It seems we have shifted away from coaches and are now just looking at schools. So I'll do one better and throw out a whole conference. The Mid-American Conference. For a conference that's sucked dry by terrible football teams. Good individuals and teams seem to come from there.
David Granato at Washburn is doing a great job. Took Washburn from 2nd last at the MIAA meet in 2019 to 26th at D2 Nationals in 2022. If you look at the recruits they've gotten, he's done a great job at steady development.
I can’t believe no one has said Iona and the multiple coaches they have had over the years. Send athletes to nationals every year and at one point had the longest streak of making NCAA’s as a team in XC (ended in 2021). They have won the MAAC like 30 something years in a row, which is also pretty crazy even despite the rest of the conference being super mediocre, the fact that they NEVER lose is crazy.
Ryan Cole of Air Force. W/ a student population of 4000, rigorous academic standards, military training requirements, no redshirts, foreigners, 5th-6th-7th years, or grad transfers. The men were 7th last year with 0 sub-9 min HS 2 milers, 0 Champs XC qualifiers, 0 NXN individual qualifiers. The women were 8th in 2019 with even less HS talent.
I don't accept this. Air Force has leniency on athletes. They get out of a lot of minor things that the regular student population does. I have friends who went there. One thing they don't get out of is structure and overall fitness. This is something that other schools simply cannot mandate like a government school can. AF also can basically recruit an infinite amount of people because they don't have to worry about scholarshipping the athletes. The teams are large and they can train at altitude, you're always going to have decent teams just by default. It's basically "hey here's free school take it or leave it." That is a luxury most schools don't have.
Top Non-P5 Schools at Nationals 2022 (excluding Big East, Ivy, and programs moving on to different conferences soon)
NAU
Air Force
Tulsa
Gonzaga
Montana State
Utah State
Colorado State
Granted this is irrespective of resources, I'd say most of these programs are very well funded as far as XC programs go.
Other programs I'd note, in no particular order:
Furman, as others has mentioned, is a perennial nationals team and does well for themselves. Some might argue they underperform in relation to their resources (XC/Distance program only, and well funded), but they get it done
ETSU, second fiddle to Furman in SoCon every year, but some standouts will upset Furman's individual favorites at conference on occasion. IMO George Watts is one of the most underrated coaches in the nation, but its a very underfunded program. They just recently got a transfer from NAIA who has the potential to be an All American in cross this year.
Lipscomb, Nick Polk is great at developing. The women are nationally ranked and while the men are underperforming a bit right now they've yet to debut some very strong transfers and recruiting has taken a step up in recent years.
Tulane, the coach here has taken this program to another level in the last year or so. 5th at American conference champs last year but expect them to make a run at the title this year. Very transfer friendly.
Stony Brook, admittedly I don't know much about this program but I feel like I always see them in results with surprisingly solid times. Might be worth checking out.
UMass Lowell, again I don't know much about this one but they decimated the B race at the Virginia meet recently, strong team
Neither the Ivy-League nor Big East are P-5 Conferences and both have more small schools with higher ranked teams. Colorado State has 32,000 students. Why omit the answers to OP's question?
This question is a very intruiging one but almost impossible to come to a decent conclusion on. The thread is useless without knowing how much money they're working with. Case in point:
Cal Baptist
Furman
Iona
Tulsa
Boise St
New Mexico
Lipscomb
Vintage NAU
Etc etc etc.
These are all programs that just dump every cent into distance and say "look at me and how great I am!" I know some phenomenal coaches who have almost no scholarship budget and therefore are mid-conference at best but get no recognition for doing VERY well with almost zero resources.
This is also speaking to the disaster that is the structure of the NCAA's track/xc rules. It's unbelievable that it's set up to allow teams in the same sport to literally play by different rules.
This question is a very intruiging one but almost impossible to come to a decent conclusion on. The thread is useless without knowing how much money they're working with. Case in point:
Cal Baptist
Furman
Iona
Tulsa
Boise St
New Mexico
Lipscomb
Vintage NAU
Etc etc etc.
These are all programs that just dump every cent into distance and say "look at me and how great I am!" I know some phenomenal coaches who have almost no scholarship budget and therefore are mid-conference at best but get no recognition for doing VERY well with almost zero resources.
This is also speaking to the disaster that is the structure of the NCAA's track/xc rules. It's unbelievable that it's set up to allow teams in the same sport to literally play by different rules.
Who are the best small DI college coaches? Looking for the coaches that get DII & DIII runners, but know how to develop. The coaches that don't have a whole lot of resources, but still seem to be able to beat schools that are in the Power 5. While they may not be making it to nationals every year, they are at the top of their conference, sending individuals to NCAA meets and know how to develop. Thinking about schools in the SoCon, ASun, Horizon League, Big South, Big West Conference, MAAC, Southland, OVC etc...
Not sure about those conferences. I live in Alaska. Coach Chas Davis is your man.
David Granato at Washburn is doing a great job. Took Washburn from 2nd last at the MIAA meet in 2019 to 26th at D2 Nationals in 2022. If you look at the recruits they've gotten, he's done a great job at steady development.
What about the women? Also 4 out of top 5 guys are international
Coach Connor's Portland Pilots-three podium finishes in last 10 years (2014; 2017; 2018).
Why are people listing programs that have the maximum amount of scholarships (or close to the maximum)????
That is NOT what the thread was created to discuss.
Yes those may be non-power 5 schools that are doing well but they have more scholarships into distance than MOST power 5 schools - do you really think Florida, LSU, and even Oregon are putting all their scholarship money into cross country? Hell no. 20% or less goes to distance.
Speaking of MACtion....Clayton Murphy U (i.e., Akron) just reinstated Men's Cross Country this Fall & are ranked pretty high in the Great Lakes region already!
This question is a very intruiging one but almost impossible to come to a decent conclusion on. The thread is useless without knowing how much money they're working with. Case in point:
Cal Baptist
Furman
Iona
Tulsa
Boise St
New Mexico
Lipscomb
Vintage NAU
Etc etc etc.
These are all programs that just dump every cent into distance and say "look at me and how great I am!" I know some phenomenal coaches who have almost no scholarship budget and therefore are mid-conference at best but get no recognition for doing VERY well with almost zero resources.
This is also speaking to the disaster that is the structure of the NCAA's track/xc rules. It's unbelievable that it's set up to allow teams in the same sport to literally play by different rules.
This guy is nailed it! ^^^
Who loves you, Baby!
He does nail it. These schools that throw every single cent into cross country and distance are a joke and their coaches just aren't that good. It is so lame how it is set up.
The one bad example is NAU. They don't do that. They put a lot into distance sure, but they also win conference track & field titles. That is legit. All those other schools are all distance and trash in track & field or don't even have a conference championship in track. Can't dog on NAU the same way.
It's embarassing those other schools are throwing everything at distance and still can't beat NAU. Some other offenders: the entire West Coast Conference. They shouldn't even be allowed to compete in track & field if they aren't going to have a conference championships.
This question is a very intruiging one but almost impossible to come to a decent conclusion on. The thread is useless without knowing how much money they're working with. Case in point:
Cal Baptist
Furman
Iona
Tulsa
Boise St
New Mexico
Lipscomb
Vintage NAU
Etc etc etc.
These are all programs that just dump every cent into distance and say "look at me and how great I am!" I know some phenomenal coaches who have almost no scholarship budget and therefore are mid-conference at best but get no recognition for doing VERY well with almost zero resources.
This is also speaking to the disaster that is the structure of the NCAA's track/xc rules. It's unbelievable that it's set up to allow teams in the same sport to literally play by different rules.
This guy is nailed it! ^^^
Who loves you, Baby!
I find it funny how we always have this conversation of "they're only good because they put all their money into it!" as if the studs going to traditional power-5 programs are not getting full rides 😂
I also know for a FACT that several of the programs mentioned are NOT fully funded. Do they put the scholarships they do have into distance, of course, but they are not putting 12.5 and 18 into them.
How many scholarships do ya'll think Oklahoma State, Iowa State, North Carolina, and Syracuse put into distance? Are their coaches now "bad" because they also "buy" athletes?
These mid-major programs also can not offer the additional funding that is now allowable by the NCAA. The biggest example being Alston Money, a $6,000 yearly award that schools can stack on top of a full ride.
Sorry for preaching but the argument that many make of "they're good because they put more money into it" just is not correct when you are comparing to the other XC teams in the top 20. Do these small schools have bigger budgets and allocate more scholarships to distance than other mid-majors OF COURSE! But they still have much smaller budgets and resources than that of an Oregon, Duke, Virginia, etc.
There are so many variables way beyond how much actual scholarship money a team puts into an event area. Have you asked how much money the student athletes on each team pay on average? Perhaps that influences their decision. Stanford is about 80k. If an athlete is offered 50% then they are still paying 40k. Consequently, at a state school the cost is way less on average than a Stanford or Duke. They can load up with books kids at Texas then give them 6k in Alston money and maybe meals. Does that make a coach better? Are LSU, Texas and Florida bad at coaching because they find ways to get athletes for less, stack speed power events on men’s side and also can get athletes to quit or transfer when they are not performing at a high level? There are WAY too many factors on why someone appears to be a good coach or not. Most of these reasons are not mentioned here. Admin support for a program is understated. Also, the ability to be successful at multiple types of programs - private, public, big or small.