W&M Cuts Men's Track & Field - WARNING All NCAA Track/XC Programs Now at Risk

The Long Game wrote:

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

There were 2 guys that got lucky and qualified for NCAA's with weak times. They placed 22nd. There were NOT All-American. They were honorable mention.

Miles Owen, one of those you alluded to, hated Braden and so he transferred to Oregon after his sophomore year. Not exactly a good example of Braden being a good coach.....

Wow! Hello Miles Owen! How is Oregon? By the way, what is there to hate about a guy like Braden? He's doesn't seem to be the abusive type, just runs a consistent, solid, long term style program. You seem to be a real insider, so I am sure you know, but please enlighten us as to Braden's "issues" that make him a bad coach...

Somebody sounds bitter and uninformed.

You've got to have some kind of season (and I'm talking starting in the summer build-up to XC to June almost a year later) to "get lucky" and make it all the way to NCAA finals. Track success requires showing up on the day and executing in the race. Being able to do that requires some luck, but mostly hard work, consistency, grit and talent. Otherwise, the championship ranks would be filled with folks who can run the best time trial. At that point why even show up at the same track?

Also anyone who knows Miles, knows he and Braden had a great relationship and remain close (check out their instas). In addition to running a consistent, long-term program, Braden also looks out for his athletes and their long-term development. He was sad to lose Miles, just as would have liked to keep JP Trojan around to finish his eligibility, but he also supported the choices these two made for future success.

leadership not leading wrote:

What do ADs value and how do we need to change to match that view?

I think that the way cross country and especially track have evolved at universities in the past 30 (?) years has hung a giant "Cut Me" sign onto the sports. I know the switch from dual and tri meets to multi team meets is a reaction to scholarship limits. But it makes the sport too different and kind of alien compared to most others.

We were at best a middling College Division school and ran about ten outdoor meets a year, give or take. All but a couple were duals or tris and about half of them were home meets. That meant we had spectators (for track, cross country did not lend itself to spectating.) We didn't get the numbers of them that football, basketball, or wrestling, which was big there, got, but we probably outdrew soccer and baseball. The university community would have noticed if we'd been cut.

And we had a won lost record and by all accounts that was something the administrators valued which makes total sense because it gave them an easy way to figure out how well or poorly things were going. Getting to a 7-2 record from 3-6 in the previous season meant things were going better than they had been.

Now many places have 0-1 outdoor home meets and maybe just a conference meet where a score is kept. Who will notice if the team is gone? And really, outside of a very specific population, who cares all that much if you come back from a multi team meet with one NCAA qualifier and a couple regional qualifiers? I'm not sure what ADs in general value, certainly some have a real interest in cross country and track, but I think for a lot of them a sport that competes rarely, never or almost never at home, and has no won-loss record is a natural target if you need or want to drop a sport.

So you are saying Owens transferred to Oregon to get a better education?

leadership not leading wrote:

What do ADs value and how do we need to change to match that view?

It's an easy answer that isn't always readily apparent: how do the coaches earn bonuses and how, exactly, are they weighted? The wins that are weighted are typically the conference championships. That can come out of a balanced team that knows how to compete well when it counts. There are also typically bonuses for individual champions, especially on the national level, and even just national qualifiers. And of course there's a bonus available for winning a national team championship as well as other tiers (podium, top 10, etc.) But based at all on W-L record? I'd be surprised unless we're talking D3. Certainly the coaches negotiate for bonuses, yet they can't gain what isn't offered or accepted. If ADs demanded a bonus heavily weighted on W-L record, you can be sure coaches would schedule differently.

HRE wrote:

leadership not leading wrote:

What do ADs value and how do we need to change to match that view?

I think that the way cross country and especially track have evolved at universities in the past 30 (?) years has hung a giant "Cut Me" sign onto the sports. I

Sadly, for the reasons you mentioned and many others, this is correct.

To me, unfortunately, it appears that there may be no saving either sport at the collegiate level. No one seems to be willing to insist on making the changes that are needed to save them. There are many who don't have the power to do much, there are others who don't see the need for change, and there are those who are not willing to make the changes because it will be bad for their particular situation at this particular time. Those in the last group (not willing to change because it's bad for their situation) are the ones who will be the saddest when the sports are gone because it will be at that point they realize they should have been willing to push for the needed changes when it would have mattered. Just my opinion.

I'll just leave this here for you.

No situation is perfect for everyone.

Forest is an excellent coach.

Anyone who wants to help save W&M Track and Field:

Please email President Katherine Rowe and share your own experiences in T&F. We cannot afford to lose this program!!!!

The W&M community is rallying behind the 7 sports cuts as well!

President Katherine Rowe -

president@wm.edu

We won't go down without a fight!!!!

Time to wake up wrote:

Time for college coaches of all divisions to wake up.

It's time to formally develop a club system for athletes aged 18-24 that's in line with the rest of the world and quit messing around with the NCAA, NAIA, NJCAA and all their silly rules and regulations and depending on others to determine the outcomes of our sport.

We're just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic right now.

I've been thinking this for the last 6yrs.

good wrote:

Time to wake up wrote:

Time for college coaches of all divisions to wake up.

It's time to formally develop a club system for athletes aged 18-24 that's in line with the rest of the world and quit messing around with the NCAA, NAIA, NJCAA and all their silly rules and regulations and depending on others to determine the outcomes of our sport.

We're just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic right now.

I've been thinking this for the last 6yrs.

So how does a club system work for the average kid. So I graduate HS, have run a 4:07 mile (very talented but not the next big thing level of l talent) and am now going to a school 30 miles away. How the heck am I hooking up a club system to keep on training? And why start at 18? Why not get rid of HS track and give kids a chance to get decent coaching at like 12?

I have a feeling that by the time you developed the infrastructure and the like for supporting all these athletes, you would be back to all the silly NCAA and HS federation rules that we have today.

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

So how does a club system work for the average kid. So I graduate HS, have run a 4:07 mile (very talented but not the next big thing level of l talent) and am now going to a school 30 miles away. How the heck am I hooking up a club system to keep on training? And why start at 18? Why not get rid of HS track and give kids a chance to get decent coaching at like 12?

I have a feeling that by the time you developed the infrastructure and the like for supporting all these athletes, you would be back to all the silly NCAA and HS federation rules that we have today.

The only people recommending a club system are the people too slow to make it into the NCAA. There are tens of thousands of athletes that get scholarships for college through sports. Clubs would not pay a dime towards college education.

There's a reason top athletes from every country want to come into the NCAA.

Maybe we need a separation of sports and college. Euro club system may be better after all. Most clubs take on many runners who pay a reasonable fee to join. The colleges get runners in debt, limit the amount of members, and are done with them after 4 years.

there’s no way a club system would work without each club being associated with a college, and then it’s basically the NCAA again.

Just theorizing here..let’s say I’m from from a big city with a good “club” team. Let’s say Chicago because it’s in the middle of the US

So I run track in middle school with a club. Now theres less incentive to run for my high school because I know I can run for my club, which also has post high school programs. So I develop well in my club and by the end of high school decide I want to move from Chicago to go to school in somewhere like Philly.

So do I now join the Eastern Philadelphia Track Club, leaving my old club begin? Am I coached by my Chicago coach virtually? What if the philly club costs more and I can’t afford it? How do I afford going to college and paying a monthly fee to be a part of a club? Does the club have the resources actual colleges have like nutritionists, physical therapists, weight rooms, etc.

There’s just not enough that a club can do to compete with what the NCAA has

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

good wrote:

I've been thinking this for the last 6yrs.

So how does a club system work for the average kid. So I graduate HS, have run a 4:07 mile (very talented but not the next big thing level of l talent) and am now going to a school 30 miles away. How the heck am I hooking up a club system to keep on training? And why start at 18? Why not get rid of HS track and give kids a chance to get decent coaching at like 12?

I have a feeling that by the time you developed the infrastructure and the like for supporting all these athletes, you would be back to all the silly NCAA and HS federation rules that we have today.

Many schools have club sports that are tied to a league of some sort. Rugby is a good example. We would just do the same thing as Rugby.

oldmanxc wrote:

Braden has already produced two All-Americans on the track since he arrived in 2017. He arguably could've had another one this year if covid didn't cancel the outdoor season (JP Trojan, ran 13:48 and 8:03 indoors). Considering W&M men's last All-American track runner was in 2011, I'd say he's done a good job with the men's squad.

You can't be serious. Both the men's and women's cross country teams have gotten significantly worse under Braden. A storied program has DIED with him at the helm.

What about colonial half marathon. Proceeds go to team. does that race Bring in much money

BuffaloBob wrote:

This would never have happened under John Randolph's watch.

Great point about the track tradition at W & M. Former A.D. was the track coach after Harry Groves. Coached W & M's two national track champions.

Randy Hawthorne and the other long-time track alums have to be going nuts about this decision.

Not sure you can extrapolate to all NCAA programs from the decisions of a fewer lower level, athletically speaking, colleges.

I believe the instability of the CAA is the reason for the cut. For some reason, the CAA doesn't have an Indoor Track and Field Championship and with all the other men's programs that were cut, there were only 3 left that sponsored men's track and field. It's down to two now. Only a matter of time before UNCW and Northeastern cut men now. From an AD 's standpoint, men's track and field was an easy target.

Universities in the US = Fvcked.

Athletic programs at universities, accustomed to sucking off of the tit of broke students in debt = Double Fvcked.

These are both HUGE wins for America.