D1 XC Tier system?

Then why can a school that ONLY has cross country, without a track team, be limited to 5/6 scholarships per gender max for xc?

Why can't they have 12.6/18?

What is it about sponsoring track and field with the additional sprint, hurdle and field events justifies being able to spend those scholarships on distance runners and compete them in xc that then exceeds the established 5/6 maximums.

Again, i don't care how you spend your track scholaeships as it will be evident in your track championship team scores.

I don't like that how you spend your track scholarships allows you an advantage in an entirely different sport.

Nothing about that is consistent or just.

There are a lot of uninformed people or people spreading misinformation about this proposal and why it got shot down.

#1 the number of schools that are truly all in, as in all scholarship monies, on distance is truly small. NAU isn’t, BYU isn’t even close. Off the top of my head they are Furman, Portland, Iona, Cal Baptist, maybe Tulsa now? And that’s about it. The majority of the teams you are thinking as “distance only” are closer to 50-60% invested in distance scholarships. Does that put them over 5 and 6 limited to xc? Yes but that’s easily fixed by

#2 even as a heavy xc track school I could easily meet the scholarship limits if implemented. Let’s say the NCAA limits scholarship investment in xc to the current 5/6. I don’t have to declare my official xc roster till my first meet(early/mid September on a normal year). Let’s say I’ve gone really heavy distance and have 9 scholarships split between 18 guys. Some fulls, lots of partials. That’s an average of 0.5. So in mid September I have to reduce my pool to about 10 guys(5 scholarships) and i need my top 5 to come from those 10 to not affect me. Easy peasy. Only minor annoyance is not giving any racing opportunities to 11-18 which likely half are redshirting and I’d rather the other half quit so I could give the money to someone better. That would be the only effect on most distance dominant programs

#3 the people who are truly against this proposal are power 5, mostly SEC, head coaches. As things currently stand, they all point to track success as the only reason to have track teams. Administrators don’t care about cross country because they know it’s not a separate sport and that all funding goes to track. If cross country were to split off and have actual scholarships given to it, SEC coaches would have answer to why Southwest Missoula Tech just beat them in a meet. These are the same coaches that actively tried to kill a March cross country championships this year because they didn’t want to deal with the distraction from an Indoor season that has about a 5% chance of happening.

#4 there is no even playing field anyways. The amount of and requirements for academic and financial aid vary ridiculously wildly from institution to institution. As an equivalency sport those that succeed will always be the ones that can keep their numerators the lowest. Speaking of, if the proposal were to go through does that mean ivies and military academies aren’t limited at all since technically they have “0” athletic scholarships? Seems real fair.

This proposal wouldn’t really fix anything and it would cause headaches for most. Let head coaches put money where they like and if admins don’t like the results they can fire them. The only really fair solution would be 10 head count scholarships for xc, double the scoring 5, and 38 head count scholarships for track, 2 per individual outdoor event. Good luck passing that.

Since you replied to my post I can only assume from your first sentence that you seem to think I am either uninformed or spreading false information. Well, since I am only expressing my opinion on a message board and not actually discussing facts, I am neither uninformed nor am I spreading false information. I, like you, am only expressing my opinion on an idea.

#1 I think all schools should start with the same amount of XC scholarships and track scholarships... just like every other sport that the NCAA holds a D1 championship in. I don't really care how many NAU, BYU, or anyone else is actually using now. I actually don't care about specific schools, I simply think everyone should have the same amount of scholarships... just like football, basketball, soccer, beach volleyball, etc...

#2 I have no idea what point you are making here... I don't really care how many athletes a team carries on their squad... 5, 10, 100... Doesn't matter. All I suggest is that all schools have the same number of scholarships to offer. They can split them up however they want. Btw, I'd suggest those on XC scholarships be allowed to run track ...but only in events of 800m or above (eliminates using XC scholarships on sprinters or field events) and those on track scholarships not be allowed to run XC (eliminates stacking XC with more than the authorized number of scholarships).

#3 I think you are agreeing with my thought here... people who would be against this proposal are those trying to protect a current advantage they have. Doesn't matter what conference they are from.... if they have an advantage they'll want to keep it. So we are on the same page with this one.

#4 All I am suggesting is that everyone starts with the same number of scholarships to offer.... just like every other sport. And just like in every other sport each university has it's own set of pluses and minuses... let the student athletes make their decisions based on those pluses and minuses just like they do in every sport. I am not suggesting nor do I think this scholarship idea will make everything else equal.

What my hypothetical message board opinion proposal would fix is just what it's proposing to fix. I also think it would make ADs recognize that track and XC are both important. And that XC is no more a subset of track than swimming is a subset of water polo or beach volleyball is a subset of indoor volleyball.

The great thing is this is just my opinion and you (and anyone else) can have a different opinion. None of us are making any real changes... so rest assured the status quo is protected!