Division 1 Track/XC Scholarship Distribution

200m sprinters who can long jump bring in the most points, because they can also do the 100m, 400m, and relays.

I think you typically have to put more into sprints if you truly want to win titles.

They pay off more because of relays.

I'd swing it another .5-1 in favor of sprints at the cost of throws or distance.

Do you really need 3 throws scholarships?

Sprint's 5

Jumps/PV/Multi 1.5

Throws 2.5

Distance/Mid Dist. 3.5

There's a reason why, with a few notable exceptions, most schools aren't simultaneously great at both track and XC.

A program that wants to win track conference titles is going to spend its money on sprinters, hurdlers, and jumpers. The closest thing to distance guys they'll have are fast 800 runners who can run a 4x4 leg.

A program that wants to win XC titles and qualify kids for XC nationals is going to want to spend more money on distance runners.

Again, it's really hard to truly have top tier sprint and distance programs if you're recruiting all your sprinters, field event athletes, and distance guys from the same 12 scholarship pool (it's easier if you can pull sprinters and throwers from football and distance guys from XC). The programs that manage to have simultaneously solid XC and track are ones that draw kids in with something other than scholarship money--the Nike charm with Oregon, academic cred with the ivies, etc.

To answer the question, probably 5 scholarships sprints, 2 throws, 2 jumps, 3 distance. If you're recruiting for XC on the same budget as track, you need to pick whether you're gonna be a track school or a distance school.

Agree...Nice Reply! Thanks

If you are really tying to win a conference title (rather than a national title):

1) everyone should be able to (and be willing to) move up or down at least one distance on the track

2) sprinters should also be able to jump and/or hurdle (400IH guys are like swiss army knives as athletes as they can usually do the 110H/200/400/relays/and sometimes up to the 800)

3) single event specialists get less scholarship $$$ unless they are clearly national final contenders (this will limit the $$$ spent on vaulters and javelin throwers)

4) deca and hept athletes need to be able to score at the conference level in an event or two (in addition to the multi) if they want significant scholarship $$$

In state vs. out of state scholarships can influence decisions (assuming these restrictions are in place at the hypothetical program being discussed.

Event entry limits at the conference level and/or conference qualifying standards make life interesting when dividing up the slices of the scholarship pie.

My suggestion (with some wiggle room built in based on strength of recruits and recruiting trends) based on the above guidelines:

Sprints/Jumps/Hurdles/Relays 4 to 5

Jumps/PV/Multi 1.5 to 2

Throws 1.5 to 2

Distance/Mid. Distance 4 to 5

I would welcome feedback on my ideas (unlike many on the board)!

Your question begs these questions:

Why is cross country an NCAA sport with a championship but without their own scholarships?

How much credit should a "strong" cross country program get if they are actually spending 8-10 men's and 12-15 women's scholarships on distance runners?

It only takes 5 runners to make a cross country score. It only takes 4 sprinters to make up a relay. If a coach put 10-15 scholarships into 400 m runners, shouldn't they ALWAYS have a great 4x4? Does that make them a great program if they have an All American 4x4 every year, even if they don't also have jumpers, throwers, and distance runners?

How then can we judge cross country programs when there are no limits to the scholarship spending other than track and field limits.

Is it truly a good program if the cross country team is great but the track team non-existent?

The same is true for track programs that disregard distance, or throws or any other discipline.

Agree. Here is a little more.

I would say a "strong" XC team would mean you allocate well over the majority of your track/XC funding too distance. Just make sense if you put your money there you should be good. Would be a good idea to separate track and XC scholarships but unfortunately it probably won't happen.

Same can be said for all the disciplines in track. If a program did decide to "load up" on a discipline they may have a good team but they are going to be hard pressed winning a conference title which is what most AD'S cherish.They can still make plenty of noise at the National level however.

From a competion perspective the large Invatational type track meet is the only way to go. It would make no sense for say a sprints/ jumps program to compete against a distance/throws team in a dual or small meet. There would realy be no competition amongst the teams. Wherever the money is going should dominate the disciplines.

From a coaching perspective the head would always make sure his discipline is heavily funded. The rest is where it gets tricky because if your discipline is not getting its fair share how do you compete? Why would a underfunded coach stay?

I guess the question is do you go all in on a couple disciplines and be a non contender for a conference championship in track, or do you spread the funds and not be dominate in any and be in the mix each year for a conference track championship.

We pulled off a men's NCAA title with the following

1.5 distance

2.5 throws

3.0 jumps/multi

3.0 sprints

We weren't quite fully funded and had several top 10 finishes with similar formulas. No conference titles but typically were top 3 out of 14.

Cross country was terrible and would finish back 3rd of the conference. Head track coach was the distance coach and gave up event group success for overall track and field success.

Nice Congrats on that Championship!!!! Great feedback Thanks !