seems like the formula for team scoring is sprints + field events at national meets
doesn't seem like there are enough scholarships to invest in all 3 phases - (sprints-distance-field)
if you truly want to contend for team titles you forego distance development
schools typically have a choice to invest in XC and tout individual distance performances in track
or focus on sprints - field events and forget distance
I believe winning a team title has a lot to do with scholarshipping athletes who can score in multiple events. Sprinters can often compete in 2 events plus a relay.
Oregon men?
BYU women could have had a big meet but had some off performances.
runnerMD/anesthesia wrote:
seems like the formula for team scoring is sprints + field events at national meets
doesn't seem like there are enough scholarships to invest in all 3 phases - (sprints-distance-field)
if you truly want to contend for team titles you forego distance development
schools typically have a choice to invest in XC and tout individual distance performances in track
or focus on sprints - field events and forget distance
This is true. Short sprinters can usually run the 100m, 200m, and 4x100m, and sometimes these types are also long jumpers or high hurdlers. Even 400m hurdlers are often on the 4x400m relay if not also in the open 400m. Pretty tough for most distance guys to run well in multiple events. I know it happens with the very top guys, but doubling at 5000m and 10000m (for example) is pretty darn tough for all but the best of the best.
Perhaps XC should be given something like 2 full scholarships to account for this? I know when I was getting recruited in HS I visited a couple programs who told me they have basically no money for me even though I'd have been the third best distance guy on the team coming in as a true freshman. It was a hard pill to swallow at the time, though I understand every coach is just trying to maximize points.