Dumb question, but I'm new to this...

Why does Texas A&M (apparently) choose not to be competitive at Cross Country? Does it take scholarships from T&F?

Thanks for any explanation.

You have 12.6 scholarships for men's track and field and cross country. 18 scholarships are available for women. There are fewer college caliber female track athletes and they require a premium on scholarship money versus the guys. Our team is competitive within the SEC but the strongest cross country programs tend to be in the mountain region as well as the west coast and midwest where the fall weather is much more conducive to cross country. Our distance runners tend to do better on the track when the training conditions are better for our runners.

Thanks. I checked the women's times for the September meet, and they would have finished near the top at the 6A State Championship. Maybe they could have won it, but it would be close. I would have expected some separation.

I also wouldn't put too much stock in the September meet. The Arturo Barrios home meet this weekend with a bigger field and 6K/8K courses will be a much better indicator going into the championship portion of the season.

Sprint teams win national track and field meets. We are a sprint team.

Oregon was quite successful with a combination of middle distance, distance, and field event talent. National titles can be won many ways but it is much harder to train elite distance athletes in our climate. I also would not put too much emphasis on cross country times.

Comparing times using cross country meets is almost pointless. Every course is different and some are notoriously "short". The UIL course is a good example of that.

As someone has mentioned, there are 12.6 Scholarships for Men and 18 for women for both, since XC is one of the "seasons" of Track. Good cross country teams allocate their scholarship into cross country runners almost exclusively, which makes them irrelevant in outdoor (generally). Have a stellar distance athlete (eg. Natosha Rogers or Henry Lelei) helps in both but needing to throw 6+ scholarships into distance runners won't win you a track championship.
When it comes down to it, Coach Henry puts the scholarship where the points are for outdoor track. Track teams can be good with a few key distance runners, but winning national championships in track favors Sprints/Field event athletes.

If memory serves correctly, Arkansas has been extremely competitive nationally and has dominated the SEC in cross country for a number of years running. I think they have won the SEC indoor meet and perhaps the outdoor meet for the women in recent years. I believe the indoor meet is a better meet for distance runners as there are fewer sprints but I could be wrong about that.

I agree about the mountain state universities being particularly strong in cross countries. Colorado has had a number of good teams. Not only is their weather cooler in the fall, but the runners train at 6000 feet.

coloradoag69 said:

---

I agree about the mountain state universities being particularly strong in cross countries. Colorado has had a number of good teams. Not only is their weather cooler in the fall, but the runners train at 6000 feet.

---

90F makes 6000 feet feel like a leisurely stroll. Like you said, they go there because the weather is cooler, not because the altitude is higher.

Also, to the poster who said the UIL course is short, I checked the McNeil Invitational times for this year, and they looked in line with a regular high caliber meet. Maybe you were looking at a different year, or the course used to be different.

There actually was a course change for McNeil this year.