D1 XC Tier system?

Best solution to this has been proposed in different ways, many times over the years. This is my favorite (D1, not as tuned in to D2):

Men - 9.6 Track, 3.0 XC = Keeps the current 12.6 Maximum

Women - 13.0 Track, 5.0 XC = Keeps the current 18.0 Maximum

XC scholarships can run track, but not the other way around. Keeps it equal and I believe it saves our sport. Part of the reason administrators do not always respect our sport is that we do not treat it respectfully ourselves. There are way more "distance mostly" programs than people realize. It is killing the sport and giving admins an excuse to remove men's track and leave XC. Will current programs without well-rounded programs dislike this? Absolutely. Will schools with smaller coaching staffs have to have more coaches with specific skills? You betcha. I used to coach 400H up to 10k as well as XC. Coaching the 400 is easy, but had to learn the subtle nuances of the hurdles from a colleague of mine. That year my only national qualifier was........a 400 hurdler. Go figure.

My .02; I am sure there are plenty who disagree.

Why? Nobody wants that. The NCAA doesn't want it. The distance schools don't want it and the non-distance schools don't want it. Dumb idea that a handful of former D3 distance runners on Letsrun propose every other month.

What the f!ck? This sounds like creating a new division with extra steps. Why not just keep creating divisions until everybody gets a participation trophy!

The NCAA manual already states that XC only schools have a limit of 5 men's and 6 women's scholarships. Why isn't this the actual LIMIT for xc season? Why does sponsoring track allow you to spend more on cross country?

There already is a tier system based on reputation and recruiting.....in every sport except cross country. Why not cross country? It is the only place where you can dismantle one team to improve another.

Why wouldn't the Providence's, and Furmans of the world want to line up their 5/6 scholarships against Oregon and Colorado's 5/6 scholarships to see who actually recruited and coached the best?

This would allow just about every D1 school to choose to FULLY FUND a cross country program without having to pretend to have a track and field program just to put more scholarships in distance.

Again, cross country scholarships can run track, but track scholarships can't run cross country. Even playing field, may the best program win.

Nobody said you HAVE to put 5/6 in cross country, but that is the max. "sprint schools" can still choose to suck at cross country even though they compete it in.

Nobody said you can't use all your track scholarships on distance runners too, they just can't compete in cross country.

It is logical, but nobody likes change if it changes how they like to do things.

Ben Bennigan wrote:

Why? Nobody wants that. The NCAA doesn't want it. The distance schools don't want it and the non-distance schools don't want it. Dumb idea that a handful of former D3 distance runners on Letsrun propose every other month.

Perhaps a troll, if so, bravo for getting me to respond.

This proposal is a far better hypothetical idea than the OP.

Trust me you are incorrect.... not nobody wants this idea. Those that don't just want to protect their advantage.

And the NCAA keeps saying they want to put XC on the same level as all the other sports... all the other sports (with NCAA championships) have scholarships so the NCAA would be fine with it.

People who propose this idea are actually thinking long term rather than the short term thinking of those who don't like this idea.

Finally, I ran D1 and ran pretty fast... perhaps faster than you so your last sentence is wrong too.

Nothing gave me more satisfaction in my college days than when I destroyed D1 runners as a D3 athlete.

Name a coach of any team that we have heard of who supports this. There are none. Just a handful of Letsrun posters who don't understand that it would lessen both track and cross country by diluting the best teams in both. Stupid idea that no real coach wants nor the NCAA otherwise it would exist.

healthy dude wrote:

Name a coach of any team that we have heard of who supports this. There are none. Just a handful of Letsrun posters who don't understand that it would lessen both track and cross country by diluting the best teams in both. Stupid idea that no real coach wants nor the NCAA otherwise it would exist.

Relax... it's not going to happen... that boat has sailed.

Now, to address your post...

Only programs who want to protect an advantage they already have would be against this.

Who is the 'we' you refer to in your first sentence? I know coaches who are 'real' who would be for this. (and, no, there is no need to list them because it really doesn't make any difference if you believe me or not)

It would actually do the opposite of what you say, it would strengthen both track and XC... actually forcing schools and ADs to take both sports seriously.

It's not a stupid idea. Truthfully it was stupid mistakes made in the past that have gotten us here.

Oh, I guarantee you that programs such as NAU, Portland, NM would still be very strong even if this change happened. They have good cultures and good coaches.

So many stereotypes and other assumption made on this thread. Cost of school, whether youre allowed to combine academic and need and athletic aid, facilities, budget, Coaches salaries, etc are just as big a concern as athletic scholarships.

They can't get stronger by reducing scholarship max in each sport. NAU and BYU can put all scholarships in distance today. Sprint schools can put 12 in sprints. So NAU and BYU become weaker and the sprint schools become weaker. But NAU then scores in sprints and sprint schools field a respectable XC team. Fans lose interest because we then have 100 average programs that are well balanced instead of having some elite track schools and some elite XC schools. More fans lose interest and the sports disappear but 10 LR posters are happy that they forced NAU out.

irritant really wrote:

So many stereotypes and other assumption made on this thread. Cost of school, whether youre allowed to combine academic and need and athletic aid, facilities, budget, Coaches salaries, etc are just as big a concern as athletic scholarships.

At any school in D1/D2 are you not allowed to combine need/academic and athletic aid?

15_50 wrote:

Here's a novel idea... since we are talking hypothetical ideas and all... instead of doing something like this... let's give every team the same amount of XC scholarships. that way everyone starts at the same place instead of trying to manipulate the inequitable situation which currently exists.

I know, I know, the NAU's and the Portland's wouldn't like that but that should be the problem of the other 300 + institutions.

How many does NAU get!?

I am not by any means supporting any specific plan. There have been others (Minimum of 3, max of 5 in Men's XC, minimum of 4, max of 6 in Women's XC comes to mind) that had similar objectives....to create a separation of the sports, it should be, regardless of solution, XC OR Track, not XC-TRACK as one continuous, 9 month long, NCAA sport. Most of these plans had about 60% against, 40% for, give or take, at the pre-convention vote.

1) The one thing I will disagree on, the best distance runnres will still want to go to the Colorado's . NAU's, or wherever. They will not magically go to a traditional sprint school just because they suddenly have to invest the money there. That's a false dichotomy.

2) The spring/jumps school can still keep their "track" advantage and do what they do now, run sprinters in XC (and walk-ons). The scholarship reciprocation goes that direction.

As a distance runner/coach, I get that I am cutting off my own head. I would assume runners that came from distance only or mostly programs themselves would have the strongest feeling here. Not saying its right or wrong, just throwing out proposals that have gotten traction in the past.

Haha. A kid runs 8:55 and gets an offer to attend USC and Florida for free or go to NAU for a partial scholarship bringing his cost to $30k. Only an idiot would choose NAU. Supply and demand on a large scale always has a way of leveling things. You are too shortsighted thinking in current terms. Those distance powerhouses will deteriorate over time. Otherwise, why even talk about the change? I am starting to think it is not even 10 people anymore who support that silly change. It may be less than 5 LR posters. I am aware of no real coaches who want the change. All of the coaches that I know would fight hard not to change.

Realistically I see it affecting International SA's quite a bit more than Domestic SA's, as far as scholarship offers. We had plenty of All-Americans that were not on full scholarships, but also solid international athletes who were conference good, but not nationally good on full scholarships. That's the name of the game to get those athletes to the US.

I just brought up a (set of) proposal(s) that have been contemplated in the past, in regards to this discussion. Not a final solution. There is always room for improvement from proposed drafts. The "new" outdoor track qualifying system (2009 is when it changed I think?) was pretty unpopular at the start as well, but almost no one bats an eye at that system now.

Also, I would bet I know a significant number more D1 head coaches, after a previous 13 years as a D1 head XC coach. Pretty mixed support, admittedly skewed towards the negative. When our (D1) conference last discussed this years ago, we were 7 schools against the drafted proposal, 5 schools in support of the drafted proposal (58%-42%). But then again, if you're a troll, engaging any longer might be a waste of time.

Why should cross country be any different from soccer or lacrosse. Each program has the exact same number of scholarships to spend maximally regardless of weather, academic aid, coaches salaries.

Cross country is the only place where you can intentionally dismantle your track program to gain an advantage in cross country.

I'd like cross country scholarships to dictate the outcome of the cross country championships. And track scholarships to dictate the outcome of the track championships.

Why?

Because the basketball coach wouldn't give all of their scholaeships to bowlers just to make the bowling team better at the expense of the basketball team.

Because every other sport has a maximum.

Swimming and water polo have rules to avoid the intentional misappropriation of scholarships. So does volleyball/sand volleyball.

Those are a few logical reasons.

From your earlier post, why would you like it? And comparing to other sports is not relevant to most of us. If a gay guy said he likes men so you should also or because somebody buys a Mercedes so you should also, those comparisons are not relevant. I want to see the very best XC teams and I want to see the very best track teams. The current system allows teams to fund a XC team with 12.6 scholarships and it allows teams to fund a track team with 12.6 scholarships in sprints and jumps and hurdles because that creates the strongest track team. Fans want the best.