Leroy Burrell's Desperate Letter To Save Men's Track/XC Programs

So what is wrong with club programs taking over not only college but high school running programs. There can be clubs that cater to just sprints, just distance, just jumps and just throws. Probably costs will be more manageable and coaching will be much more focussed. The way things are progressing, why not just start these club programs now.

And so who are yo to talk, or ask this question? Are you the pimple picker in your parent's basement who runs a 6:01 mile, or the corporate profit whore who pulls in high six figures and leaves a $1 tip on a $100 dollar restraunt bill? Get real! Burrell and his staff have done a very solid job at Houston! Why arent you questioning the multi-million dollar salaries of D1 FB coaches....

"Non-Revenue" sports is really a misnomer. In most cases, the athletes are getting little or no scholarship money and are likely paying more than what it costs to have them there. I also believe I learned nearly as much in my athletics career as I did in my educational one - so its not like the track and field team is the same as having a nice climbing wall. Nobody talks about eliminating the music department because it doesn't make enough money and yet good athletics much like a good music department does attract students.

I also think that T&F and XC programs can do a far better job at being more cost neutral. There are ways to get revenues from these sports (camps, meets, etc) and its important to have a great group of alumni that support the program. The more coaches realize this the less chance their programs get cut.

wesleybratton wrote:

So what is wrong with club programs taking over not only college but high school running programs. There can be clubs that cater to just sprints, just distance, just jumps and just throws. Probably costs will be more manageable and coaching will be much more focussed. The way things are progressing, why not just start these club programs now.

I agree with both x-runner and CB.

What is wrong with club programs taking over? I don’t know, you tell me—

I don't get this new found love for track moving to club status. The last times clubs had any sort of significance was maybe back in the late 60's and early 70's just before pro track began it's initial run. There quite a few clubs around the country, limited in scope and many functioning on a shoe string budget.

I ran for two national caliber clubs and let me tell you it wasn't anything like running for your college team. Our club members were located in different cities often in different states, rarely trained together and met at meet locations, sleeping in the same hotel if we stayed someplace overnight and that was about as much social interaction we had each weekend of competition. Sometimes you got to meet a new teammate "on the fly" at a meet in some distant state. That happened one year when one of our 4x4 guys didn't show up and our club coach found a guy in the stands to run a leg on our team. It turned out to be Fred Sowerby, but I don't remember any of our guys knowing who he was at the time, as it was early in his career and he was redshirting at Murray State.

Often times we traveled from one meet to the next, running in Baltimore on a Thursday night, New York City on Friday night and Boston or Toronto on Saturday night. It reminded me of the old barnstorming baseball players of the old days, traveling in some rickety old yellow bus from one town to the next. We mostly drove ourselves to each meet location, only rarely flying when we would go to Cleveland or Toronto or down to Florida for meets.

Some of you might think the European model would work here in the US, but you might want to understand the geography of Europe compared to the US. Where a five hour trip in Europe could take you to 3-4 different countries, here very often you don't even get out of your own state in 5 hours.

Club teams in Europe have been around a long time and many included other sports, such as soccer to go along with track and field, providing additional support for maintaining facilities. In fact, I saw a number of facilities in Europe where the soccer field was inside the track location, all fenced off and locked up, open only to members of the two sport teams.

Australia was another place where I witnessed club track and field and many athletes down there complained about the limited exposure to competition, usually consisting of Friday night meets against surrounding local communities, week after week. By the time the athletes were of mature age and capable of competing on the world stage, they had tired of the sport. I gave some cliinics down there and had many of the club coaches ask me how the US was able to keep their young athletes interested in running after high school. I remember telling them of the great college system in place in the US.

Finally, what about facilities, training rooms, professional coaching, equipment, and do you really think club track and field would be an appealing spectator sport that would provide the necessary funding to run a club garnered from the gate receipts and local TV? In today's world getting 2,000 people to show up for Millrose is a huge success. The days of drawing 20,000 plus to a meet are long gone.

I would strongly suggest you rethink that club track and field is the next utopia for our sport.

One more thing. If college track and field is to be saved, I think it is imperative that the model used in today's colleges needs to be scrapped. There are too many events and not enough team competitions to warrant huge budgets that allow a select few athletes to travel around the country pursuing qualifying standards and then the team only really competes at the Conference, Regional and possibly National Championships. Even XC has to change as it seems quite dumb in the eyes of an administrator to see a team constantly holding out runners during the season as a way of preparing for the championship season. No other sport that I know of competes that way. You look at football and basketball and their head to head competition begins week one in most instances. Why go to meets far from home to compete with an incomplete or "B" team? What is the point?

Cutting back on the number of events, to 10-12 events, competing head to head with other college teams locally or within the conference on a regular basis validates the sport as being one that "competes" on a regular basis and doesn't just practice for months on end and compete 3-4 times per season. It also allows teams to have a full complement of competitors given the limited scholarship numbers, as well as having more depth than just one or two quality athlete in a few events.

Most Athletic Directors, if they come from a sports background, come from team sports and view athletic teams that way. Track and field has ventured out into the far off arena of "specialized" event teams and or "individual" stars with the only goal being of qualifying for the Nationals.

Our sport needs to reinvent itself to fit the model that works in the present college system as viewed by Athletic Directors and College Presidents, not how an individual track coach views his team.

Remember it’s a myth that college football teams are profitable. In a recent study, only 20 FBS football teams were profitable for their university. The remainder all lost money... In FCS schools, almost all lost money.

I agree with all that you said. I learned a great deal from running in college about much more than running. I hate seeing programs get cut, but it is a decades long degradation that is hard to turn around quickly and schools can provide a good education without sports.

CB wrote:

Bull effing bleep to all of that.

Funding through all avenues has MASSIVELY increased.

Tuitions have spiraled out of control for only one reason: the government guarantees the loans required.

There is no broader “market” in which the public sector exists—they are a monopoly. He is “competing” against only other public-sector hacks, whose union imagines them to have value equivalent to some arbitrary position. What is a private club track coach’s total annual compensation and benefits package? Right. These hacks earn more for having a clean break. I know one with SIX masters degrees to bump his wage.

Politics have nothing to do with it. Both parties have massively increased public-sector outlays and increased government. And they are both complicit in the scholarship and student loan scams that they started.

You reject everything I wrote, but agree that college tuition is up and both parties had a hand in causing it. FYI:

State Governments have been decreasing funding for the 20 years I cited. Federal Government is making the difference with loans, but the student is ultimately responsible for that cost increase. So, funding for public colleges has not massively increased. Per student expenditures have remained nearly flat when adjusted for inflation.

For US coaches, there is a private sector: Private schools (Primary and colleges), clubs, pro coaching, individual or internet coaching.

No thoughts on my CEO example?

Exactly. The arms race was unsustainable yet we are now acting like it wasn’t and this is some great tragedy. Most of the world can survive with track clubs for development. And don’t blame Title IX.

This is a brilliant post.

You think 155,000 dollars is alot of money lol. The big problem with track and field in the U.S is was staying stuck in "amateurism status" for so many years. Track and field should have been securing tv contracts..better endorsements..bigger venues to host meets..promote the sport! College basketball..football coaches get millions of dollars! Track and field in Europe sell ot stadiums! Promote..Promote! Promote!

distancerunningwizard wrote:

You think 155,000 dollars is alot of money lol. The big problem with track and field in the U.S is was staying stuck in "amateurism status" for so many years. Track and field should have been securing tv contracts..better endorsements..bigger venues to host meets..promote the sport! College basketball..football coaches get millions of dollars! Track and field in Europe sell ot stadiums! Promote..Promote! Promote!

Don't you have to have something interesting to promote? What does track and field in the US offer? Long, drawn out meets with multiple sections of the same event. Often women and men alternate so if a fan shows up to see a male or female athlete run the 100, 200 and 4x4, that means 6-8 hours of "hanging" around. Believe it or not, track meets used to last less than 2 hours. Now that can be promoted and that is why a Tennessee vs UCLA or USC vs UCLA would draw huge numbers of fans. Millrose would draw close to 20k and also have local TV, I think on WOR Channel 9, or WPIX Channel 11. Now, you have to pay Flotrack for the privilege of tuning in and maybe 25000 show up at the Armory and everyone thinks what a deal.

The sad reality is track and xc generate little revenue other than alumni donations and minimal benefit to the 99.8% of students who do not participate in them. It would be more logical to fund this and other cost center sports solely with donations and fees assessed to the participants, as you describe.

The title 9 aspect makes little sense to me, perhaps you can clarify this. Yes, schools need women's teams to offset the mens revenue sports to satisfy title 9. But with or without title 9, mens sports with low revenue are extraneous cost centers.

the only thing sadder than Leroy Burrell's letter was the statement put out by Sam Seemes. Sam is a day late and a dollar short in everything he does. Sam needs to come out from hiding under his desk and actually do something.