I don't disagree with anything you wrote Rojo, but good lord, that article reads like it was written by a 7th grader. Please hire another writer.
I don't disagree with anything you wrote Rojo, but good lord, that article reads like it was written by a 7th grader. Please hire another writer.
editizer wrote:
I don't disagree with anything you wrote Rojo, but good lord, that article reads like it was written by a 7th grader. Please hire another writer.
It could be why I'm so confused.
I still don't understand the relevance of even mentioning athletes that were allowed waivers throughout the years if the rule was put in place last summer.
There seems to be some legitimacy behind the rule making universities making a bigger commitment to the regular season. This may or may not be good for athletes. That should be discussed.
I believe that when a rule like this is placed an athlete already enrolled should be allowed a waiver because of a lack of knowledge going in. New recruits should be given a disclosure of the rule with a list of eligible schools from the prior year. Maybe this is already being done?
"I think you mean Obama-like. Trump wants to slash government regulations and rules. Trump wants a smaller government. It's a fundamental doctrine of the right. In fact one of Trump's executive orders was to require a cut two existing government regulations if a new one is added. A fundamental doctrine of the left is more govt regulation and control. How do you not know this. It's scary how uninformed the left is on the most basic issues."
______________________________________________________________________
Typical Far-right Neo-Con Xenophobe Rhetoric. Trump wants to "slash government regulations and rules" so he and his big corporate buddies can continue to rape the environment, shift funds from healthcare to military spending, abuse the stock market for the rich and dismantle the hard fought rights of immigrants and LGBT people. He and his administration doesn't give a flying fuk about hard working Americans, especially athletes. Monies for Olympic Training Facilities will be phased out and diverted to make aircraft carriers, fighter jets & subs so we can attack China, North Korea or whomever else they can think of to demonize. They 'fundamentally have a doctrine' that has its head up its own ass. It's truly scary how misinformed the 'right' is on some of the most obvious issues. But hey, you've got a three figure salary and an HMO & retirement plan, so what do you care about everybody else.
Obvious BS wrote:
"I think you mean Obama-like. Trump wants to slash government regulations and rules. Trump wants a smaller government. It's a fundamental doctrine of the right. In fact one of Trump's executive orders was to require a cut two existing government regulations if a new one is added. A fundamental doctrine of the left is more govt regulation and control. How do you not know this. It's scary how uninformed the left is on the most basic issues."
______________________________________________________________________
Typical Far-right Neo-Con Xenophobe Rhetoric. Trump wants to "slash government regulations and rules" so he and his big corporate buddies can continue to rape the environment, shift funds from healthcare to military spending, abuse the stock market for the rich and dismantle the hard fought rights of immigrants and LGBT people. He and his administration doesn't give a flying fuk about hard working Americans, especially athletes. Monies for Olympic Training Facilities will be phased out and diverted to make aircraft carriers, fighter jets & subs so we can attack China, North Korea or whomever else they can think of to demonize. They 'fundamentally have a doctrine' that has its head up its own ass. It's truly scary how misinformed the 'right' is on some of the most obvious issues. But hey, you've got a three figure salary and an HMO & retirement plan, so what do you care about everybody else.
What does this have to do with the topic other than you are not able to follow rules either.
jadjlfdsjfladjfslk wrote:
this article is so gd clickbaity. "I hope you are sitting down when you hear the reason as it’s bound to make your skin boil."
lol come on
I 100% agree and I wrote it. I said to a staffer, "This reads like a deadspin article" and I hate deadspin but I was hoping for it to go viral with the non track crowd and it worked. Thing was blowing up on social medial
I actually normally defend the NCAA on its most important issue. I don't believe most college athletes are underpaid or exploited. Sure a few Ohio State football players are underpaid but most college athletes are overpaid. That underpaid running back helps pay for the third string lineman and woman's volleyball player.
But it's the overly bureaucratic nature of the organization that drives me nuts at times. You don't have a rule, reward some for flaunting the rule and punish those that follow it.
Speaking of the NCAA, I never did hear back from them on how their granting of broadcast rights for xc to flotrack wasn't in direct violation of their own rules.
They just seem to make stuff up at times.
Ssdfssfsdfsdfsdf wrote:
It seems unfortunate that she can't compete, but if that is the rule, I'm not sure how they have a leg to stand on. Why doesn't she just apply for USATF indoor nationals? It's still a decent meet she could go to. I get why she might want to go to NCAA nationals, but she has been told no, so regroup and look at option B.
The USATF meet has much better competition anyway.
Comrades, the apparatchiks in the upper eschalons of the Committee know best.
John Utah wrote:
Obvious BS wrote:The whole rational for this decision comes from a 'TRUMP-LIKE' attitude to people, rules and regulations.
I think you mean Obama-like. Trump wants to slash government regulations and rules. Trump wants a smaller government.
No, he is correct. You are wrong. Trump wants 50+ billion more to give his military contractor pals. Trump wants to build a draconian wall. Trump want bigly-yuge new rules for screening people to let them in or allow them to stay in Trumpland. Trump has written more executive orders than any other president ever has at this point in his tenure.
BIGLY government = Trump
.............................. wrote:
To be D1 you must sponsor 14 sports, 8 women and 6 men. For any sport above the 14 then NCAA pays the university something between $30-40k. For this reason, each school is asked IN ADVANCE of each academic year, which sports it intends to sponsor. Not just for future payment, but for actually being a D1 member.
Track and field is different in that it is classified as an "individual" sport and not a "team" sport. It is different because individual athletes make up the "team." It is different because cross country athletes run track, sometimes indoor, sometimes outdoor sometimes both. All of these things make track sometimes convoluted and it leads to many opinions on how the sport should be managed.
Recently, coaches voted that if the school doesn't officially sponsor the sport (14 athletes at 4 contests) it won't be allowed to compete at an ncaa championship. This is totally different from the school declaring its intent to sponsor the sport at the beginning of the year.
For many years athletes have been able to compete because of the loophole that schools declare the intent to sponsor the sport, fully knowing they will not actually sponsor the sport. There is no penalty as long as you still have enough other sports for D1 membership. The only consequence is you don't get the check for the additional sport, but since you knew you weren't going to ACTUALLY sponsor the sport, that is no consequence. THIS HAS IN THE PAST ALLOWED ATHLETES TO COMPETE FROM SCHOOLS THAT DID NOT MEET THE SPONSORSHIP REQUIREMENT.
Now coaches are asked to check a box during NCAA declaration to confirm they did meet the sponsorship requirement this year. If the school itself already said it WASN'T sponsoring the sport, it is end of ball game. YOU CAN NOT COMPETE. If you school says it was going to sponsor the sport, but DID NOT sponsor the sport, and the coach checks the box for declaration that is DID meet the sponsorship (lies) that athlete CAN compete in the NCAA Championship. UNLESS another coach files a protest, then someone will seek proof of 4 meets with 14 athletes.
And there was even a memo that went around to each conference and each school that was going to give a blanket waiver for schools that said they were going to meet the sponsorship requirement but didn't. basically you could still get away with the OLD way for gaming the system as long as your school declared it intent to sponsor the sport.
THERE ARE RULES, and RULE ARE MEANT TO BE FOLLOWED, even if you don't like the rule.
So, if you want to run at the indoor ncaa championship, coach/compete for a school that sponsors indoor track. OR declare you are going to sponsor the sport and use the waiver.
However, if you want to run at the ncaa indoor championship, you can't coach/compete for a school that declares in advance of the season that you will not be sponsoring indoor track, and then check the box during declaration that you indeed did not sponsor the sport.
Personally, given the limit of indoor track availability, and given how little distance coaches/runner actually want to race, I think there should be smaller "sponsorship requirements" for both the sports of cross country and indoor track. But until that is the case, the institution I coach at must follow the rules, or work to change the rules.
^^^^This is a good explanation.
I tried to be briefer and didn't want to make it overly complicated for the casual fan but you nailed it. Basically in the past, if you said you were going to sponsor track in the past (4-6 meets with 14 people) even if you didn't do it, you still got to run NCAAs with a waiver. There was a rules specifically passed saying this wouldn't happen so the Loyola Marymount people didn't try to act like they'd be doing track. They followed the rule.
Others ignored the rule and have been granted entry into the championships like in year's past.
The Loyola coach understood in December that they were ineligible for NCAAs. He was fine with that. However, now that the NCAA is granting waivers to others, he's justifiably upset that he's being punished for having been honest to start with.
So either bar them all. Or bar none of them.
But can we please stop talking about how the NCAA is are focused on the student-athlete. The rule is anti student-athlete. It's anti-student athlete and all about power schools excluding the poor schools.
"Basically in the past, if you said you were going to sponsor track in the past (4-6 meets with 14 people) even if you didn't do it, you still got to run NCAAs with a waiver."
I don't think there was a waiver in the past. Just the loophole of the rule allowed athletes to compete.
Again, I can't help but ask who is getting away with breaking the rule this year? If you're afraid to call a coach out for no being truthful I guess I understand.
Just another case of the large funded (Oregon/nike) schools trying to keep as much of the competition away as possible.
Same reason they change the football rules every time a smaller school finds a way they may have a chance at a title.
The appeal of running is that the times don't lie. Unfortunate when those running a qualifying time are forbidden to participate based on factors they have no control over.
Running should always strive to be inclusionary rather than exclusionary.
.............................. wrote:
To be D1 you must sponsor 14 sports, 8 women and 6 men. For any sport above the 14 then NCAA pays the university something between $30-40k. For this reason, each school is asked IN ADVANCE of each academic year, which sports it intends to sponsor. Not just for future payment, but for actually being a D1 member.
Track and field is different in that it is classified as an "individual" sport and not a "team" sport. It is different because individual athletes make up the "team." It is different because cross country athletes run track, sometimes indoor, sometimes outdoor sometimes both. All of these things make track sometimes convoluted and it leads to many opinions on how the sport should be managed.
Recently, coaches voted that if the school doesn't officially sponsor the sport (14 athletes at 4 contests) it won't be allowed to compete at an ncaa championship. This is totally different from the school declaring its intent to sponsor the sport at the beginning of the year.
For many years athletes have been able to compete because of the loophole that schools declare the intent to sponsor the sport, fully knowing they will not actually sponsor the sport. There is no penalty as long as you still have enough other sports for D1 membership. The only consequence is you don't get the check for the additional sport, but since you knew you weren't going to ACTUALLY sponsor the sport, that is no consequence. THIS HAS IN THE PAST ALLOWED ATHLETES TO COMPETE FROM SCHOOLS THAT DID NOT MEET THE SPONSORSHIP REQUIREMENT.
Now coaches are asked to check a box during NCAA declaration to confirm they did meet the sponsorship requirement this year. If the school itself already said it WASN'T sponsoring the sport, it is end of ball game. YOU CAN NOT COMPETE. If you school says it was going to sponsor the sport, but DID NOT sponsor the sport, and the coach checks the box for declaration that is DID meet the sponsorship (lies) that athlete CAN compete in the NCAA Championship. UNLESS another coach files a protest, then someone will seek proof of 4 meets with 14 athletes.
And there was even a memo that went around to each conference and each school that was going to give a blanket waiver for schools that said they were going to meet the sponsorship requirement but didn't. basically you could still get away with the OLD way for gaming the system as long as your school declared it intent to sponsor the sport.
THERE ARE RULES, and RULE ARE MEANT TO BE FOLLOWED, even if you don't like the rule.
So, if you want to run at the indoor ncaa championship, coach/compete for a school that sponsors indoor track. OR declare you are going to sponsor the sport and use the waiver.
However, if you want to run at the ncaa indoor championship, you can't coach/compete for a school that declares in advance of the season that you will not be sponsoring indoor track, and then check the box during declaration that you indeed did not sponsor the sport.
Personally, given the limit of indoor track availability, and given how little distance coaches/runner actually want to race, I think there should be smaller "sponsorship requirements" for both the sports of cross country and indoor track. But until that is the case, the institution I coach at must follow the rules, or work to change the rules.
Oh please, dude. NCAA netted over a billion dollars last year on the backs of "student-athletes", aka, NBA/NFL developmental league players. Athletes who, in any other country or sport, would be allowed to enter the free market (think 17 year old soccer players in the premier league or 15 year old girls at Wimbeldon) are forced to spend at least a year laboring for the NCAA. It's basically a racket and so let's simmer down on the "the rules are the rules" talk. They've sold themselves out to ESPN and so look very silly coming down hard on a 5 k qualifier from a less than mid major school.
If you or the T&F committee truly wants to know or enforce the rule, participation numbers for each school are documented through tffrs. The folks at Direct Athletics can tell the committee (with the click of a button) who has met the 14 athlete/4 competition rule.
Suspect a school? Do your own investigation through tffrs and report those who have not met the participation rule. Or post them here for the public to see. tffrs has the data for everyone to see.
dude, any kid can go play in Europe, arena league, etc if they want to make money. they aren't forced to go to college........also, the eligibility rules to get into college greatly benefit these so called student-athletes.
Kids with 1100 SATs get denied at Michigan and Florida, but weight 350 lbs with an 800 SAT and can block, guess what.....you're in..
At least they can do is follow the rules.
Every NCAA coach and compliance officer knows the 4 and 14 guideline. The NCAA's mistake was not in keeping Shanahan out (that's a silly idea). They did royally screw up by letting others in over the years from teams who did not meet the 4 and 14 criteria. The rule exists to encourage schools to make an effort to field track TEAMS.
"No, he is correct. You are wrong. Trump wants 50+ billion more to give his military contractor pals. Trump wants to build a draconian wall. Trump want bigly-yuge new rules for screening people to let them in or allow them to stay in Trumpland. Trump has written more executive orders than any other president ever has at this point in his tenure.
BIGLY government = Trump"
___________________________________________________________________
Thanks 'Nevada Bob' If Trump had it his way, Mo Farah wouldn't be able to return to his family in Portland and train. "Trumpland" actually means a lot of things as you know and the trickle down ethnocentrism-ethics spill into track and field and how international and domestic athletes and competitions are run. Zero empathy and an ICE-like mentality has surfaced - I'm surprised they haven't come after Diego Estrada and others yet. Yes, he's completely legal and totally legit, but others don't see it that way. What's next - no scholarships for talented Kenyans coming over etc...Having a tougher competition pool makes ALL runners better, not weaker. "America First" translates "White Republicans First" and all of their 'Military Industrial Complex' / Islamophobic agenda.
Agreed with the others. He followed the rules and the rules said she can't run..AND?
RIP: D3 All-American Frank Csorba - who ran 13:56 in March - dead
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06
Running for Bowerman Track Club used to be cool now its embarrassing
Hats off to my dad. He just ran a 1:42 Half Marathon and turns 75 in 2 months!
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
Rest in Peace Adrian Lehmann - 2:11 Swiss marathoner. Dies of heart attack.