OT but what is going on with our cross country teams
- Thread starter trucheck
- Start date
We do not have a men's team and USC does not put money in their distance program. Track and XC basically share scholarships and we try to build track success with sprinters and jumpers. How has that worked out?
Unfortunately we have gone from a national title to basically the door mat in the SEC. We now have top notch facilities so there is no excuses in not improving other than our recruiting is pretty poor.
It is pretty disheartening for those that are involved in XC and track in our state and are USC fans. Amazing to see how poorly we have recruited and the talent that was difference makers that left our own backyard because of recruiting or lack there of.
I was a distance guy in HS. Wouldn't have been good enough to run at South Carolina, but was always interested in why we didn't have Men's XC or good distance programs. There is certainly some great distance talent in the state, hate we can't be in the mix for them.
Because of scholarship limitations schools have to decide which way to go to build track programs. We have chosen non distance and unfortunately we have become a bottom tier program. Sad to see but I guess it is non revenue so we can allow staff to stay together and finish at bottom every year. Clemson didn't stand still and have made changes to get better.
Furman builds their program around distance and they have an elite coach. Their XC program is very good and if you look at their roster they recruit elite athletes from all over the country.
Oh yeah. I went to the FIRST distance camps at Furman when I was in high school. They had some great runners.
I really don't understand why an SEC school can't afford a competitive track program. It's not like you've got to buy pads and helmets and have coordinators and position coaches, etc. Seems to me track and field would be among the least expensive programs to run. Is equipment that expensive in track. Are tracks that costly?
Just like every sport there are scholarship limitations. You have to recruit wisely and you have to recruit hard. We have let great talent leave our state but now there are no excuses as our facilities are as good as anyone's in the country.
Admin has to decide if finishing at bottom every year is acceptable. It may be since it is a non revenue sport but if it isn't acceptable then someone needs to have feet held to fire and understand there are expectations. Heck, we fired Holbrook and he had more succes in his five years than what we have seen in track.
I was a distance runner also back in the 80's and a Gamecock fan. I talked to the coach of USC but was politely told they did not offer scholarships to track athletes. I think it has changed some and now they do offer a few scholarships..but they are few. I do not think it is a NCAA restriction that limits them here like many have speculated. I think they just do not want to spend money on the sport....which is a shame since SC hs produce an ton amount of talent. Title 9 is probably an issue....track would represent a number of scholarships that would need to be given to stay in tune with. I think the coach there now just likes to work with sprinters....that is it...so everything else is ignored.
Schools can provide 12.6 scholarships in track/XC, that is the NCAA limit. That means between men's track and XC they have a total of 12.6, not 12.6 for each.
Coaches have to decide how they will split the scholarships between the event groups. Lot of coaches bank on distance kids getting academic money. Some use more for distance and build track programs with a strong distance group. USC does not place emphasis on distance so XC is weak as well as our track programs.
Thanks for the clarification. It is a shame that the limits are so low. It is even sadder that it is an NCAA ceiling. It kinda speaks to where the NCAA head is at...and that is not with creating opportunities for the student athlete.
