Since OSU football players are being allowed to compete in conference meets and NCAA championships, does this open the door for other programs to do the same? There a lot of schools out there that have XC, but no indoor/outdoor (or vice versa, or some other variation of the three). Are all of those schools going to appeal to compete at their conference meets and nationals?
Oregon State is bringing back their program in the next year or so if that makes any difference.
I was wondering the same thing, we have people transfer out because we don't have track, this would be awesome
Rolo Tony wrote:
Since OSU football players are being allowed to compete in conference meets and NCAA championships, does this open the door for other programs to do the same? There a lot of schools out there that have XC, but no indoor/outdoor (or vice versa, or some other variation of the three). Are all of those schools going to appeal to compete at their conference meets and nationals?
What conference meet did they compete in exactly? As far as i can see they did not and only competed in an open meet. And as far as i've heard they haven't been told they can compete in the Ncaa meet unless i missed something?
Here you go, Mrr:
http://www.osubeavers.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/022310aac.html
Would Trey Hardee left MSU if they had indoor track? What if he could compete at one meet, qualify, and compete at NCAA's? Would that be OK? MSU does not sponsor indoor track for the men. Can they compete one or two guys though to qualify?
I know several other schools will be trying to piggy-back off the OSU situation and will file waivers on behalf of their cross country runners to allow them to compete in conference meets and NCAA's.
My hope is that track coaches will not be selfish and look at this as cross country runners (or in the OSU case, jumpers) stealing precious team points away from contenders. As a track and field community, we should all be thrilled about creating more opportunities for collegians to compete in track and field, even if it did take a bunch of football players to get the ball rolling...
Does anybody know what the actual requirements for having an official team are? If the school supports them does that count as having a team? What else do they need to do? It seems to me like as long as you declare yourself as having a team people should be allowed to compete, but I am sure it is more complicated than that.
trackforall wrote:
I know several other schools will be trying to piggy-back off the OSU situation and will file waivers on behalf of their cross country runners to allow them to compete in conference meets and NCAA's.
My hope is that track coaches will not be selfish and look at this as cross country runners (or in the OSU case, jumpers) stealing precious team points away from contenders. As a track and field community, we should all be thrilled about creating more opportunities for collegians to compete in track and field, even if it did take a bunch of football players to get the ball rolling...
I'd rather have football players than xc runners. Most of the time their training translates over to track better and they bring exposure to the sport. If a xc only only was able to sneak in a provisional mark it would not make as much of an impact. How many DI XC only programs are there? With those XC only programs do they get the same DI talent that other programs get? There is a lot of talented Track and Field athletes/all Americans on the DI football field. Our sport needs to utilize those athletes
the point that hasn't been brought up here is that the number of waivers granted to programs that don't sponsor indoor could lead to schools dropping the sport.
i think you have to compete 14 athletes at 4 indoor competitions or something like that to sponsor indoor. which means you have to have at least 14 guys on your team, and you have to go to some meets.
has no one thought through the consequences of allowing schools that don't really sponsor the sport to compete at conference and national meets?
if i'm an AD, i'm looking at this and saying, we don't really need to sponsor men's indoor track, or outdoor track for that matter. we can just have one or two good guys on the team and they can go to nationals, instead of providing opportunities for a team of athletes to compete at meets (which costs money). how many more men's programs do we want to see disappear?
if you don't sponsor the sport, you shouldn't be at the championship. period. if schools want to be at the championship, they need to put their money where their mouth is and sponsor a team.
I agree. I have real mixed thoughts on this decision. I am all for Oregon State re-instating track for the men, but the admin has said in articles about this situation that this "does not" symbolize the return of men's track at OSU. The bottom line is that if these guys were from any other sport (except basketball perhaps) they wouldn't have had a chance at competing.. But since they're precious footballers, they get the free pass to compete. It's great that OSU has guys competing in a uniform again, but i'm not a fan of these guys getting a free pass because they play on the most popular team on campus.
I believe a Mississippi State kid made the 4x400 relay team for World Indoors. His school has no indoor track team, but if Oregon State kids can go to NCAAs, you figure he should have been able to...if he had any official at Miss St who wanted him to.
Anymore updates to this break thru
bump