2021 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion

rockheavy wrote:

bbg95 wrote:

I don't think this is a "solution" unless the cross country athletes aren't allowed to also compete in track (to be clear, I'm not in favor of this). Otherwise, it's just going to make the LSUs and USCs of the world stronger. I like the way it is now where, with some exceptions, the schools that win cross country national championships are generally not the same schools that win indoor and outdoor track championships.

I agree with you, It's not necessarily going to make sprint schools stronger, what it is going to do is make power 5 schools stronger. Currently schools like Furman, Iona, New Mexico, Portland, Tulsa, that are not fully funded scholarahip wise, and have 10% the budget of bigger schools, choose to put everything they have into being nationally competitive in cross country, and are able to do that. Increasing scholarships, but putting more restrictions on them, only benefits schools like LSU, USC, Texas A&M, Georgia. These schools choose to max out on sprints, jumps, hurdles, and very little to zero into distance/cross country. However with more allowed scholarships, schools that are already maxed out, and can afford to increase it, will do so.

Limiting everyone to 5 or 6 in cross country means those schools that have the resources to invest additional scholarships in cross, without having to choose to take away scholarships from track will do so, but no one else will be able to. The rich vet richer, and the gap between the poorer and richer schools in D1 will grow, not shrink.

One of the great things about cross country/track, is that there is more than one way to be successful. Right now, with a few exceptions, you have to choose which one you want to be good at, at the national level anyway.

okkurrr wrote:

Wild Duck Whisperer wrote:

I hear you and you're not wrong...but the reality on the ground in a lot of these situations (P5 track and field program that doesn't bother with distance...because it wins track and field championships) is that it's been made clear from the director that the distance athletes don't matter (yep, it's the same way in all those mid-major's who put everything in distance, just reversed). They're just there because they technically have to field a XC team (and Title IX compliance). It often doesn't take long for these 4:15 guys (who may have used their PR's just to get in & yes, just wanted to go to the big name school for the parties anyway) to lose motivation when they're never traveling and last in priority for everything (and of course they're not on money). That's still on them (they should have known what they were signing up for - if this is a surprise)...and sure a great coach can do a lot to keep morale up, but it's still a very difficult job & one that could potentially put the XC/distance coach at odds with their boss/the director. So the dutiful distance assistant keeps their head down, does what they can without ruffling too many feathers/rocking the boat, and then gets to keep their SEC salaried (big $ for doing what they do) job for another year. Cunniff seemed to dutifully do this for years exactly how he was supposed to...so here's to hoping he lands on his feet. And assuming Jebre takes the head cross country coach job - his job will NOT be coaching cross country. Obviously.

Ahh, you’re not wrong, but I have witnessed many 4:15 guys get a chance to travel and compete. Home meets also of course. Let’s keep real, If the coach knows how to develop the 4:15 kid will run 4:0X out the gate and not have that issue of not traveling let’s stop cutting them slack. Why covet these power5 coaches and then not expect them to be able to develop. No they will not knock them all out the park but hell you made it clear you deserved that position so show us Neanderthals what you’re capable of. It’s just a cop out to say they’re serving the head coach, why wouldn’t he want a walk on to travel and score points do you know how much respect that earns you to have a walk on score at a P5 conference? Stop giving these guys with 20+ years coaching experience excuses.

rockheavy wrote:

bbg95 wrote:

I don't think this is a "solution" unless the cross country athletes aren't allowed to also compete in track (to be clear, I'm not in favor of this). Otherwise, it's just going to make the LSUs and USCs of the world stronger. I like the way it is now where, with some exceptions, the schools that win cross country national championships are generally not the same schools that win indoor and outdoor track championships.

I agree with you, It's not necessarily going to make sprint schools stronger, what it is going to do is make power 5 schools stronger. Currently schools like Furman, Iona, New Mexico, Portland, Tulsa, that are not fully funded scholarahip wise, and have 10% the budget of bigger schools, choose to put everything they have into being nationally competitive in cross country, and are able to do that. Increasing scholarships, but putting more restrictions on them, only benefits schools like LSU, USC, Texas A&M, Georgia. These schools choose to max out on sprints, jumps, hurdles, and very little to zero into distance/cross country. However with more allowed scholarships, schools that are already maxed out, and can afford to increase it, will do so.

Limiting everyone to 5 or 6 in cross country means those schools that have the resources to invest additional scholarships in cross, without having to choose to take away scholarships from track will do so, but no one else will be able to. The rich vet richer, and the gap between the poorer and richer schools in D1 will grow, not shrink.

One of the great things about cross country/track, is that there is more than one way to be successful. Right now, with a few exceptions, you have to choose which one you want to be good at, at the national level anyway.

bunkdetected wrote:

rockheavy wrote:

I agree with you, It's not necessarily going to make sprint schools stronger, what it is going to do is make power 5 schools stronger. Currently schools like Furman, Iona, New Mexico, Portland, Tulsa, that are not fully funded scholarahip wise, and have 10% the budget of bigger schools, choose to put everything they have into being nationally competitive in cross country, and are able to do that. Increasing scholarships, but putting more restrictions on them, only benefits schools like LSU, USC, Texas A&M, Georgia. These schools choose to max out on sprints, jumps, hurdles, and very little to zero into distance/cross country. However with more allowed scholarships, schools that are already maxed out, and can afford to increase it, will do so.

Limiting everyone to 5 or 6 in cross country means those schools that have the resources to invest additional scholarships in cross, without having to choose to take away scholarships from track will do so, but no one else will be able to. The rich vet richer, and the gap between the poorer and richer schools in D1 will grow, not shrink.

One of the great things about cross country/track, is that there is more than one way to be successful. Right now, with a few exceptions, you have to choose which one you want to be good at, at the national level anyway.

So when playing on an equal playing field the distance focused schools think they will lose got it. Back to jobs.

bbg95 wrote:

rockheavy wrote:

I agree with you, It's not necessarily going to make sprint schools stronger, what it is going to do is make power 5 schools stronger. Currently schools like Furman, Iona, New Mexico, Portland, Tulsa, that are not fully funded scholarahip wise, and have 10% the budget of bigger schools, choose to put everything they have into being nationally competitive in cross country, and are able to do that. Increasing scholarships, but putting more restrictions on them, only benefits schools like LSU, USC, Texas A&M, Georgia. These schools choose to max out on sprints, jumps, hurdles, and very little to zero into distance/cross country. However with more allowed scholarships, schools that are already maxed out, and can afford to increase it, will do so.

Limiting everyone to 5 or 6 in cross country means those schools that have the resources to invest additional scholarships in cross, without having to choose to take away scholarships from track will do so, but no one else will be able to. The rich vet richer, and the gap between the poorer and richer schools in D1 will grow, not shrink.

One of the great things about cross country/track, is that there is more than one way to be successful. Right now, with a few exceptions, you have to choose which one you want to be good at, at the national level anyway.

Right, this is what I meant. Not the sprint* schools per se, but the power schools.

distance coach who likes track & field wrote:

Perspective of a head coach who works predominantly with distance athletes... the cross only programs push up the value of distance athletes and make it harder to balance pursuing a balanced track & field team. Sure, some teams put all their $ into, say, multis/high jump/vault, and I think that's good and well. Choose your perceived pathway to success given your circumstances and invest accordingly. But so many mediocre coaches are throwing big money at depth in XC, who don't even care about track.

Lots of ADs sign on,too--they say, well, we can't be relevant in track, but if we put 9 scholarships into distance only, we can have a nationally relevant program that I can tout.

What would make head coaches and ADs value track success more than XC success, as it probably should be, given that one has a professional equivalent and the other doesn't? If you got paid more for track & field success, that would probably do it. But ADs will pay for what they perceive helps their careers...

It would just be more fun if distance was one equally weighted area of track & field to pursue.