State of Pac-12 Men's Cross Country

It's a good question about Cal and UCLA. Are they not allowed to recruit or something? How hard is it to throw some cash at one of the hundreds of 9:10 or faster 3200m runners in California?

rhimby wrote:

It's a good question about Cal and UCLA. Are they not allowed to recruit or something? How hard is it to throw some cash at one of the hundreds of 9:10 or faster 3200m runners in California?

Oh they throw money at those guys and their squads are full of those guys. Both Cal and UCLA are places where good/great CA HS runners go to die.

UO lost their #1 or #2 guy to going pro. They would have been no worse than 2nd at regionals with Hocker.

Take away any top-20 NCAA guy from the any contending teams and they fall off the mail pretty quickly.

Plus it appears like Jackson Mestler is injured. I think it's probably just like March madness, not everyone can be hot at the same time. You would think that Cal Berkley would have the allure of a Stanford, Georgetown or William and Mary; recruits get an incredibly good education.

I don't understand how a school can pull itself out of the basement here. Any kid hoping to get to the NCAA meet isn't going somewhere that hasn't gone in 25 years. And yeah, other than NP, there are no California 9 minute kids you hear about six months later. Don't know what's up with that.

OC4 wrote:

rhimby wrote:

It's a good question about Cal and UCLA. Are they not allowed to recruit or something? How hard is it to throw some cash at one of the hundreds of 9:10 or faster 3200m runners in California?

Oh they throw money at those guys and their squads are full of those guys. Both Cal and UCLA are places where good/great CA HS runners go to die.

I was going to say. Few places do less with more than Cal. They get some top recruits and they end up doing little. Is it the academics or the coaching.

Ok7272 wrote:

You would think that Cal Berkley would have the allure of a Stanford, Georgetown or William and Mary; recruits get an incredibly good education.

They used to until relatively recently, but appears that time is over. Mind blowing that medium level tiny schools w/ little draw and like 1 schollie like St Marys & Idaho can stick it to Berkely and ASU while places with zero to little tradition of xc success like Fullerton, Santa Clara and Portland St can rail them and UCLA. I mean I get that the academics must be a challenge at UCs, but UC Santa Barbara is figuring it out better on very little scholarship. Maybe these low level Pac12 schools must be putting all their schollies into other events on the track and that’s where they are competitive? I don’t follow track and field teams as closely.

My guess is UCLA, Cal, ASU, AZ give very little scholarships to men’s distance. They may not even give a full compliment of scholarships to men’s track and field. Did I hear Tile IX?

good guess..... but not the best guess. Cal men lost to a Santa Clara team that only had 3.6 scholarships on the starting line..... a Portland state team that only had 2.6 scholarships on the starting line... and get the FOH ......LOST to a St. Mary's team who only had .8 of a scholarship on the starting line.

STOP saying it's because they don't give enough money

How do you know these scholarship numbers? Also, my guess is these are not accurate, just what those coaches told you. Portland State has more than 2.6.

ASSTCOACH wrote:

good guess..... but not the best guess. Cal men lost to a Santa Clara team that only had 3.6 scholarships on the starting line..... a Portland state team that only had 2.6 scholarships on the starting line... and get the FOH ......LOST to a St. Mary's team who only had .8 of a scholarship on the starting line.

STOP saying it's because they don't give enough money

I’m not that impressed with schools that only field distance runners, if that’s your only focus then you better be decent at XC. Arizona State, Cal, etc. at least they field complete track and field teams.

These distance only focused schools are a joke.

You're not impressed... that a cross country team.... only fields distance runners? huh?

ASSTCOACH wrote:

good guess..... but not the best guess. Cal men lost to a Santa Clara team that only had 3.6 scholarships on the starting line..... a Portland state team that only had 2.6 scholarships on the starting line... and get the FOH ......LOST to a St. Mary's team who only had .8 of a scholarship on the starting line.

STOP saying it's because they don't give enough money

It is about the money and the roster spots.

What people don't understand is... 3.6, even 2.6 on the starting line is a lot compared to some of these big name schools who suck. They often put little to nothing in XC, if they are a track focused school.

Secondly, these major schools are often limited on the men's side for walk-ons. Thanks to Title IX, budgets, AD's, etc. often these teams have a cap on how many walk-ons, or roster spots they have.

What people on letsrun don't get is that for many of these major schools like Cal, they don't care at all about XC. Sure, the XC coach does, but the track coach in charge and the rest of the admin don't. That means you get little to no $, you get limited rosters, and more as an XC coach you are left trying to convince kids that you matter, and XC matters, when the rest of the staff/department sends the opposite message.

If XC was truly its own sport, had its own scholarship allotment, and wasn't the ugly step-child of track and field, you'd see a shift in who is good at XC.

Yes, you don’t get it. Track & Field/Cross Country are combined programs.

ASSTCOACH wrote:

You're not impressed... that a cross country team.... only fields distance runners? huh?

The OP has a really good point. The Pac-12 should be good up and down the line in xc, because running is very popular in the west, the topography is great for xc, and the weather is either great all the time or at least great in the early mornings, especially in fall, for it. How can schools like Furman and the Rebels be far better than Cal, UCLA, USC, Arizona, or Arizona State in xc? Why is it that AD's don't care about it at all when it is the healthiest of all sports, a lifelong sport, and really inexpensive as well? What's so hard about getting five to seven low 4 minute high school milers in shape to run 8-10x1k in 2:50-2:55? There should be more incentives for schools to pursue xc, as distinct from track.

xczvzxcv wrote:

The OP has a really good point. The Pac-12 should be good up and down the line in xc, because running is very popular in the west, the topography is great for xc, and the weather is either great all the time or at least great in the early mornings, especially in fall, for it. How can schools like Furman and the Rebels be far better than Cal, UCLA, USC, Arizona, or Arizona State in xc? Why is it that AD's don't care about it at all when it is the healthiest of all sports, a lifelong sport, and really inexpensive as well? What's so hard about getting five to seven low 4 minute high school milers in shape to run 8-10x1k in 2:50-2:55? There should be more incentives for schools to pursue xc, as distinct from track.

Making excuses about scholarship allotments, track teams and AD support are crazy… Cal and Arizona just played maybe the worst football game ever that really highlighted the state of the PAC 12 Cal (a team who bearly, you get it?, beat Sac state) lost to Arizona (a 0-20 team that lost to Nau) both Cal and Arizona. Cal and Az have 85 scholarships and Sac and Nau have 63 (that they may not even be fully using) . The PAC 12 is not a scholarship issue at any level it is a leadership issue. The athletics programs at these “power 5 schools” is a dumpster fire plain and simple… also Cal hoops just lost to UCSD (that’s UC San Diego for those unfamiliar with the names of schools that recently transitioned from d2).

Excellent post! Especially your last sentence. It says it all.

Notice these excuses aren’t being used by Stanford, Oregon, or Colorado? People love to find excuses and play the blame game. The reality is the bottom half of the Pac 12 ( if we are discussing the state of the pac 12) is average to below average. They would place middle or at bottom in nearly every conference.

And whoever said blame admins and ADs- like huh!? seemed to work when Tony Sandoval was sending teams to nationals and individuals. So what gives? Blame Title IX all you want. Worked for him somehow.

Oregon wins track titles left and right…. Doesn’t seem to affect the ugly step child of xc lol.

The state of the Pac 12 is simply half of it is elite. The rest are just average or worse.

rofling wrote:

Notice these excuses aren’t being used by Stanford, Oregon, or Colorado? People love to find excuses and play the blame game. The reality is the bottom half of the Pac 12 ( if we are discussing the state of the pac 12) is average to below average. They would place middle or at bottom in nearly every conference.

And whoever said blame admins and ADs- like huh!? seemed to work when Tony Sandoval was sending teams to nationals and individuals. So what gives? Blame Title IX all you want. Worked for him somehow.

Oregon wins track titles left and right…. Doesn’t seem to affect the ugly step child of xc lol.

The state of the Pac 12 is simply half of it is elite. The rest are just average or worse.

Stanford, Oregon, Colorado all spent a large amount of their $$ on distance runners. Also, UO has the advantage of Nike.

When Tony Sandoval was at Cal, he spent $$ and gave attention to distance runners.

You are proving the point. It's not just the Pac 12. It's every major conference. Look around, the bottom half of the Big 12, SEC, etc. all are horrible. Why? They realize there is no hope, so they sink zero time, money, importance in XC and instead focus on track. Some on sprinting, others throwing. There are very very few balanced track teams in the country. It's why NAU sucks at everything besides distance. Are you wondering why NAU has only a single male sprinter who can run under 11.0 seconds?

This isn't hard to figure out. If half of the major conference sucks at XC it's because they don't care about it. It's a flaw in our combined sport model