Ask a teacher who has 25 kids in their classroom to bump up to 50 at the same pay, their choice. 99% will say no.
Ask a teacher who has 25 kids in their classroom to bump up to 50 at the same pay, their choice. 99% will say no.
HRE wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
You are correct HRE, forgot about the roster size limitations. Those were not an issue when I was coaching. There is still an elitist attitude that governs many programs, however,
Definitely. I also recall seeing a comment from some coach who I knew pretty well but won't name to the effect that he really couldn't be bothered coaching someone that was not going to help him win their conference or get to Nationals.
Some sell their soul, when it is really something far greater in value (profession of coaching that is).
go away run wrote:
Ask a teacher who has 25 kids in their classroom to bump up to 50 at the same pay, their choice. 99% will say no.
The odds of fifty kids walking onto a single college xc team are roughly zero. If we are discussing the difference between coaching 12 runners or 18 runners, I think most coaches could handle the extra workload.
I had cross country teams of 10-20 males and 7-15 females. Usually only had a couple of walk-ons a year. No real additional workload to speak of.
I went to a D3 college where we were hurting for runners. I think 8 of the 10 schools in the conference had pretty small rosters actually and all 10 would take ANYONE who wanted to walk on. Its pretty much still the case today, a decade later. If you're serious about running in college, you can find somewhere to run, so long as you don't care about going to the best academic school you can. You have to be serious though and can't treat running as just a hobby if you're going to run and you aren't talented.
Imagine how different sports were 50yrs before you were student. Culture evolves
Viking21 wrote:
What happened? The passage of Title IX in 1972 and the rise of college football limited available roster spots for male XC athletes.
This article, with some links worth following, argue that is not the case.
HRE wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
You are correct HRE, forgot about the roster size limitations. Those were not an issue when I was coaching. There is still an elitist attitude that governs many programs, however,
Definitely. I also recall seeing a comment from some coach who I knew pretty well but won't name to the effect that he really couldn't be bothered coaching someone that was not going to help him win their conference or get to Nationals.
That makes sense. The coach's job is on the line. So, why not have more college club running programs?
Viking21 wrote:
go away run wrote:
Ask a teacher who has 25 kids in their classroom to bump up to 50 at the same pay, their choice. 99% will say no.
The odds of fifty kids walking onto a single college xc team are roughly zero. If we are discussing the difference between coaching 12 runners or 18 runners, I think most coaches could handle the extra workload.
That is still a 50% increase. Now the coach could have an assistant write up a generic plan for them and send them on their way.
go away run wrote:
Ask a teacher who has 25 kids in their classroom to bump up to 50 at the same pay, their choice. 99% will say no.
Those are two very different things. Double the kids in your class and you double the number of tests you have to grade, double the number of papers and homework assignments to grade, double the number of parent conferences. In all likelihood the quality of instruction your students get will suffer.
My sons' high school had about fifty kids of each gender when they were there. They were very good, many unbeaten seasons and league championships and top five placings at their state meet. A major reason for their success was the number of kids they had. You're a lot more likely to find seven kids who can run between 16:00 and 18:00 for 5 km in a group of 50 than in a group of 15. The coach taught in the schools. He would never have gone along with 50 kids in one of his classes but was happy to have that many in his team.
College running is different than high school running but when I ran it was common for other schools to have 20 to 30 guys in their teams, I think 42 was the high. There was a strong correlation between how big teams were and how good they were but we're talking here about places that did not give scholarships for cross country or track.
I had to run time trials in my Freshman and Sophmore years. I ran 4:33 and 9:50 in HS, but 2:00 in 1975.
McDonnell had numerous walk-ons at Arkansas. Harold Smith (now a neurosurgeon) is a great example. He placed 2nd scoring valuable points at the conference meet in the steeplechase and made the cross country team.
Not an insider but it's probably because a coach doesn't want to realize that a walk-on is faster than the people he gave full rides to. Takes a bigger person to do that.
The more walk-ons you take the more likely one of them will be some over privileged brat that expects to be treated like royalty. Back in the day that guy would have whined their way off the team. Today they will end up ruining the coaches career by making him or her to be some abusive bully because the runner was made to do hard workouts and didn't make the roster for conference.
Most distance runners are walk-ons.
The best teams have smaller rosters today. More guys means more drug tests and more gear and more compliance with the NCAA and more meal cards and more dorm scheduling and more travel and......
Old and slow wrote:
Viking21 wrote:
What happened? The passage of Title IX in 1972 and the rise of college football limited available roster spots for male XC athletes.
Yep, this. Title IX has done more to harm men's sports and limit men's opportunities than it has to help women's sports.
This wins dumbest post of the week...
Before Title 9 there were no women's sports. Without it there would be no women's sports. I'm sorry your sensitive male ass is butt-hurt by the fact that not every 10:20 guy gets to walk on at D1 schools. Get over it. It's a small price to pay for equality.
It is not equality. It is affirmative action. Imagine in the workplace if 100 men applied for a 2 jobs and 100 women also applied. Imagine if the top 95 women were better than the best man but the law requires that you hire 1 man and 1 woman instead of the 2 best. You have to hire the best candidate and the 96th best in the name of equality.
Sammy Seems... wrote:
Old and slow wrote:
Yep, this. Title IX has done more to harm men's sports and limit men's opportunities than it has to help women's sports.
This wins dumbest post of the week...
Before Title 9 there were no women's sports. Without it there would be no women's sports. I'm sorry your sensitive male ass is butt-hurt by the fact that not every 10:20 guy gets to walk on at D1 schools. Get over it. It's a small price to pay for equality.
your claims are ridiculous. Of course there were womens's sports before title 9. Of course there would be women's sports without title 9.
The issue is enforcement. There's nothing wrong with title 9 per se. It's fine. It says you must have equal opportunity for men and women. No one would argue with that.
The problem is the safe harbor rule. That says schools won't be sued if they have equal numbers of men and women in sports. That is the problem. It limits men's rosters to whatever women decide to do. If a woman drops off the fencing team, a man has to be cut from the XC team. I'm simplifying, but that's the problem. And no, you don't get credit for women in student government or other extra-curriculars.
A new and better safe harbor rule would end the harm title 9 enforcement is doing to men.
Yes they do. Also at "non hardcore xc powerhouses".