NCAA REGIONALS ARE NOT RIGHT!

I think it's totally worth more discussion, considering that NCAA Div III & Div II championships and the U.S. Championships/Olympic Trials are based on times. So what makes the Div I system better and more appropriate than all the others? If it is such a good system, will the others be switching?

No system is perfect of course. There is a question of certain athletes who peaked early in March but are not going to be remotely competitive in the championship race for various reasons, versus an athlete who is a Conference champion, but did not yet get a fast enough time and Conference races are rarely fast. They get one more try at a last chance meet usually less than a week after Conference, but if the weather is bad, they could end up missing out on competing even if they were a potential scorer.

So you can argue both sides, but given how Regionals are so unexciting and disappointing, I'd side with getting rid of them.

First of all, there is no regionals system. There is a preliminary round of the national championships with an East site and a West site.

Prior to the Preliminary Round of Nationals system, we had a Regionals system with 8 or 9 regions, and the regions often included hot and cold weather schools.

There is no perfect system. Whatever the system, a certain group will complain about it, either because they see an advantage for their program with another system, or because coaches and track people and sports fans complain...it's what they do.

I didn't like this system when it was first introduced. Probably because we often are fearful of change. However, I really can't think of a more fair way to determine the finals.

The big schools always have an advantage in getting to and into the best meets to ride along and get the best marks. That will never change. But this system allows everyone a fair chance, and rewards championship style racing.

Times are great, but racing is different, more exciting and the spirit of what our sport really is about. The top athletes don't need to be protected, they need to step up and earn their spot like everyone else.

If you want to improve the presentation, great. Do that.

But the current system is as fair to the entire nation of NCAA I schools as you are going to get.

Regionals work out pretty darn well for athletes whose coaches are correctly peaking them at the right time and are strong mentally and can come through clutch, championship type situations. These types of coaches and athletes are few and far between.

What's wrong with a regional or semi final? This is done from Junior Olympics to high schools.

In HS you usually go from league (trials /finals) to some kind of regional (trials / finals) to State (trials / finals). One false start in league trials and the national leader is done.

This qualifying system is nothing new to these college kids. Let them race.

As for the venue, remember most events in track thrive in warm weather. Perhaps an 8 am or 10 pm start time might be better. But that is asking volunteers to pull a double shift and can be a logistical nightmare. Fact is sometimes you need to run strategically in tough conditions.

But a crappy meet has nothing to do the qualifying protocol.

Are their rules or guidelines on music etc playing during a meet? Why don't more places do this? Every sporting venue does this... Why not track?

I really like this regionals system, it is not intended to be "championship" style meet with awards for winning, it is merely a prelim to NCAA nationals. It is far and away the most fair way to determine national qualifiers because PLACE is prioritized over TIMES. Look at Hasay, sure she had one of the fastest 10K times ever but does not deserve to go to nationals because she sucked when it mattered most. Sorry Oregon fanboys but time trials at stanford really mean nothing. It is racing that matters. Look at the Olympic trials and Olympics, the best RACERS come home with the hardware. Our sport is about racing and not time trials thus the regional system is the best, fairest and most exciting way to do things

The regional concept is all inclusive, meaning that 96 athlete at d1 colleges have an opportunity to try and get to the nationals. So the two regional meets are a prelim (costly for sure) so that 24 athletes can now compete at the championship meet. As designed, this is about as fair as one can make it. However, as an attraction, it leaves a lot to be desired.

Although I was a big supporter of the regional concept I can see where coaches from the premier programs find this meet annoying and non-productive. As a fan I find the regional meet pretty useless. It allows too many athletes from non-competitive team programs to compete on the national level. By this I mean that as long as there is a team championship, team participation needs to be emphasized more than individual participation. That is how sports in the US is viewed, especially at the college level. Fans and athletes are conditioned to root for teams in almost every other sport but track and field.

The solution is that a joint venture with USATF should be pursued where the NCAA Championships is geared towards bringing the top 24 teams in the country together for a national championship while USATF focuses on allowing more individuals into their championship meet by expanding their qualifying standards. To alleviate the issue of having too many rounds for the top non-collegiate athletes, there would be a bye system where early rounds are qualifying rounds for the lower ranked individuals.

Of course, this will never happen, but I still think it is a good concept.

Every competitor does not have to deal with the same conditions.

Kids coming from Minnesota have a disadvantage over kids coming from say...Texas.

The system was fine before the regionals, almost everyone barked about the advent of the regionals system...and it really is useless. You can't win anything.

The system was fine for DECADES before the implementation of this unnecessary intermediate meet.

It is especially burdensome for the distance runners.

[/quote]

Oregon hates this system because their track and field budget is much, much bigger than every other school in the country and running regionals is just another way for the small fry to ruin the big dog's plans for NCAA Championships.

I'm saddened that Jordan Hasay won't get to run at the NCAA 10k to finish off her career. She lined up along 47 other competitors in the 10k the other night and didn't finish in the top 12. Maybe with all the money and knowledge in Eugene they could have figured out what might happen in the heat and humidity in Texas during a 10k. It wasn't like they ran the event during the middle of the day. 3,4, and 5th in the race the other night were from Washington, San Francisco, and Boise State (not exactly Texas or Arizona).

Easy answer. Split system. One third of the spots in the final are given to the fastest times run during the season. One third are awarded to top finishers at West regional, the other third to the top finishers in the East.

yogibear wrote:

Easy answer. Split system. One third of the spots in the final are given to the fastest times run during the season. One third are awarded to top finishers at West regional, the other third to the top finishers in the East.

I think this ^^^^^^ is along the right frame of mind.

My idea: Keep the regional concept, but allow the few athletes who have met the Olympic A or B standards an automatic pass into nationals.

yogibear wrote:

Easy answer. Split system. One third of the spots in the final are given to the fastest times run during the season. One third are awarded to top finishers at West regional, the other third to the top finishers in the East.

Not an easy answer. So the best times, often from the better funded programs, get a bye, while the rest have to race a pre-championship to get in?

If you can't get it done at the regional meet you AREN'T going to get it done at the national meet! The current set up is not ideal, but it is better than just qualifying off some time trials run in the middle of the season in ideal conditions.

Athletes who can't line up and compete don't belong at the national meet no matter how nice your personal best is!

What would you think if we decided to cancel the Olympic Trials and just pick the 3 fastest times for our Olympic team? How about we just cancel the Olympics and mail the medals to the top-3 times on the world list?

Learn to compete! It's a dog eat dog world out there! No participation ribbons at the highest levels!

The only fair system is to have a single prelim meet with a single time qualifier and not break things down by East or West. Same qualifying time for everyone, same conditions at the meet to advance. There are too many schools in the east and talent is not evenly distributed in the east west breakdown so why should qualifiers be.

The current system is time based (with the dumb east / west breakdown) just like the old old way qualifying used to happened.

The only improvements over this auto and provisional system are that the times are slower so more people qualify which necessitates having prelim races, throws, jumps..

This means more athletes qualify and schools don't have to spend tons of money to chase times at certin meets.

The current system would be like expanding the ncaa basketball tournament to 128 teams.

JAD wrote:

What would you think if we decided to cancel the Olympic Trials and just pick the 3 fastest times for our Olympic team? How about we just cancel the Olympics and mail the medals to the top-3 times on the world list?

Well the Olympic/WorldTrials have time standards. And don't countries like Kenya hand pick their team?

must have been the west regional. the east regionals have had pretty good crowds

Sorry but the regional system is not going anywhere. Go to the USTFCCCA convention and see what happens when BCS conference schools try to take this meet out. The mid-majors rise up in unison to maintain the 'regional' meets. This is far from a perfect system but your arguments really are not that persuasive either.

-Everyone has to deal with conditions whether you are from Minnesota [read: Oregon] or Texas, the toughest most prepared runner will still advance. The home field will always be an advantage to the host institution (NCAA Nationals in Eugene)but other school do have the opportunity to bid and host the meet themselves.

-The old system was 'fine' but far from great. It was not a true team championships (still isn't, but better). NCAA finals is a great meet but not a TEAM championships. The real answer is to throw the current system entirely on its head and make a true DUAL MEET TEAM CHAMPIONSHIPS where the top 68(?) TEAMS battle for a true NCAA Championships. Really see who has the best TEAM. An elimination style tournament would follow in what would be an exciting, explosive final month of the season. An NCAA Individual Championship would be held the week following the team championship final with the top 12-16 athletes in each event competing for individual honors. I have the details down to a tee. This could make our sport more than relevant again BUT it won't ever happen because TF coaches are resistant to any kind of change even as they see the sport crumbling around them.

-Distance runners are no more burdened than anyone else. The best athletes will thrive under adversity and come out on top. They have done this for the last 10 years under the regional system. This is another opportunity for everyone to compete in a high pressure situation and should not be thought of as a 'burden' to anyone. Suck it up and run.

-I agree it is an overall boring meet to watch for the average fan BUT there is some major excitement in knowing that this is a do or die moment and the intensity and emotion put into this meet by the coaches and athletes is amazing to watch.

Thoughtful discussion on how to make our sport better is never a bad thing though and it is good to see so many strong opinions on ways to continue to grow our sport. WE need to continue to adapt and innovate to create a brighter future for our great sport!

The system as it is the fairest it can be. Hit the time you are in the qualifying round. From there the best on the day make it.

Running fast in March does not equate to deserving to run in the national final in June. By this argument the fastest ranked runner should be mailed a 1st place medal.

The system as is, is great!

Quack quack quack wrote:

First of all, there is no regionals system. There is a preliminary round of the national championships with an East site and a West site.

Thanks Quack. This is correct.

Do you other guys whine during March when the early rounds of the basketball championship takes place in different cities over several weekends?

The Animal Within wrote:

Running fast in March does not equate to deserving to run in the national final in June. By this argument the fastest ranked runner should be mailed a 1st place medal.

That's not what that argument says at all. It's similar to how the world/Olympic champion gets a free entry into the next world championship. He is not simply given the first place medal.

regional airport wrote:

Quack quack quack wrote:

First of all, there is no regionals system. There is a preliminary round of the national championships with an East site and a West site.

Thanks Quack. This is correct.

Do you other guys whine during March when the early rounds of the basketball championship takes place in different cities over several weekends?

They why do they call them East Region and West Region, if they aren't regionals.

And basketball as an analogy is asinine. All the teams get to play in Air Conditioning.

The old system was fine, NO ONE WAS COMPLAINING about it.

Kids could chase times in local sanctioned meets.