Worst D1 Track teams

UNC is the best, the rest are just awful. I wouldn't want to run anywhere else.

Purdue and UK are on the rise that's BS... try 100 other crap schools before picking on some bigger one's that are having a lull in recruits...

Who did you have in mind?

What do I think? As long as you asked, I think this topic has been covered on this forum. The topic serves no purpose. Your post does do one thing. It points out yet another source of misinformed, negative chatter concerning our sport. Sad indeed.

Negative, I don't think it is. ESPN does it for every major sport. I'm glad people are being held accountable in our sport.

Track is not a team sport. Most of these teams have some great individual runners. I don't know how this Matt Smith guy can make judgements with out knowing the full story of whats going on.

No one gives a shit about points etc. Maybe that's why US Distance running is shit. And I'm not counting the bunch of foreginers wearing the US Singlet at the moment. When was the last time US got a Men's distance medal on the Track...?

I think that the NCAA's emphasis on team titles and scored meets has ruined some of the best talent.

Is the guy who made this site the same dude who made Prepgold?

FIRE wrote:

Track is not a team sport. Most of these teams have some great individual runners. I don't know how this Matt Smith guy can make judgements with out knowing the full story of whats going on.

No one gives a shit about points etc. Maybe that's why US Distance running is shit. And I'm not counting the bunch of foreginers wearing the US Singlet at the moment. When was the last time US got a Men's distance medal on the Track...?

I think that the NCAA's emphasis on team titles and scored meets has ruined some of the best talent.

yeah dont count those damn foreigners. They only...um...ran in the NCAA system...that is ruining the Americans...so um...wait, so how does that help your point?

I'm saying that the Team idea in the NCAA has ruined US distance Running. This guy Matt Smith rants on about this team didn't score many points or came last at conference. Who cares Track and Field is an individual sport. Many of these programs have great individual runners. Kentucky have a great batch of MD runners at the moment and Purdue get a number of athletes to NCAA Regionals every year.

Many programs don't give a shit about conference does this make them bad? Since they would rather focus of developing there athletes long term rather than for short term personal gain.

All I'm saying what defines a bad program? the fact that they come last at conference or there distance guys are much better than there sprinters?

There are plenty more programs which could be in the bottom 5 rather than Kentucky, Purdue or Colorado.

Who is this Matt Smith Chump?

miami ohio is pretty bad

Name some big schools that do not care about winning their conference.

There are alot of programs out there. Such as providence, Ok State, Ok, Arizona etc. to name a few.

Would rather get the runners to regionals than burnt out at Conference.

Otherwise these coachs would of been fired long ago......

FIRE wrote:

Kentucky have... and Purdue get...

You could use some more learnin' from whatever school you attended.

I didn't know there were that many schools that a) funded a full team b) tried to compete as a full team. Track schools have been divided up as "distance schools" "sprint programs" etc..

Really who cares about how the track "team" did? It's all about how their chosen area of emphasis performed.

What I think of that:

http://www.burnmonkeyburn.com/2008/12/mike-gundy-im-man-im-40-blowup-fat.html

Georgia State may be the actual worst.

Is Georgia State fully funded? I don't think so on the men's side.

But look at their head coach...works at a university and can't even get a degree. Great hire by the GSU administration there!

I think is a good idea to expose incompetent coaches that are wasting money, talents, student athletes experiences, and chances for other truly good coaches to advance in their careers

Keep it up

For those saying there are worst fully funded teams please say who.

For those saying they have good athletes, with 12.6 scholarships you should have at least 7 good athletes in a down year and these schools did not have 7 good athletes indoors.