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

not a peacock wrote:

Yes. Same meaning proportional to student body. My sons' teams have the same number of male and female members because their colleges have more female sports.

Must be nice...

not a peacock wrote:

Stanford University has a total undergraduate enrollment of 6,366 (fall 2020), with a gender distribution of 49% male students and 51% female students. Stanford normally wins the Director's cup.

Stanford University has a total undergraduate enrollment of 6,366 (fall 2020), with a gender distribution of 49% male students and 51% female students.

Must be nice...

I’d be interested to know what D1 schools let women just walk on once they arrive on-campus.

I ran d3 and to my knowledge everyone on a sports team at my school was either “recruited” (obviously there’s no scholarships for athletics) or arranged it with the coaches prior to the start of their freshmen year. I did the latter. We still sucked in most sports so I’m not saying this was good policy if it even was in writing but nobody, regardless of their gender, was allowed to just join the track team as a sophomore or something.

Just about any private school charging over $70K that isn't good and track or XC.

Untrue. Compliance departments are required to report their numbers to the NCAA. They have firm numbers and constraints.

not a peacock wrote:

At the end of the day, they have the same total roster spots and scholarships for men and women. If they add 10 women x 3, that's 30 more guys they have to add. Every school chooses what is best for them.

Regardless of what numbers they are balancing to... enrollment or whatever... it just seems like it would be cheaper to have fewer athletes ... so having more female athletes that you can count 3 times kind of makes sense if you have football... it's for this reason I said it was odd that schools do it differently.

not a peacock wrote:

Untrue. Compliance departments are required to report their numbers to the NCAA. They have firm numbers and constraints.

Yes and many private school (and some State schools) are begging for people to come out so they can make their numbers.

Are you saying that a school exists that doesn't have women's track and XC but has other women's sports to balance football?

Please list a handful so that posters know where they can send their 6 minute daughters.

Excellent analysis. Great data. You’ve convinced me!

NotPC wrote:

Long Time DI P5 Coach wrote:

You're just figuring this out? My administrators at every Power 5 school I've coached at told me in no uncertain terms "take any woman with a pulse." And when I was at mid-major DI's, I had to offer scholarship for 2:18/5:20/11:30 women because plenty of other "DI's" were offering them (no talent, non-athletes) big money.

I am not just figuring this out, it's just that I was at an indoor meet this weekend and frankly, most of the girls had no business wearing a collegiate kit. Their performances were the academic equivalent to allowing someone into college that can't do fractions, and struggles to read.

What meet?

not a peacock wrote:

Are you saying that a school exists that doesn't have women's track and XC but has other women's sports to balance football?

Perhaps you are trolling or just misunderstanding? I'll try one last time for you.

Some schools, like the one LTD1 Coach is from ,tell him to have a big squad... 30 girls = 90 spots counted towards the balance. Other schools limit squad size... 12 girls = 36 spots. The schools who limit numbers have to make up the numbers by having other sports... which have a total of 54 more athletes.. By having 20 more distance girls they would not have to do that... 20 is less than 54... and no extra sports. Less cost,

I find it odd that more schools do not use the strategy of having larger distance squads.

This really not something to argue about...

You make it sound like colleges host women's sports for the sole purpose of balancing football scholarships. Assuming that is true, it makes sense to have a smaller XC team like you said of maybe 12 who count as 36 roster spots. There are 85 football scholarships and only 18 for track and XC. The more women they count 3 times, the more men they need elsewhere besides football because those women each count as 3 and they aren't helping with the scholarship count.

not a peacock wrote:

Please list a handful so that posters know where they can send their 6 minute daughters.

There are dozens of d3 (expensive, rural) schools where they could even if they’re slower than 6 minutes. Probably d2 as well. But I highly doubt there are more than a couple d1.

If someone runs 6+ minutes in the mile, I wouldn’t choose a school with running in mind (to “send” an 18+ year old?) because it’s unlikely they were ever interested enough in running to want to compete all four years in college anyway to spend their entire Saturday’s at meets.

not a peacock wrote:

You make it sound like colleges host women's sports for the sole purpose of balancing football scholarships. Assuming that is true, it makes sense to have a smaller XC team like you said of maybe 12 who count as 36 roster spots. There are 85 football scholarships and only 18 for track and XC. The more women they count 3 times, the more men they need elsewhere besides football because those women each count as 3 and they aren't helping with the scholarship count.

Final reply by me.

1) my example s/b 18 not 20 (my error)

2) I understand the entire set up. You actually do not need to explain it to me.

3) There are schools with the minimum number of men's teams (with football) who limit womens distance and have extra womens teams to make up the deficit. They would not need to have more women's sports if they added distance people instead. It would be cheaper if they did that. That is all I was saying... that's it.

Glad it is your final reply. So they obviously are not doing it to save money. I don't know why that concept is surprising. Many P5 schools have many more sports than are required and they all cost money. Schools have additional women's teams in order to have a well balanced school.

not a peacock wrote:

Glad it is your final reply. So they obviously are not doing it to save money. I don't know why that concept is surprising. Many P5 schools have many more sports than are required and they all cost money. Schools have additional women's teams in order to have a well balanced school.

There are other metrics of Title IX compliance I am not as familiar with. I believe some schools choose to sponsor more women's sports than necessary instead of just make sports like ours load up on more numbers to cover their bases in other ways. Like how much money they're spending on the women's sports v. the men's sports. Say they're pouring a ton into men's football and basketball (like most have to)...then there's only so much money you can spend on women's track/XC until it makes more sense to spend that money on another women's sport (and there may be rules/laws regarding this?)...especially if it's labeled an "emerging women's sport" (I believe the NCAA provides a financial incentive to member institutions for sponsoring a sport in this category). In these instances, the administration can then let their coaches make more independent decisions on their roster size - and yes - in some cases, even limit their women's rosters to a rational number, so that the "student-athlete experience" is better for everyone - when they have the women's numbers elsewhere.

OKrunner wrote:

Not a typo, this was from ORU here in Oklahoma. I saw that article too and thought that can’t be right. Directly from ORU’s athletics page: “Mazzei's 4:55.72 mile is one of the 20 fastest times by any Division I athlete in 2021-22.” However, it looks like they raced at Arkansas’ meet which was on Friday before 90% of D1 raced the next day. So it might have been technically true for about 6 hours haha but still. Kind of laughable that they would post that

24 girls faster than that at Hokie Invitational today. Short lived "one of the fastest 20"