Princeton mens XC should be sanctioned by NCAA for obvious tanking

*for colleges across the nation my apologies

This makes things far worse. If Vig threw their club team into an NCAA race, it has all kinds of title 9 implications.

What is sad is we are already trending towards no sport at all. As we Most schools are now competing in the bare minimum of meets and if we allow training runs to be counted as meets we are headed to a two meet season for majority of teams:

C team runs training run

B team tempo or training run

A team tempo or training run

Conference

Regionals

This is why you should care about if you love the sport as much as anyone.

So all schools should turn varsity athletics into club sports?

My partner, who is a runner on the team, is knowledgeable on these matters and has enlightening me on the facts within. Don’t speak of which you do not know

What is a partner?

I thought you were on the team? Hmmm...

My point stands, Princeton as a guiding light means we turn varsity sports into club sports. I am asking you to explain yourself further. How is Princeton guiding the sport forward?

If they are using legitimate guys from the team roster then it isn't tanking.

If these guys make fun of their own poor effort that would be bass sportsmanship and they could be disqualified for not giving an honest effort.

*bad sportsmanship

I am on the women’s team. My partner is on the men’s team. I hope this clarifies the matter at hand

I do think I need to explain anymore how Princeton is an exceptional institution, for this is something that is now known by many

If the coaches dont want to go all out in an effort to prevent burn out they can decide to run some races over a shorter distance. A hard 5k xc race is less taxing than a hard 10k xc race.

Now, I certainly think (or hope) that this is just some semi-clever trolling. But I can't be sure, because rojo's posts have led us to think that this kind of writing might actually be the result of a Princeton edumacation.

Look, the Ivy coaches have a certain number of "pushes" each year that they can use to help students with marginal (in Ivy terms) academic records be admitted, and they all use them. No secret there.

But people have the impression that Princeton's academic standards for admitting athletes are the same as, say, Harvard's or even Yale's. My personal experience and some well-known individual cases suggest otherwise.

In particular, I took a Princeton Review test-prep course with a Princeton student-athlete in the class. Very nice person with a lovely (truly) personality; dumb as a sack of hammers. I'm told she was a hell of a tennis player, though.

Agreed.

You sound like a baby. You lost me at "douche."

I think what Princeton did was in poor taste and, if I were Yale, I would be angry at both Princeton and Harvard for apparently mutually agreeing to sandbag, to different degrees, a meet they had both tried at in previous years. Maybe they can sue for breach of contract, I’ve heard they have decent lawyers there. However, there has been little reference to actual rules in this thread so I’ll waste my time and bring facts and logic to letsrun.

The Code of Conduct on page 9 states compliant athletes are "always honoring teammates and opponents with their best effort". Rule 22, page 194 then states (emphasis mine):

“Competitors who conduct themselves in an unsporting manner, who are offensive by action or language, or who are found to be in violation of the code of conduct, shall be warned or disqualified by the referee from the race and from the remainder of the meet.”

To me, running 6-minute pace enters the territory of “unsporting behavior” and is a clear violation of the code of conduct, particularly if they are clearly not trying, and the punishment is set forth right below: disqualification by the referee. The result of this is that Princeton would not have recorded a score at this meet and could not have counted it towards the required number of competitions to meet sponsorship requirements of the sport.

However, I have never encountered a referee at an XC meet and, if there was one at HYP, they did not do this. The other teams can appeal the violation, but Section 7 of Rule 21 states:

“Protests relating to singular matters that develop during the conduct of the race should be made at once and shall not be later than 15 minutes after the results have been announced or posted.”

We are well clear of the 15-minute protest window. This seems like a failure by a referee to properly enforce the written rules of a sport. Unfortunate, but not uncommon in the NCAA.

“C - Integrity and Sportsmanship. It is the responsibility of each member to conduct its athletics program in a manner that promotes the ideals of higher education, human development and the integrity of intercollegiate athletics. All individuals associated with intercollegiate athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty, responsibility, academic integrity, ethical conduct, and the rules of their conferences.”

This debacle likely fails to show respect for their competitors, but this is not a rule and there is no stated recourse for violation of the Principles.

But let’s say you really want Jason Vigilante burned at the stake, as some people in this thread clearly do. Let’s assume this is an NCAA Infraction, a violation of an NCAA bylaw, which I do not believe it is. If you believe it is, find the bylaw. We then have three levels of Infraction, from more serious to less serious, on page 336.

Level I – “A Level I violation is a violation that seriously undermines or threatens the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, as set forth in the bylaws, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit.”

Level II – “A Level II violation is a violation that provides or is intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage; includes more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit; or involves conduct that may compromise the integrity of the NCAA
Collegiate Model as set forth in the bylaws.”

Level III – “A Level III violation is a violation that is isolated or limited in nature; provides no more than a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage; and provides no more than a minimal impermissible benefit.”

I fail to see how this provides any benefit to Princeton, but maybe we argue it’s a Level III violation, for which the punishments are listed from the bottom of page 355 to the top of page 356. Most of the punishments have to do with recruiting violations, but ones that could be applied here:

An institutional fine for each violation, with the monetary penalty ranging in total from $500 to $5,000. For 5 athletes this would be max $25,000 against a school with a multi-billion-dollar endowment.

Institutional recertification that its current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA bylaws. a.k.a. Everyone has to sit in some meetings and agree not to do this again.

Institutionally imposed suspension of the head coach or other staff members for one or more competitions. Jason Vigilante has to skip the next meet. Robbie Andrews is still listed as their assistant coach, so he takes the team.

Public reprimand. The NCAA and Princeton release a one-page article saying this was all stupid and unsportsmanlike and it won’t happen again.

Nowhere in the rules do we possibly rise to the level of suspending the entire Princeton team or preventing them from further competition or removing Jason Vigilante from his role. I think the best course of action is for the Princeton AD to release a statement saying this was a mistake and JV has been scolded for it and we can all move on.

An interesting other bit of rule making I found in the XC rules is under Rule 22, Section 3, Article 6 of the NCAA XC rules (emphasis mine):

"Competitors may compete in bare feet or with shoes on one or both feet. The purpose of shoes for competition is to protect and stabilize the feet and provide a firm grip on the ground. Such shoes must be constructed to give a competitor no unfair additional advantage. Incorporating any technology and/or device in the shoe’s construction that artificially enhances a competitor’s performance is not permitted."

Are super-spikes a violation of NCAA XC rules?

You’re only doubting me because my a female-identifying person. And frankly, I have no idea if you are truly part of the Ivies.

I was accepted into Princeton on the basis on my own merits. I did go to an elite boarding school but there are plenty of students who do who don’t amount to much. I work hard and have the talent to match.

*my apologies again for the typos. I’m swamped today and my phone typing skills are less than par

Middle of the season meets have never, ever mattered. No one is going to remember the team that won whatever big mid season invitational like 20 years ago. Conference and Nationals. Those are the two meets. This is the sport you’re a fan of. Not the one you think apparently.