Unpopular opinion: What Passes for Women's Collegiate Level Track Talent Is Terrible

Are you surprised?

Try replacing the word "track" with "basketball."

I have a couple female friends that ran in college. Track/XC. It’s incredible because they are mediocre at best. I also see plenty of also-rans on instagram that use their school jersey as a type of clout for their page. Yet they run 2:30 for the 8.

Men are generally more competitive while women more participatory and perhaps do track for a social aspect as well. Sure there's a number of exceptional women who excel on the track but the drop off after that is relatively substantial compared to men. And yes, soccer and basketball subtract a lot of the talent too.

Just to provide some explanation. The development cycle for women is dramatically different than men. When you look at how young some girls go through puberty you begin to see why the women's side see's so many "Freshman Phenoms" at the high school level. Houston Franks once put it as, "you got these girls with some big Cadillac engines powering these itty-bitty bodies so they're bound to run fast."

Most boys are going through puberty throughout the entire duration of high school and probably some years just before and after. They don't have the same huge advantage right out the gates compared to their upperclassman. A stud freshman on the boys side runs about 4:30, which in many places won't make it out of a county meet. A stud freshman for girls might be 5:00 or even faster which can make a state final almost anywhere. Even in the NCAA that's not a bad time, I know more schools than not that would see a 4:59 in their top-10 all-time list.

That isn't any comment on any other factors that might exist (title IX, scholarships, etc.) that affect the disparity in competitive levels between genders. I agree, there are plenty of places that will give money to slower female runners simply because they have it to use.

Women's teams have more cash for scholarships than there is collegiate level talent. You end up with girls participating on the collegiate level with mediocre HS level performances and ability.

I don't blame the girls, heck if the money is there take it. I do think many coaches do a terrible, horrible job of developing these girls. I think the coaches know the deal, so they just go through the motions and collect a check.

Part of the problem imho is these universities that want to increase their roster size without giving up the money needed to pay for actual talent. So they end up with walk-ons or kids that are average at best, even at the D1 level. So its no wonder there is such a huge discrepancy, as you said there is maybe only 1/3 of these kids that are actually good enough to compete at the collegiate level.

The kids contribute to the problem too, they'll take a $1000 scholarship just to be able to say they competed at the D1 level. They just water down the talent pool.

Ever pay attention to the quality/depth at a hs meet or even state championship meet? Drops off real fast. College age girls arent always about the sports time suck and are ok with exercising/recreating as time allows. Even if they were actually good.

Scholarship? I have 2 daughters running in college and another one who is a junior. My daughters are not slow but one got a $2k scholarship and the other got nothing. You aremistaken about money. P5 schools are fully funded by have 50 women for 18 scholarships. Most other teams are way under funded.

My sister and sister in-law both earned full rides (one G5, one P5)... the P5 was a state champion, my sister was not but was in the Top 10 State in XC, 1600, 3200 both her Jr and Sr years. There is a lot, and I mean a lot of money in G5. My two daughters can win a majority of meets right now over Mile/3000m indoors in NCAA DI. Just got on TFFRS and see what it takes to compete at this level. As posters have stated, the talent level drops off pretty quickly. It's like 4:50 mile is the cut-off, after that there are dozens of 5:05-5:10 girls. Just get your daughters to run in the low 4:50's and you are set for college.

This is just another complaint about 12.6, male versus 18 female. Women college XC and T&F athletes are complaining right now about all the out of shape, slow, weak and uncoordinated American football players receiving money to play American football. Stop whining. You are complaining about your female cousins and sisters. When you are a father of female college athletes, you will talk differently.

Far too many small schools that have no business being D1. They just want the school to have a chance at being a 64th ranked basketball team so they can say hey look at us. Title IX rosters make sure these schools meet the requirements. Women's track and cross country programs pick up the 5K girl walk-on that can't even break 21:00. Seen some that don't make the travel squad that couldn't break 24:00. You won't find these times at Mt Sac so don't look. Only the best

I know we are not supposed to speak about gender (sex) differences, particularly when it comes to the brain and personal interests, but taking that leap, are girls less likely than boys to pursue the substantial amount of solo training inherent in being a successful runner?

Related question: When do high school kids of any gender train, particularly during the "off season"? Prior to the Rona when most everyone worked in an office with a regular schedule, I pretty much had to train early in the morning to get to work on time and avoid any after work conflicts. Now, working from home, I can train just about whenever I want, including mid to late afternoon. My various routes take me all over town. Regardless of time of day, I rarely ever see a high school age runner logging miles on the road. I do regularly see one young lady, but I am not sure if she is in high school or just youthful looking (bad form though, carrying her forearms chest high and perpendicular to her torso like one of those old electric football blockers).

At least most runners are in college to get a real degree. FB and BB players seem to think they will go pro or end up with a 1. journalism 2. speech 3. music appreciation degree.

Not saying that this is wrong. Just pointing out an observation. It's great opportunity to get the big D

The reason for this complicated. Many factors contribute to it. Title 9 (not good or bad, just is) . The lack of designated scholarships for XC specifically contributes as some schools don't want to give $$ to distance or might not have $$ (as someone above mentions). This means often times schools with little money for distance are forced to take those who maybe haven't run fast in HS and hope they can develop. Additionally distance runners generally are good students and have good GPAs so some schools carry more on the team simply to increase GPA (and don't really care how fast they run). You can't compare it to mens XC because mens has an entirely different set of circumstances. There are many reasons for this so as they say it is what it is and it certainly isn't a major issue on the scale of major issues.

Couldn't agree more, buddy of mine just told me about some small D1 school in Oklahoma boasting about two girls that ran "top 20" times for D1. The mile girl ran 4:55! There's no way that's a top 20 time so no clue why they would claim that, but as you said they probably have no business being D1.

I don't think this is controversial. You have to run about 90 sec off the WR in the 5K to make regionals in track as a male which is what I would consider good. As a female it is more like 135 sec. I may be a little off on that, its been a while since my college days. Needless to say the talent on the mens side is far deeper. If you can't run sub 15 then you won't make 80% D1 teams as a male. As a female that time is more like 17:30.

Not to mention with the way scholarships work at a lot of schools you will get guys who make regionals on the track getting no money while girls who can't score at conferences have decent scholarships. There are also very mediocre girls who are just kept on the roster and only compete at local meets just to balance the headcount in title 9.

Depends on what you define as terrible.

5:20 mile can garner some aid at a lot of less competitive DIs. 5:20 is impossibly far from being competitive at the National level, but for a lot of DI teams not in the P5, a 5:20 athlete probably makes the top 5 better in XC.

You can choose to view 5:20 as terrible, or view it as 5:20 is about like a 4:17 guy in terms of utility for mid major programs.

5:20 is not at all equal to 4:17 though lol. Even most places in the northeast know this. ic4as for men is 4:14 and girls is like 4:58.