What program would you guys say is the worst distance program in the nation for division one?
What program would you guys say is the worst distance program in the nation for division one?
USC
bradley for the win. mvc powerhouse.
Niagara U
Actually, if we're going for a MAAC team, it would have to be St. Peter's because Niagara beat them in their conference meet.
How do you determine the worst program? Some programs are garbage but have 6-8 full rides on the guys side. Some programs have 2 scholarships and couldn't beat a strong high school team. Or, do you put the fully funded programs against one another and see who's the worst?
University of Vermont is pretty terrible
It's Wofford. Letsrun determines that every 18 months or so.
St. Bonaventure has a hard time finding those prodigies who can run 4.96 6-minute miles. People who claim other teams are just smearing them so they can't get recruits. Or they're ignorant.
While these threads may be throwaways, its worth noting to the world at large that the dumbasses who claim that 4:09 might be an ok mile time for prospective D1 athletes--there are more than a handful of D1 teams who would be happy with a 5:30-miler. Furthermore, those 5:30 milers who wind up at D1 college teams that want them probably won't find themselves struggling to cope with the difficulties of running 5:10 1500s and the difficulties of being a college student.
Many d3 and d2 letsrunners have claimed this very thing with disturbing consistency. Perhaps their intelligence is their real inferior D3 or D2 attribute, as opposed to their running ability? Perhaps both are so lacking as to make their lives not worth living? Who knows.
How many scholorships they give out? I know all the talent in illinois and even more so the peoria area you think they'd get a lot of recruits....but they don't...
Kansas State is pretty crappy. Their top guy was 74th in the Big 12 cross country and ran over 27 minutes for 8k. That's two years in a row they've been bad enough that their top female, Beverly Ramos, probably could have run on the men's varsity.
Long Island U.
University of Pittsburgh. 'Nuff said.
I am actually working on a List of Shame that will call out both coaches and athletes. The bottom line is that our sport is results oriented. I don't care if D-I Podunk U. only has 3 scholarships on the men's side, vs. an Big State U. that puts 12.6 into distance. Both have the same goals and that is to get athletes to nationals & score points/place high-aside from making sure they have a degree in hand when they leave, that is the job description.
I am really not concerned with what one school has vs. another. If a coach doesn't have something they feel is vital to success, then it is up to them to go out into their respective community and get it. Need money so you can become fully funded? Get out there and ask for it, or make it by any legal means necessary. Need upgraded facilities so you can feel good about making the sell in some teenagers living room, find someone to donate and get it done. I have seen some coaches out there who have gotten some incredible things done at schools that I thought were coaching dead ends, in communities that I thought didn't give a crap about our sport.
If you are at a school and you actually have everything you need for the most part, you really have no excuse. At some point as a coach, you just have to look in the mirror and say to yourself, "I'm just not getting it done as a coach." Results don't care that aren't landing a crop of 5 sub 9:10 2 milers every year. If all you can bring in are 9:20-9:40 guys, You better become damn good at making that 2nd tier recruit into a sub 24:30/30:30ish cross country runner, and you better be able to do it every season for at least five guys that you will bring to the regional meet. If you can't, go look in the mirror again. If you are at a school that can actually land a footlocker finalist or two, and you can't get a team to nationals, what are you doing, man? Let's get real.
If you actually start looking at some of the bottom end results at some of the regional meets, it starts to make you sick that some of these coaches still have jobs. I really don't understand what the point of traveling a team that has a 33:00-34:00 minute guy as their fifth man. Sorry, but if that is you and your program, you aren't cutting it, hand in the paperwork and give someone else a go, no one cares about your excuses.
"Oh they don't listen, they party too much." Guess what, YOU PICKED THEM. YOU LET THEM REMAIN ON YOUR TEAM. YOU STILL CASH YOUR PAYCHECK. YOU CHOOSE TO STAY IN THAT POSITION. Take some accountability for your crew, for crying out loud! I don't mind if you have a bad season, but as you also see when looking at results from multiple years, some schools have had this kind of thing going on FOR YEARS with the same staff in place! I've seen some bio's of coaches who have been at a position for +20 years and they hang on to the 3 athletes that they got to the national meet, only to be gutter f***ed by the real athletes who look right past them on the line. I mean a little credit is due, but c'mon at some point you have to realize it just ain't work'in out man. Quit already.
Anyway end of rant, and expect the list soon.
runner #7 wrote:
Actually, if we're going for a MAAC team, it would have to be St. Peter's because Niagara beat them in their conference meet.
Truth did not actually check the results for the MAAC. NU was just off the top of my head.
Pitt is absolutly terrible
university of oklahoma
Bored Runner in the Winter wrote:
I don't care if D-I Podunk U. only has 3 scholarships on the men's side, vs. an Big State U. that puts 12.6 into distance. Both have the same goals and that is to get athletes to nationals & score points/place high-aside from making sure they have a degree in hand when they leave, that is the job description.
You can't tell me that LSU and Colorado have the same goals when it comes to XC. Yes they both have the same goal to get to nationals and score points but they take 2 different routes to do so. Thats one of the cool things about track and field. You don't have to do things like everyone else to be successful because there are so many event types.
Centenary College, guaranteed. They'd take the last 7 spots at our conference meets.
Actually Wofford has one moderately OK runner this year.
They've moved out of the bottom.
Look More Closelerly wrote:
You can't tell me that LSU and Colorado have the same goals when it comes to XC. Yes they both have the same goal to get to nationals and score points but they take 2 different routes to do so. Thats one of the cool things about track and field. You don't have to do things like everyone else to be successful because there are so many event types.
In case you didn't get it, I was refering to the realm of distance, but you bring up a great topic in regards to how a team "identifies" itself. The "oh that is a sprint school" or "that is a distance school" thing is obsurd. Winners win. These are exactly the kinds of excuses that I am talking about. There is just too much boo hooing. Sooooooo you are not the head coach, just a lowly assistant, and the big bad head coach won't give you any scholarships for distance-or at least the 7 you just gotta have to build your dynasty so you can be the head coach one day, it's all you can do to beg for the 1.5-2.0 in crumbs that he tosses your way. Take what money you can get, split it up, get the best you can sign, and get to coaching. Prove your worth and if you don't like the boss, quit, move on, let someone else take the abuse if you can't hack it. As I said before, your job is to have your school represented, in your event area, at the national meet, period. No excuses. Do the job.