Title IX is killing men

Guns, cars, booze, and war kill men.

Suck it up buttercup.

14:10 would have been the 81st fastest performer in D1 last indoor season. I have a really hard time believing some team had 6+ of these caliber athletes on the roster and is basically cutting half of them to comply with title 9. There are probably only ~10 teams with talent close to what OP is describing.

Are you kidding? There is the 800, 1500, 5k, 10, and steeple. Every team doe not have every guy focused on the 5000. BYU or NAU could each run 12 guys sub 14:10. Wisconsin, ISU, Arkansas, Notre Dame, Indiana, Colorado, Stanford, Michigan, Purdue, or Portland could each run 7 guys under 14:10. The next tier down which includes most Power 5 schools, could run 3-4 guys sub 14:10. If you go through the rosters of schools like Alabama, Texas, Syracuse, Princeton, Minnesota, Florida St and others, you will find 3 sub 30 guys on the roster, several sub 14:20 guys, a 1:49 800, an 8:50 steeple, and 3 sub 3:50 1500 guys. Everyone does not run the same event the same season or same year. Every average Power 5 school has what the OP described.

There is a seperate middle distance group with several sub 1:50 guys. I understand the decision because the nonroster distance guys have almost no chance to score at conference and have absolutely no chance to go to nationals. It does not make it any easier for guys who have run 4:08 or 8:15 or 14:20 or 30 flat. Because guys like that always want to move to the next level.

Faster is better wrote:

There is a seperate middle distance group with several sub 1:50 guys. I understand the decision because the nonroster distance guys have almost no chance to score at conference and have absolutely no chance to go to nationals. It does not make it any easier for guys who have run 4:08 or 8:15 or 14:20 or 30 flat. Because guys like that always want to move to the next level.

Assuming this isn't a troll thread, transfer if at all possible, unless you're a junior or senior and want to stick it out or have to for some reason.

A senior unfortunately. Just found out and too late to do anything now. Would really like to break 14 or run 29 flat this year but opportunities will be few.

Faster is better wrote:

A senior unfortunately. Just found out and too late to do anything now. Would really like to break 14 or run 29 flat this year but opportunities will be few.

Would a fast indoor time get you a roster spot for outdoor? You could probably get in any meet, so maybe start speed now and peak for a last chance meet in feb? Or if the roster is set in stone, you'll have a year of track eligibility if you want to go to grad school.

Not fast enough wrote:

Are you kidding? There is the 800, 1500, 5k, 10, and steeple. Every team doe not have every guy focused on the 5000. BYU or NAU could each run 12 guys sub 14:10. Wisconsin, ISU, Arkansas, Notre Dame, Indiana, Colorado, Stanford, Michigan, Purdue, or Portland could each run 7 guys under 14:10.

There is no 10k or steeple indoor, so those wouldn't impact the list I referenced. Most milers with endurance will race a few 5Ks indoors. I doubt there is more than a few 800 specialists who can run 14:10.

You want to have me believe that all the schools you listed above have 7 sub 14:10 runners but many had their 5th scorer at XC nationals running around 32:30?

I may have gotten lucky with my first pick but I went to TFRRS for Minnesota, a team who placed only 8th in the Big Ten XC meet. I expected that I would have to go to the PRs of guys thinking there would be redshirts and injuries but this is the list of just the bests from 2019 outdoor without even looking at other guys on the roster.

Larance 1:48

Trapp 1:50

Macintosh 3:49

Lucas 3:49

Basten 3:50 13:53 8:34 Stp

Ali 13:48 8:31 Stp

Hoeft 3:50 13:54

Duerr 14:07

Manderscheid 14:11

Wagner 14:18

3 guys broke 14 and 6 broke 14:20 and 4 more guys could be decent distance runners. So for you to question if teams have a handful of guys capable of going sub 14:20 is ridiculous. Betting if we look at the roster, there are 2-3 more guys who have run sub 14:20 or could run sub 14:20. This is the 8th best distance team in the Big Ten, not NAU or BYU.

I ran for a big school in the 1980s. Even then, when title IX was in its infancy, it was a bad system. It is a queer combination of socialism and racial exploitation.

1. Men's football and basketball are the major generators of revenue and profit. I believe at the time the UNC athletic department was one of the top 10 revenue organizations (NC has grown quite a bit since then).

2. All the money was made off of the backs of a few stars, almost all of whom were black and found it hard to go to pro leagues due to anti-competitive monopsony rules crafted by the pro-leagues and the NCAA-this system still exists today. See the NFL or the NBA.

3. Almost none of the basketball, football, or even track athletes belonged in college much less UNC.

4. This would lead to a major scandal, but that is another topic.

5. There is no end demand for minor sports for men or women (with rare exceptions) and their existence is totally dependent on major sports and the ability to get ill-prepared students to play for simply a scholarship that many times lead to a bogus degree or major.

6. As coaching salaries for football staff rise, there is less money for minor sports and title ix only squeeze men more. The pressure to win and the difference between the have and have-nots is greater than when I was young.

7. In my day, men/women splits were 50/50. Today, the national average is near 60/40 women/men and getting worse. Boys messing up is also another topic, but things are only going to get worse for men's minor sports.

8. The English club system looks better and better and allows colleges to get out of the entertainment business and shady academics.

9. In the meantime, shake the hand of every football and basketball player on campus. You will rarely see them in your physics class, but they are paying for the whole mess.

I agree with everything except 5, even at minor d3 schools with no scholarship, there are the minor sports with no end demand. The demand comes from the athletes participating in the sports themselves who's tuition probably pays the salaries of their coach and all associated costs.

We don't have 7 sub 14:10 guys. We have 3 roster guys who will ccover the mile, 3k, and 5k. Several of us are sub 14:20 guys or sub 8:20. I am hoping to break 14 but the other non roster guys probably won't. Did not think I would be running 13:59 unattached as a senior.

You said 14:10 guys can't make a roster. They can. That doesn't mean they can make EVERY roster.

apples to scissors wrote:

You said 14:10 guys can't make a roster. They can. That doesn't mean they can make EVERY roster.

He's a senior, its not like he can transfer. Presumably op joined the team when it was easier to make the roster and they just made some draconian cut to distance. If op does run sub 14, he'll probably be about the fastest guy not to make a ncaa team ever. NCAA track has gotten crazy competitive and presumably the roster cuts will hurt op's school in xc after which they'll probably increase roster size allowing slower athletes until the process repeats when someone else is a senior.

Just for comparison, the 8th fastest d3 5k last year was 14:22. 1 d3 runner broke 14.

Faster is better wrote:

We don't have 7 sub 14:10 guys. We have 3 roster guys who will ccover the mile, 3k, and 5k. Several of us are sub 14:20 guys or sub 8:20. I am hoping to break 14 but the other non roster guys probably won't. Did not think I would be running 13:59 unattached as a senior.

I'm a little confused by all of this. Why would any team need to cut roster spots? You can have guys on the roster who don't receive gear, don't travel, and don't get a scholarship. Title IX doesn't cut roster spots, Title IX makes it such that schools with a male football program have less scholarships to allocate to other sports. So I don't understand what the talk about roster spots is about. A scholarship does not equal roster spot. If the sprinters and throwers are great, and can all score at NCAAs, then yes that means the distance squad gets whittled down until it is no more. That's how the male team is at USC. Even USC has male distance runners on the roster though. They are essentially an independent unit though.

Faster is better wrote:

Just found out that my team is only allowing about 3 distance guys on roster for track season due to a large increase of good sprinters and a loss of some female distance runners. The other 10 of us will essentially be redshirted which means that we can't travel with team. I am probably the best guy to get bumped being that I am on our record board but several other guys are 14:10-14:20 and 8:10-8:20 type guys. We are an average distance team which makes it really surprising.

Sorry you're not good enough to score, or if you are, sorry your coach has bigger plans for next year. I don't think this has as much to do with title 9 as you think.

WinnytheBish wrote:

Faster is better wrote:

Just found out that my team is only allowing about 3 distance guys on roster for track season due to a large increase of good sprinters and a loss of some female distance runners. The other 10 of us will essentially be redshirted which means that we can't travel with team. I am probably the best guy to get bumped being that I am on our record board but several other guys are 14:10-14:20 and 8:10-8:20 type guys. We are an average distance team which makes it really surprising.

Sorry you're not good enough to score, or if you are, sorry your coach has bigger plans for next year. I don't think this has as much to do with title 9 as you think.

Who are you kidding? It has everything to do with title 9.

Pretty sure it has nothing to do with the future since mid career 29:xx 10 k guys and 4:0x milers and very good freshmen were not immune.