The NCAA News - News and Features

November 3, 1997

Double Trouble?

Track and cross country coaches develop plan to address overlap of grants between sports

BY STEPHEN R. HAGWELL
STAFF WRITER

As an NCAA Division I-sponsored sport, cross country enjoys the same benefits and is treated in legislation mostly like every other sport.

Cross country has its own team and individual championships. It has its own sport-specific legislation. It even has, like several other sports, its own sport-specific playing rules.

However, there is one area in which cross country differs from other sports (along with track and field): scholarships.

NCAA legislation does not specify a scholarship limit -- or maximum equivalency limit -- for cross country. Instead, a combined limit is set for cross country and track and field.

"Cross country is the only NCAA sport that has a separate national championship but does not award scholarships," said Teri Jordan, women's cross country coach at Pennsylvania State University and president of the Women's Intercollegiate Cross Country Coaches Association. "We think that should be corrected."

Men's and women's limits

Under Bylaw 15.5.3.1 (Division I Maximum Equivalency Limits), an institution that sponsors cross country and track and field is permitted to provide a maximum of 12.6 men's and 18 women's financial awards annually to counters in the sports of cross country and track and field. In short, an institution sponsoring both men's cross country and track and field can issue a combined total of 12.6 scholarships.

Bylaw 15.5.3.1 does provide specific limits for all other NCAA-sponsored sports. It also provides equivalency limits for six non-NCAA-sponsored women's sports classified as emerging sports.

"It's a scandal that cross country doesn't have scholarships," said Sam Bell, men's cross country and track and field coach at Indiana University, Bloomington, and president of the United States Track Coaches Association. "Cross country is the only sport under the NCAA umbrella not allowed scholarships if a school has another sport, in this case track and field."

Division I legislation (Bylaw 15.5.3.1.3) does set grant limits in cases where institutions sponsor cross country and not track and field. In 1996-97, about 40 Division I institutions sponsored men's and women's cross country, but not track and field.

The Division II Presidents Council has sponsored similar legislation (Proposal No. 2-10 in the Second Publication of Proposed Legislation) for the 1998 Convention to limit the value of financial aid awards that an institution may provide if it sponsors cross country but not indoor or outdoor track.

"I've heard people say that cross country doesn't need scholarships because they're the same kids who run track," Bell said. "That's ludicrous. Yes, there are kids who run both, but there are kids in others sports who compete in two sports as well.

"Cross country is treated as a separate sport in every way with the exception of scholarships. Why? We don't put the same limits on other sports? For example, scholarships in swimming aren't affected when a water polo player goes out for swimming. Then why do we do it for cross country and track? I wish someone would explain that to me."

Coaches associations offer proposal

In an attempt to remedy what coaches believe is an inequitable situation, the Women's Intercollegiate Cross Country Coaches Association and United States Cross Country Coaches Association have developed a joint proposal that would provide maximum equivalency limits for cross country separate from and in addition to track and field.

The proposal, which has been distributed to Division I cross country and track and field coaches for review, would amend NCAA Bylaw 15.5.3.1 to permit an institution to provide a maximum of six financial awards to counters in women's cross country and five to men's counters in any academic year. The maximum equivalency limits for track and field would remain intact (12.6 for men and 18 for women).

The proposal includes a provision requiring the additional scholarships to be used specifically for cross country. An institution could not issue the scholarships to track athletes only (for example, sprinters or field-events competitors).

A decision on forwarding the proposal will be made by mid-November. Any proposal from the coaches association would have to be forwarded to the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet and approved by the Division I Management Council and Board of Directors.

Coaches contend that the scholarship issue centers on equity. They argue that current legislation, by combining only cross country and track and field, discriminates against the two sports.

"The issue is about fairness in terms of giving cross country athletes an opportunity to get a scholarship," Jordan said. "We feel very strongly that cross country should have the same scholarship opportunities as basketball or some other sport. Right now, they don't have the same opportunities."

Some individuals outside cross country circles argue that the opportunities are available, but coaches opt not to take advantage of them. They contend that legislation does not prohibit institutions from awarding scholarships in either sport. In short, they say any lack of scholarships in cross country is due to coaches' decisions to award scholarships in track.

Seeking track athletes first

Vin Lananna, director of cross country and track and field at Stanford University, acknowledges that institutions are not prohibited from issuing scholarships in cross country, but states that current limitations dictate that institutions seek out athletes who can first compete in track.

"Right now, most schools recruit track and field and then pop those athletes into cross country," Lananna said. "They have to do that because with only 12.6 scholarships for men, you can't afford to just have a kid who runs well in cross country and say 'If he doesn't run that well in track it's not that big a deal.'

"Without scholarships, you start at a different place. You start recruiting the track and field kid and then pop that kid into cross country."

John McDonnell, men's cross country coach at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, contends that institutions that sponsor both sports have little choice, given the required number of student-athletes.

McDonnell points out that institutions sponsoring both sports must account for 34 "starting" positions in track and field (two scoring positions for 17 individual events, not including relays) and a minimum of five "starting" positions in cross country.

"It's sad when you call up a kid who may be the best runner in the country and you can't offer him a scholarship," said McDonnell. "It happens in no other sport. The result is that there are less distance runners participating because there aren't scholarships available.

"Now, we're running half-milers and scratching to put guys out there because under NCAA rules you have to have so many sports, and schools are trying to meet the standard with guys who have no business running cross country.

"It's hurting the sport, and it's victimizing the kids."

Jordan says it's time for that approach to change.

"It's time to correct an injustice that has gone on for too long," she said. "People are always talking about creating opportunities for student-athletes. We have the opportunities, we just haven't funded them yet.

"Let's go ahead and fund cross country so that there will be more participation in our sport. It's the fair thing to do."