Texas A&M coach RIPS NCAA regional system.

By which he means "bad for Pat Henry".

Pat Henry is The Man.

jsquire wrote:

By which he means "bad for Pat Henry".

Perhaps, but his points are valid. I enjoy T&F, but I don't enjoy watching endless qualification rounds. These prelim meets are even worst because they are non-scoring.

I don't think T&F haters could have come up with a better way to drive away fans than this format.

Teams travel all this distance, compete as hard as they do, and it's non-scoring? There are no event winners, and no one gets a trophy at the end? Are you kidding me!??!

If I'm a casual fan, why would I want to watch this bloated mess that provides no resolution until two weeks later on the other side of the country?

Hell, even the NCAA Basketball tournament gives an award to to each of the 16 survivors of weekend 1 and the 8 survivors of weekend 2.

So, Pat Henry makes a couple of points.

you are forgetting that for most of the year teams fly all over the country to run in non-scored invitational meets where it doesn't matter if you win as long as you run fast and post a good national calibre time. how is this weekend any different?

What is different is that the teams that spend big bucks in recruiting the top kids and flying them all over the country to run fast, don't like it when they get beat by lesser funded, lesser reputationed athletes and programs.

there are too many good teams and good athletes in the country to not have everyone "compete" for the right to make it to NCAAs.

You think getting a medal is the key to getting the athletes to compete harder? As if a trip to Eugene isn't enough of an incentive?

I was at the East Regional and I found it to be very enjoyable. The 100 meters saw three guys run 10.03 in one heat. The 800 was a blast, with Andrews coming from last to first in the final 100 meters. Chalanga was impressive winning both the 5k and 10k.

There were too many other great performances to mention.

The meet was awesome.

True, there was no scoring. There's no scoring at the Boston Marathon either, or the Olympic trials.

I'm not saying that the meet is the end all or be all, but to say it wasn't a very good meet full of spirited competition flies in the face of what I just watched. I saw dozens of athletes celebrating and dozens others commiserating, along with obligatory crying girls.

Pat Henry and Vin Lananna are easy to understand. Their priority is maximize the points that their teams will score at the NCAA Championships. They go no deeper or further than that.

11 hours of Javelin... UGH!

I liked it much better then watching the conference champions get lapped in their events because they were in a crummy conference and won.

He's complaining about the time for Javelin, just cut the # of Jav qualifiers next year, no big deal.

With the past system you still had an extra meet.

A descending list like indoors is a poor plan. Bigger schools give their athletes better opportunities to attend events that athletes can time trial and run fast.

Make those guys race head to head and everyone has an equal shot.

First, I don't know why is everyone making such a big deal about this new system when it is going away next year anyway. It stinks, we know. It will be gone next year and we can complain about something else.

But I agree with the person who said Henry just wants what is good for Henry. When the coaches association was looking for suggestions on new qualifying procedures to replace the current one, A&M suggested that we move to a "team only" championship. No individuals qualifying, just full teams. With that system, we might as well just have an Oregon vs A&M dual meet. Nobody else could spend enough money to keep up. That will be great for T&F!

.............................. wrote:

you are forgetting that for most of the year teams fly all over the country to run in non-scored invitational meets where it doesn't matter if you win as long as you run fast and post a good national calibre time. how is this weekend any different?

What is different is that the teams that spend big bucks in recruiting the top kids and flying them all over the country to run fast, don't like it when they get beat by lesser funded, lesser reputationed athletes and programs.

there are too many good teams and good athletes in the country to not have everyone "compete" for the right to make it to NCAAs.

You're forgetting (or you are just plain stupid) that in those invitational meets there are Victories and Champions.

Not so in the Regionals.

Good interview with Pat Henry after Texas A&M won both NCAA titles last year... a good in-depth read oooops fprgot link... http://www.garycohenrunning.com/Interviews/Henry.aspx

really? what do you get for being the Stanford invitational winner? NOTHING but the time you earned. at least at regionals your place earns you something: the right to continue on.

I understand the argument that the various incarnations of the 4-regional system that was used from 2003-2009 are better than a descending order list, but to listen to Coach Henry's comments and judge them in the context of how he operates his program, it's clear that his problem with this system goes beyond "it's risky for Texas A&M".

Like Oregon, TAMU has made an effort to hold fan-friendly meets that take place over a reasonable time frame and emphasize team scoring. While it's a given that few schools have the resources/support staff to hold as many home meets as those two schools did during the indoor and outdoor seasons, it's indisputable that any effort to drift away from the all-day model for run-of-the-mill meets is a good thing. Few sports ask as much of their fans.

.............................. wrote:

really? what do you get for being the Stanford invitational winner? NOTHING but the time you earned. at least at regionals your place earns you something: the right to continue on.

What do you get for being the Regionals winner? Oh, I forgot, there is no winner, only qualifiers out of two rounds.

[quote]la la land wrote:

,,,

The meet was awesome.

True, there was no scoring. There's no scoring at the Boston Marathon either, or the Olympic trials.

I'm not saying that the meet is the end all or be all, but to say it wasn't a very good meet full of spirited competition flies in the face of what I just watched. ...

/quote]

Please, take your track-fanboy glasses off! True track fans will sit through anything, and yes, be rewarded by a few great performances here and there. And all of this "drama" will be deathly boring to anyone not already heavily invested in T&F. However, for track to survive (and avoid being the next program cut in the next budget crisis), it has to be more attractive to the casual fan. Having a product that can be completed in 3 hours or, even better, two hours would be much more fan friendly. I don't go to movies that are three hours long, why would a casual fan devote all day to a track extravaganza?

Criticize it or not, fans like true team competition. In an NCAA Championship meet, it's possible for the top 2 teams to never go head to head in any single event. The meet can go several events in a row without event results having any implication for the team title. In a limited-attention-span society, this is death to TV viewership. And how often do we see the title come down to the 4x4 and only one or two of the top teams is represented? Last year was great with FSU, TAMU & UF in the 4x4, but it was less compelling because Oregon didn't have a team in that event.

Why not have a true 1-on-1 team competition like Tennis? Have the top 8 dual-meet teams (based on points or a poll) compete in dual meets until one team wins the national crown. The individual championship could follow a week or 10 days after the final dual meet. I guarantee, that would generate a hell of a lot more fan interest on the college level than the mess we see now. I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN picked up some or all of the "playoff" meets for live television. Moreover, it would be a lot harder for a team to win a title by relying solely on sprints or distance.

And for those who complain that this format favors the "rich" track programs, so what? Who wins football and basketball every year? Yes, there are a lot of complaints, but we all watch.

Soooo if a school has a very weak team overall, and they recruit/land a superstar athlete that wants to stay close to home, under your system, he or she would never see the national meet? That's cool, just so I understand you. I mean, who cares if talent is left sitting at home through no fault of their own. I don't say this often on here, but, for you here goes, IDIOT!

#1 It wasn't regionals, it was the preliminary rounds.

#2 Someone crossed the finish line first and was given the top time and place. That is as much a winner as the person who crosses the line first at the Stanford Invitational. The only difference is you didn't have to pay an entry fee for the preliminary rounds.

#3 in a preliminary the objective is to advance. Tyson Gay or Lagat don't go all out or win every prelim they run in, they just advance. That was to point of the meet.

#4 there was a statistically significant number of people from the top 12/24 descending order lists that did not advance and a significant number of those from the outside of those magic numbers in a descending order list that did.

Is there a better way? Maybe, but geography hasn't presented an equal way to divide the country, and this meet itself showed why descending order list doesn't hold water late in the season.

Summary:

1) Stan Invit, Mt Sac, Payton Jordan, Brutus Hamilton are the best places to get qual times. Not everyone lives in Frisco or Hollywood.

2) The former 4-Regionals are a huge-ass failure as an event for fans. No enthusiasm. No tradition. Barf. Yuck. The new 2-Regionals are also a big dud.

Solution:

1) Cancel regionals and bring back single champs.

2) Top 3 (negotiable) winners in each event in each conference automatically advance to champs plus minimum standards (from this conference champs only prior races at prior meets don't count, NO exceptions period).

Crusty Old Retired Coach wrote:

Soooo if a school has a very weak team overall, and they recruit/land a superstar athlete that wants to stay close to home, under your system, he or she would never see the national meet? That's cool, just so I understand you. I mean, who cares if talent is left sitting at home through no fault of their own. I don't say this often on here, but, for you here goes, IDIOT!

Crusty, I see why you're retired. You've not only lost a step or two, but your reading comprehension isn't what it use to be.., eh?

Tennis has a team competition followed by an individual competition. That's exactly what I've proposed. A team champion series followed by a meet to determine individual champions.

The reality now is that little local schools don't now and never will compete with the big guys, so why jump through hoops to try to come up with a system that supposedly gives a a weak sister an opportunity to compete for a team championship? it will never happen.

But if you insist, why not make T&F more like XC? Let's have a national meet where the top 8-10 teams each send two athletes per event. Also invite the next 5 best athletes not on a top-10 team to compete for individual titles in each event. Only team athletes would score, but individual and team athletes would compete for individual titles.

Hey, the possibilities are endless. Unfortunately, any attempt to suggest creative alternatives get flamed or labeled "self-interested."