This is getting out of hand. First PSU runner doesn't get in, then a D2 runner at Stan State, NOW THIS- Rachel McCardell from Northwestern runs a 33:52.32 and would have been racing this week at the NCAA Semi-Final in the 10k, but isn't because NW doesn't sponsor track even though they claim to when recruiting athletes.
Northwestern does not sponsor track. If athletes were lied to when they committed, it could be grounds to sue. My understanding is their track "team" operates like a high level club. McCardell should find a subelite track meet or a fast road race to peak for. There are some in late May and early June.
Northwestern student here; I promise you everyone who chooses to run here is well aware that NU doesn't officially sponsor track. Some runners prefer only competing in XC races. Others are here for the academics. All in all, no one is being lied to.
They sponsor track just not in the sense that you are used to. They ran about a dozen meets this year, many of the premier ones. The athletic department pays for everything just like other schools but the B10 doesn't permit them to compete due to only having distance. The team went to XC nationals so it is one of the best in the country and it is a top 10 distance school. 99% of runners don't become professional and the don't compete at nationals. These women run track and cross country on the school's dime. And the get a better education than 99% of other college runners.
Is this the dad from the other thread? And Is this what Rachael was told after she qualified for NCAAs but then learned she can’t compete “we flew you to some big races, you’ll never be pro, xc was enough for you kid.”
The claim is that these young women (who are smart enough to get into Northwestern, which makes them SMART) were shocked (SHOCKED!!!!) to learn that the university doesn't have track and field (apparently after they matriculated).
I'm not sure that I believe that ever happened.
But if it did, they never checked the Website to read about the track team while they were finalizing their college choice?
In all sincerity, I would be interested to know how my reply gets down votes. Is there a counter point that I am missing?
It has nothing to do with them only having distance. Plenty of distance only programs out there sponsor track and only compete distance runners. They don’t sponsor the sport. The cross country runners can compete in track meets as part of their non traditional season
"Sponsor track" is a specific term that means more than just the school paying for travel, uniforms, etc. You keep trying to assert that Northwestern "sponsors track" when it appears the McCardell case proves otherwise.
Probably because you're seeing this so black and white and it's often not. The reality is these kids will ask in the recruiting process "Do you have track?" And XC only schools will say "We don't sponsor the sport, but we do compete in it like everyone else. We fly to big meets, stay in fancy hotels, and race the best just like every other program."
Leaving out... "Oh and if you qualify for NCAA's you don't get to go, we only do that in XC but not indoor or outdoor. Oh and the fun of competing for your university at conference? yea we don't do that either... we are the only school in the Big 10 that does this and it will limit your opportunities in Track."
They leave that part out and to a 17 year old recruit who is excited to be talking to an NCAA qualifying XC team at a great academic school, it's easy to not fully understand what this means.
Putting on your resume or CV "NCAA Qualifier" or "All-American" holds major weight and separates you from others with the NW degree.