forums

ACC Track & Field Championship Live Coverage

Advertisement
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
You do realize that it doesn’t quite work that way? mens track gets 12.6 scholarships. Some WILL be full rides, many will be partials.
Click to expand...

It's rare, incredibly rare for any one to get a full ride in a men's non-revenue sport. The last 'Cane baseball player to get one was well over two decades ago, I believe. I was referring to the funding in regards to sponsoring scholarships, in regards to finding ways to increase the recruiting budget, to make it easier to find kids that can make it despite the obstacles involved. USC's water polo and T&F teams have almost unlimited budgets, and you know **** well that money is being funneled into ways to make sure kids are able to be there and thrive. Compare that to Miami, where you have fans that barely want to write checks to the two sports that are actually profitable. That's my **** point.
 
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
That’s not true. Miami does have full scholarships for men’s track. But, only the studs get them.
Click to expand...

Maybe one a **** year, two tops. Even then, those so called full rides are most likely an accounting trick. Lingard is a scholarship student athlete, he happens to run track. Guess what, you could theoretically state he's on a track scholarship, when we all know **** well his scholarship is on the football team's books. Why would Miami give out full ride scholarships in men's track, knowing they could do more with that money by giving two guys half tuition scholarships? There aren't enough bodies as is.
 
Out here at the meet, Lo and the 4x1 got 4th. I said whats up to him and Mike Harley after they finish macking it to some girls from Cuse.
 
LOL 12.6 is for Track and cross country.

Partials don’t help when you’re parents are lower middle class and still have to come up with 30-35 grand per year plus other expenses.

Also 12.6 split up with XC still isn’t that many. The big state schools have huge teams so they can compete and score points at meets and win meets. That’s why they’re ranked top 25. You need people to compete in events. Miami doesn’t have enough bodies to compete in the point scoring events that are held in meets, including the throws, the jumps, the multis, etc
 
So let me get this straight. Some of you are saying everyone else is breaking the rules and we aren't regarding getting athletes funded?

Tetragrammaton Cane said:
Well then that may be one of your stupidest, out of your depth, excuse-making, straw men posts that you’ve ever come up with. And that’s saying something.

The post looks at private schools that play big-time football. I left out the team from South Bend because historically they’re not great in the sprints - which is what @Reppingtheu was asking. Pay attention.

You have this thing of being dead wrong and then trying to change the parameters to make yourself right. It’s desperate. Dumb.

- Show where anyone was specifically talking about top-25 track programs this year?
- Pick any 3 or 4 programs and show us where Miami is better? **** the excuses.
- “Miami women won the ACC indoor track championship last year. It’s not something they’re going to do very often because of the tuition obstacle”
Nonsense. Miami women compete every year for the ACC Championship and they’ve won three times and that’s going through some very good VT and Clemson teams over the years. You’re grasping for anything.
- “other few private schools are figuring out ways to pay for those student’s tuitions. Very few of those athletes are paying those tuitions”
And you have proof of this? Please share.
- “The other private schools figure something out. Miami doesn’t do that”
“Figure something out”? LMAO.

You’re way too sensitive about this. And wrong.
Click to expand...

Dude always does that. His go to is name calling when all else fails.

The lack of knowledge and excuse making by some in this thread is hysterical.

You want to know what would happen if we brought USC's track staff here. We would be a dominate program in T&F.
 
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
Well then that may be one of your stupidest, out of your depth, excuse-making, straw men posts that you’ve ever come up with. And that’s saying something.

The post looks at private schools that play big-time football. I left out the team from South Bend because historically they’re not great in the sprints - which is what @Reppingtheu was asking. Pay attention.

You have this thing of being dead wrong and then trying to change the parameters to make yourself right. It’s desperate. Dumb.

- Show where anyone was specifically talking about top-25 track programs this year?
- Pick any 3 or 4 programs and show us where Miami is better? **** the excuses.
- “Miami women won the ACC indoor track championship last year. It’s not something they’re going to do very often because of the tuition obstacle”
Nonsense. Miami women compete every year for the ACC Championship and they’ve won three times and that’s going through some very good VT and Clemson teams over the years. You’re grasping for anything.
- “other few private schools are figuring out ways to pay for those student’s tuitions. Very few of those athletes are paying those tuitions”
And you have proof of this? Please share.
- “The other private schools figure something out. Miami doesn’t do that”
“Figure something out”? LMAO.

You’re way too sensitive about this. And wrong.
Click to expand...

You really are a fūcking idiot.

Why bring football rankings into a discussion about track.

It’s about as stupid as your screen name.
 
Advertisement
SayWhat said:
So let me get this straight. Some of you are saying everyone else is breaking the rules and we aren't regarding getting athletes funded?



Dude always does that. His go to is name calling when all else fails.

The lack of knowledge and excuse making by some in this thread is hysterical.

You want to know what would happen if we brought USC's track staff here. We would be a dominate program in T&F.
Click to expand...

Who said rules were being broken.

Those 3 or 4 private schools are just figuring something out with the tuitions that Miami isn’t.

You guys are just showing your complete and utter ignorance about track and field.

Bottom line.

You need fūcking bodies to score points in NCAA track meets, win or place in the meets and therefore be ranked in the top 25.

It’s like you have never been to a meet or understand how they’re scored.

Miami has about 25 male track athletes. That’s not nearly enough to participate in enough events to be competitive.

FSU, a perennial top 10-25, has almost 50 male track athletes. You need at least 40. You might be able to get by with 35, maybe.

Educate yourselves so you don’t embarrass yourselves any further.

By the way, it’s DOMINANT....not DOMINATE you cotdam illiterate.
 
Moving the goalposts I see when we were talking about local speed and speed events. Now you want to talk about team points?

When one argument doesn't hold water, change the argument. Yet another played out tactic by you.

So I guess we're just not smart enough now to figure out how these top private schools are doing it. My mistake, you weren't saying they were engaging in some underhanded activity. I would quote you, but there's no point as you'll just continue to rearrange the deck while beating feet in a different direction. It just keeps getting better.

As for the big powerhouse programs, there's a lot of out of state talent on those rosters. That's big tuition and in a lot of cases, within 10k or even 5k of us. They must be smarter as well.
 
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
Again, that’s not really true. The teams that have won NCAA’s over the years have usually done it by dominating the sprints, or the throws ( I forget the team that won NCAA’s in the last 4-6 years with just shot and discus) - unless they’re Oregon or Arkansas (a few others). It’s like football, you have to have the RIGHT kids. About 4-7 kids.

I’m NOT saying it wouldn’t be better to have more, what I am saying is that most of the athletes of ANY team doesn’t qualify for NCAA’s, that’s why I listed the individual performances of the other private college athletes. These other schools really get a lot of kids to walk on and yes, tuition obviously factors into it, but kids still go to the other schools with coaches who have a track record.

Which brings us to something that could hold Amy/Miami back - sexism. She’s seen as a women’s coach, but she can coach.

As for educating oneself...I won’t say i know it all, and I won’t say I’m always right, but I do know a bit about track and field. And, to de-escalate the insults (hey, your choice; I can only do my part), I won’t even say I know more than you. But, I KNOW the coaches who dominate track and field on the collegiate level, personally.
Click to expand...

That just doesn’t hold water.

If you only have 25 athletes, it’s basically mathematically impossible for you to win the big track meets, or even place very highly, unless your 25 athletes are all winning their events, because you’re going to have a ton of scratches due to non participation in other events.

Again, look at how many track athletes they have, nearly double, and how many specialists the top 25 track teams have. It’s a sad fact, but the emphasis at Miami is football and basketball, with baseball third. Our fan base doesn’t donate nearly enough to support the other programs and that’s one of the major problems.

Poor booster support and athletic revenue generation which lags significantly behind big state funded programs like Florida, FSU, Alabama, etc, makes non revenue sport support extremely difficult.

In the end, it’s about money. Low athletic dept revenue, combined with high tuition, added in to non revenue sports, is a bad combination. Now take look at all of Miami’s non revenue sports. See women’s softball? Women’s gymnastics? Men’s golf? They don’t exist at Miami. Now look at Florida.

Tell me you understand this.
 
Last edited:
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
Theoretically, your point makes sense; I won’t deny that. However, the reality is quite a bit different. Example: at the 2007 NCAA indoor, Wisconsin won on the men’s side with 8 athletes; Tennessee won the women with 7. And, it’s not that uncommon, even though I don’t feel like going through the tedium of looking for more. I know ASU did it with less than 10 women; maybe 6-8.

One of the things that has helped to diminish T&F’s standing is the decline of actual dual meets; it got to a point where schools only went to big invitationals week in and week out. Scoring isn’t important, just establishing marks for NCAA’s. Under that scenario, if you have studs, and I mean the guys who can score in two events at NCAA’S it goes a long way.

I do understand your point about funding and booster support, but in the case of the men’s program, it really does have to do with getting that program establishing recruit. That’s what happened back in I think 92/93 when Miami got a 2x World Junior Champ from Jamaica to enroll. And the only reason she went to Miami was it was the closest D1 program to Jamaica. Absolute fact. And the women’s program took off from there. (Quick aside: I NEVER thought Schwartz would have enrolled at Miami even if he was given a commitable offer his sophomore year..just because of track. But let’s play alternative universe where Miami actually wins NC #6 and the AH guys were to come AND two of them ran sub-10...it could have created the same environment to change the program. Then you fill up the rest of the team with partials; it’s how it’s done).

Your last point? IT’S ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY!

**Edit: 2006 mens indoor. LSU gets 2nd with 5 athletes.
Click to expand...

Good lord, indoor track?

No you didn’t.
 
Advertisement
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
Your point?

The first poster to introduce INDOOR track? You, when you mentioned Miami’s ACC indoor.

You also posted that it’s impossible to win with a certain number of athletes. That’s just not true. I’ve proved that wrong.

Most people would have seen these as perfectly fair examples. You don’t, just because you won’t concede anything that proves you wrong.

Oh, well.
Click to expand...

My point?

Look at how many events are run in indoor track vs outdoor track. Hence you need fewer athletes. It’s very conceivable to win an indoor championship with a handful of athletes, they’re just not that many events in indoor track.

In an outdoor event you need bodies scoring points in as many events as possible, you don’t necessarily even have to get 3rd or 4th place, but just even making finals gets you points.

I just assumed you already knew that since you guys pass yourselves off as track experts.

I guess I was wrong about that.
 
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
You did it again. LMAO.

Number of NCAA Events indoors: 17
Number of NCAA events outdoors: 21

Number of athletes to win 2007 OUTDOOR Champs: 7 (Florida State)
Number of athletes to win 2012 OUTDOOR Champs: 9 (Florida)

The only one over running his mark, false-starting and foot-faulting is you. You’ve been proven wrong again.

Even if we never figure out who the experts are, I think we can all agree that you’re not one.
Click to expand...

More ignorance.

21 is more than 17 the last time I checked. Four more, if my math is correct.

And that’s not counting the fact that you’ve rolled in the multi-events, which are still separate events that have to be run, albeit by the same person in the point scoring system.

So, in terms of events actually run, it’s 30 to 23.

You also have to look at the individual events. There’s no 100 in the indoor. There’s no 10K or 1600m relay. They only do the 60 m hurdles, and on and on. An indoor meet is over quickly compared to an outdoor meet and the teams are generally smaller than outdoor with athletes running multiples.

As far as number of athletes to win a championship? You know how track seasons and qualifying work, don’t you? I mean even kids that just ran high school understand how you start with a large team team and as you go through districts, regionals, states, and so forth it gets smaller, right?

Please just stop.
 
Tetragrammaton Cane said:
The only one who should stop is you. Seriously. But, actually it’s hilarious so please don’t.

You really have no clue. Desperately trying to find some explanation that makes you right...even a little...but there isn’t one - you’re wrong. And you will always be, until you learn to read with understanding and stop reacting emotionally to not having agency over each and every possible subject.

Up your game, you’re completely embarrassing yourself. (I would have used “embarrassed” but I know there’s no end to arrogance)
Click to expand...

No answer to the facts I posted.

How embarrassing for you.

You’ve got nothing except sad, futile ignorance.
 
I'm glad you have the energy to try and educate this buffoon, but you're wasting your time. He's like the kid you see on the playground with his hands over his ears just making a bunch of noise so he doesn't have to hear what someone says.

If he was colorblind, he would argue to the death that what he sees is the correct color. That's the type of person you're dealing with.
 
Back
Top