THE END of college Track & Field and Cross Country...

To paraphrase Dylan (that'd be Bob), times they are going to change.

I think we'll see more young stars go pro--and we're already starting to see that with Andrews, Cain, Wilson in recent years-or maybe some will get paid to run in college but probably only at a few schools. Some sprinters/jumpers and women distance runners will go pro earlier. The development road might get harder for males, who usually don't start hitting peak times until their early 20s.

Might see more of an Ivy League model, no more athletic scholarship for non-revenue sports at the major schools/conferences.

Wonder if this will be a boon to DII type schools--they'll get the up and comers.

Maybe more young runners will forego NCAA running and join clubs. There could be lot of good out of that--more interest in long term development rather than short-term, i.e., lets get points here and now and worry about consequences later.

Doom & Gloom wrote:

I think the Ivy schools are the only group which will be safe form this ruling, as they will resist (they were one of the dissenting votes today).

The Big Five conferences have no intrinsic need to continue having track and (especially) cross-country teams, particularly on the men's side. (There will still have to be enough women's sports opportunities to offset all the bodies in football: the Big Five will not be able to vote Title IX away!)

If anything, in the medium-term this could make the Ivies even stronger, particularly in cross. With Ivy need-based financial aid, many male distance runners (and their families) actually pay less (bottom line) to go Ivy, than they would if they got a half-ride to Declineto State; that process may simply accelerate a bit.

I agree that scholarships for non-revenue sports will eventually disappear. Maybe not in 5 years. But once football and basketball are able to spend as much as they want on their own players there will be no reason to divert any of that money to track and field.

can't wait for the law suits...

If you think the Pac-10 is going to eliminate T&F, you are crazy. And if you think any of the other Big Five are going to eliminate T&F when the Pac-10 doesn't, you are crazy.

What could actually happen is that the Big Five could devote more money to T&F in order to squeeze out competition from the smaller Div I conferences. Basically, they will be bringing in so much more money from football than the other guys that they will be able to outspend them in every sport (facilities, coaching salaries, cost of living stipends to athletes, etc.)

So, what may happen is that there is a de facto split in Div I between the Big 5 conferences and everyone else. That is only going to hurt the little guys, not the power 5.

No way the PAC 12 will get rid of T&F?!!! Hahaha! It must feel great to be so ignorant.

I agree that there is no way the Pac gets rid of T&F.

I would like someone to explain to me why the Big Five Conferences making even more money would lead to them dropping sports that they currently dominate in.

If any sport is threatened by recent developments, it is ice hockey. Only about 8 of the major conference schools have hockey teams. The gulf between the halves (basically 6 Big Ten schools plus Boston College and Notre Dame) and schools like North Dakota, Duluth, etc, could become so great as to make the whole thing unworkable.

Is title IX only for scholarships? If players no longer got stipends or scholarships but were allowed to make money off their likeness, would that eliminate the need for womens sports?

Only about 20 college football teams make a profit and 16 of those get money from their universities in the form of fees to pay for he upkeep of facilities and to pay multimillion dollar coaches salaries. Add in $2k per player and added benefits and maybe 10 schools clear the black. It's all smoke and mirrors. Track and Field actually does better than football if you look close. Most combined programs have 100-110 student-athletes on 30.6 scholarships most who are above average students and would not be there without the track program. And the coaches get paid less than the professors.

Common Sense1 wrote:

Only about 20 college football teams make a profit and 16 of those get money from their universities in the form of fees to pay for he upkeep of facilities and to pay multimillion dollar coaches salaries. Add in $2k per player and added benefits and maybe 10 schools clear the black. It's all smoke and mirrors. Track and Field actually does better than football if you look close. Most combined programs have 100-110 student-athletes on 30.6 scholarships most who are above average students and would not be there without the track program. And the coaches get paid less than the professors.

This is very wrong. First, track and and field is one of the biggest money sinks in college sports. It is almost impossible to make money and hosting events is far more complicated then just having the conference send in refs to officiate. A top of the line facility will cost over a million dollars and even if a team hosts 3-4 meets a year it is highly improbably to recover that money before the 10 year life span of the track.

Also, the stats on football are not incorrect, but misleading. General apparel sales for schools are mainly boosted because of football and basketball but don't reflect on any specific sport. Because of football being such a huge product, it gets the names out across the country and attracts students to come. Kids grow up watching football and basketball for their favorite college team and aspire to attend that school. There are dividends that are paid that are not directly accountable to each sport.

And lastly, college coaches making less than professors is also misleading. More and more colleges are using part time professors to cut down on costs. This is a universal problem in higher education. The fact that track coaches get paid so little is a reflection on the school's perceived importance of that position to the success of the school. XC/Track doesn't bring in money and coaches are constantly changing schools, if one guy doesn't want to take the 20k to coach, another guy will come along soon.

Take a look at what has happened at USC--traditionally one of the powerhouses for men's T&F and then ask yourself if the end of this sport at D-1 schools hasn't been in process for some time now. Let's count the ways: 1. No men's cross country team for how many years now? As a result how do you have any decent T&F distance athletes? 2. The hiring last year of a female head coach who had never before coached a men's team. Speaks for itself. 3. Assistant coaches who, let's be honest, have minimal coaching experience (don't waste your breath asserting that a former athlete can instantly morph into a coach). In fact, the only assistant coach with real experience saw the handwriting on the wall and bailed after only one season. 4. A women's team almost twice the size of the men's. Don't make a headcount of the roster--very few of the men actually competed. And, by the way to the previous poster, it's been the PAC12 for some time now, not the PAC10. USC is leading the way into the brave new world...sadly.

Let it be known that it is our own fault that this will hurt track and field.

To all of you naysayers who say track can't be popular, to all of you lazy coaches who say you'll "let your results do the talking" instead of promoting your butt off, and to you punks who won't pay a few bucks to go watch a track meet: this demise will be your fault.

If we can't combine together to MAKE track popular then it is our fault, nobody else's.

Particularly at large big time d1 programs track and field rosters are limited on size. They are not 80-100 athletes. More likely 55-70 (men and women combined) with the average kid getting a .5 scholarship.

Do you think that a large school such as Texas, cal, wisconsin, etc are going to care if they lose a combined equivalent of somewhere around 30 tuitions? At a school of 20,000 or more?

The scholarships could simply be assismilated into the general financial aid budget, you would eliminate track facility and equipment costs and between 4-6 full time coaching salaries as well as travel and meal costs. M

It would definitely be cheaper. I hope that this does not become reality as I believe schools should still be emphasizing all of their sports and giving all types of athletes opportunities but from a strictly money making sense there is no reason to have any sports beyond football and men's basketball.

Long term it would probably actually benefit the sport here in America. Consider a European style club system. Many might say that the current NCAA system is already producing better athletes than those club systems in Europe, but is that really the totality of the issue? Many of the Americans that are currently world players had some sort of abridged NCAA career which allowed them to train differently than the average runner, similar to club system where peaking 3 times a year was not deemed necessary. Next, we have far more runners in this country than any European country, therefore that doesn't prove the NCAA works, it just proves that we have more runners. Foreigners aren't coming to run in the NCAA because of the great development they can get from it, they come for the free education. A club system would benefit many athletes by allowing them to seek out coaches they see eye to eye with and not feeling like they will lose something (have a year of ineligibility) if they decide they need to move to a coach they feel more comfortable with.

the whole reason nobody in America gives a crap about track is that it's a college sport. Track meets don't happen where they are. It might as well be in a foreign country - oh wait, it mostly is, isn't it.

Track is a kid's sport like soccer. There are facilities and competitions for middle and high school, and some for college, but after that there's pretty much nothing except a few pros and sub elites who are supported by apparel companies, not by fans.

If college track ends, maybe people will start forming more local track clubs and compete against each other. It should already happen, as the logistics of holding a few races on a track are far easier than holding a road race. But road races have a stranglehold on the money because they are mainly social events for thousands of people, like rock concerts.

vpathletics.com nailed it, spot on.

I'm not an idiot, I understand Football can fill stands where only Oregon, Drake and Penn seem to do in track. But, football spends and spends and spends. Not many schools fill 100k stadiums, most are probably closer to 20-30k (check the published research) and after costs drain athletic budgets. If I'm wrong why is Boise State against the big 5 push to expand football benefits? They are top top football program outside the big 5.

Because Boise State has no fanbase. Boise State can't keep up with P5. Expanded benefits does not help them because they don't have the deep roots that the others do. You get a lot of underdog fans that cheer for BSU, but the truth is casual fanship doesn't equate to money in BSU's pocket. Also, I'd like to see a list of P5 schools that only put 20k in the stands at home games. It's simply not true. This has nothing to do with the fact that several P5 bottom dwellers couldn't get throttled by some top teams outside their conference. That is apparent and I don't see anyone debating that isn't true. The fact is the reason those teams are in the conference they are in is simply because of the amount of money they bring to the conference and no more. BSU would never be able to justify being in a big conference because they would not make the conference any money. There is no major market in that area of the country. There is not a huge travelling fanbase that would be willing to travel week in and week out like P5 fanbases do. BSU might be able to sell a bunch of tickets for 1 major away game each year, but what happens when you have 6 major away games each year? The few fans they have can't afford it and the numbers drop big time. Also, BSU can't hold many fans in their own stadium so travelling there would be a net loss almost without a doubt. You have to remember this has nothing to do with who is good and who isn't. This has everything to do with who makes money. Once you realize that, BSU could be the best team in the country and it wouldn't make sense to include them in a P5 conference.

Only time will tell. But in this era of concussions and rising tuition and fee costs I see more D1 programs cutting Football .

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2013/12/editorial_moving_divisions_a_c_1.html

The minor leagues of professional football will live on but at the rising cost of the general student.