The number you're looking for is 40 schools. USAT has done pretty well in helping programs get off the ground, their grant program has been amazing...something USA Rugby has been unable to develop in the 16 years Women's Rugby has been an emerging sport.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

While I hope to see triathlon hit the critical mass to become a widespread varsity sport, I also hope that USAT sees value in supporting non-varsity college triathlon clubs. The biggest event in our area is the "Tri-The-Illini" Sprint which is put on by the University of Illinois Triathlon club. It draws a good mix of local age group triathletes and club-level teams from numerous other colleges and universities in the region. While the vast majority of the club athletes are far, far removed from ever being Olympic trials qualifiers or ITU professioanals, they're potential USAT local/regional/national event participants for decades to come, as well as potential "influencers" in their peer groups now and in the future. The most hope I've ever had for the future sustainability of local, short-course triathlon was after attending that event.

---

"They're made of latex, not nitroglycerin"

Yes it's been large sums of money giving out, and now their are stipulations to making sure the programs can sustain it beyond the grant period.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

It should be noted that USAT does give funds/grants to club level (non-varsity) collegiate programs. The issue that I think most clubs have is that they are either "all in" (coach + dedicated) athletes or it's 100% student led (like zero support). And many times when your dealing with college students, they drop the responsibility ball with all that they are juggling.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Seems like if they are going to give money, it should be a requirement to have a coach, no? I mean, kids come and go, you get folks all excited and will work their asses off, then they are gone, to leave it to someone else, maybe. IF you had a coach or team manager that stuck around, then there would be more consistency in the program, and it would not be dependent on transient parties...

And this way the programs would be around longer, thus helping meet the requirements they are trying to attain. It saddens me that many programs are dropping out, I'm sure it is a people thing, and not a sport problem..

All the D1 programs with the exception of Hampton (too new still) seems to be in good and stable shape. At the D2/D3 level, there seem to be quite a large discrepancies in terms of coaching staff and team roster. It could be because the newness of some of the programs. One things I discovered is that different school have different objectives in being in the NCAA triathlon program, some are more sustainable than others, I believe.

They can get 40+ schools to sign on, but most of those schools don't have one single female on their team, and nearly all of them are tiny private universities.
That's the real problem, there is no demand for someone who is "good" at swimming or running or even triathlon to shell out $30k or more a year to go to a small school no one has heard of.

USAT miscalculated and thought that big schools w/ already well developed clubs would jump on this, and they haven't, aren't, and wont.

One things I discovered is that different school have different objectives in being in the NCAA triathlon program,

--------

Just look at the hires some of these programs are doing and you'll understand just how accurate this statement is. A lot of ncaa programs are hiring "within" to save money and/or make it work. I've yet to see a program that has a coach leading 2 sports make it (tri + swim team; tri + xc/track).

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Not sure where you're going with this thread. There's misinformation and perhaps disinformation.
You've been corrected on the school count. Now define "lost a number of school." One? Three? 10? I'm aware of a couple that bailed after 3 years.
Double-digit duty coaches...welcome to DIi & DIII. Once again, define not making it work.There's are big difference between the divisions. Economics. Philosophy. USAT could hit 40 just by getting DIII schools. Kids want to compete. Families find a way for your $30K tuition if the education is good and she gets to compete.
There is more to life than DI. I agree USAT's disappointed the PAC 12 schools didn't jump into this. I'm also encouraged that USAT is getting close to having several schools in a conference coming on board. Colorado Mesa & Black Hills State are RMAC members in other sports. MSU Billings just started this season & could become an affiliated member. All it takes is a couple of more existing RMAC schools to commit then it would be the first conference to adopt the sport.

---

#swimmingmatters
Laugh hard. Run fast. Be kind.
The Doctor (#12)

There's no misinformation here, probaly more a reality check than anything. I believe it's 4 schools that took USAT grant money and then folded before the 5 year mark. Out of the 35ish schools, how many have taken on ncaa triathlon without the necessity of the grant money? That's what I want to know, and will tell you a lot about the sustainability of all of this....that's the real reality of the situation imo. So again if less than 40 schools are ncaa after it becomes official sport, does it stay an ncaa sport?

Now it's great to see conference or very close proximity schools join because they can then host races, compete against other ncaa schools and likely make $$ off attached AG races. ETSU did it a few weeks back as did Central College in Chicago I believe in early Sept. None of those races were "qualifiers" they were just ncaa schools hosting a multi-squad meet and a way to bring money into the program.


In terms of there being more than D1 life, I agree. It's also the non D1 programs that will have the toughest time fielding teams, and it's also those non D1 programs that have folded. It's hard AF to do this job having to juggle 2 programs, or getting paid under $30k etc., but that's the circumstances that they have to work around. Of course you then have completely different expectations/desires....it's more about the "student experience" etc and using triathlon as a way to increase enrollment. But again, I'll be curious to see how sustainable all this is.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Re: lack of big name schools, I immediately think of schools that are good at both track and swimming, like Texas, Florida, Stanford, and I'm sure there are a number of other SEC and PAC-12 schools that would fit the bill. I can then think of two major hurdles: facilities and coaching. Speaking from experience as a collegiate swimmer, there isn't a lot of time at the pool that would a)not conflict with the actual swim team and b)work with a student's schedule enough to get quality training. There are also times set aside for the general student population to use them. The running portion wouldn't be as major of a hurdle, and I would guess that some space somewhere could be found to act like a 'Zwift Studio' for team indoor cycling. However, the campus location would likely also need to be bike friendly to outdoor riding as well-- which is quite a few college campuses, but not all.

As for coaching, I just don't think there are that many high-quality Tri coaches out there that would also be able to convince a D-1 athletic director that they could run a program. Plus, I don't think any school would want to have the swim, track, or cross-country coaches pulling double duty.

Some nearby schools (Texas State and Texas A&M) do hold their own races to use as fundraisers for the club, but honestly I don't think either is pumping out elite-level talent-- not that race results should be the only thing qualifying a school for a full-blown program, but it certainly helps raise the profile and gain support from students and boosters.

So I don't see a lot of expansion for major schools into triathlon as a scholarship-level sport. I think it stays as a club-level sport for the most part. It might take some prominent single-sport turned multi-sport alumni to take a personal interest in their alma maters creating teams-- first two names I can think of are Andy Potts (Michigan) and Sara McLarty(Florida)-- for expansion into the largest athletic programs. The one problem with the club model is that it relies on the students themselves to organize and lead the team, so when that one or two driven individuals graduate, the club team can fall apart, especially if there isn't a tradition of success behind it.

---

-----

I don't think any college/university anywhere allows for formal club activities of any kind without some faculty involvement. Even in D3, there is at least a faculty adviser or sponsor that typically would stick around through several cycles of students. Whether that is an actual coach or just an adjunct prof pulling double-duty because they personally enjoy the sport is an entirely different question.

I do agree, though, that you need an initial core of highly motivated student-athletes to start a program and give it enough momentum to continue after they have left. In many cases, it will be an "under-damped" response: big peak in year 2-3 of the program, a good bit of drop-off around year 5, and then, hopefully, a recovery in numbers. Lather, rinse, repeat. The key is to keep the student numbers at a sustainable average between the cycles to keep enough new student interest and, therefore, funding/sponsorship by the school.

At the end of the day those are just factors, not the reason. The reason why facilities or coaching is an issue is because pretty much all these programs can't actually afford it. ASU should just get put in their own category cus they have a very unique circumstance and ability to pay top dollar for their programs. There is a reason why Cliff is being paid (it's public knowledge because he works for a public university) what he's being paid and all the other D1 coaches aren't even paid half of that.

San Fran had their coaching job out there for what a year+ and you want to know why? Because they were going to hire it as part time.....repeat a D1 full time ncaa emerging sport was only going to be paid part time wage in the most expensive city in the United States........and you wonder why only a local coach was able to make that work.

Hampton University just took $225k "diversity" grant from USAT (1st HBCU to take on the sport). So who do they hire as their coach? Their aquatic director who leads CPR classes and swim lessons..........But from Hampton's standpoint, why pay X coach $80k a year when they can just give her a $20k raise and have her be the "triathlon coach". Does it really matter if they actually are good, or they receive good coaching? Not really, they'll be able to showcase how cool the sport simply by showing up, etc.

So at the end of the day it really is more about your school's expectation. And when your school is penny pinching simply because it has to penny pinch even while taking on grant money, etc., you can't really expect to grow and you certainly can't expect big schools to take it on when it's a sport that really has zero ability to be self sustainable. You have to put on a bunch of local AG races to become self sustainable.

And to me I dont know many D1 AD's who just want to have a sport as "showing up". D1 athletics even at the worse of sports is far more cut throat than D2/D3, where it's more about the "experience". So thus the idea of what triathlon can do is very different from small schools vs big schools.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I remember a few months back in another thread, it was implied by someone in the know (Jim Vance?) that more "big name" D1 schools are coming. Since then, only Hampton has joined. I wonder if that's still the case.