If I was still in college, I'd love to run for Georgia. Imagine how much more fun football games are there than say NAU, Ok State or Stanford. Plus take a look at that women's roster. I'd love to hang out with those ladies.
If I was still in college, I'd love to run for Georgia. Imagine how much more fun football games are there than say NAU, Ok State or Stanford. Plus take a look at that women's roster. I'd love to hang out with those ladies.
Thirsty Old former 4:40 miler has entered the chat
What's the big deal? Only 7 can compete and it only takes 5 to get the team score minus pushers. Id say that coach gets a raise for recruiting the right people. The athlete's reward is that they earned their ticket without the pressure from other teammates trying to get their spot. Maybe they should limit all rosters to 9? I suppose even more coaches would go shopping abroad in desperation.
How many are on a golf or tennis team anyway?
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
How does the fact that a team with 6 athletes making it to Nationals in any way prove that roster limits are not killing the sport?
The idea is that small or smaller rosters, limits development which in turn kills the sport because it allows fewer to participate.
Stupid thread title but good click bait I suppose.
Maybe just say congrats to them for getting through the year healthy enough to qualify given the limited numbers they have.
The advantage Georgia has is that they're fielding mostly graduate students from countries like the United Kingdom, Latvia and Argentina and those guys are like sub 14 minute 5,000 meter runners or close to that - they also have 3:44 1500 meters speed. Georgia just chooses to focus on quality runners who've already proven their mettle.
The advantage Georgia has is that they're fielding mostly graduate students from countries like the United Kingdom, Latvia and Argentina and those guys are like sub 14 minute 5,000 meter runners or close to that - they also have 3:44 1500 meters speed. Georgia just chooses to focus on quality runners who've already proven their mettle.
It's this. The SEC lowered x.c roster limit to 10, but plan is to have all 10 on full scholarship.
The SEC with 10 full International rides will quickly be beating schools with 17 roster spots and 2 scholarships.
2025 SEC: Ark, Miss, Georgia, Alabama, Oklahoma and soon increasing.
How does the fact that a team with 6 athletes making it to Nationals in any way prove that roster limits are not killing the sport?
The idea is that small or smaller rosters, limits development which in turn kills the sport because it allows fewer to participate.
Stupid thread title but good click bait I suppose.
Maybe just say congrats to them for getting through the year healthy enough to qualify given the limited numbers they have.
The advantage Georgia has is that they're fielding mostly graduate students from countries like the United Kingdom, Latvia and Argentina and those guys are like sub 14 minute 5,000 meter runners or close to that - they also have 3:44 1500 meters speed. Georgia just chooses to focus on quality runners who've already proven their mettle.
Forced to play the cards dealt to them to save their jobs. And winning. If they had a choice, would they do something different?
The advantage Georgia has is that they're fielding mostly graduate students from countries like the United Kingdom, Latvia and Argentina and those guys are like sub 14 minute 5,000 meter runners or close to that - they also have 3:44 1500 meters speed. Georgia just chooses to focus on quality runners who've already proven their mettle.
Forced to play the cards dealt to them to save their jobs. And winning. If they had a choice, would they do something different?
NCAA XC is nothing like football or basketball and I don’t believe there are expectations that would cost anyone their job. It’s not a revenue sport.
Forced to play the cards dealt to them to save their jobs. And winning. If they had a choice, would they do something different?
NCAA XC is nothing like football or basketball and I don’t believe there are expectations that would cost anyone their job. It’s not a revenue sport.
Ask the Washington State coach. He'll give you some BS answer to stay in line with AD and their program goals but he knows. He also made promises to track & field athletes that he couldnt keep. There's probably/likely a few more in his situation. Georgia will maintain their track program and had to figure out how to maximize their distance potential. That's a successful effort on their part and I commend them for playing their cards right. WSU will go backwards with exception to a few African athletes. I suspect that in many cases a program director who is also a distance coach would typically do the same to save their position. Goodbye field events and hurdlers along with assistants.
This post was edited 52 seconds after it was posted.
How does the fact that a team with 6 athletes making it to Nationals in any way prove that roster limits are not killing the sport?
The idea is that small or smaller rosters, limits development which in turn kills the sport because it allows fewer to participate.
Stupid thread title but good click bait I suppose.
Maybe just say congrats to them for getting through the year healthy enough to qualify given the limited numbers they have.
The advantage Georgia has is that they're fielding mostly graduate students from countries like the United Kingdom, Latvia and Argentina and those guys are like sub 14 minute 5,000 meter runners or close to that - they also have 3:44 1500 meters speed. Georgia just chooses to focus on quality runners who've already proven their mettle.
i'm aware. Just pointing out the dumb thread title.
If I was still in college, I'd love to run for Georgia. Imagine how much more fun football games are there than say NAU, Ok State or Stanford. Plus take a look at that women's roster. I'd love to hang out with those ladies.
Caryl Smith-Gilbert is an outstanding coach, She was a Sprinter at UCLA (11.35 for 100 Meters) Georgia is mostly a Sprinters School, But I am sure she has done her Homework on Training Programs That have Produced Successful Distance Runners and how distance running has evolved. She clearly knows her stuff and is great at recruiting from what I have read.
Forced to play the cards dealt to them to save their jobs. And winning. If they had a choice, would they do something different?
NCAA XC is nothing like football or basketball and I don’t believe there are expectations that would cost anyone their job. It’s not a revenue sport.
Unless there is a rules change / limit instituted, coaches will continue to stack their rosters with foreigners. It’s just the reality. They created an arms race and you get fired if you get left behind. Looking at the foreign composition of the SEC teams at the regional meets:
Alabama - 4 of top 7
Georgia - 4 of top 6
Oklahoma - 4 of top 7
Arkansas - 4 of top 7
Missouri - 2 of top 7 (3 others on roster)
Texas A&M - 2 of top 7 (2 others on roster)
Texas - 1 of top 7
Kentucky - 4 of top 7
Tennessee - 3 of top 7 (3 others on roster)
Ole Miss - 1 of top 7 (2 others on roster)
Florida - 2 of top 7
Auburn - 2 of top 7
LSU - 1 of top 6
Vanderbilt - 0 of top 7.
So, 44 total foreigners. 34 of the 96 whom ran at regionals (35%). Seems like most coaches are shooting for 4. Is this the highest percentage of any conference, or does the Big 12 have more?
