VT Ben Thomas proposal to limit distance scholarships.

Is this real?? Any link to a news story??

This would shake things up quite a bit from year to year.

It would increase parity among schools. It would also increase the importance of quality walk ons or partial scholarship runners.

The Ivies and military schools will flourish.

Some of the sham track & field programs - they're really just distance programs - could begin to fill out their track and field teams more fully. You know, get some throwers and sprinters and jumpers. Hire some additional event coaches.

There are some positives to the proposal.

I guess the Ivy League schools would support it

I guess the balanced programs would support it

I guess the cross country only programs would support it

I guess the xc centric schools would oppose it.

Since the proposal does not limit the ability to spend scholarships on distance runners. Since it only ensures that every team line up for a cross country championship with a reasonable maximum supported by the rule book, any opposition to such a rule is confirmation that cross county competitiveness is not based on coaching and recruiting excellence, but rather the choice to out invest in xc to the detriment of the track and field programs.

Yes, we would all love more scholarships in ALL sports, but that is not on the table as a real option for ANY sport.

This rule imposes NO PENALTY. It simply says every school that chooses to sponsor cross country and track and field, and fully fund cross country and track and field, should have the ability to be ultimately successful in all sports of cross country and track and field.

That is not currently the case. Currently cross country success is disproportionately tied to the # of scholarships committed the that discipline.

No, it is just like the effects of Title IX: impose "equality" by bringing some groups down rather than bringing others up.

d2xc coach: thanks for the info.

Isthisabadthing wrote:

It could work out but it can get messy to figure out. If you were allowed say 6 distance scholarships, 6 sprinter, and 6 field guys how do you could say 100/200m guy who LJs? Or an 800m guy who runs the 400m?

.

Realistically you could only put scholarship limits on the XC roster, because like you said there is to much ambiguity as to how to classify an athlete. XC on the other hand has a distinct season, so it is easy to regulate and determine if a team is in compliance with the 5 or 6 scholarship limit. You would have a few teams carry additional distance runners on track scholarships outside of their XC roster limit, and that would be their prerogative.

I don't think many teams would do this though; it would be hard to continually recruit to a program if a HS athlete recognizes they may only get one or two XC seasons.

My guess would be that such a rule would have the desired effect of creating parity and most DI XC teams would be operating at the 5 or 6 XC scholarship limit, with a few teams opting to scholarship fewer so they have more than 7.6 and 12 scholarships for the rest of their track roster. Such teams would likely be those already competing with a very low number of distance scholarships i.e. LSU, Houston, USC.

The proposed rule change, would not and does not attempt legislate the scholarship breakdown of a track team. It would only limit the amount of scholarships you can have on an XC team.

As a mid-major distance coach I don't know how I feel about the rule. I am inclined to support it. It would benefit my program, because I would likely get an additional scholarship for each gender to bring my XC rosters up to the limit. I think it would be good for the sport to have parity in XC. Furman would now have a more level playing field with other mid-majors who sponsor entire track teams; same is true at Power 5 level when comparing teams like Colorado and Oregon.

I think the rule would work as intended; but sometimes I wonder if we need more rules to complicate things further.

You must have replied while I was typing, I pretty much said the same thing in a different way.

Just stop. None of this is true.

The rule would crush private schools who typically have to spend more to get recruits. Private schools are substantially more expensive then state schools particularly state schools with financial/walk on advantages. There is a disproportionate amount of state schools upon "program of the year" standings for a reason. Economics.

baseball also

ncaa rule book wrote:

That is not currently the case. Currently cross country success is disproportionately tied to the # of scholarships committed the that discipline.

I like the idea in theory of everyone being somewhat balanced but don't think it's realistic.

Here is my criticism with the "I'm tired of getting crushed by Syracuse in xc so let's limit the # of scholarships" rule.

1) It won't accomplish what it intends to do. The rule doesn't limit how many distance scholarships you can give out. It just limits which guys on scholarship can race in a given year. I'm pretty sure Syracuse and NAU knew which guys were in their top 5 or 7 at the start of the year. There's no way that takes up more than 5 scholarships. So they'd just name those guys and still dominate.

2) If the point is to ensure that teams are well rounded, then are we going to have a corresponding rule that requires sprint/throws heavy teams to have a minimum number of distance scholarships so they are competitive in xc? Let's see how far thar rule goes with Pat Henry.

3) The people behind the rule say xc is the only sport where money disproportionally impacts success. That's laughable. There are plenty of schools - the vast majority of NCAA d1 schools in fact - that don't give out the full allotment of scholarships.

So some teams at NCAAs have 1 scholarship. Others have 12.

Also the rule does nothing to compensate for the fact that the price of schools varies a lot. The total cost of attendance for a private school like Syracuse is $60,000. For a state school like V Tech it's $21,000. So one could argue the state has already subsidized a $40,000 scholarship for everyone enrolled at VTech from Virginia.

There is a reason why Ivy League schools are good at track/xc. It's because with their need based financial aid, they can give out way more than 12.3 scholarships at year.

-Robert

madonnas wrote:

The rule would crush private schools who typically have to spend more to get recruits. Private schools are substantially more expensive then state schools particularly state schools with financial/walk on advantages. There is a disproportionate amount of state schools upon "program of the year" standings for a reason. Economics.

This. His school already has an inherent advantage of instate tuition in one of the better states for track and cross country. He can recruit people who will pay as much some partial scholarship guys at a private school. Not only that but the walk on potential is endless in a school of vt's size. If he doesn't perform, he should blame it on coaching . They have multiple sub 4:10 high schoolers on their roster and they still can't get it done.

Private schools have the same issue in every other equivalency sport. The point is moot.

Maybe it isn't moot. Maybe, the fact that a private school can be competitive in cross country PROVES the flaw.

Here is my question. If track and field were eliminated, and EVERYONE spent 12.6/18 on cross country would the results be similar? I think not.

I think there are schools ALL OVER THE COUNTRY that have no chance to be competitive because they choose NOT to dismantle their track and field team.

Then because there is no rule for equity, those schools actually DEEMPHASIZE cross country. Because it has become almost an ALL or NOTHING proposition for most schools and that simply shouldn't be the case.

Again, answer the question, if the rule book says 5/6 for cross country only, what is it about have a track team that necessitates spending MORE than that on distance runners?

It is a loophole that needs to be closed.

If as Rojo states, that NAU and alike knew their top 7 at the start of the year, then NAU should be on board as well.

I reject the premise that this is a rule to defeat Syracuse or the like. This is a rule that allows people to have both track and cross country programs without having to sacrifice one for the other.

You forgot the best part of Ben's proposal. I'll leave the comments, and his motivation, to your own imagination.

HOW BYLAW WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED:

A MINIMUM 2 year grace period would be allowed for NCAA D1 Cross Country programs to be within the 5.0men/6.0women max scholarship limit for their Cross Country rosters. Of course programs could still choose to be below the 5.0m/6.0w limits.

All NCAA D1 Cross Country programs would be required to report the number of scholarship counters and total scholarship’s spent on their cross country roster for the 2 year transition period.

If the committee felt a 3 year transition period was necessary, that could be implemented as well. If it was decided that a 3 year transition was more appropriate, then perhaps consider recognizing an “At‐Limit” champion – as well as the outright champions (if different) ‐ at the Conference/NCAA Championships for the transition years.

Shouldn't this go the other way and require schools to give at least X amount of scholarship money to XC?

US distance running over the years has made some steps on the world stage shouldn't the NCAA coaches try to help that by requiring schools to set aside a certain number of fulls for XC?

And by the way why are people saying that Cuse is an XC school. Didn't love the last year or so win the ACC track championship and 2nd another time? And don't they always have hurdlers make it to Nats and even had a sprinter make it to - so far from a distance only school

What a baby Ben Thomas and anyone else who supports this silly rule. All programs/institutions have positives and negatives. In-state costs, weather, differing need aid, differing academic aid, varying locker rooms, facilities, # of coaches, salaries for staff, equipment deals, roster limitations, academic rigor, and probably 10 other unequal components.

I assume VA Tech will only carry no more than 7.6 in track scholarships then?

It's very hard to have both cross country and track when there is only 12.6/18 scholarships. Unless you are a state school, who in this case has a head coach choosing not to invest in distance, but has a significant cost advantage over other schools from the start. Claiming it's possible to not sacrifice either proves the premise that Virginia Tech already has a built in advantage, but doesn't even recognize it, otherwise they wouldn't even believe it's possible.

In your first sentence you recognize that private schools have a disadvantage. Because private schools have this disadvantage doesn't mean it has to be exacerbated by schools that who already have mega advantages. Virginia Tech has the advantages and they are blind to it because of their head coach decisions.

The assumptions of this proposal and they subtle digs at the quality of distance coaches is really the height of arrogance.

Assumptions include: all these distance programs give 12.6, if the "loophole" was closed those teams wouldn't be at top i.e. the coaching isn't as good and the success comes from scholarships, distance coaches don't care about track.

I know this has been said but the answer to the question of 5/6 for cross country only programs is because of Title IX. For educational purposes those schools asked for more scholarships in 1998 and it was rejected....wait for it.....because of Title IX. It's not a recommendation. Ask your compliance officer or call the NCAA legislation archives and ask for Bob. He can provide additional documentation.

Mr. Biggs wrote:

Shouldn't this go the other way and require schools to give at least X amount of scholarship money to XC?

US distance running over the years has made some steps on the world stage shouldn't the NCAA coaches try to help that by requiring schools to set aside a certain number of fulls for XC?

And by the way why are people saying that Cuse is an XC school. Didn't love the last year or so win the ACC track championship and 2nd another time? And don't they always have hurdlers make it to Nats and even had a sprinter make it to - so far from a distance only school

Agree we need to increase distance $$ not decrease, schools will just end being forced to get rid of distance scholarships and sprinter schools are not going to line up to move money over to XC where they theoretically could now be more competitive.

I think this is a great idea.

There are some schools out there putting 14-15 scholarships into distance for women. People can try to debate this, but this is 100% fact.

That is not close to being a level playing field when 18 scholarships were not put into place with the intention of a majority of it being put into distance runners. These programs are highly competitive in cross country, but barely score points at their conference championships in track & field.

The numbers should be more 6 for men and 8 for women. Argue why a cross country team needs more than that. If you're putting more than that into distance athletes, you're simply overloading in one area. The success is coming from competing against teams who are not doing this.

A good example of this is a program like Boise State. They are going all-in on distance. 100% of scholarship invested into distance going forward. They even fired their throws coach this summer and got another distance coach on staff to replace him. That puts them at five distance coaches among the paid and volunteer coaches. There are 3-4 paid coaches there who are distance coaches. Sure they are good in cross country, but with that level of investment, how could you not be?? They are competing against schools who are putting 2-3-4 scholarships into distance instead of 12.6 and 18. They aren't the only school doing this, but the one that seems to have no qualms about going full distance.

12.6 and 18 is intended for track & field/cross country programs, not distance on the track/cross country programs. Since some programs are not trying to field competitive comprehensive programs, something needs to regulate how they are taking advantage of this flaw in the allocation of scholarships.

As a DISTANCE coach at a division one school, I'm all for this.

So you are calling out a school for being unfair that doesn't win their conference or go to nationals? Doesn't seem to be giving them that much of an advantage to me.