Oregon qualifies 45 to NCAA's. This is what a top program with top coaching looks like buffy

Word is OU does some magical things, slight of hand things with scholarships and financial aid so I posit it is not the same scholarship money. The Nike association and the annual weeklong ad the NCAA provides you doesn't hurt either.

Nike is my god wrote:

YEAH!! NIKE MONEY BABY!! WAHOOOO!!! GO NIKE!!!

This

That isn't very true, then why don't schools like Stanford beat Oregon all the time, their recruits are much better.. There are plenty of schools that get top flight talent and don't capitalize on it.

henry4knicks wrote:

That isn't very true, then why don't schools like Stanford beat Oregon all the time, their recruits are much better.. There are plenty of schools that get top flight talent and don't capitalize on it.

False. Don't get me wrong, Oregon does a great job developing the talent it gets, but your statement is incorrect (and full of errors).

Oregon probably has the best sprint coach in the Country I mean just look at how much faster Todd,Prandini,Gardner.etc got at Oregon then they were in High School WOW GO DUCKS

I always thought that qualifying for NCAA's was worth a full scholarship.

Amazing how many walk-ons and partial scholarship athletes they have that qualify.

Apples and Oranges. Eugene is track town USA with all the traditions, media, hype and money. That's gonna be hard to compete with. The occasional strong personality will come along (McDonald, Dave Smith, Wetmore) and carve out a niche, marry talent to good coaching and have some success. However, by and large, success will follow money over time. Have you seen CUs indoor track? Any sprinter or jumper on a recruiting trip would be forced to conclude that CU isn't serious about track. Weather in Eugene while gloomy, at least is bearable during winter . Winter in much of the US is not conducive to consistent and predictable training. What sprinter would choose North Dakota over LSU? The West Coast and the South have considerable recruiting advantages over the rest of the US. A distance runner who chooses CU over OU or Stanford has a special place in his heart for suffering (Altitude, snow, ice, Wetmore). Maybe that demographic results in a runner more fit to slogging it out in XC than the efficient metronome needed for the track.

Qualifying for NCAAs = full ride? Where did you ever get that?

Walk-ons and partials have been the way great programs have operated for years. I was a 4 time D1 All American who initially walked on. The max I received was a half scholarship.

nike is going down wrote:

I'll set the over/under on how many of the brass at NIke are going to prison for bribing the Brazilian soccer federation at 45.

That explains that then.

henry4knicks wrote:

That isn't very true, then why don't schools like Stanford beat Oregon all the time, their recruits are much better.. There are plenty of schools that get top flight talent and don't capitalize on it.

People who go to Stanford actually have to attend legitimate classes.

CU is all cross country and why not? They run a slightly better track campaign than OSU, but OSU gets top heavy foreign talent. Dave Smith is probably a better recruiter than Wetmore, but Wetmore develops the shit out of the hometown workhorse.

And Oregon? They pick up on Ivy League students who need to take a "gap" year after force feeding their brains for the last 4 years.

I like that Oregon is dominating with a big team though. It gives a bit more appeal to the whole "track team" concept, which I thought had died out along with dual meets and justified international wars/affairs.

Personally, I'm a fan of the big dance since it's that fifth man that seals the deal, but Oregon is making track more exciting (even if it's a one sided deal) but why so many non distance runners go to Oregon baffles me. What sprinter wants to deal with Oregon winters? I suppose Oregon/Nike helps out with the academics business when the wheels fall off.

Lastly, or two, first: Oregon's #6 placing at NCAA was a bad showing aside from their 1-2 finish and they could have placed higher. But, you can't compare their XC team to their distance squad that adds Will Goeghan and that other guy nobody knows about. And secondly, when the hell will Oregon run some fast times? What is up with athletes running through the motions? Does anybody actually believe that crap about remembering the winners and not the time? Isn't the whole legacy of Pre about going all out, to win, but also against yourself?

Oregon pulls that crap because of superior talent, but teams like Colorado are going for it and that's why they keep winning at XC.

I wonder how many teams have scored more points in the spring than they did in the fall? Now that would take a well-rounded, powerhouse program!

Answer... wrote:

Razorduck wrote:

Maybe the 1994 Arkansas team...think it was 94 or 95 points.

1984 Ducks hold the record.

Oregon is just a top program

Yes, they have good coaching, but it's no better than half the major D1 programs out there, coaching isn't what makes this team as good as they are

While were at it, let's not forget to give credit to the recruiting coordinator (who typically isnt the head coach) because recruiting has been the biggest part of thier success

Does Robert Johnson coach distance? No, and last time I checked every single point that Oregon got at the indoor national championship was off of distance and they still on, so definitely don't give most of the credit to him...

And that still lies the fact that Oregon has on the top distance programs for track but can't seem to put it together during XC season

You also have to think about Oregon's recruits, a lot of them are transfers (who were already top collegians) and foreigners

And then you have the appeal of going to Oregon and so many kids buy into it, the history, Prefontaine, all the top athletes who come out of Oregon, which I don't blame them but it is something to think about

Then the money, they have world class facilities provided by Nike, all the recourses and recovery mechanism they could need provided by Nike, Nike headquarters right down the street, how many other schools have that convenience? Oh wait, no other schools has that... I took an official visit to this one smaller D1 school and their training room was literally right next to the concession stands, small, pretty much only had a ice tube, no alter-G, no underwater treadmill, how can this school compete w/ Oregon? They can't...

Unless Oregon is secretly paying some of their athletes, I must say, they do a fairly good job of distributing scholarship money

Did you happen to see the xc champs in the fall?

Not every kid comes from a family that needs or requires a full scholarship.

It's public knowledge that Oregon has some student athletes on 1/4 athletic scholarship, parents paying some, and some academic scholarships.

Oregon athletes regularly win scholar-athlete awards.

A big part of it is the philosophy of the program and the success...success breeds success. Kids buy into the program, and come to Oregon, and then they buy into the programs great culture of team, support and "enjoying the process" and the "results will come."

This is without a doubt the best Oregon program EVER. Vin/Andy/RJ, are now tied at the top for best men's Oregon coach ever.

What I meant is that some schools get really great athletes out of high school and do little to nothing with them, i.e. Washington.. The amount of sub 9 3200m kids that Stanford gets is baffling. True, these kids do have very rigorous classes and such but the meaning of my post was to say that there a lot of schools that get great talent and don't do much with it. Granted these programs might not be getting a Edward Cheserek or Eric Jenkins, but they are pulling in recruits because of a big name or some other factors. Oregon has a "balanced" program so they have to focus a lot of their scholarship money on sprinters, throwers, and jumpers.. CU and OSU have the luxury of using practically all 12.6 men's scholarships on distance alone. Point is that each program has a different focus. CU and OSU focus on XC and it shows, they are very good programs in that area, but Oregon focuses on indoor and outdoor track championships (even Powell says this) and they have done very well for themselves there.

Your two posts are completely incongruous. I actually agree with the 2nd post, for the most part, except that you seem to be implying that Stanford doesn't do much with their talent (may be true in a handful of the last 20 years - but hardly a consistent problem). Stanford definitely doesn't get better talent than Oregon in track.

But, yes, some schools focus on cross country and others track. To each his own.

limitless wrote:

XC was clearly a disappointment. Like I said earlier, we'll see in 2 weeks what they are able to do at home.

Overall Oregon men have a long way to go to catch the Razorbacks - historically speaking. 5 Triple crowns and 41 counted NCAA titles

As posted on a prior thread,

...Oregon doesn't have any more scholarships to offer than any other D1 team to build their complete XC and T&F squads.

...If the we are looking at overall best XC and indoor and outdoor T&F then look at USTFCCA Program of the year below (based on team performance at Nat'l XC, Nat'l Indoor and Nat'l Outdoor Champs). For both men and women there is no doubt which school has dominated for the past six years, and likely seven after the Nat'l Outdoor Champs this June.

Men

2013-2014: Oregon (1st), Oklahoma State (2nd), Arkansas (3rd)

2012-2013: Arkansas (1st), Wisconsin (2nd), Oregon (3rd)

2011-2012: Florida State (1st), Indiana (2nd), Texas (3rd)

2010-2011: Florida State (1st), Stanford (2nd), BYU (3rd)

2009-2010: Oregon (1st), Arizona State (2nd), Northern Arizona (3rd)

2008-2009: Oregon (1st), Stanford (2nd), Florida State (3rd)

Women

2013-2014: Oregon (1st), Stanford (2nd), Arkansas (3rd)

2012-2013: Oregon (1st), Arizona (2nd), Arkansas (3rd)

2011-2012: Oregon (1st), Stanford (2nd), Washington (3rd)

2010-2011: Oregon (1st), Arizona (2nd), Villanova (3rd)

2009-2010: Oregon (1st), Florida (2nd), Penn State (3rd)

2008-2009: Oregon (1st), Florida State (2nd), Arizona State (3rd)

Read more:

And agree, Razorbacks Men (Women's team has won just 1 Nat'l Indoor Title) definitely dominated long ago & during the 90s, but not so much recently.

fine. i'm gone.