There are 14 teams in Big 10, only 9 men's teams recorded a score at the Big10s. Should Iowa have had 2 guys walk the course?

rojo wrote:

I knew Michigan was out but didn't realize so many other teams were out as well. Here is my list

Men

Iowa - competed but didn't run a full team

Maryland - Did not compete - no team

Northwestern - Did not compete - no team

Michigan - Did not compete (covid-19)

Rutgers- Did not compete - Covid-19)

Any disappointed in Iowa ? They had 3 finishers. Why didn't they get two sprinters on the track team to walk the course?

“And, em, what it’s pertaining?”

Why not put the three runners who ran on the women's team?

HRE wrote:

You are an embarrassment wrote:

It's pretty simple. Iowa is a track school and wants to focus on track.

NCAA had a chance to just cancel XC and have a normal indoor and outdoor season. Instead they choose the awkward matching of indoors and XC, which is going to lead to watered down competition in both sports.

XC doesn't matter as much as track. It is that simple.

Iowa's got twelve names on their cross country roster. They couldn't have sent two more? I could see not sending anyone.

Some underclassmen will want to redshirt without a "real" fall xc season.

rojo wrote:

Any disappointed in Iowa ? They had 3 finishers. Why didn't they get two sprinters on the track team to walk the course?

Good grief RoJoke. Go out back and beat yourself with a hammer for this take.

Can't wait to listen to you and your brother stutter and stammer and word vomit your opinions on this during the weekly podcast though. Try to speak clearly and get your full thought out before starting the next sentence.

Big ask I know.

Except, season does not count against eligibility.

Then they and their coaches aren't prioritizing it at all, obviously. They'd rather point toward track.

I think Iowa finds that it is better if they don't show up in the final results at all , rather than be listed as last or second to last.

pretty harsh on Iowa ROJO. If you listened to the commentators you would know that Iowa's focus is on indoors. They were 2nd last year on the men's side, and maybe in the hunt for the title this year. Are you going to be upset if BYU men's team doesn't have anyone at indoor as they go for a XC title this year? (Iowa's women's team has been top 5, 3 times in the last 5 years for indoor big ten also, So, as a coach do you focus on the team with success in the last 5 years or the one finishing at the bottom, when the seasons coincide?

NCAA (and all those in-charge) were majorly wrong on not having XC in the fall as normal this year as many States showed HS could easily have a XC season.

So, it is easy to give Iowa a pass on their decision. At least they allowed those who wanted to run a chance to race. They just didn't force the rest of the team, when it is easier to train for indoors in Jan then XC in the midwest.

You should be more upset with NCAA, which allowed football but not XC in the fall. Should I point out all the facts that support XC as an activity that should not have been banned by the morons in political office and admin positions? the worst thing people did during this pandemic was not getting outside and exercise. it is easy to do with social distancing, outside exercise. It is another example of the NCAA's bad policies of one rule fits all, but the revenue sports.

I agree as how many of Iowan distance runners are going to make NCs or even place in the BIG

They did have an individual qualifier each of the past 2 years.

Taco John wrote:

HRE wrote:

Iowa's got twelve names on their cross country roster. They couldn't have sent two more? I could see not sending anyone.

Good point. Thanks. But still, with 12...

Some underclassmen will want to redshirt without a "real" fall xc season.

Maryland women didn't run because without Rutgers competing they were guaranteed dead last. Their women's team trains low mileage and runs high school workouts. Seriously, I think they are training to win the Maryland state championships. So much wasted potential.

It's really sad how much some of these programs hate cross country. No excuses for any team that skipped unless they had positive tests. The coaches are complicit in ensuring XC is never considered a real sport, and that track is more important but also not a real sport. AD's love to hate running at almost every college.

MD coach not a terp wrote:

Maryland women didn't run because without Rutgers competing they were guaranteed dead last. Their women's team trains low mileage and runs high school workouts. Seriously, I think they are training to win the Maryland state championships. So much wasted potential.

It's really sad how much some of these programs hate cross country. No excuses for any team that skipped unless they had positive tests. The coaches are complicit in ensuring XC is never considered a real sport, and that track is more important but also not a real sport. AD's love to hate running at almost every college.

I heard about a year ago the Marylands practices are optional and they only meet 2-3 times a week. And the girls just show up when they want and run when they want.

The running club at my school was more intense than that!?!?

MD coach not a terp wrote:

Maryland women didn't run because without Rutgers competing they were guaranteed dead last. Their women's team trains low mileage and runs high school workouts. Seriously, I think they are training to win the Maryland state championships. So much wasted potential.

It's really sad how much some of these programs hate cross country. No excuses for any team that skipped unless they had positive tests. The coaches are complicit in ensuring XC is never considered a real sport, and that track is more important but also not a real sport. AD's love to hate running at almost every college.

Just be happy the ADs are good to keep xc in their budget, whether men's or women's, because in a lot of places there is huge and increasing pressure to put more money into football and cut it from expendable areas like xc and track. Especially in a P5 conference like the Big 10. Skipping an extra weekend of travel in the heart of the semester by skipping the conference xc meet in a severely compromised year isn't going to change that one way or the other. Truth be told, the ADs, coaches, and runners at most of these schools would rather focus on track, anyway. Doing workouts on grass in MD, NJ, or IA in January and February sounds like unnecessary drudge.

HRE wrote:

Taco John wrote:

Good point. Thanks. But still, with 12...

Some underclassmen will want to redshirt without a "real" fall xc season.

The bulk of the team has a focus on indoors, if I was fit and capable that's where I'd want to be with the rest of my teammates. Not out at the golf course on frozen, dead grass under gray skies with the volunteer assistant coach.

I get that, really. I just side with people asking how you can expect administrators to take a sport seriously when the sport's coach doesn't and it's hard to think you're serious about the sport if you don't bring a full team to your conference meet. If it means that little to you save a few bucks and use it in your track budget.

I'm certain administrators have far more of an issue with how the NCAA jammed the sport into the wrong time of year and in direct conflict with other seasons those athletes have and where those teams' best prospects for success ultimately lies. They clearly side with the coaches' decision, if they didn't dictate it. Iowa xc isn't going anywhere from this meet that the changing current of fiscal spending wasn't already taking it.

There was no cost savings. They took a bus with 7 athletes. This is a Power 5 school with a $150M budget. Saving $300 on hotel rooms was not the purpose. The purpose was to position themselves to win indoor and outdoor conference track meets. Running 1 XC meet in January in the middle of a good track season makes no sense for a distance runner unless you are a 10k guy or will win the meet or qualify for nationals.

Nobody cares if you are last or second to last in a cross country meet in the middle of winter in the midwest. Why in the world would a coach put a sprinter (who is in their indoor track season) on an 8K course in the middle of winter?

Former Iowa Great wrote:

The purpose was to position themselves to win indoor and outdoor conference track meets. Running 1 XC meet in January in the middle of a good track season makes no sense for a distance runner unless you are a 10k guy or will win the meet or qualify for nationals.

This, obviously. The only guys who would run xc at the end of January on a team that's loaded for indoor and outdoor track are either the underclassmen who aren't developed enough to potentially score in the 5000m or below or the upperclassmen aiming to run the 10K at outdoor Big 10s.

I have a feeling Heps runs a little differently than a P5 conference if the OP's response would fly there.