Provocative read by Wichita State coach: How I would solve the problems of college track and field

NE Runner Magazine wrote:

It all sounds great, but unfortunately, you cannot compare to football and basketball because those sports all have an equal playing field of full scholarships. FBS football programs all operate at NCAA maximum. All men's and women's basketball programs also operate with the maximum. You cannot dictate to athletic departments how to fund their equivalency sports.

There are a lot of non-scholarship Division I program. There are a lot of partially funded. If you mandated (never happen) that track become a full team sport, you would see a negative impact in more dropped programs.

One thing that needs to be kept in mind that, no matter how much WE all love track and field, we are no more popular than wrestling, tennis, rowing or any other non-revenue sports to the average sports fan. Changing this will not change that fact.

Why does it matter that some programs are not scholarshipped equally? They currently are not. There will never be true parity in the NCAA no matter how much some of you want it. Power schools will always be power schools. Coach Wise's idea could still be pushed forward without mandating that every team be fully funded. The point is it will promote a full program and be a system to hold coaches accountable for what they create. It is much easier to fire a coach when their is an actual record to look at. There are too many dead weight coaches in our profession just hanging on because they can and this would help to eliminate that as well.

I think the point he's making is that if it is run like a team sport that athletic directors will realize they cannot be competitive with no/little scholarships and some schools without facilities. It isn't mandating to be funded. It is mandating to be a team sport.

All a moot point as this has been talked about for 30 years and won't change.

Maybe the answer is two divisions for division I. Championship division that is fully funded programs and is a team sport and a college division I thats got no more than 75% of scholarships and is individual based like now. That's basically difference between FBS and FCS for football.

We do this in the SCIAC. We have quad meets throughout the year where we score individually against each team then we cap it off with our conference championship. Makes for a really exciting track season with a lot of strategy in how each team fields their squad for each meet. It's not just an individual focus at that point.

I came across a blog post by Wichita State coach John Wise which I liked a great deal. I'm not sure if it's feasible (the awful programs and distance only programs wouldn't like it) but it's hard to argue with the following excerpt which I loved.It 100% drives me nuts when a team will get destroyed in a traditional dual meet but when you read the recap you'd think they won it.http://johnwisewsu.blogspot.com/2016/02/how-i-would-solve-problems-of-college.html?m=1

Wise goes on to propose a series of mandatory scored meets - where you must cover every event - and the results of the meet determine how many people you can enter as NCAAs.

--No competitions in December (except a pre-season Intrasquad Meet)

--Jan 9 – Meet #1 – Quad scored meet (or dual/tri)

--Jan 16 – Meet #2 – Quad scored meet (or dual/tri) – NCAA scheduled meet (see below)

--Jan 23 – Meet #3 – Non-scored open meets only

--Jan 30 – Meet #4 – Quad scored meet (or dual/tri)

--Feb 6 – Meet #5 – Quad scored meet (or dual/tri) – conference opponents only

--Feb 13 – Meet #6 – Non-scored open meets only

--Feb 20 – Mandatory off weekend

--Feb 27 – Conference Championships

--Mar 5 – Mandatory off weekend

--Mar 12 – NCAA Championships

What say you?

While football and basketball teams around the country are fully funded and maintained, a lot of them DO NOT turn a profit or break even. This is just a facade put on by the athletic departments and their staffs.

Instead of all these scholarships and money going towards these football/basketball players with low test scores/GPAs, who are majoring in general studies to stay eligible, I'd rather the money go to athletes and students who need/deserve it. We've lost the meaning of higher education years ago, and part of that blame belongs to the media and fans.

So I am the guy who wrote the blog and am glad it is being discussed here.

I think it's a win-win for just about everyone. Here's the thing for the smaller schools that don't have all the events or scholarships ... All it would change would limit how many people they can get to the NCAA meet. If they had a great distance runner it would still allow that kid to go to NCAA's.

The schools that would be affected the most would be a distance powerhouse that has plenty of money and resources but simply chooses not to have a complete team. With a little bit of effort (recruit one LJ/TJ, one SP/DT, etc) they would be able to field a somewhat complete team and have the required RPI rankings to get plenty of people to nationals.

What it would then do is make the scored meets meaningful and the score would actually matter. You can still run at Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington, etc. to meet any post-season times you need. For outdoors I would put the 10k qualifying (as well as multi's) on a non-team scored meet weekend. So everyone can still run the 10k at Stanford or Mt Sac and also qualify to NCAA's.

You are correct that we aren't like football and basketball. This is a problem all of us in the world of track understand - unfortunately the people who decide if we are going to be relevant are NOT track people and we need to makes sure we are thinking of how to get those people watching.

I'm pretty sure Nick Saban is not in favor of a college football playoff system and guess what? He doesn't get to decide about it either. What I am proposing is something that track coaches and fans will generally like and be able to work with BEFORE the NCAA comes in and does something we all don't want.

Does anybody seriously think this would increase track's popularity?

College sports suck.

The only thing that's important is what individuals do, in individual schools and all around the country.

Parochialism is backward.

It would. Coaches- primarily those who coach distance-only or xc programs have gutted the sport. Team scored competitions where the team score is highlighted would bring us on par with baseball. Programs with no hope of coaching or fielding full teams are not in favor i.e. Dave Smith.

It's also sustainable, but the problem is Title 9- it's easy to field a full team entry for a women's team- but relatively hard to field a full entry for a men's and stay compliant.

There should be some discussion about streamlining a traditional dual meet. 1 distance event, 1 md event should be fine. Maybe leave out a jump event if the facility doesn't support it. These items would keep the length of the meet under control.

Mandating a team score display is also key- so simple- but most programs neglect to do this. Two Team Names, and a number. Could be done by hand.

Stop asking coaches for advice on how to fix the sport- they are the same people that screwed it up. Interview casual fans. Interview former fans. They'll tell you all you need to know.

Seems like we're always trying to figure out how to grab the attention of the general public. Forget it. Not gonna happen. The general public is obese. Sedentary. They have no interest in watching skinny people run distance that exhaust fat people to drive. They have no connection with it.

The crux of this whole argument is that track the way it is setup now is boring. I spent last weekend at a meet where we arrived at 9am and left at 7pm, and I consider us lucky for getting out of there so early. There were times were nothing was going on. There are a bunch of individuals chasing times for their respective conference meets, or running off events to tune up, non of this was exciting to anyone outside of those programs. My dad, who is a huge sports fan and a track fan came to watch my kids run and after 2 hours and several 400 heats later, stood up and said, I can’t take this anymore I’m going home, I honestly wish I could have gone with him. Its hard to get fired up about a meet where there is nothing of value on the line.

Wise’s said “This is a problem all of us in the world of track understand - unfortunately the people who decide if we are going to be relevant are NOT track people and we need to makes sure we are thinking of how to get those people watching.” I agree with this 100% We need to find a better way to market and promote our sport to people in the sporting world, not just track purists. I agree with Coach Wise and think that having team scored meets is something that communities, fans, students, faculty and staff can all get behind. You go to a meet you compete hard, you have a winner and a loser. Using this is the way we have always done it is going to make our sport disappear. Track and field budgets are huge, we use a lot of expensive equipment, we have multiple expensive facilities most of the time and we bring very little back to the institution, we need to change that in some way shape or form.

Someone else said “but the problem is Title 9- it's easy to field a full team entry for a women's team- but relatively hard to field a full entry for a men's and stay compliant.” This is not true.

I coached at a Division I school that had 5 men’s scholarships and we had a full well rounded team, we even won a conference championship last outdoor season. You have to go out and find some kids you can develop to score at the conference level on very little or no money at all. Is it hard yes, do you have to be careful who you give your money to yes, can it be done yes.

We need change in our sport, our current model is not a good one. I think team is a great way to go.

I'm a former Div I distance runner and I really like the idea of this schedule. You still can get 2 shots at invitational meets before the post-season but also get 3-4 weeks of the team concept thrown in there. I also like the idea of a paired down event schedule for the quad meets. Have 2 of the 3 events from 60-400m, 2 of the 4 events from 800-5000m, have 1 of the horizontal jumps, 1 of the vertical jumps (either HJ or PV), and one throwing event. Hurdles could be optional and of course mandatory 4x400m relay to close out the meet.

You can change whatever you want. The reality that nobody in our sport is willing to accept is the fact that it is just not a popular sport for the average fan. It has nothing to do with team scoring. Go to a tennis, wrestling, crew, swimming forum. They complain about the same thing. The casual sports fan is just not interested unless they have some sort of tie to the sport. School pride will ALWAYS be tied to football and basketball.

Think about it, even the world's most popular sport, soccer, stuggles at the NCAA level. The problem is not our sport or how we score or run the meets. The problem is that we just are not an important sport to the average person except the Olympics. That's the truth and you can cry about it for years and keep trying to change the NCAA scoring (remember when we scored 16 places at the NCAA because we thought it would help?) and shorten meets, etc.. The fact is that it is just not important.

People talk about trying to compare to even NASCAR and "they became popular through marketing so why can't track and field?" The problem is that people go to NASCAR for the wrecks and the experience (if you have never gone...GO). It's a professional sport funded by advertising on the vehicles.

I think the system is just fine. I am not a coach but a huge fan. When I have taken a friend to track meets, their response is that it is boring. Not boring because it takes too long. Boring because there is no "action" outside of relays. We don't have the equivalent of a dunk, a TD pass, a great run or a great tackle, a penalty shot or a great save. It is a boring sport just in general and there's nothing that can be done about that.

People do get excited when they go to a mall or street vault. That is about it.

Sad reality.

19 events in a dual meet- 3 entries- did you have a roster limit on the men's side imposed by your institution? My guess is not. You included your name- so at Sac State you had 3 extra female equivalency sports, and at Wichita 0 football. Most of us have roster limitations imposed by our AD's. That number often falls between 28-32. That's enough for a dual meet of 19 events- don't get me wrong- but you better have a balanced team- and not many teams would enter 3/event. Nothing worse than an uncontested or poorly contested event due to a program "omitting" certain events.

My comment was for reducing the number of mandatory events ie. dropping a distance race and a horizontal jump. 16-17 events- meet would fly by!

I like Wise's ideas here- but the guru's in the sport will fight this tooth and nail- it's up to the rest of us to sound out.

With all the big meets it seems many schools barely have home meets. I like the idea of at least one traditional rivalry and one or two other conference meets. Schools seem to be sending elite athletes (14) to a few big meets and having most of the team do a few local ones against DII, DIII teams. If these conference meets were required for teams then the big meets where NCAA qualifying marks are made could be vastly improved by requiring better performances to be entered. Watching 20 heats of women's 200m run with some run in 30 seconds at Valentines is pure torture.

I have little knowledge of the system. But, I've heard that woman's teams get significantly more scholarships. This makes little sense to me, from hs up, men's track and field has significantly more participation than woman's. In regards to making the sport more popular, meets need to be moving faster. As of now, only parents are interested in watching an entire meet. I recommend a increase in dual meets. A two team battle would be more entertaining, quicker, and would bring out the team aspect.

There is a trade-off between a season/schedule system that develops the sport, and one that develops athletes' performances.

The system we have now allows a coach to develop an athlete to perform. Ask any coach of any scoring team at NCAA if they would compromise that to make their team more appealing in the January post-meet press release.

.

Twinn wrote:

There is a trade-off between a season/schedule system that develops the sport, and one that develops athletes' performances.

The system we have now allows a coach to develop an athlete to perform. Ask any coach of any scoring team at NCAA if they would compromise that to make their team more appealing in the January post-meet press release.

The majority of athletes in NCAA track will never be in the running to even make it to the Indoor Championships. The idea should be to develop a sport that they, their friends, other potential fans and parents will enjoy while still allowing the elite to develop and qualify for the NCAA championships.

Imagine if Title IX looked at actual competition opportunities for athletes not just roster spots. The distance girl who runs in one cross-country meet and takes a day trip to another meet would not be equivalent to two football players being flown to multiple games. I'm not advocating for this because it could be used to shut down men's programs.

conference help wrote:

.

Twinn wrote:

There is a trade-off between a season/schedule system that develops the sport, and one that develops athletes' performances.

The system we have now allows a coach to develop an athlete to perform. Ask any coach of any scoring team at NCAA if they would compromise that to make their team more appealing in the January post-meet press release.

The majority of athletes in NCAA track will never be in the running to even make it to the Indoor Championships. The idea should be to develop a sport that they, their friends, other potential fans and parents will enjoy while still allowing the elite to develop and qualify for the NCAA championships.

That's my point: good luck getting anyone behind it. You're effectively making the same separation between elites and participants that the current road race scene makes, to the detriment of both.