What is the problem with ncaa teams cutting track?

list man is back wrote:

More track teams should be cut and the current also-rans can just move on to club sports or run road races.

How do you think pole vaulters and shot putters will do in those road races?

HRE wrote:

list man is back wrote:

More track teams should be cut and the current also-rans can just move on to club sports or run road races.

How do you think pole vaulters and shot putters will do in those road races?

They can still compete in meets more than a club 1st basemen can go play in a big ten game.

The number of programs cut thus far is not the death knell for track.

I wonder how many of the people complaining here watch any college track meets much less attend one. I watched the conference championships when I can, but I have not been to a collegiate track meet in over 15 years (and I live 20 minutes from a D1 university and 2 hours to another).

A concern is that some people will not have the opportunity to participate. Yes, it consolidates the talent, but I am not sure that makes it more competitive. Those athletes would make it anyway.

This is an interesting thread and I am surprised more people haven't jumped on this topic. In my opinion, both list man and HRE make great points. I agree to a certain extent with list man, at least when it comes to distance programs (can't speak to the sprinting and field events, I don't think about those as much).

-On the one hand, you wanna say, well jeez look at all the opportunities offered by the DII, DIII, NAIA, and lower tier DI programs.

-When you set aside scholarships for a moment (which I know one division doesn't even offer athletic scholarships...is that DIII?), there are many unspoken and subtle benefits of being a part of a collegiate track program, all of which are debatable and I won't get into... point being, there are benefits aside from the money.

-Now, consider the scholarships. Personally, I was given a full ride scholarship at a DII program back in the day, and I am very grateful for the free education. There must be countless 'blue collar' stories of people who went to a lower tier college on scholarship and thanks to the free education wound up in excellent and successful careers, which is great.

-And you also hear people argue that a lower tier program offers opportunities to those who can't quite hang in the top tier programs at first, mainly due to the ridiculous training stimulus and ridiculous amount of talent on said squads. Go to Adams State and by the time you graduate you can get a shoe contract. Go to Arkansas and by October of your freshman year you've been chewed up and spit out of the program. There are many examples of people who have been successful in running because of the easier training load at least in the beginning..... Are there enough examples to justify all the lower tier programs??? (I would argue probably not....see below)

-On the other hand, when you actually look at most of those lower tier programs, the performances are just plain embarrassing, lol. Sure, maybe you have a scholarship, and sure you have the camaraderie of an XC team in college. But you're in college and you can't break 16mins in a 5k LOL. In a lot of ways, the student-"athlete" would be better off if they went off and did something else....... You want a scholarship? Put your brain to use like most of the population and contribute! In some ways, I think I would have been better off if I didn't run in college.

Now, as for track and field programs, HRE has a great point and again I can't speak for sprinters jumpers and throwers.

One more thing - This post does NOT apply to distance programs like the University of Minnesota. They may not be at the top of the NCAA, but they were a legit, top tier DI distance program. Very sad to see them go.

There were 210 ncaa men's gymnastic teams in 1969. With the Minnesota cut, there are now 12.

Things could be very different in the near future. Our cultures obsession with sports could be over. Or schools could give some scholarship support to a new "semi-varsity" level of club teams that have to pay for the sport.

I don’t see any college sports going away soon.

What I can envision for the future of track and field is the indoor season gets completely cut from the NCAA. Instead athletes would be allowed to compete unattached throughout the whole time from the last day of XC to the first day of outdoor. This would allow all college track athletes, including sprints, jumps, etc. to still have an indoor season, but without schools paying for it. Indoor track would essentially become a racing season for the elite collegiates who could hang in pro races. This would also solve the issue of coaches having to peak their athletes for three different seasons. Kids would be able to sharpen up for XC and outdoors better than trying to balance it all.

I think another thing that distance programs need to change is the concept of one meet being THE MEET to get a qualifying time. Payton Jordan for example. This creates the idea that in order for your athlete to run their fastest race, you’re gonna need to buy him a round trip plane ticket and a hotel for a night or two. That’s probably around 600-700 dollars for one kid to run one race.

list man is back wrote:

HRE wrote:

How do you think pole vaulters and shot putters will do in those road races?

They can still compete in meets more than a club 1st basemen can go play in a big ten game.

I'm not sure I agree with that but maybe. But how many of them do you think can afford a state of the art vaulting pole? And good pole vault coaches are not easy to find.

A college should offer track and the usual sports or it’s a sucky college.

I'm sure I would have been better off not running collegiately, maybe picking up with a local competitive club with a wise coach.

My school overspent on football and has been above .500 maybe twice in 20 years in a G5 conference. It's really just a marketing expense. The track team, while vastly more successful in every other metric, never outdrew football games for home meets. Even as perennial losers, more people wanted to see mediocre football over track excellence. I'm certain, without looking, Minn has never beat our record at nationals, in xc or track.