VT Ben Thomas proposal to limit distance scholarships.

I read Thomas' quotes after his team essentially performed poorly in the ACC XC tournaments. I think his job is on the line and he is scramblinq to come up with a better option to maintain his simple, affluent lifestyle. His bizarre quote to WDBJ 7 after Andy Gaiser failed to finish in the Top 10:

"Keep rolling with the punches, trust no one, and sleep with one eye open"

Thanks Coach.

The track and field limit, in the rule book is 12.6/18. You can spend that however you want. You can spend it on pole vaulters, you can spend it on distance runners, you can spend it all on shot putters if you want. In all cases, the results of your decisions are seen in the track and field meet results.

Cross country presents an peculiar case. The limit for cross country only programs is 5/6, IN THE RULE BOOK.

Nobody has yet answered, why having a track team necessitates spending more than 5/6 on cross country other than the rules allow it.

We KNOW it gives an advantage, or there wouldn't be people opposed to a change.

I guess the question is this: Is the limit for cross country 12.8/18 or is that intended to be the track and field limit. Why would a cross country only school be limited to 5/6? (and scholarship increase IS NOT AN OPTION, so that point is moot)

The problem that I have is that I believe that track and field decisions should affect track and field results. I don't think track and field decisions should affect cross country results also.

There are AMAZING distance coaches at schools that spend more than 5/6 in cross country. In no way am I saying there are not great coaches at "cross country" schools. What I am saying is that in MANY cases, in order to be successful in cross country you are forced to decide to be distance centric.

Why can't a coach, if they so choose, have an all distance program, yet declare their 5/6 scholarship roster at the start of each season, and then compete? OUr sport allows people to run unattached all the time. Those distance athletes get to race in track and field.

I think the arguments against this proposal actually make the case as to why it is a valid proposal.

And again, private schools have the same issues IN ALL EQUIVALCENCY SPORTS, so that point is also moot.

Track/xc is a participation sport. Most schools need more and more women in this participation sport to balance football. Football steers the ship.

Don't fool yourself into letting "competitive fairness" get in the way of participation. 30 girls that don't run a race all fall? No freaking way. They'll quit. This proposal is dead as soon as anyone at the NCAA lays eyes on it.

Participation. That's what we are. Don't kid yourselves. Focus on free live streams of meets so fanboys can watch their idols without spending beer money.

Open your damn eyes and go coach. Screwing with the rules won't hide that you're a poor coach. It's still obvious.

Does USC have an advantage in the sprints because they put more money toward sprints?

Should teams that don't have cross country but have track be limited to 7.6 scholarships since they aren't trying to be good in cross country?

yes usc has an advantage in sprints by using track and field scholarships to make track and field decisions. just as any school can have an advantage in distance ON THE TRACK by using track scholarships to make track decisions.

No, schools that don't have cross country still have the rule book limit of 12.6/18 for track and field

The rule book says that cross country only is limited to 5/6, so there is a contradiction. If 5/6 is the limit for cross country without track, what is it about having track that necessitates more spending on cross country?

Volleyball/sand volleyball, and waterpolo/swimming have rules in place to keep from using scholarships in one sport for the benefit of another sport.

If the rule book said that cross country only schools had a limit of 12.6/18, there would be NO DISCUSSION. But there MUST be a reason that cross country only is limited to 5/6.

Wasn't there a proposal introduced last year to add 5/6 ADDITIONAL scholarships specifically for cross country?

What happened to that one? I thought it had been voted on and postponed a year because the vote count was so close and not all coaches were present(?). My feeling was it would always get shot down by the NCAA because it would cost too much money to implement.

Any proposal that aims to "level the playing field" doesn't come close to doing that unless it includes (varsity) roster limits and additional independent scholarships. If you really want to be fair then it should be headcount scholarships only, not that I'm advocating that.

Something like 6/9 cross-country scholarships for men and women with roster limits of 12 and 18 would be more "fair".

First and foremost, NO ONE should be able to dictate how any respective school spends their scholarship money. If Texas A&M wants to put 12 scholarships in the Track side of things and leave .6 to fill a Cross Country team, that is their business! If Boise State (Just using them since they were brought up already) wants to put 12.6 in the distance and field a Track & Field team with those scholarships, it is their business!

I genuinely don't think those pushing for the scholarship limit in Cross Country have any idea how scholarships are distributed at some of these schools. As many have touched on earlier in this thread, this rule is essentially going to SIGNIFICANTLY empower state schools that can sign quality athletes for little scholarship. The private schools (many of whom are primarily distance programs) can not afford to sign the same recruits for small scholarships. They are signing decent athletes at 50-75% just to make school affordable! So really think about this, if this limit is put in place, many of the distance heavy schools will declare an 7-9 man roster and that will be the only athletes who race ALL Fall!!! We keep talking about giving athletes an opportunity to compete, but this would single handily eliminate participation in our sport significantly. What if Boise St declares an 8 man roster and has 2-3 injuries, what would they do then?

You all do realize the Texas's, Arkansas's, Oregon's would DOMINATE the NCAA if this goes through. They can go out and get QUALITY recruits for basically books and academic aid. So not only would they continue signing studs for nothing, but your'e going to turn around and limit the power of NAU, Iona, Boise St, Furman, etc. to utilize the one advantage they have to focus on the distance? C'mon, how can anyone see this as helpful!

I wholeheartedly disagree with this proposal as it basically is limiting the power of the distance schools and giving all the power back to the larger, state schools (aka P5 schools!). Syracuse won the ACC with mainly distance scholarships and some sprinters. Many distance schools have finished Top 15-20 at NCAA Indoor/Outdoor with pure distance points. Why should they be punished for that!? If a school chooses not to invest much scholarship in distance, then that is the school's decision. Do not turn around and try to limit what other schools can do because you choose not to invest scholarships in the distance side.

I fear for any young coaches looking to get into the business as stupidity like this is becoming more and more normal. The larger P5 schools continually look to create new rules to limit the competition and essentially ensure that only those schools can compete. It is becoming a farce.

I am deeply embarrassed by any distance coach thinking this is a good idea. As someone who went to school at a private, mid-major school, this rule could change everything for MANY programs. Schools are already not recruiting on the same level (anyone who recruits at the elite D1 level understands this) and now we are going to take the one competitive advantage some schools have?

Lastly, I agree with Rojo that 2 things should happen if this rule is even possibly going to happen, which I have heard it will not. 1) A proposal should be set forth that ALL schools must put 5 scholarships into the distance if a rule is going to be set on how much the distance can spend 2) A limit on how much can be spent in other areas should be set too. You can not dictate one event area with a scholarship limit but not touch others, that would be completely unfair.

Hopefully this is turned down immediately, which is likely. However, I know how these things work and crazier things have happened before!

Syracuse has won 5 ACC titles since joining the conference. Virginia Tech has won 2. In the previous two years before Syracuse joined the ACC Virginia Tech won 4 conference titles including 2012 Cross Country and 2012 Outdoor Track.

Let's call this proposal what it really is, an attack on the makeup of the Syracuse track and field model. Cianelli, hiding behind Thomas, is deliberately attacking Syracuse because they win with distance runners.

Is it a coincidence that the Hokies best distance runner Curtain graduated this spring and Syracuse won the ACC indoor track title that limiting scholarships distance runners proposal surfaces....from Virginia Tech?

It's amazing that Syracuse can do what Virginia Tech cannot. This has nothing to do with cross country only programs. That's a dishonest ruse. This comes across as embarrassing for Virginia Tech, it's once proud program and it's staff. I would bet that Virginia Tech also gets their news from the Drudge Report.

Please quit freaking out. This proposal is merely coaches association chatter. It will he discussed at the coaches convention and possibly voted on. AND THEN handed over to the NCAA for them to look at. The NCAA and ustfccca are completely separate. Rarely does a recommendation from ustfccca immediately get implemented. Especially when involves spending/scholarships/participation.

Countless coaches conventions were spent arguing how to created a perfect NCAA track regionals. Guess what? The NCAA thought of their very own system and people freaking love it. The NCAA ignored everything coaches suggested. And they got it right.

You think anything will change the power 5 recruiting or private recruiting? Those are problems that will always exist. What this legislation does is keep cross on the same page for everyone. You can still plug all your scholarships into distance nobody says that can not be done. It does put every program on par within the sport of cross.

You all seem to be too focused on 1/3 of our sport which should be its own thing entirely. This legislation will also help weed out bad coaches. You will have to up your recruiting game and beable to develop. If not you are in trouble. I feel like most of the coaches complaining about this legislation are a little insecure about their own abilities. I speak of this as someone who coached at a private school with very limited scholarships (6 total) while I was there we won cross several times and placed top 3 in track champs in a very competitive conference against only state schools. An all around competitive team can be made BUT you must beable to coach and recruit.

So to all you crying. Get better at your job.

#1 and let's state it again....No one is dictating how you spend your track and field scholarships. You can go all distance if you want. So that argument is settled.

#2. The public/private argument is the SAME for every equivalency sport, it is not unique to cross country. IN FACT, it accentuates that there is something "different" going on in the sport of cross country. It is the only sport where you are allowed to "rob peter to pay paul" and be rewarded for it. Volleyball/sand volleyball, swimming/water polo have rules to prevent one sport acting as a "shill" for the other in order to gain an advantage. Yet on this "distance" dominant message board, this is seen as a badge of honor in cross country. So that argument is settled.

#3. If you are a cross country only school, why should you be at a disadvantage in the sport of cross country? If a school chooses NOT to sponsor track, or any other sport then we can all understand why it isn't good at track or any other sport. BUT If a school chooses to have cross country only and FULLY FUND IT (5/6), why shouldn't it have the chance to be successful. I haven't done the research myself, but I am under the impression that NO CROSS COUNTRY ONLY SCHOOL HAS EVER QUALIFIED FOR NCAA CHAMPIONSHIP IN CROSS COUNTRY. Ask yourself why that is?

#4. If the maximum for cross country were supposed to be 12.6/18 why isn't it written that way in the rule book?

There is a reason cross country is uniquely the way it is. This is just a fundamental question of is it "right" or not. I know it is GOOD for distance folk, I just wonder if it is good for the 3 sports of cross country, indoor and outdoor track,

.............................. wrote:

#3. If you are a cross country only school, why should you be at a disadvantage in the sport of cross country? If a school chooses NOT to sponsor track, or any other sport then we can all understand why it isn't good at track or any other sport. BUT If a school chooses to have cross country only and FULLY FUND IT (5/6), why shouldn't it have the chance to be successful. I haven't done the research myself, but I am under the impression that NO CROSS COUNTRY ONLY SCHOOL HAS EVER QUALIFIED FOR NCAA CHAMPIONSHIP IN CROSS COUNTRY. Ask yourself why that is?

Why haven't they qualified? For the same reason Ben Thomas and his assistant don't want to coach there - the administrations do not care, they can't coach year around, budget and salaries are low, recruiting is extra hard. Why would a student athlete go to a cross country only school when they can go to a school with more opportunities and support? And why does the administration not fund track? Because of cost containment and Title IX compliance.

My guess is to do the work and see how many cross country only programs are fully funded and how many even are on the bubble to make it. How many cross country only programs are in the top 10 of their region? Certainly with 5 fulls and competent coaching can be top 10 in the region. There are none for the reasons I mention above. And now that is settled.....

No cross only program is successful because the best athletes want to do track aswell. It's not an issue of funding

You've made my point for me. The school CHOSE to sponsor cross country and they CHOSE to fully fund it. Yet you say they "don't care." If they don't sponsor track, they may not care about track. But we are talking about cross country. If they don't sponsor football, then they don't care about football, but that has nothing to do with basketball, track etc.

Can't coach year round? I sure do see our soccer coaches coaching year round. Playing spring games, having 20 hour weeks mixed in with 8 hour weeks. And cross country only programs can race in 5 meets during the spring season. Which is about the number of time the cross country guru's want their distance kids racing in the spring anyway.

The reason xc only teams don't make it to nationals is because, as you know, cross country and track and field are linked together in a unique way that no other sports are linked.

It is factual that the limit for xc only is 5/6. That isn't conjecture. IF you sponsor track as well, then, as the rules state now, you get to use the track maximum of 12.6/18 to enhance your cross country program.

I am trying to figure out what is the objection to having to declare your roster of 5/6 scholarship before the first cross country race, without also admitting that putting more than 5/6 into the sport is an advantage over those who choose to spend less FOR ANY REASON?

If a university/program decides it has a great distance coach, and great distance climate, and great distance environment, let them put all of their scholarships into distance runners, then line up your 5/6 vs. everyone else's 5/6 or less and compete for a championship. Then the other 7.6/12 can run 2 seasons of track, just like the long jumper and the shot putter and the pole vaulter and the 100m hurdler.

Or admit, as some coaches have, that this rule "takes away our advantage" and we don't want to lose our advantage. That I will respect, and then we respectfully disagree on philosophy.

This isn't a rule about sour grapes. It is a rule that says that the unique relationship between cross country and track and field, combined with the lack of consistency in legislation on the scholarshipping as is written in the rule book has created an environment where that in the majority of situations in order to be "ultimately" successful....winning a meet, winning a conference championship, winning a regional championship, winning a national championship IN CROSS COUNTRY is greatly enhanced by decisions related to the sport of track and field, and not just cross country.

Stop hiding behind some bullshit argument. All you are trying to do is limit scholarship that can be used in Cross Country because your team is getting beat by schools who CHOOSE to put more of THEIR scholarships into distance athletes. IF Ben Thomas doesn't like his team getting beat in XC AND Track, then go to another school where you can spend your money.

You also seem to be skipping over the fact that most distance runners (At fully funded XC/Track programs) compete in both Cross Country AND Track & Field. As someone said early, this is not a lesser way of doing things as you are getting athletes who can contribute the 3 separate sports! I understand you are not limiting what can be spent on distance runners, instead limiting how many can be used, but what is the difference between someone putting a majority of their scholarships in distance to be good in XC and likely on the track as well VS Texas A&M, Florida, etc. putting a majority of their scholarships in the sprints and sucking at XC? You don't hear those schools fussing BECAUSE they choose to carry a solid but unspectacular XC team to favor success on the track. Now some "genius" coaches want to throw a fit at losing and limit what those schools who CHOOSE to be successful in distance in XC and Track can do? Ignoring that Cross Country only programs have 5.0/6.0 scholarships, which should not even be brought up in this discussion as not a single one of the programs in successful due to not having Track also, it still makes ZERO sense for any legislature to dictate how much scholarship can be spent in certain areas. It is a CHOICE!

By your logic then, each school MUST put at minimum 5.0 scholarships into distance, therefore limiting them to 7.6 in the sprint/field events, correct? I do not see how you can argue a team can not spend more than x in one specific area without putting the same restrictions on other areas? It is unfathomable to me how one event area could be handicapped while others are not.

We do not do that because each individual school has the right to do whatever they please with their scholarships! Stop hiding behind some bullshit argument about legislature and rule book legislature.

You ask that coaches admit they are "losing their advantage", yet you also admit private schools are already at a disadvantage in recruiting in general. Many private schools have found a formula for success which involves putting a large chunk of their scholarships into one event area (distance being a popular one). I do not see it as an advantage as much as a realistically evaluating your school and resources and coming up with the best plan to achieve success.

Texas A&M is going to sign distance runners on books and small scholarships and put a majority of their scholarships into sprints and field events. They can afford to do so due to in-state tuition and financial aid. They are working within their means and resources and being successful doing so. Meanwhile, Syracuse is putting a large portion of their scholarship into the distance while adding some high quality sprinters on top of that, which won them the ACC Indoor Championship this year. Oklahoma State did the same last year also, scoring a majority of their points in the distance and some some sprinters and throwers. Syracuse and Oklahoma State worked within their means and resources to produce success in a totally different way to Texas A&M.

Notice, I did not once bring up Cross Country into the argument. NO ONE complains about either approach during the Track season, because again, those schools CHOOSE to spend their money in that manner. Obviously, looking at Cross Country success, Syracuse & Oklahoma State dominate Texas A&M due to them again allocating a large portion of their money to distance athletes. My question for you ..................... is that if both approaches can lead to success on the Track, why does it matter what happens in Cross Country? IF schools choose to invest 75% of their scholarship into distance and sprinkle 25% on sprints/field events, why should they be punished?

The only argument those wanting to limit the amount of scholarship that can be used during the XC season is that you want to limit the success that certain schools are having by them choosing to invest more in XC. Again, not once has anyone fussed at Texas A&M for putting a majority of their money in Track only athletes, yet we want to punish "distance schools" for choosing to emphasis Cross Country AND Track & Field in a different way.

I just do not get it.

The NCAA rules limit cross country only to 5/6. IF that were not the case, then there would be no discussion at all here. You only get to spend more on cross country IF you have track and field. I want to know why having track and field means spending more on cross country. Simple. They are different sports.

Why if you don't have track you are limited to 5/6 for cross country, but if you do have track you can spend more on cross country? Why?

And since you are throwing out school names, TX AM and Florida have made appearances at NCAA Championships in cross country on occasion, while maintaining a viable track program. But they can NEVER win a cross country championship unless they intentionally weaken their track team. THAT is the point.

Is cross country its own sport with its own championship or not? Sure, in a perfect world there would be cross country scholarships, and separate track scholarships. in a perfect world there would be MORE scholarships for everyone in every sport. But that isn't the case.

This rule is to create a consistent maximum for the sport of cross country, just like there is a specific maximum for every other sport in the NCAA. Right now you if you fully commit to the single sport of xc you can only spend 5/6, but if you commit to track and field you can spend more. That is inconsistent not only for the single sport of cross country, but also inconsistent with every other sport in the NCAA

You can not compare Cross Country/Track & Field to any other sport in the NCAA, as no other sport has multiple seasons or even separate seasons. Please stop using that logic, as it is absolutely farcical. You CAN NOT compare XC/Track to any other sport, totally different.

You hit the nail on the head without intending to in referencing Florida and Texas A&M. They choose to field a weakened Cross Country team by putting more money into their Track & Field team. It is no different when Boise State or NAU put more money into their Cross Country team, while limiting what their Track & Field team can do. Again, it is all about CHOICE!

I understand your angle on why Cross Country only programs have 5 scholarships, but that is probably in line (Sponsoring 1 of 3 seasons in which a distance athlete COULD compete) with what they should get by sponsoring 1 of 3 seasons.

Yes, Cross Country is its own sport with its own Championship. However, the athletes that compete at the NCAA Cross Country Championships ARE also allowed to compete at the NCAA Championships for Indoor & Outdoor track! Teams are not sponsoring athletes for one sport that can not compete in another yet still receive funding from that pool. For arguments sake, any Track & Field athlete (sprinter, thrower, jumper, etc.) could compete in Cross Country! The rules state that Cross Country/Track & Field has 12.6 scholarships to distribute however they please. You CAN NOT limit what one discipline can spend without limiting others.

The more you argue, the clearer it becomes you want to limit what distance oriented programs can do to give your team or school a better shot at competing, while hiding behind an awful argument about what Cross Country only programs get. You're comparing 2 totally separate entities in a sport that is unlike any other in the NCAA. Cross Country only programs are non-comparable to Cross Country/Track & Field programs. Any athlete that competes in Cross Country CAN and WILL compete in Track & Field. Schools are not being allowed additional aid to be better in Cross Country. Those schools are simply choosing to spend more money on distance runners that CAN and WILL compete in both disciplines!

Are football scholarship athletes allowed to compete in T&F?