The NCAA is Trying to Ruin Distance Running
This has been quite the year for the NCAA. They (rightfully) canceled spring sports in 2020, only to essentially force football to compete because they wanted the revenue from TV deals and sponsorships. They followed this up by giving a “middle finger” to the women’s basketball tournament, providing them with a rack of dumbells and yoga mats in place of a weight training facility (which they provided for the men). They continue to battle with legal groups on allowing athletes to make money off of their image and likeness.
And now, they’ve come for track & field.
Look, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out distance running is not the most popular sport. Track and cross country have struggled at every level trying to find ways to grow their fan base and make the sport(s) more appealing. But while athletes and organizers have grappled with creating more opportunities, the NCAA seems focused on creating less.
On March 18th, the NCAA officially announced restrictions and cuts to a number of sports, including track & field. The specifics of these to track are shown below.
It’s also noted that “This will reduce the overall championship field by a total of 1,152 (576 per site), or one-third of the field.”
So why is this important and why is it hypocritical? Well, the cuts were made to “address COVID-19 concerns”, which would seem understandable if there were similar actions followed across the board. However, if the NCAA claims to be concerned with COVID-19 concerns, why did they allow fans to attend (indoor) competitions for the March Madness tournaments? It is well known that indoor venues pose a substantially higher risk for COVID spread than outdoor venues (where track would take place). They also allowed football fans to attend some games this fall, where although they were outdoors, were also dealing with substantially higher COVID case rates at the time.
Oh, and just recently, at the NCAA Cross Country Championships that took place in mid-March, teams were allowed to invite an additional 24 guests. That was for a competition that similar to outdoor track, took place outdoors.
From the outside, this appears to be more of a financial move than an ethical one, although it’s hard to imagine they save much money by limiting the field of an event that will still take place regardless. But for the sake of argument, let’s pretend that this is indeed an attempt to continue to curb COVID spread. Does it make sense through that lens?
Not really.
Again, these competitions are held in large, outdoor venues where social distancing is relatively easy. They are also slated to take place May 27–29, almost two months from now. Vaccine rollouts have continued to gain ground, with many states allowing those 16+ (college athletes) to now get a vaccination. And if that’s not enough, there is likely another issue that is actually created by the NCAA limiting fields.
Due to the drastic reduction of qualifying spots across events, many collegians will be forced to chase times across the country. Particularly for distance events, these opportunities tend to be limited, forcing schools to travel more than normal if they want to give their runners a chance. So while the risk of COVID spread may be (slightly) reduced at the regional meets, it likely increases the chance of spread by forcing teams to increase travel if they want a chance to qualify.
And what about those who cannot travel?
Some schools simply don’t have the money. Others are being limited by conference governing boards (BIG Ten). And some meets are limiting participants to local areas as COVID precautions.
The stark reality of cutting these fields is that they force more emphasis on travel during the “regular season” and greatly limit the opportunities presented to student-athletes.
What impact will this have on the competition?
Since 2011, there have been 285 different schools that have sent athletes to regional meets in distance running events. Of those 285, 37 never placed an athlete in the top 32 of an event. That averages to about four teams per year, or two teams across each region per year. Under the new system, those 37 schools would have never made it to an NCAA regional meet. Many of the schools also happen to be mid-major, smaller institutions. Not only would athletes lose the chance to compete but these schools would also lose a chance to represent their programs. This becomes particularly important when these smaller programs look to recruit, pointing to the success of past runners, or try to avoid being cut, something that has been particularly emphasized under COVID conditions.
Looking at the whole picture, it’s hard to make much sense out of the NCAA’s decision regarding track & field. The argument for COVID spread seems weak considering the other actions the NCAA has taken around fans at competitions. The more likely scenario is the financial impact, paying for more athletes to travel to the regional meets and the associated COVID testing costs. It’s hard to say how much money they save but track & field is hardly known for breaking the bank when it comes to budgets, especially since these meets are still taking place.
When you read the NCAA website, they state “The National Collegiate Athletic Association is a member-led organization dedicated to providing a pathway to opportunity for college athletes”. Maybe my maps are outdated, but this “pathway” doesn’t seem to be benefiting those athletes striving to showcase their talents and hard work.
