This weekend's Pepsi Invitational the best event on Oregon's track and field schedule, a fact which highlights all that is wrong with college track
by David Piper on Apr 6, 2011 9:35 AM PDT
in Oregon Ducks Track & Field
Email
PrintGreat piece out today by Ken Goe, highlighting the problem that is killing college track and field as a spectator sport (thanks to Matt Daddy for the link). Goe's premise is basically as follows: the overspecialization of track and field at the collegiate level (mainly due to a scholarship limit of 12.6 for men and 18.0 for women) has led to teams concentrating their scholarships in order to be really good in a certain area, and leaving then lacking enough athletes across the board to participate in scoring meets. The money quotes from Vin Lananna:
From a conceptual standpoint, the more things we can do that involve scoring in the sport of track and field, and get in line with what other sports do, I think it’s good for the sport, good for the spectators and good to generate interest. I’ll be quick to follow up and say as long as we have a ludicrous number of scholarships, 12.6 for men and 18 for women, it makes it very difficult. It’s a great idea, a great concept. But it’s really hard. There are 21 events in track and field and 12.6 grants. We don’t even have a starting lineup.
The bottom line here is context. There has to be two things present for the average fan to pay attention to an event: it has to be easily accessible, and it has to be easy to see why the event matters. College track and field fails on both accounts.
The accessibility issue is the least concerning to me. As it becomes ever more clear that we are going to have a Pac-12 Network in 2012, and that a primary focus will be to show off the non-revenue sports, my interest in baseball, track, womens basketball, etc will go up because I should actually be able to see a decent number of events without having to make the drive to Eugene. As far a track and field goes, however, the context issue is far more concerning.
In football or baseball, it is easy to see why an event matters. There is a clear winner and loser. You can take a look at the national rankings or the Pac-10 standings and easily gain some context for an event and discern the importance of its outcome. Track and field has gotten away from that in a big way.
Take a look at Oregon's 2011 track and field schedule. There are exactly two scoring meets in the regular season (a scoring meet being where you have entire teams competiting for a meet title, as opposed to the college standard these days, which is meets with various individual events with athletes from many different schools but incomplete teams). Those meets are this weekends Pepsi Team Invitational at Hayward Field, and the annual Dual Meet with UCLA. I can easily tell in a dual meet where the Pac-10 pecking order stands. Same with the team invitational. But when we're sending our sprinters one place and our throwers another, thats hard to follow. When we have a meet thats just for sprinters, its hard for me to sit around for a few hours to watch that when there are only a few Ducks participating. When I have to research PRs and who have already reached qualifying marks to enjoy a meet, its too much. I want to be able to go to an event, see my team go up against another team, and come out knowing who is better. I want it simple enough that I don't have to be a die hard to know what's going on. If I can't take children of a reasonable age to an event and give them context, its too complicated. Track and Field in its current incarnation fails miserably on this account.
I don't know what the answer is to make this happen. Obviously, we are one of the better and more follwed track and field teams in the country, but we can't just schedule a bunch of dual meets if nobody else wants to follow that model. I understand that teams feel like they just don't have the depth to pull that off anymore. But its also the issue that is keeping myself, and many others from following an otherwise great sport and a great program. If college track and field ever wants to be relevant, it has to go back to its roots, and reclaim the essence of why fans follow a team.
30 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Why is there a 12.6 scholly limit?
That seems so low for the size of a T&F team. The women get 18 – that’s better at least. Why don’t the men get the same amount at least? Some kind of NCAA logic at work I’m sure, but I’d be interested in the why behind it.
to comply with Title IX
when you give out 85 football scholarships, you have to get that many women’s scholarships somewhere
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Ah, so to comply with Title IX
you have to give out an equal number of scholarships to men and women across the whole athletic department, yes?
Yes
Which is why you see a women’s volleyball team, TS&G and other girl only type sports to equal out the sides.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
We've got that whole women's cheer team thing now too
which must help. But adding Baseball hurt the other men’s sports. It’s really too bad that men’s track gets screwed like this considering its one of our flagship sports.
Title IX sucks.
The intent of it was lost a long time ago, and in its current incantation only harms men’s sports, rather than help women’s sports.
They once showed a clip of the Oregon offense to the French. The French decided to surrender, just to be on the safe side.
by QuackQuackAttack on Apr 6, 2011 11:35 AM PDT up reply actions
I'm not sure I agree with this.
While I’m not for regulation and gov’t bodies dictating what schools should or shouldn’t do, I think having a standard that says you can’t just give scholarships to men isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
Obviously, I’m not 100% familiar with Title 9 (why do we have to use the roman numerals?) but I like that Oregon has to think about having a diversity of women’s sports and offer scholarships to them as well.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
Super Bowl XLVIII would like a word with you, sir.
THAT'S RIGHT, Kenny Wheaton you did. You cut back into GREATNESS.
by HoodRiverDuck on Apr 6, 2011 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
I would like a word with the phrase "x would like a word with you."
Mostly because a certain axeperson absolutely ran it into the ground. And then dug it up, set the corpse on fire, and ran it into the ground again.
This made for a pretty funny cartoon in my psychotic imagination.
Take a doo doo pie. I love you.
by Bill Musgrave on Apr 6, 2011 5:03 PM PDT up reply actions
Very good point
Like Michael Phelps for swimming or even Tiger Woods for Golf, non big 3 (football basketball baseball) sports rely on dominate superstars to draw interest.
The argument could also be made that Usaine Bolt is filling this void already.
Maybe Track and Field just sucks and is boring. Not to be rude, but maybe the reason it is failing is that it simply is not all that entertaining to watch. Baseball can be dull but it has strikeouts, home runs, plays at the plate, ETC. Even soccer gets fun to watch when goals are scored.
Fresh since 1822
I think what made Pre special
is that he stood up for the rights of the group in a sport dominated by individualism. That would be like Tiger Woods deciding not play in the Masters in order that all golfers could use a certain type of club, or get certain benefits. That would make huge news.
Could Eaton pull this off? Probably. Will he?
Someone needs to stand up for the sport and say, this is what we need. More scholarships, more scoring and team competitions, more exposure in order to get the sport back into the mainstream. I think it can happen, cause I enjoy watching meets and would love to follow the team more, but as Dave points out the current make up of the sport makes that damn near impossible.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
The # of scholarships in mens football has no barring on how many scholarships the women get in any sport!!
It may not directly influence it, but one of the key tenets of Title IX is that the university provide “athletic participation opportunities that are substantially proportionate to the student enrollment”.
Specifically, this guidance believes that each scholarship represents an athletic participation opportunity, as opposed to each sport offering a similar opportunity. Football is allowed 85 scholarships, which is vastly more than any women’s sport, thus making it necessary for the school to add additional scholarships for women, or to reduce available scholarships for men.
It was a struggle for the university to maintain compliance a few years ago when it wanted to add baseball back as a sport, and was the main motivating factor in the addition of the ladies lacrosse team (this is my opinion).
I don't mean to impose...
…was the main motivating factor in the addition of the ladies lacrosse team (this is my opinion).
I think you hit the nail on the head.
+ Baseball
- Wrestling
+ Women’s Lacrosse
+ Tumbling/Gymnastics/Competitive Cheer
scholarships roughly equal out
--Dominic, Addicted to Quack
Autzen Stadium is where great teams go to die." - J. Brady McCullough, The Michigan Daily.
So what's the argument
for why there are so few scholarships? I understand scholarship limits in football, but 12 scholarships for 21 events seems so inadequate that I’m curious why it’s so low.
How does indoor track and field interact with this? Do universities get 12-18 scholarships for outdoor athletes and another 12-18 for indoor athletes, or are they expected to overlap? And what about cross country? Seems like there’s tons of overlap there.
Title 9 isn’t really the problem. Six more scholarships for the women isn’t a big deal. They could give Men’s teams 30 scholarships and women’s team 36.
That's a good question
I have no idea why the NCAA (or even if it’s an NCAA limit) would limit the number to 12 and 18. I’m sure there is a competitive balance argument in there somewhere… just not sure how.
Lavender double U's have no soul
Addicted to Quack
I cannot speak to the veracity of this website, but it appears that the 12.6 and 18 scholarships are in fact the NCAA mandate.
It’s appears that more ladies scholarships are available in a number of sports in which both men and women participate including:
Basketball – 13 for men, 15 for ladies
Golf – 4.5 and 6
Soccer – 9.9 and 14
Tennis – 4.5 and 8
Water Polo – 4.5 and 8
The largest women’s sport in term of scholarship numbers is Rowing with 20, versus men’s FBS football at 85.
I don't mean to impose...
People who have gone to UofO track in recent years have small memories of 'boring.'
Wheating, Acosta, Youngblood, Kozinski, Hasay, Eaton and many more give great effort and the interaction of athletes with the fan is unparalleled in this country.
"What you are entrusted to do as a coach is to create an environment where your players have a chance to be successful." CHIP KELLY
I miss dual meets.
Here I go again, I know, but back in the day, Oregon would have several home dual meets every year against conference opponents. I remember titanic battles with UCLA, Wazzu and OSU that came down to a bad baton pass on the mile relay. The R-G would publish form charts on Friday before every dual. The students would show up.
Duals are fun for the spectator, if there’s any interest in T&F at all, but even for the “non-fan” because there’s always something going on, and the concept of a race or a measured-result competition is easy to grasp.
But I haven’t been to a UO dual meet for around 15 years, since Nebraska came to town (and that one may have been a three-way, but it had the feel of a dual, because it came down to the last event.. and Nebraska dropped the baton).
Sadly, not every college town is like Eugene. If there had been demand at the other schools over the years for balanced teams that showed well in dual meets, things might be different now. Oh well.
"Dispatch yourself with the utmost precision, and proceed as far as your individual excellency will permit." - John McEwan
Good/great dual meet last year w/ UCLA
(or was it the year before…) and some in the recent past with USC, too.
"What you are entrusted to do as a coach is to create an environment where your players have a chance to be successful." CHIP KELLY
Oregon State is reinstating track and field in 2014
maybe we can get some dual meets with them after that
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
For all who have not read
“Bowerman And the Men of Oregon” by Steve Moore, it is an excellent read about the history of modern t & f, and all former and current Ducks will take something from it.
another interesting take that I found while poking around the interwebs today, this one postulating that the dual meet died because the system of qualifying via marks means you want to find the best competition for everything to drive you to better times, and that isn’t usually found in duals
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Wish my cousin went to oregon he goes to alabama instead kirani james
"I love my Ducks (wait 'til you see my O)"
The problem is
there is no way to have a dual meet national champion. To win a national championship you need 5 or 6 studs… but 5 or 6 studs will not beat a balanced team in a dual meet so "small team" programs will not compete in duals over invitationals.
The only way to balance a team given the current scholarship restrictions is with walk-ons. Only a few schools with the weather, facilities, and/or status can attract enough quality walk-ons to fill out a high level, competitive dual meet team.
It has always been great to run for Oregon, and thanks to Lananna and others at the school, it has become great (and a goal) for runners across the nation to run at Oregon.
Speed Endurance Talent is how Track Town USA plays football. WWWWWWWWWWWWin The Day
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
