la la land wrote:
I really like this system, in that it is fair and allows everyone to step up their game at the end of the season when the chips are on the table.
Regional qualifying is better than just taking top times from the season, but unless the regions are equitable it cannot be described as fair. There will never be a regional split that makes all the events equitable, but look at a few of these events:
Mens 100: Top8- 5e and 3w; East went 1-2-3
Mens 1500: Top12- 4e and 8w; West had 8 of the top 9!
Mens 3kSt: Top14- 6e and 8w; East went 1-2, but west had next 7!
Mens 10k: Top12-4e and 8w; West went 2-6 after Chelanga
Mens Decathlon (I know they didn't do regionals): Top12- 3e and 9w; West went 1-5
Mens Hammer: East 1-4 and 6 of top 8
Womens 400: Top8- 6e and 2w
Womens 800: Top8- 6e and 2w; East 1-3
Womens HJ: Top8- 3e and 5w; West 1-4
Womens 10k: Top8- 2e and 6w; West 1-3
Womens LJ: Top9- 2e and 7w; West 1-4
Womens TJ: East went 1-5
Womens PV: West 7 of top 10
Womens Shot: East 9 of top 11
Womens 400H: East 1-4 and 6 of top8
Womens 110H: East 7 of top 8
I'm not trying to say that one region is superior to the other, that depends on which event you are looking at, but the system was hardly fair for the guy who got 13th in the west 1500 or the women's hurdler who got 13th in the east. The east 1500 guys went to Hayward and took 7 of the bottom 8 in the semi-final while the west took 8 of the top9 in the final.
I know many people will say that doesn't matter because the top guys will still make it and you shouldn't cater to the fringe or bubble athletes. I agree with that in part, but I think we still want to get the best 24 people there regardless of geography.