AndyEggs wrote:
Kennesaw State was an elite and nationally recognized program the last few years. They took a step back this year for some reason. Probably the change in regime.
Their top distance runner is transferring, too.
I guess King Cale is doing away with any competitive XC team and putting ALL scholarships in the throws.
Rightly so! Distance coaches do it all the time! It's his decision if he wants to build a strong throws program. Earned that right.
Throws best wrote:
Rightly so! Distance coaches do it all the time! It's his decision if he wants to build a strong throws program. Earned that right.
+1
But you won't find much support around here. Distants runnerz r bests
Where'd you end up, Andy?
AndyEggs wrote:
Kennesaw State was an elite and nationally recognized program the last few years. They took a step back this year for some reason. Probably the change in regime.
They were??? I didn't even know they were Division I until I found out they hired Bray to coach their distance runners. I must have missed them in the top-ten at nationals in Eugene the last few years.
saidwell wrote:
Throws best wrote:
Rightly so! Distance coaches do it all the time! It's his decision if he wants to build a strong throws program. Earned that right.
+1
But you won't find much support around here. Distants runnerz r bests
I somewhat agree. I'm a distance coach, but I feel like it's an obligation to build a balanced program. You can get a lot done in the distance events with 4-5 scholarships if you can coach and recruit well. These other programs just throw 18.6 full rides out to girls and fall butt-first into national caliber athletes. I've seen first hand how 4-5 scholarships can be enough to build a good team. Unless your school specifically focuses on cross country, it's not impressive to only score athletes in the distance events at a conference meet.
I think you can have a very good cross country team with 5 women's scholarships and 4 men's in the distance, but it's every distance coach's dream to build a team of 5 distance coaches and only distance athletes.
I call BS. If you don't know the basic info of how many scholarships women's teams have, I don't think you are a coach. At the very least not a competent and credible one.
eehhhhh meh wrote:
I call BS. If you don't know the basic info of how many scholarships women's teams have, I don't think you are a coach. At the very least not a competent and credible one.
lol because I accidentally wrote 18.6 for the women. Oops!
People on here are so ridiculous. There is not a program in the country who is "fully funded" (12.6 & 18) that put all their scholarships into distance running only. Schools that do put it all into distance, do so because they're NOT fully funded.
Understand?
These other programs just throw 18.6 full rides out to girls and fall butt-first into national caliber athletes. I've seen first hand how 4-5 scholarships can be enough to build a good team. Unless your school specifically focuses on cross country, it's not impressive to only score athletes in the distance events at a conference meet.
I think you can have a very good cross country team with 5 women's scholarships and 4 men's in the distance, but it's every distance coach's dream to build a team of 5 distance coaches and only distance athletes.
No one is throwing 12/18 scholarships entirely into distance athletes. The schools that put every scholarship they have into distance are not fully funded (Iona, Furman, New Mexico), and the schools that are fully funded, and choose to focus on distance, still put scholarships into other events to score at conference (Syracuse, NAU).
Even if you are fully funded, it is hard to have a "balanced" team. You get 12/18 equivalencies for 21 events outdoors. Compared to Basketball, which is allowed 13/15 for basically 5 players, and 7-10 bench warmers.
XC/Track is also the only sport where scholarships for one sport, count against the scholarships for a different sport. The strategy/team makeup to win a team title in track is completely different compared to cross country. Track disproportionately rewards having a small number of individuals that are just way better than everyone else. This is a function of the scoring: 10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1. Being 1st is almost twice as good (by point value) as being 3rd.
“You come to this meet with five to six guys or five to six girls, and that’s how you win the meet. Now they all have to be good, and they all have to be on point, but this concept that you have to have these large numbers to win is not how you win championships. You win championships with quality, not quantity…Just because you have 100 kids at the meet doesn’t mean that you have 100 kids that can score.” Mike Holloway saying it better than I can.
Cross country is a team sport, and you are only as good as your 5th runner. Oregon went 1, 2 at Cross Country NCAA's in 2014, but "only" finished 6th overall because of how far behind their 4th and 5th man were. That said, they were right in the middle of winning 3 indoor titles, and two outdoor titles in a row. Obviously, they allocated their money well to make that happen.
So by trying to be good at cross country, and giving scholarship money to distance runners that improve your depth, and make your 3,4,5 better, you are actively taking away scholarships from athletes that could score in other events in track. If you are in a good conference, those runners are not scoring highly, or scoring at all, in the distance events. The opposite is true as well, if you spend scholarship money on a conference scoring long jump/triple jump athlete, you are taking away a scholarship you could use to be good at cross country. In basketball, you are giving scholarship to someone that makes your basketball team better, no compromises.
Neither of these strategies are right or wrong, it just depends on how the head coach chooses to allocate scholarships, and what they are trying to accomplish. If you aren't fully funded, it makes sense to focus on one event area you can be good, but people only complain when it's distance teams.
Elite and nationally recognized? I see neither the last few years......not even the best in their State or their conference.
real coach at a school wrote:
People on here are so ridiculous. There is not a program in the country who is "fully funded" (12.6 & 18) that put all their scholarships into distance running only. Schools that do put it all into distance, do so because they're NOT fully funded.
Understand?
lol false
University of Arkansas Little Rock looking for a new cross country coach; what is going on there?
What's up at Baylor? They just put a very short, vague post up for an assistant hurdles coach?
KSU has real competition for a change .. . Liberty will dominate ASUN.
King Cale has earned nothing.
Kraft mentions his coaching staff, even mentions volunteer coaches but fails to mention Rasmussen the women's distance coach?
Freudian slip? wrote:
Kraft mentions his coaching staff, even mentions volunteer coaches but fails to mention Rasmussen the women's distance coach?
I thought I was the only one who caught that LOL. It's a sad state what their distance group has become. On both sides really