Michrunner wrote:
Everyone goes to big meets to run fast...but no real competition between schools. Just a bunch of time trials leading to nationals. Cut the damn budgets and bring back a few more scoring meets and maybe fans will care to see a meaningful race.
Boy, this is right on the money. I'm a fan of the Ivy League, not just because they have some good teams/individuals but because they tend to get involved in *scoring meets* during the regular season. By the time their conference championship (the "Heps") rolls around, some teams are looking for payback (from regular-season defeats), and *all* the squads have a team-scoring orientation.
I have yet to see another current DI conference-championship meet whose atmosphere matches that at the Heps. Thousands of spectators attend the outdoor meet every year--how many conferences can say that?--and they really, really care about the scoring, right from the first field event; they're not just there to watch a couple of marquee races.
People bemoan the cutting of t&f/xc programs, but why should they be surprised? The great majority of cut programs don't give the fans/alums/AD a single score during the entire regular season, then just use the conference meet as another opportunity to hit a Nationals qualifier--never an emphasis on beating other teams. When teams have to get axed, the ADs/colleges feel that the t&f/xc teams won't be much of a loss--and they're probably right.
Yeah, yeah, I know: "We *can't* build a full program! We *have to* specialize in just a few event areas, because the NCAA doesn't allow enough men's scholarships to cover all the events!" Riiight. Yet, somehow, even a non-Ivy team like Penn State manages to put together a complete program.
And, whaddaya know, they have regular-season scoring meets, plus a bunch of other meets that the entire squad attends as a unit--not so many of these "distance runners here, sprinters there, throwers somewhere else" weekends. And they also have coaches who are willing to *make the effort*--in coaching, recruiting, and fundraising--to have complete programs.
Times are hard, and many teams are going to get cut, regardless of their circumstances--I'll grant you that. But the teams that can post a regular-season win-loss record, and have the event coverage to actually contend for team honors at championship meets, are less likely to go.
And more likely to keep an alumni/fan base that might actually contribute to the program, and take some of the pressure off cash-strapped ADs.
But, of course, at some level that depends on having the coaches think that it matters. "I'm just a distance coach--I can't coach field events." Really? And you can't *learn* the events? You graduated from college, but somehow don't have the smarts to learn how to have people jump up and down or throw things around? That's laziness--maybe not physical laziness (I know most coaches put in mega-hours), but intellectual laziness.
Just don't be too surprised when your program is the next one on the chopping block.