I mean, if you're on a team that doesn't finish in the top 15 then you know going in that you have no real shot at the top 5. So why do teams that are that bad waste money to go run regional meets when they could be spending it on other ways to attract better recruits?
b/c not going to regionals would be even worse for recruiting.
I partially agree. Depends on your team, and what you're trying to accomplish. If you've got a crappy team with limited funding, that has few aspirations for the future, I would agree with your statement.
If you've trying to develop kids, it's important that they get their nose bloodied--just so they can understand what it takes to compete at the highest level.
Well aren't most of them getting "their nose bloodied" at conference?
I have an intelligent response:
Last year, I could not field a full men's team: 4 runners, 3 of whom could not break 30'. 3 of the 4 were frosh.
I had a strong group of rookies this season, led by sophomores who raced last year.
this year, we were 12th of 18 at our regional meet, and the experience the frosh gained last year was undoubtedly positive, and helped them run well this year. they ran in the mid 27's and low 28's yesterday. We are growing and progressing well. Next year, I think it's possible for us to place in the top 10.
My women this year are in the same spot as the men last year performance wise, but i do have a full team. I just lack the performance towards the front. I have 1 woman on the team who is a strong contender for a provisional 1500m mark in the spring, and putting her in a competitive/ possibly stressful situation will allow her to learn how to race in a championship situation.
" they ran in the mid 27's and low 28's yesterday"
I'm confused. Aren't the region meets all 10K?
Poke Her Face wrote:
I mean, if you're on a team that doesn't finish in the top 15 then you know going in that you have no real shot at the top 5. So why do teams that are that bad waste money to go run regional meets when they could be spending it on other ways to attract better recruits?
Why do teams bother going to any meets if they are bad? It only costs money that they could use attracting better recruits.
How about because if they didnt go to meets where they couldnt do well (any since they suck) then they would do even worse at recruiting because the team doesnt go to any meets. Who wants to go to a school that doesnt race? Did I mention you are a f***ing moron?
doo doo wrote:
Poke Her Face wrote:I mean, if you're on a team that doesn't finish in the top 15 then you know going in that you have no real shot at the top 5. So why do teams that are that bad waste money to go run regional meets when they could be spending it on other ways to attract better recruits?
Why do teams bother going to any meets if they are bad? It only costs money that they could use attracting better recruits.
How about because if they didnt go to meets where they couldnt do well (any since they suck) then they would do even worse at recruiting because the team doesnt go to any meets. Who wants to go to a school that doesnt race? Did I mention you are a f***ing moron?
Except that regional meets are qualifying meets. If you have no prayer of qualifying, there's not much sense going to the meet just to get your face kicked in.
Sometimes you get a team like App State (1-AA football school) that routinely wins their conference but gets clocked at regionals because of the stronger teams from larger (BCS 1-A football) conferences. A top 10 finish for them is a victory against these schools with larger budgets. Getting a couple kids in on the all region team does wonders for their recruiting.
Curcio, IMO, is one of the best coaches in the country.
vAdude wrote:
" they ran in the mid 27's and low 28's yesterday"
I'm confused. Aren't the region meets all 10K?
Div III I'd guess.
One more reason to go.......
The coaches association will not issue any of its awards (including academic awards) unless a team competes in the regional championship. One of the few positives that some teams can showcase to their administration is the strength of their team academically (face it, half of the teams will finish in the bottom half of their conference).
There was an emphasis by the coaches association that started over a decade ago to strongly encourage teams to participate at the regional championship. One of the carrots to do so were the academic awards.
lugnutz wrote:
Sometimes you get a team like App State (1-AA football school) that routinely wins their conference but gets clocked at regionals because of the stronger teams from larger (BCS 1-A football) conferences. A top 10 finish for them is a victory against these schools with larger budgets.
Yayyyyyyyyy, moral victory!
Why does a football team play a game against a stronger opponent on its schedule?
Usually to get paid.
la la land wrote:
Why does a football team play a game against a stronger opponent on its schedule?
To get the experience of course. My first three years we had no chance to make it to nationals, finishing 23rd, 17th, and 10th. 4th year we made it. No way that would have happened if we hadn't competed there the previous years.
I think sometimes it is ok to take your team to different locations so they can get, not only get different competition, but also to see other campuses and different ways of life... after all, athletes go college and not a trade school. Well rounded education and the whole bit.
don't teams get fined for not going to regionals?
If that's your approach to sports, then why are some of those teams that qualified for nationals bothering to go when we all know they're going to finish in the bottom three or four spots? And seriously, what's with having four rounds of sprints at the Olympics? Why don't they just invite the top eight guys and run a straight final, since those are the only guys who have a chance to medal?
In terms of recruiting, it is an important point to know that the team will travel to big meets. If you're a mid-level prospect with big dreams (i.e. you're not going to get a chance at a big program, so you're choosing between lesser programs), it's pretty crucial to know that you'll have a chance to compete against the big boys. Obviously you'll pick a program that you think is going to improve, but you also want to know that, even if the team ends up stinking, you'll still have a chance to qualify for nats individually in the unlikely chance that you get good enough.
bang wrote:
don't teams get fined for not going to regionals?
No, there are no fines for not going to regionals. It's entirely voluntary on the part of participating institutions.
Personally, I like to see all the teams compete. Why not?
This question follows from the basic assumption of the negative posters on this website. The follow up question would be, why ever run at all if you are not the best?