That's a good size for a high school track team if you want to win dual meets. Seems to help URI win A10s. Why don't more colleges have rosters that big?
URI has 70 men on their roster. Does any college have more?
College Running
D1
-
20
-
umasslowell also has a huge mens roster. fully funded program
40 -
If I counted correctly, looks like Cornell has 74 men on their roster.
And I know that that is fewer than they've had in some relatively recent years.
The reason most schools don't have that many: $$$ and Title IX. Every athlete on the roster is an expense, even if s/he never travels for competition. And most schools have more women on the track roster than men, to help offset the huge numbers of men playing football.
Re Title IX, I note that Cornell only seems to have 66 women on their current roster, but in years (not too far) past they've had upward of a hundred--they had an xc roster with 50 women.
And yes, Cornell is currently significantly less competitive at the conference level on the women's side than on the men's.
40 -
Seems like a lot of very small scholarships.
20 -
BRF wrote:
If I counted correctly, looks like Cornell has 74 men on their roster.
And I know that that is fewer than they've had in some relatively recent years.
The reason most schools don't have that many: $ and Title IX. Every athlete on the roster is an expense, even if s/he never travels for competition. And most schools have more women on the track roster than men, to help offset the huge numbers of men playing football.
Re Title IX, I note that Cornell only seems to have 66 women on their current roster, but in years (not too far) past they've had upward of a hundred--they had an xc roster with 50 women.
And yes, Cornell is currently significantly less competitive at the conference level on the women's side than on the men's.
Why not. Running is a cheap sport and 95% of those people represents someone who'd take their tuition dollars elsewhere if the roster was smaller.
30 -
Kvothe wrote:
BRF wrote:
If I counted correctly, looks like Cornell has 74 men on their roster.
And I know that that is fewer than they've had in some relatively recent years.
The reason most schools don't have that many: $ and Title IX. Every athlete on the roster is an expense, even if s/he never travels for competition. And most schools have more women on the track roster than men, to help offset the huge numbers of men playing football.
Re Title IX, I note that Cornell only seems to have 66 women on their current roster, but in years (not too far) past they've had upward of a hundred--they had an xc roster with 50 women.
And yes, Cornell is currently significantly less competitive at the conference level on the women's side than on the men's.
Why not. Running is a cheap sport and 95% of those people represents someone who'd take their tuition dollars elsewhere if the roster was smaller.
I somewhat agree. Recruiting is somewhat of a numbers game for all but the best schools with access to premium talent.
You could easily offset expenses that an athlete takes up by doing some kind of fundraiser thing if you were hurting that bad in the budget. Then the numbers actually come in handy and then a profit.
A big reason why this is uncommon is because of resources though. Extra bodies in the training room, study hall, to coach, write plans for, mentor on life, etc. A ton of athletes can stretch staff thin.
30 -
MSU-Mankato, DII school, has 73 listed.
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.