Woman runs 15:52 5k (#10 in NCAA): NCAA screws her over and won't let her run because her coach followed the rules!

Idk maybe her school should sponsor indoor track next time. The misplaced rage is strong here.

Can someone explain exactly how schools have been competing in NCAA Championships without having indoor track? Are schools submitting indoor schedules and then just not hitting the minimums and submitting a waiver year after year?

Yes that had been how it was done. New rule this year changed that and now you must meet sponsorship. They knew it and declared so in the beginning, why sour grapes now?

OptionalUnlessRegistered wrote:

Can someone explain exactly how schools have been competing in NCAA Championships without having indoor track? Are schools submitting indoor schedules and then just not hitting the minimums and submitting a waiver year after year?

That's what it sounds like to me. In the past, everyone knew the rule wasn't enforced so you acted like you'd hit the # of meets, and then act surprised when you didn't and you'd get in. I'm not sure how that would apply for Miss State which wasn't even going to their conference meet.

I was told tonight that even some Power 5 schools have to get waivers. I don't know how that could be true but maybe they didn't have 14 people at the same meet (if you split up the squad) 6 times (it's supposed to be six indoors and out but you can do 8 and 4).

People love to make a bunch of rules to keep other people from doing stuff. She should go to the meet, jump on the track during warmups, throw down a solo 15:22 and leave her spikes at the start line.

When you can do it wrote:

Yes that had been how it was done. New rule this year changed that and now you must meet sponsorship. They knew it and declared so in the beginning, why sour grapes now?

Why? Well ignoring the fact that many would argue it's a stupid rule to begin with, the sour grapes are related to the fact that the NCAA is still letting in others who didn't meet the requirements.

So basically Loyola Marymound is being punished for being upfront and saying, "Hey, we aren't going to hit the minimums." Other schools act like they are going to hit them, don't, and still get to go.

the fact that the other schools in the same boat are being granted waivers when they are clearly not in compliance with the rules and are thus ineligible for indoor nationals is more of a reason to be upset than the fact that this girl didn't get in. The inconsistencies makes it upsetting that she was not let in when they were following the rules and others weren't. According to the rules, none of these people from non-sponsoring schools should be let in NCAA indoors.

I am pretty sure it is 10 in 4 meets for indoor T&F. Outdoor is 14 in 4.

There are some inaccuracies in your reporting

A school does not meet the sport sponsorship requirement for any sport until the season is over so no one truly declares sponsorship at the beginning of the year.

The new NCAA rule mandates that a coach in the declaration process for the national meet, checks a box, stating that they have met the requirments for an indoor season as laid out in the NCAA manual. This requires 4 competitions or dates of competitions with 14 athletes. Three of these could be a meet scored as a triangular. You can have less than 14 compete at a meet, but have 14 total compete on the same date, making it a countable date.

The old rule never stoppd schools from sending less than 14 to meets and not meeting the sponsorship requirement yet still allowed for declaring into the meet.

A one year blanket waiver was given for schools who who did not sponsor this year. My guess is Loyola compliance never got that memo and applied for it or let the coach know about it.

this article is so gd clickbaity. "I hope you are sitting down when you hear the reason as it’s bound to make your skin boil."

lol come on

former college runner wrote:

the fact that the other schools in the same boat are being granted waivers when they are clearly not in compliance with the rules and are thus ineligible for indoor nationals is more of a reason to be upset than the fact that this girl didn't get in. The inconsistencies makes it upsetting that she was not let in when they were following the rules and others weren't. According to the rules, none of these people from non-sponsoring schools should be let in NCAA indoors.

No. The fact that this rule exists at all is a reason to be upset.

LetsRun.com wrote:

When you can do it wrote:

Yes that had been how it was done. New rule this year changed that and now you must meet sponsorship. They knew it and declared so in the beginning, why sour grapes now?

Why? Well ignoring the fact that many would argue it's a stupid rule to begin with, the sour grapes are related to the fact that the NCAA is still letting in others who didn't meet the requirements.

So basically Loyola Marymound is being punished for being upfront and saying, "Hey, we aren't going to hit the minimums." Other schools act like they are going to hit them, don't, and still get to go.

I'm not picking sides here just yet because I don't fully understand.

If the rule went into effect on August 1st of last year then what athletes this year are being granted waivers? It would have to ONLY be this year because the rule went into effect last summer. Am I missing something?

If what you are saying is true for this year I agree it's really not fair.

Can anyone explain the spirit of the new rule?

Could it be that the NCAA want only dedicated programs to be represented at the national championships? I can fully understand this although it's something that should be phased in over a period of four years so athletes don't get caught up in it. Maybe they have done this? Does anyone know?

Would a rule like this one force Universities to make a stronger commitment to track and field? Would this rule strengthen the team aspect of track and field at the collegiate level?

I think it would help to have more information about this.

otter wrote:

Can anyone explain the spirit of the new rule?

The spirit of this rule was to prevent schools like Mississippi State from competing 6 athletes all season, and yet bringing home a trophy from NCAAs. In some ways, it's a massive "honest effort" overarch.

I think the article is misguided. I'm curious if anyone from San Francisco was contacted and they said, "we knew we wouldn't meet the requirements, we gamed the system" versus, "we declared it as a sport and for various reasons, couldn't get enough qualifying competitions."

I suspect it's the latter. I'm not too familiar with indoor track complexes in SF area, but they may have a valid travel issue. In other sports/divisions in the NCAA you can get waivers if you don't play enough schools within a 500m radius that are in your division/region. Seems like a fair consideration.

Pogo wrote:

I suspect it's the latter. I'm not too familiar with indoor track complexes in SF area, but they may have a valid travel issue. In other sports/divisions in the NCAA you can get waivers if you don't play enough schools within a 500m radius that are in your division/region. Seems like a fair consideration.

Nearest indoor meets to SF are:

1) Portland

2) Boise

3) Seattle

4) New Mexico

None are within 500 miles I don't think. Boise might be the closest at about 700 miles straight line distance, off the top of my head.

In other news, as an unattached athlete, I travelled from sf to 4 meets last year.

One thing of note, if they had to send 14 kids each date for it to count, USF has exactly 14 on their roster. All it would take is for one to be hurt for one meet and they would need the waiver, if that is the requirement. They very well could have an argument that they attempted to meet the requirement but were unable.

What is Loyola's excuse for not sponsoring indoors?

It seems unfortunate that she can't compete, but if that is the rule, I'm not sure how they have a leg to stand on. Why doesn't she just apply for USATF indoor nationals? It's still a decent meet she could go to. I get why she might want to go to NCAA nationals, but she has been told no, so regroup and look at option B.

The whole rational for this decision comes from a 'TRUMP-LIKE' attitude to people, rules and regulations. Having a draconian ethos when it comes to these complicated matters serves the exclusionary agenda of the 'Far-Right' xenophobes who want to live and operate exclusively by 'ordinances'. Check and see if she or her coach are 'Mexican' and whether we need to call ICE - quick guys, she might run away!?!? She's fast, she's good, she's qualified - LET HER RACE! There's no cheating or messing with the system going on here. What if those schools ran only three indoor meets during the season with multiple qualifiers in multiple events - but were then all told to 'buzz-off' because they didn't meet the frequency standard? This is an asinine and absurd rule.

I'm actually on the side of none of these people should be racing. You either sponsor indoor track or you don't. If you do sponsor it, then you need to meet the requirements for sponsorship to compete. If you don't sponsor it, then you don't get to go to the national championships. Waivers may be applicable in some cases, but that should be extreme circumstances.

Are there any instances of this happening at a D2 or D3 level?

Obvious BS wrote:

The whole rational for this decision comes from a 'TRUMP-LIKE' attitude to people, rules and regulations. Having a draconian ethos when it comes to these complicated matters serves the exclusionary agenda of the 'Far-Right' xenophobes who want to live and operate exclusively by 'ordinances'. Check and see if she or her coach are 'Mexican' and whether we need to call ICE - quick guys, she might run away!?!? She's fast, she's good, she's qualified - LET HER RACE! There's no cheating or messing with the system going on here. What if those schools ran only three indoor meets during the season with multiple qualifiers in multiple events - but were then all told to 'buzz-off' because they didn't meet the frequency standard? This is an asinine and absurd rule.

I think you mean Obama-like. Trump wants to slash government regulations and rules. Trump wants a smaller government. It's a fundamental doctrine of the right. In fact one of Trump's executive orders was to require a cut two existing government regulations if a new one is added.

A fundamental doctrine of the left is more govt regulation and control.

How do you not know this. It's scary how uninformed the left is on the most basic issues.

To be D1 you must sponsor 14 sports, 8 women and 6 men. For any sport above the 14 then NCAA pays the university something between $30-40k. For this reason, each school is asked IN ADVANCE of each academic year, which sports it intends to sponsor. Not just for future payment, but for actually being a D1 member.

Track and field is different in that it is classified as an "individual" sport and not a "team" sport. It is different because individual athletes make up the "team." It is different because cross country athletes run track, sometimes indoor, sometimes outdoor sometimes both. All of these things make track sometimes convoluted and it leads to many opinions on how the sport should be managed.

Recently, coaches voted that if the school doesn't officially sponsor the sport (14 athletes at 4 contests) it won't be allowed to compete at an ncaa championship. This is totally different from the school declaring its intent to sponsor the sport at the beginning of the year.

For many years athletes have been able to compete because of the loophole that schools declare the intent to sponsor the sport, fully knowing they will not actually sponsor the sport. There is no penalty as long as you still have enough other sports for D1 membership. The only consequence is you don't get the check for the additional sport, but since you knew you weren't going to ACTUALLY sponsor the sport, that is no consequence. THIS HAS IN THE PAST ALLOWED ATHLETES TO COMPETE FROM SCHOOLS THAT DID NOT MEET THE SPONSORSHIP REQUIREMENT.

Now coaches are asked to check a box during NCAA declaration to confirm they did meet the sponsorship requirement this year. If the school itself already said it WASN'T sponsoring the sport, it is end of ball game. YOU CAN NOT COMPETE. If you school says it was going to sponsor the sport, but DID NOT sponsor the sport, and the coach checks the box for declaration that is DID meet the sponsorship (lies) that athlete CAN compete in the NCAA Championship. UNLESS another coach files a protest, then someone will seek proof of 4 meets with 14 athletes.

And there was even a memo that went around to each conference and each school that was going to give a blanket waiver for schools that said they were going to meet the sponsorship requirement but didn't. basically you could still get away with the OLD way for gaming the system as long as your school declared it intent to sponsor the sport.

THERE ARE RULES, and RULE ARE MEANT TO BE FOLLOWED, even if you don't like the rule.

So, if you want to run at the indoor ncaa championship, coach/compete for a school that sponsors indoor track. OR declare you are going to sponsor the sport and use the waiver.

However, if you want to run at the ncaa indoor championship, you can't coach/compete for a school that declares in advance of the season that you will not be sponsoring indoor track, and then check the box during declaration that you indeed did not sponsor the sport.

Personally, given the limit of indoor track availability, and given how little distance coaches/runner actually want to race, I think there should be smaller "sponsorship requirements" for both the sports of cross country and indoor track. But until that is the case, the institution I coach at must follow the rules, or work to change the rules.