Why do we allow post collegiates in college meets?

Wrestling has opens that post collegians and non-collegians (not high school though) can enter. But, unlike runners, wrestlers move on from participating as an athlete.

It's great that there are opportunities for competitive running beyond college. It's motivating to try to not get beat by an 'old man'

I've spent the past eight years going to college meets that are mostly "big" in terms of number of schools and entrants but mostly "small" in terms of how good most of the athletes are. No one's chance to compete is lost in the ones that allow non collegiate runners. Adding two open guys to a 5,000 that has 17 collegiate entrants doesn't affect anyone. If the fields get too big they simply run two heats. Adding 3 people to the 4,226 already entered in the 200 at an indoor meet makes no difference.

It's always been a part of the sport. There are some meets where it isn't allowed but overall it's probably good for the sport given the dearth of places for post collegians to compete on the track.

Looking for a Precedent in Collegiate Athletics wrote: Is this allowed at other NCAA sanctioned events? Can a wrestler or swimmer or tennis player jump in a collegiate meet? Why do allow collegiate athletes to be short-changed at collegiate meets?

I can't speak for the sports you reference, but in Skiing, post (and sometimes pre) college athletes are allowed to compete. In the east, there is a limited quota of post-college athletes allowed to start. That group is managed by an outside organization, NENSA. Start rights are earned based on your ranking points, to insure that only high level athletes get those limited start spots. I coached in the EISA for over a decade and never felt our college athletes were short changed by allowing a limited amount of post college athletes to compete - in fact I felt like those athletes brought a lot of positives to those races.

In the central and west, their college meets are regularly just pulling results out of a bigger competition. For example, at US Nationals there will be a separate results page for CCSA or RMISA skiers.

In XC, when our school hosts Invitationals I always invite the local running clubs to enter a team, and they often enter their top open and masters men and women. I really like our runners to see those athletes and compete against them because it gets my guys thinking that there is a lot of racing to be done after college. In terms of running/racing as a lifetime sport, that's one of my goals.

Different things work well for different sports I suppose...

800 dude wrote:

I also think you're being too dismissive of the notion that colleges should provide opportunities for post-collegians. It's actually important for the NCAA system that there be a post-collegiate system. If post-collegiate track ceased to exist, that would remove a lot of the incentive for top NCAA runners to continue. Sure, everyone wants to win a title, but if you know that in a few years you might have a shot at a US team, that can help keep you focused through your college career.

I agree with this and not even for those with the potential to make a US team after graduation. As a D3 athlete I was motivated by seeing former D3 athletes competing in races. It showed me that I could continue to compete in the sport I love. Having a long term approach to training is probably healthier for college athletes, especially when red-shirting may not be an option.

As others have already covered, colleges aren't required to host open athletes into their meets. As mentioned, some do it to get additional competition to attract ticket sales. Others do it to get the entry fees. Some reasons I havent seen mentioned:

- a higher level of competition might convince other schools to travel to the meet from farther away.

- they may have one or two standout athletes and their home meet might be kind of small. They may hope to attract a runner or two to help push their athlete who might otherwise be running solo up front

- they may have redshirts they want in the meet. If it isn't open to unattached athletes, they can't run their redshirts.

But I think the main reason they choose to allow unattached athletes is:

- the coach/ad organizing the meet might just love the sport and want to support it for unselfish reasons

I used to make a point of thanking the host coach after every meet that I brought an unattached athlete to. If they were chasing a top 24 or top 18 (indoors versus outdoors) mark, I always told them, I thought they might appreciate that.

There definitely are success stories of athletes who would have been done at graduation, because they couldn't make the pro level meets moving their way up through the open college meets and reaching the pro level. Kim Conley is one example. She graduated with a mid 16s PR in the 5k, so never could have justified traveling to a b level meet in Europe and couldn't qualify for the two or three A level meets each year in the US. But after a year or two of running in college meets she managed to get to the next level. If those college meets weren't accepting of people like her, our elite scene would shrink dramatically, since only the very top collegiate runners could continue.

The other reason college meets should not deny entry to post-collegiate athletes in invitationals is the officials are the free use of USATF officials. Unless the NCAA wants to certify and utilize its own officials, they are on the USATF gravy train and it is quid pro quo to support developing athletes in exchange for the arduous and extensive volunteer efforts of meet officials.

Because there are very few opportunities for the lower level post collegiate to compete. The ones that remain at their school to train, "volunteer coach", need somewhere to race. Not that complicated really. If there were more professional meets and this country was smaller there could be a circuit of B and C level meets like Europe.

Back in my 30's, almost 20 yrs ago now when I was still somewhat fast, I entered and won in a few invitational meets held at a college track.

Of course I haven't entered in years, and I understand that now they allow only collegians to compete. That sucks, because back in the day we all used to know each other, in fact I trained at the U. Knew all the coaches too (they thought they might recruit me (!))

There was a good vibe, and really good racing. There were heats and a final IIRC (long time ago now), and lots of collegians always competed--many, many heats. Everybody got a shot to compete.

I guess times have changed.

GTFO,

You are garbage.

Here's a question that may help answer your question: How many college T&F meets are put on without having officiating and/or timing done by USATF certified officials? Many of which are volunteering their time and expertise. Without USATF officials, there wouldn't be many/any collegiate meets. And if those officials are working the NCAA meets, they can't work a meet set up for post/non-collegiate athletes.

Qweru wrote:

Any meet that allows post-collegians is either

A. A relatively high profile meet that wants pros/semi-pros to boost competition.

B. A rinky-dink open meet where things like limited slots and heat placement aren’t a factor.

Really not a problem either way, and as someone said, nobody is forcing any meet to allow these people in.

I had the ultimate rinky-dink college meet experience as a non-collegian when I called up the coach of a local college and asked if I could run the steeple in a dual meet. I had never done it and wanted to see what it was like. He said sure. It turns out his school did not have a steepler and the other school only had one. So it as me and the one guy from the other school. If I had not shown up the other guy would have run by himself. I got my one and only win as a steepler.

Why do college sports even exist? I thought the purpose of college was education. Other than D1 football and sometimes D1 basketball, college sports are a loss of money for the school. Why should taxpayers have to pay for education and increased calorie needs and travel expenses of students who compete at jogging through golf courses?

What kind of economic "good" is college? Is it an

* investment good? ($X debt to product $Y more income)

* consumption good? (4-year party)

* insurance policy? (i.e. get a college degree out of fear of falling through the cracks in society)

Maybe you're overthinking it? It's not like track is a spectator sport, might as well bring out the participants

This is why they saw youth is wasted on the young. Nothing of what you posted is true. Plus, this issue has fluctuated over the years. We just got back to allowing collegiates and post collegiate runners to compete in the same meets on college campuses.

You just don't "get" stuff. Have you ever had a positive male role model or coach? I somehow doubt it.

jamin wrote:

Why do college sports even exist? I thought the purpose of college was education. Other than D1 football and sometimes D1 basketball, college sports are a loss of money for the school. Why should taxpayers have to pay for education and increased calorie needs and travel expenses of students who compete at jogging through golf courses?

What kind of economic "good" is college? Is it an

* investment good? ($X debt to product $Y more income)

* consumption good? (4-year party)

* insurance policy? (i.e. get a college degree out of fear of falling through the cracks in society)

That is nice description of standard experience. However for me it has not been this way. I do not train so hard because these white people are not so naturally gifted as me be. I find it easy to socializing and still win many NCCA titles with big smile. Or whatever it called. PLus I am 26 and they be 20 or 21 so my body be stronger. I also get to be with many white girls (and asians) and women because I am exotic and I have much free time given how easy it is to win so many races. My GPA is currently 4.3 and my major is sociology and white chicks. THank you so very much americas.

Post OP wrote:

I understand that, but why does it fall on the college to provide these opportunities and at the cost of collegiate athletes?

How do wrestlers do it for the Olympics? Swimmers?

I can't speak for swimmers, but I know there plenty of senior level wrestling tournaments held in the summer (because that's when the Senior season is) that give post-collegiates a chance to compete and qualify for US nationals. It's the same way for track, most pro meets are held in the summer. I don't think tons of pros and post-collegiates are trying to run in college meets anyways, nor do I have a problem if they did. This seems like a non-issue to me.

jamin wrote:

Why do college sports even exist? I thought the purpose of college was education. Other than D1 football and sometimes D1 basketball, college sports are a loss of money for the school. Why should taxpayers have to pay for education and increased calorie needs and travel expenses of students who compete at jogging through golf courses?

What kind of economic "good" is college? Is it an

* investment good? ($X debt to product $Y more income)

* consumption good? (4-year party)

* insurance policy? (i.e. get a college degree out of fear of falling through the cracks in society)

Where did you go to college, Jamin?

L. Lomong wrote:

^^Racist drivel.