Have been watching this year’s T&F championships on youtube and just love it. Perhaps, I’m a bit biased because I was on the U’s track team back in 1989, but I really wish we had a men’s track team. Could also be beneficial for the football team.
It would even help our football program
T&F would have made more sense than lacrosse. Men’s soccer makes more sense than either. It’s a shame that these sports are expensive to run and that we are limited by football in how many other sports we can run.
The new T&F facilities are great and we have a competitive women’s program. All we need is the men’s scholarship funding (assuming Title IX compliance). It was never going to happen under Hill and I would love to know what Harlan’s take is. Maybe a big donor has to step up.
Utah state has track and field, Weber State has track and field, and BYU has track and field. I don’t understand why the University of Utah does not have track and field. Surely it is not a money issue at the University of Utah.
I agree with the poster above that it would be good for a big donor to step up. But isn’t the university making a ton of money right now and over the last 10 years on their P5 contracts?
After thinking about it for a few minutes your problem is that your school is funding a ski team instead of a men’s track and field team. It’s pretty clear that the University of Utah Administration priorities are with the ski team.
Just ask Spence Eccles.
Uh, yeah. Same with gymnastics over other female sports they could do (but much easier because they have to match FB which has more players).
The University of Denver has won a record 24 team titles, including ten since 2000. The University of Colorado is second with 20 titles (plus one AIAW title), and the University of Utah is third with 14 (plus one AIAW title).
Why do you say soccer and T&F costs more than lacrosse?
Sorry, I meant it’s a shame that sports in general are expensive to run and that we can’t just run them all.
I’d actually be really interested in seeing a comparison on this. Scholarships and coaches’ salaries usually represent the largest portion of costs. A typical Men’s T&F program, that competes in all events, will have 40-50 male athletes (of course the scholly coverage varies but is broad & deep for the most competitive programs) and 5-7 full time coaches and staff. I have no idea how that compares to lacrosse or other ‘emerging’ team sports.
Another thing to consider would be athletes from other sports doing track and field as a secondary sport.
Another question is how does the school spend it’s money on a sport. I graduated from Syracuse University who spends a lot more on Lacrosse compared to other schools, but only has three men’s coaches, while Utah has four.
At a D1 level a school can have three track and field coaches for the men, and three for the women. I think a school with both a men’s and women’s team can share coaches, allowing for more specialized and/or diversified coaching.
Women can offer 18 scholarships while men only 12.
Some schools try to use sports as a way to encourage people to attend the school, leading to many participants. I doubt major D1 schools do that though.
While that happens, I think it is rare in D1. The heavy time demands of D1 sports limits opportunities. Off season football and basketball is a 40 hour a week job. Also the conditioning for a running back, though a lot of overlap with sprints, does not optimize running speed. One local person who played wide receiver for Oregon State did improve in the high jump in college from conditioning (and should have become a multi instead of a football player, but that is another subject). If you are a football player, football will be number one.
Having been close to several D1 T&F programs, I can tell you this is what most of them do. Coaches are more specific to events than to mens vs. womens.
Yes but without going into details, let me just say schools get extremely creative with this. And (apparently) within the limits of the rules.