CBU DIDN'T HIT SPONSORSHIP MINIMUMS- BUT ARE STILL AT NCAAs!

This an example of "How to say you have no idea what you are talking about without saying you have no idea what you are talking about!" LOL For example, multi day meets are considered one meet. Let that soak in.

However, that is not the problem here. The problem is a stupid set of rules cobbled together by some coaches a few years back that wanted to bully their way into meets. As a a result we have these random set of things that constitute a team, a qualifying meet, etc. So now small schools, the ones that pushed so hard for these things, are struggling to mee the NCAA requirements for a certified team! Forget this NCAA meet issue, MANY schools are fighting for NCAA funding now, especially post COVID. The rules need to be readdressed, and amended. Start with, how come a XC team cannot be a viable track team?

I love how people are arguing the minutia of a moronic rule without pointing out how moronic the rule is. It’s an individual sport, why is the NCAA holding back individuals on an arbitrary rule about meet roster sizes? Other than the typical phenomenon, that rule-making bodies like to make rules, regardless of how sensible or stupid those rules are.

But wouldn't you say that the rule, or at least the intent of the rule, is sound?

If the intent is to "force" teams to have a reasonable roster size (which encourages reaching scholarship limits and having walk-ons), and then to put that roster to use to support a reasonable number of meets, that is good for the sport. Coaches can then use the rule to pressure their athletic department for financial support, and that seems to be good for the sport.

The last thing that I would want to see is a track team that is seven to ten distance runners (the cross country team) competing in five total meets between indoor and outdoor. If you are going to go the "distance only" route, at least have enough athletes that you can send 14 to 8 meets.

There are so many moronic/archaic rules the ncaa has it's beyond stupid. Like the rule that XC scholarships are part of track scholarships... stupid design for two separate sports.

This post will get many down votes though because some of you think it's a great idea because it allows schools to put all of their track scholarships into XC or use no scholarships on distance at all... both create an unequal playing field which should not exist. They are two separate sports which should have separate scholarships. Fire away.

CBU? Sponsoships? Why does a university have sponsorship requirements? Huh?

WTF is CBU?

If that is the reason for the rule, then Portland State isn’t the type of team the rule was made for. The rule is to prevent teams from using scholarships to overload certain competitions. Because of transfers and injuries, PSU is under loaded, not over. They should be able to appeal based on their unique circumstances.

The elephant in the room is that although the requirements are for the schools, the athletes are the ones who get punished, not the schools.

The schools are the ones who should get some type of equitable punishment, and regardless of that, the athletes should be allowed to advance.

The rule isn’t made to stop overloading it’s intended to FORCE overloading. So that you have enough athletes even if some get injured and some transfer.

If you cannot get enough people to have a full team then you do not have a full team. It doesn’t matter if you’re “underloaded”. Other teams have injuries and transfers too.

The fact is psu is not a full team, because they didn’t meet the requirement. Instead of appealing the coaches should have spent the 6 months they had to figure this out to figure it out.

Who?

No, it really isn't.

NCAA schools are required to sponsor a certain number of sports, and to have certain numbers of participants and competitions, because otherwise a great many institutions would only offer sports that can make money: men's basketball and, at some colleges, football.

The rule is intended to have schools truly participating in the additional sports. Otherwise a college would have one or two track people, have them compete in one or two meets, and then claim that it had complied with the requirement to offer x number of sports.

I've had my own problems with NCAA rules, but ya gotta remember: It is its member colleges and not some outside entity randomly foisting arbitrary rules on them. The rules that the NCAA generates are in response to members' concerns and approved by them.

They are also tax-exempt. Protestants and Protestant-derived religions can get away with a lot in America.

Agree that minimum number of participants and meets are needed to get schools to invest in non-revenue sports. Conferences also have minimums for other sports. Last winter UConn WBB had to postpone a game against DePaul since they did not have 7 scholarship players to suit up. Instead of arguing for exemptions for schools that never supported multiple Track and Field events, the discussion should be what is needed to make NCAA track and field a sport worth following. XC, T&F can count for 3 sports for each gender but there seems to be no conferences with minimum scholarship requirements. It seems mid-major conferences set minimum scholarship levels in other sports.

Cross country doesn’t generate any revenue for the department. No matter how many cross meets you host or how many kids you have on the roster without a scholarship, it doesn’t make any money for the department. All the money from the non-scholarship kids goes straight to the schools general fund, not in the athletics budget, no matter what any of these letsrun clowns tell you. No conference will set a minimum because XC/Track ISN’T A SERIOUS MONEY MAKER.
People that are convinced that AD’s are gonna see a successful XC/Track team and say they need to be full funded with an unlimited budget and everything they need under the sun need to look in the mirror and tell themselves to shut up.

Mid-majors set minimums in MBB and WBB so they can level the playing field so no one complains about not being able to get a bigger piece of the NCAA pie.
Does the NCAA pay the school for teams that make it to XC NCAAs? Other than per diem and reimbursing plane tickets, they don’t do a thing. There’s no minimums ever coming because it does not matter to the NCAA. XC/Track is the same as Equestrian in their eyes.

They have to run on the same day at multiple meets for it to count. So if 11 ran on Saturday at Stanford and 3 ran on Saturday at Sam Fran it counts as 14.

However if those 11 were split on Friday and Saturday at Stanford and 3 at San Fran on Saturday, it would not count according to the rules.

I would say the reason is more for something else. To keep programs from cheating the NCAA overall sports requirements with a cross country team. Without these rules you could honestly have a cross country team with just 7 runners (and yes, I know of at least one D1 school with a seven man roster limit imposed by the school for TIX compliance reasons), and then count those 7 guys as THREE sports, while barely sending them to any meets throughout XC, Indoor and Outdoor.

You can designate some multiple day meets as one days meets for the purpose of “days of competition”… this is usually used by bigger schools with real programs so they don’t go over on competition days for their athletes but can also be used in this case.

They do at private schools. If you have 40 on the roster and the school costs $70,000 a year to attend- and those kids were all recruited and wouldn’t have gone there otherwise- well that’s $2.8 million dollars the school gets, doesn’t gets. Also larger teams bring more donors too. East 200k per year on a team that size. It’s not just about selling tickets to football games

Took me like 8 clicks to learn what "CBU" stands for. FYI, its not a place anyone has heard of.