a dangerous precedent to...get rid of stupid rules? or rewrite rules so athletes aren't punished for things that arent their mistake?
If they got rid of this rule it would HURT collegiate track and field. We would see a ton of track teams have only have 12 athletes per gender and only go to 4 meets per year because they can save a ton of money.
It would result in less opportunities for athletes. Less scholarships too, because it would incentivize some teams to focus on one event group instead of fielding a full track team.
This post is the hammer smashing the nail on the head.
If you care about the overall health of collegiate track and field, you want this rule to remain and to be almost always upheld. It creates incentive to have larger teams, more walk-on opportunities, to get out and race your athletes (and eight meets between indoor and outdoor is not over racing).
Without this rule, teams could slash budgets by having fewer athletes, having fewer of them travel (less hotel rooms, less per diem, etc.), you could focus on a few areas and get rid of event coaches, and so on.
Whether you want this particular athlete to get a waiver on appeal is a separate issue (I hope he gets to run) but the rule is a good one.
How can I try to have it both ways?
If an appeal shows a team competed in 8 meets or more and there was a meet or two in which injuries limited the team to 12 or 13 athletes, I would grant the appeal on the basis that "they tried." That is better, to me, than having an injured 1500 meter runner walk in the 100 meter dash to qualify a 14th athlete in a meet.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Add Stanislaus State to this list as their top gal (16:21/34:00) isn't running NCAA's for the same reason.
Even more embarrassing since D2 only requires 4 meets of 14 athletes. And the coaches were aware this may be a problem at the start of the season but still failed to meet the requirement.
Add Stanislaus State to this list as their top gal (16:21/34:00) isn't running NCAA's for the same reason.
Even more embarrassing since D2 only requires 4 meets of 14 athletes. And the coaches were aware this may be a problem at the start of the season but still failed to meet the requirement.
What happened at Stan State!? Diljeet built a powerhouse over there and it seemed like they were ascending in xc this past couple years.... But they only have 14 people on their track team and only 2 are sprinters? This is even worse than PSU. They have a track and could have simply hosted a few meets with a local teams. What a tragedy for that poor girl. She is more than a qualifier, she is an All-American candidate.... well not anymore, thanks to Stan State.
Even more embarrassing since D2 only requires 4 meets of 14 athletes. And the coaches were aware this may be a problem at the start of the season but still failed to meet the requirement.
What happened at Stan State!? Diljeet built a powerhouse over there and it seemed like they were ascending in xc this past couple years.... But they only have 14 people on their track team and only 2 are sprinters? This is even worse than PSU. They have a track and could have simply hosted a few meets with a local teams. What a tragedy for that poor girl. She is more than a qualifier, she is an All-American candidate.... well not anymore, thanks to Stan State.
Add. I think the Ncaa should allow this kid to run. It's not hurting anyone and the university is going to be penalized for this mistake even if the kid is allowed to run.
It hurts a kid on a team that followed the rules that got in because psu didn’t follow the rules… it also hurts all the teams that traveled and spent a huge amount of money making sure 14 kids made went to all their meets. It will also hurt the sport when schools realizes oh we only have to pretend to sponsor the sport.
What is hard is that for the meet to count as a meet it has to include a certain number of field and running events for results to count as a “track meet”.
In college we had a discus thrower hit a HUGE pr right before a storm hit. After calling the meet due to hours of lightning, they had us go out and long jump and run the 100 as a team so we could get enough events to meet he requirement.
What's crazy is I see POrtland State competed at over 20 meets this year. Who in the hell even noticed they didtn't have 14 people and decided to call them out on it. Someone with an axe to grind or do you have to submit a form or something.
Nobody called them out. With TFRRS, they just run a report and give it to the NCAA Sport Committee. They are just following the rules that say you need to meet sport sponsorship minimums to compete in the post season.
What's crazy is I see POrtland State competed at over 20 meets this year. Who in the hell even noticed they didtn't have 14 people and decided to call them out on it. Someone with an axe to grind or do you have to submit a form or something.
Nobody called them out. With TFRRS, they just run a report and give it to the NCAA Sport Committee. They are just following the rules that say you need to meet sport sponsorship minimums to compete in the post season.
But what is more crazy is that they have 38 men on the roster.
College T&F coaches during a season are too worried about which athletes deserve to participate in road meets. How many meets, spring, 2023 did Portland State U. leave a type of 400/800 athlete on campus to save per diem?
If they got rid of this rule it would HURT collegiate track and field. We would see a ton of track teams have only have 12 athletes per gender and only go to 4 meets per year because they can save a ton of money.
It would result in less opportunities for athletes. Less scholarships too, because it would incentivize some teams to focus on one event group instead of fielding a full track team.
This post is the hammer smashing the nail on the head.
If you care about the overall health of collegiate track and field, you want this rule to remain and to be almost always upheld. It creates incentive to have larger teams, more walk-on opportunities, to get out and race your athletes (and eight meets between indoor and outdoor is not over racing).
Without this rule, teams could slash budgets by having fewer athletes, having fewer of them travel (less hotel rooms, less per diem, etc.), you could focus on a few areas and get rid of event coaches, and so on.
Whether you want this particular athlete to get a waiver on appeal is a separate issue (I hope he gets to run) but the rule is a good one.
How can I try to have it both ways?
If an appeal shows a team competed in 8 meets or more and there was a meet or two in which injuries limited the team to 12 or 13 athletes, I would grant the appeal on the basis that "they tried." That is better, to me, than having an injured 1500 meter runner walk in the 100 meter dash to qualify a 14th athlete in a meet.
What I don't get is why do these rules always seem to punish the athletes that did nothing wrong instead of the administration that dropped the ball? Why can't this just result in a fine for the school or something so that it would be better to just spend the money to have a team than pick up a big fine?
a dangerous precedent to...get rid of stupid rules? or rewrite rules so athletes aren't punished for things that arent their mistake?
If they got rid of this rule it would HURT collegiate track and field. We would see a ton of track teams have only have 12 athletes per gender and only go to 4 meets per year because they can save a ton of money.
It would result in less opportunities for athletes. Less scholarships too, because it would incentivize some teams to focus on one event group instead of fielding a full track team.
Jerry would only run his Oregon guys three times a year if the rule went away
This true but not an accurate account of how many people are actually on the team. A ton of guys have left the team as a result of coaching changes (assistant coaches Josh Seitz and Griffin Humphreys left) as well as because a number of mishandlings by the current coaching staff. The only reason those athletes are still on the roster is because the current head coach is unwilling to do necessary paperwork so that they are officially no longer on the team.
What happened at Stan State!? Diljeet built a powerhouse over there and it seemed like they were ascending in xc this past couple years.... But they only have 14 people on their track team and only 2 are sprinters? This is even worse than PSU. They have a track and could have simply hosted a few meets with a local teams. What a tragedy for that poor girl. She is more than a qualifier, she is an All-American candidate.... well not anymore, thanks to Stan State.
They should host a time trial for her on campus.
I remember seeing a TikTok of one of their runners praising the coach and team as the 2nd coming. Wonder how this gets spun. Poor young lady deserves BETTER. Same with the Portland state steepler.
This true but not an accurate account of how many people are actually on the team. A ton of guys have left the team as a result of coaching changes (assistant coaches Josh Seitz and Griffin Humphreys left) as well as because a number of mishandlings by the current coaching staff. The only reason those athletes are still on the roster is because the current head coach is unwilling to do necessary paperwork so that they are officially no longer on the team.
This in response to the an earlier post that there are "38" men on the roster.
What I don't get is why do these rules always seem to punish the athletes that did nothing wrong instead of the administration that dropped the ball? Why can't this just result in a fine for the school or something so that it would be better to just spend the money to have a team than pick up a big fine?
Yeah, I agree. they should fine the school to hold those individuals responsible who caused this mess. Not punish the athlete. Edit: it's about $ anyway.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.