SETON HALL - "THE HALL" cuts MEN'S and WOMEN'S INDOOR AND OUTDOOR TRACK

thats crazy for this to happen to such a good program

I'm sorry but over a million for the program to run? You don\'t have to give the kids a dozen articles of clothing/shoes, 75 bucks a night meal money, stay in a four star hotel every meet, have 12 full scholarships as opposed to 8 or 9. Many of the scholarships are allocated in the worse ways also, but that\'s besides the point. This could have easily been prevented in my honest opinion, budget aside. It\'s just a shame that the one program remaining (cross-country) has to still compete in the usual DFL fashion. A sad day for Seton Hall Athletics? Surely! A preventable one? OH yes

Here is another good article from a local paper on this decision.

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/professional/seton-hall-cuts-mens-and-womens-track-and-field

This is SHOCKING to me. This isn't like this is podunk U cutting track. This is a Big East school that doesn't even have football eating up all of its resources.

Their list of All Americans post dates their most famous trackster of all: 1952 Olympic 200 meter champion Andy Stanfield.

Hey we could just ask all their illustrious All American Alumni to donate to the cause....oh wait, I see, not good tippers eh? Well, scratch that plan...

Try LOWER TIER Big East school. They haven't been relevant in basketball in over a decade.

rojo wrote:

This is a Big East school that doesn't even have football eating up all of its resources.

THIS IS A SAD DAY

Sad is children dying. Not this.

Dave the Douchebag wrote:

Hey we could just ask all their illustrious All American Alumni to donate to the cause....oh wait, I see, not good tippers eh? Well, scratch that plan...

indeed, small tip jars at SHU

no. children dying is tragic, this however is sad

No this is not sad. These runners go to Seton Hall for an education. That is the point of going to school. Is it a bummer that they will no longer compete, yes. If they want to compete go to another school.

Thomas wrote:

No this is not sad. These runners go to Seton Hall for an education. That is the point of going to school. Is it a bummer that they will no longer compete, yes. If they want to compete go to another school.

seriously? running on a division one track program is part of one's life. it becomes just as important as sleeping, eating, breathing. as far-fetched as that sounds, it's true. people live and die for competition, and it is sad because it is being taken away from these kids.

of course college is for education, but at the same time, if you are running for a division one program, then running (mainly, competing) must be one of the biggest aspects of your life, and to have it taken away, with NO warning, NO rumor, NO knowledge of it happening, must feel terrible.

i feel for these runners and for the coach. i really do.

The educational experience in college is not limited to only the in class education. This is sad for the student-athletes and completely changes the expectations established by the school that the students relied upon when they chose to go Seton Hall. That in itself is a harsh injury.

Also, as the article points out, many of them went to Seton to train under a legendary coach with special skills not easily found anywhere else. It is not satisfactory to simply say "well they can go somewhere else if they don't like it." They won't have the opportunity to be coached by Moon and as any athlete knows, sometimes it really does matter to the quality of your experience who your coach is.

Also, trying to compare this to the extreme of children dying or belittling it in a dismissive manner demonstrates such a lack of empathy that it makes me wonder if you were ever a serious collegiate track athlete yourself. And if you weren't, then you simply lack the experience to comment intelligently on the topic.

To lose the support of the school that you are proud to represent and work so hard to win for is not just something to write off or to trash because it is inconvenient to maintain.

At the same time resources and better budgeting are required to make a program sustainable. There is no need for it to cost a million dollars a year. But, I feel like the administration definitely did something wrong here by not at least giving the coach a heads-up that his programs were in danger. Frankly it doesn't pass the smell test.

you a Will Leer and Nick Symonds fan? DIII FTW

This'll happen more and more. It's the economy. For college track, I think it might actually be good to have fewer (but better) college programs. Colleges always have to favor their best sports, and t&f will lose out to big-money sports. It may end up that each state will have anywhere from 2 (small/less-populated states) to maybe a dozen (Ca.,Tx.) college track teams. At least then there

might be better dual meets and NCAAs. And better coaching

(that's what's needed, here & there).

So you want the pool for professional athletes in track and field to run dry?

Less spots in rosters (state-wide if you cut it to 2-12 programs) will mean that high-school kids need to peak earlier to get a scholarship. Meanwhile you're cutting of the way for the late-bloomers (like Vessy) to gain experencie in heavy contested championships like the NCAA in- & outdoors. So the Walter Dix's and the Xavier Carter's would get all the funding and (recently) fail in the pro-ranks. Nice prospect to Jamaica, Kenya and even Europe for the upcoming Olympics.

As the USA lacks a decent club development system as in other parts of the world, athletes do need top and other programs to prosper in the professional ranks. The NCAA is the best system to prepare athletes for a career on the global stage. Without that system to develop young athletes (20-24 years old) into top-level athletes track&field in the USA will diminish into a sport for funrunners.

But it looks like track and field was one of their best sports, that should have been favored, and they had good coaching.

bf wrote:

This'll happen more and more. It's the economy. For college track, I think it might actually be good to have fewer (but better) college programs. Colleges always have to favor their best sports, and t&f will lose out to big-money sports. It may end up that each state will have anywhere from 2 (small/less-populated states) to maybe a dozen (Ca.,Tx.) college track teams. At least then there

might be better dual meets and NCAAs. And better coaching

(that's what's needed, here & there).

That's bad news you'd think they could restrict expenditure all round rather than wielding the axe

Would be interesting to know coming from UK how exactly the schools income is directly affected by the economy?

Anyone have an email for the school?

The way this was handled was horribly incompetent. So incompetent that pink slips should be issued.

And I can't help but notice that the department kept the predominately white cross country program and shed the rest. They just dramatically reduced opportunities for minority athletes and added golf?

Pathetic.