What D1 programs should be great but aren't?

John Utah wrote:

Sand Dunes wrote:

Colorado

CU is arguably the #1 program in the past 10ish years

Just a reminder that low IQ people don't understand sarcasm.

TrackFan19 wrote:

i have a lot of thoughts wrote:

Notre Dame, Duke, UNC, Texas, UCLA, Cal come to mind

Take Notre Dame and Duke of the list along with any in the Ivy League. Academics will always limit these programs, mostly in track & field. Cal however, isn't difficult to get athletes into.

It's a limiting factor but exaggerated at most levels. Coaches can't get anyone in but they have ways of lowering the bar to entry and often have a direct line to admissions to help with the process. There are endless examples of runners getting into school because of athletics. I'm not suggesting it's corrupt or an open door policy, maybe @Rojo can weigh in.

howard co-smell wrote:

Theres too many to name. However it needs saying, that many of these head coaches should have replaced long ago in order to turn it around. In our sport the coaches have molded the sport to be an invitational sport nearly 99 percent of the schedule, and they hide from dual meets because they don't want a tangible win/loss record. Becauuse that would expose failure. If track and field were like football many of these people would be removed after not winning anything for their first 5 years. I see coaches who have been at d1 universities for 20 yrs and havent won much at all. There's no accountability in success vs failure. Therefore plenty of programs will remain not great, but they could be great if a new guy had a shot at leading the team.

Totally agree, but have to consider that it’s an extremely low paying and thankless job that has virtually no social cred. Perhaps their are better candidates knocking down the door, but in most cases I doubt it. A mediocre talent can make 2x as much and work a standard 40 hour week a few years out of college versus the coaching life.

What does UCSB have for scholarship on each gender?

I'll try to shed some additional light on the situation at Berkeley. The campus itself is situated in an urban area which is not ideal for running directly from campus. This negative is mitigated a bit by the fact that Cal is within a 15-20 minute drive of at least 5 different regional parks with awesome trails. Also, the on campus athletic facilities are first class. This may change dramatically for the worse in the next few years if the university decides to turn Edwards Stadium into apartments.

The Edwards Stadium situation directly ties in to the ongoing financial difficulty faced by Cal's athletic department. I am not going to take the time to research the exact numbers, but the renovation of Memorial Stadium (the football facility) has put the athletic department in a massive hole. They are seriously considering cutting quite a few programs entirely (track and XC could easily be cut). While the Track and Field program is fully funded at the moment they are definitely not flush with cash.

Another downside to the Cal program is the head coaching situation. Tony Sandoval has been there for 30ish years and he is a bit past his prime to say the least. I could probably write 200 pages worth on this topic but I'm going to spare everyone from that rant. On the bright side, I think Shayla Houlihan (Shelby's older sister) has the potential to do some real good as cross country coach. The rest of the coaching staff seems competent as well. We can all hope that old man Sandoval doesn't hamper their positive contributions.

A final challenge that Cal faces is the simple breadth of opportunities available to its students. In my experience there were hundreds of things to do at Berkeley and in the greater bay area at any given moment. Academics at Cal are certainly time consuming but I found that a lot of runners were also involved in other extracurricular activities. In the vibrant environment that is the bay area it is very hard for a lot of kids to achieve the singular focus and dedication necessary to succeed at the highest level of collegiate running.

UNM Men

Vanderbilt men. No men's track so top runners don't go there. They basically light money on fire by pouring it into their terrible football program.

W&M - years of bad coaching weakened a once great program

App State - they have some of the best places to run on the east coast but struggle to get recruiting classes analogous to Duke and UNC

I can name a few schools that cut men's programs all together that would be good too, like JMU.[/quote]

AppState only cares about winning conference each year in each sport. Another example of a school with a coach that's been there for two decades and they've never qualified for NCAA's (maybe 1993 or 1994?). UNC seems to get a decent recruiting class every few years but it's like none of them stay healthy save one or two at the same time so they never seem to get on the same page...I'm from North Carolina and I'd add Wake Forest to this list. Used to be good, not so much anymore. NCSU is about the only D1 school in NC that regularly does well in XC on men's/women's side.

Michigan men's team. With the talent they recruit, they should be at the least top ten every year.

Oregon will struggle for a year or two but it has so many advatages that they will rebound quickly. First, they replaced the outgoing coaches with two better coaches. Oregon is one of a small handful of states that people care about distance running. Running at Oregon gives you a leg up on getting a pro contract after school and you are already in the area. The facilities are awesome and the new stadium being built will be the best in the country. They momopolize ncaa and Olympic trial events. They are hosting the world championships. Phil Knight and Nike make no bones about favoring Oregon. They have the tradition. Oregon will always be good.

I have always seen this as the opposite. Distance runners are generally smarter than other athletes and smart people want to go to the highly selective schools. Stanford always has a strong program, Notre Dame historically had a strong program and probably will again, Princeton is good, and Michigan is good. I agree that it is a limiting factor for track.

University of Florida: Has Solinsky, more money/funding than they could dream of, year-round training climate, good trails and dirt roads near campus.

Always curious why they couldn't put things together? I live in Florida, and my twin sister just went enrolled and left to go there as an incoming freshman. UF Is one of the most prestigious public universities in the country, and they receive MASSIVE amounts of funding for research, especially when it comes to agriculture.

To get in there, you basically have to be the top of your class and get over a 1320-1350 on your SAT to be accepted. There was a kid in my graduation class this year who is going to the Naval Academy in Annapolis, scored around 1400 on the SAT, excellent GPA, very involved, and didn't get into UF.

A lot of kids who get into the ivys or other prestigious private colleges with 1500+ SAT scores end up at UF (their state school) because of money. My sister got a 1420 and was valedictorian of our class, didn't get into any of the big private unis she applied to(Georgetown, Vanderbilt, Northwestern), so she is at UF.

Based on all that, I have a feeling that everyone at UF, especially the academically-minded distance runners, care more about school or have so much smoke up their ass because they are at UF, that they fail to realize that running success actually takes REAL work.

Additionally, many of the kids on the roster get in academically and get a lot of money academically (Florida Pre-paid and 100% tuition covered under Bright Futures, or maybe mommy and daddy pay, loans, etc) and they just happen to be on the team.

Hence why they can't send a team to nationals or have 13:40/3:40/28:40 guys.

The 25% - 75% SAT scores of students admitted to Florida are 1180 - 1370. Those numbers are decent but not great. A decent distance runner with a 1200 ACT is in.

What Florida wrote:

The 25% - 75% SAT scores of students admitted to Florida are 1180 - 1370. Those numbers are decent but not great. A decent distance runner with a 1200 ACT is in.

Wrong — it’s 1250 to 1420. The average is well over 1300. And that was last year’s class — this year’s class has an average GPA and SAT equal to UNC’s. They actually have a lot of trouble getting borderline athletes through the door.

I can 100% guarantee you that Cal does not receive 18 women's scholarships & 12.7 men's scholarships (the NCAA maximum & what is meant by "fully funded"). Far from that. I can also 100% guarantee that the vast majority of what the men do have does not go to mid distance or distance. And fortunately the new AD has stated that losing Edwards Stadium & cutting the track & XC program is off the table & will not happen on his watch. He has made this public knowledge. But true, it has not helped the image of the program...your last paragraph is certainly your most accurate.

The most obvious one is UC Berkeley (Cal)

Look at their recruits a few years back on the women's side

Laurynne Chetelat (2009) -

highschool - 3200 - 9:52.51

freshman year at Stanford: 7th NCAA indoor 3k, 9:08, 9th NCAA west regional in XC 20:17. 5K PR of 15:43

Then transferred to Berkeley, and never had any respectable finish or time in any meet

Bethan Knights (2014) -

Highschool - 2miles 9:53 (2mile high school record holder at the time)

Georgia Bell (2015)

highschool - 800m 2:03, 1500m 4:16

Marissa Williams (2015)

highschool - mile 4:39, 2mile 10:20 (8th footlocker nationals)

Jordan Coltyr (2015)

highschool - mile 4:45, 2mile 10:29

With recruits like this they should be in the mix for a championship, but instead they destroy good runner's careers.

If just looking at the last 5 years, then it's Wisconsin. The hype train always comes around in Aug/Sept, and then...

You forgot Stephanie Jenks 2016, 4:40 mile and 16:37 5k. Not competed yet.

Salem local wrote:

I’m curious who the two physical therapists are. I’m just outside of Winston-Salem and dealing with some injury issues, so far I haven’t been able to find anyone particularly knowledgeable with runner specific problems.

They are Wake Forest Baptist Health's Justin Pfruender and Per Kristian Moerk.

Pfruender was a DIII All-American under Brian Diemer at Calvin College. Moerk ran at Wyoming, as well as professionally. Someone mentioned to me that Moerk ran 4 flat or sub-4... I can't really remember, and I never tried to verify it, but I would say that he was certainly a strong runner back in the day.

Pfruender helped me get over two chronic injuries in 4 to 6 weeks (max) of appointments. He belongs to that group of rare PTs / Chiros / Physios who have not only a serious running background, but also the medical know-how to make a major difference in injured runners' lives; he's one of those guys who can fix you up quick after you've putzed around for months with other, clueless PTs.

I also agree with Ohio State. They used to get whoever they wanted in Ohio a few years back, only to absolutely waste them. Now, all the great Ohio talent is headed out of state.

At least now they have an excuse that they are putting all their focus on sprints and field events to win the Big 10 Track titles.

Still. They could have been so much more.