scholarship" at an SEC program who recruited 30 girls from her graduating class. Factoring in that she hasn't raced in the 1.5 years she's been there, is the roster limits really the reason why she isn't getting a spot next fall? or is that just a scapegoat? if staying at the school is such a big deal to you, medically retiring is a viable option where you'd keep that money and get your degree from that school. if developing is something you care about, go to a school where you'll run meaningful races for a program and actually make the travel squad.
According to her high school coach, he had never seen an XC offered that much in all his years. Well, while she never broke the 5 minute mile in the two years she competed in track (she started as a soccer girl playing ECRL), I think it is pretty impressive she didn't start her running career until Sophomore year where she went to state in the 800m, 1600m and 3200m. She had the fastest 3200m time for all Sophomores in the state of Texas and the fastest 3200m for all Junior girls in all of Texas. She had a personal best in the 5K 17:32, 2:15 in the 800m and yes, she only has a 5:03 in the mile. She is also a 17-time 6A individual gold medal winner in the state of Texas. During that time she sustained and recovered from a fractured growth plate in her ankle, then twisting each ankle separately, and unknown to us at the time ripped in half one of her tendons in her ankle. She worked through the ankle/tendon injury during her Senior XC season and because she was overcompensating in her running with the torn tendon, she ended up with a stress fracture right before her Senior track season (hence she didn't have a chance to improve times) causing her not to run for over 6 months and then slowly adding back the miles. At this time, she started her college career with just starting to run 30 miles per week. She had to gain back her fitness which took longer than expected. She has had slight injuries here and there, but has always worked hard and is finally back in shape. She had visits to many D1P4 teams that were interested in her because they saw potential. She also was an awesome student with a 1520 SAT and straight A's through her whole high school career while having numerous honor and AP classes. (She has since been on the dean's list every semester as an engineering student) She did select her team very carefully and did pick a smaller team where her times were in line with the girls on the team when they were freshman. She was told by the new coach that he was only recruiting 6-10 girls. Well he lied and ended up with the 30 girls you mentioned. She had already signed her NLI and had told the other schools she no longer was interested. Knowing that many schools carried larger teams she decided to take a chance. Little did she know that not only did her previous coach screw her by recruiting too much, but the NCAA would turn around and screw her out of a roster spot in a sport historically with no roster limits. She is keeping her athletic scholarship but is losing something very important to her, her roster spot. So keep your snarky put downs to yourself because you don't know the whole story. You are a real piece of work trying to put down my athlete.
why doesn't she transfer?
it kind of sounds like someone would be interested in her.
it's not like there aren't options for her and many of those options are good academic schools too.
According to her high school coach, he had never seen an XC offered that much in all his years. Well, while she never broke the 5 minute mile in the two years she competed in track (she started as a soccer girl playing ECRL), I think it is pretty impressive she didn't start her running career until Sophomore year where she went to state in the 800m, 1600m and 3200m. She had the fastest 3200m time for all Sophomores in the state of Texas and the fastest 3200m for all Junior girls in all of Texas. She had a personal best in the 5K 17:32, 2:15 in the 800m and yes, she only has a 5:03 in the mile. She is also a 17-time 6A individual gold medal winner in the state of Texas. During that time she sustained and recovered from a fractured growth plate in her ankle, then twisting each ankle separately, and unknown to us at the time ripped in half one of her tendons in her ankle. She worked through the ankle/tendon injury during her Senior XC season and because she was overcompensating in her running with the torn tendon, she ended up with a stress fracture right before her Senior track season (hence she didn't have a chance to improve times) causing her not to run for over 6 months and then slowly adding back the miles. At this time, she started her college career with just starting to run 30 miles per week. She had to gain back her fitness which took longer than expected. She has had slight injuries here and there, but has always worked hard and is finally back in shape. She had visits to many D1P4 teams that were interested in her because they saw potential. She also was an awesome student with a 1520 SAT and straight A's through her whole high school career while having numerous honor and AP classes. (She has since been on the dean's list every semester as an engineering student) She did select her team very carefully and did pick a smaller team where her times were in line with the girls on the team when they were freshman. She was told by the new coach that he was only recruiting 6-10 girls. Well he lied and ended up with the 30 girls you mentioned. She had already signed her NLI and had told the other schools she no longer was interested. Knowing that many schools carried larger teams she decided to take a chance. Little did she know that not only did her previous coach screw her by recruiting too much, but the NCAA would turn around and screw her out of a roster spot in a sport historically with no roster limits. She is keeping her athletic scholarship but is losing something very important to her, her roster spot. So keep your snarky put downs to yourself because you don't know the whole story. You are a real piece of work trying to put down my athlete.
why doesn't she transfer?
it kind of sounds like someone would be interested in her.
it's not like there aren't options for her and many of those options are good academic schools too.
She would, but the other schools that carry her degree are schools like Auburn, Texas A&M and Florida where they are cutting too.
it kind of sounds like someone would be interested in her.
it's not like there aren't options for her and many of those options are good academic schools too.
She would, but the other schools that carry her degree are schools like Auburn, Texas A&M and Florida where they are cutting too.
Not joking. Investigate other Engineering schools like Ga Tech, Purdue, Northwestern (just added track), Penn State, Virginia Tech, NC State, Duke.
If you would qualify for financial aid, you could even look D3 and Ivies. MIT, Mudd/Scripps, CMU, Lehigh, Bucknell etc. If the money worked, roster spot is there and at D3, she'd be going to nats & a key team member.