The Least Boring Press Conference Ever: Top NCAA Coaches Talks State of NCAA Track

Interesting to hear the coaches express their dislike for 1st rounds.

I ran in the era of "absolute standards" and can tell you that in my senior year there wasn't even enough 1500 meter qualifiers to hold a trial at NCAA's.

The idea of having the horizontal jumpers go side by side is fantastic. Remember Hayward has parallel runways. Not like these folks are competing on the other side of the stadium.

So much more efficient. Everyone stays warm, loose, no down time for flight one. Keeps the fans interested.

ghost of wilbur ross wrote:

The idea of having the horizontal jumpers go side by side is fantastic. Remember Hayward has parallel runways. Not like these folks are competing on the other side of the stadium.

So much more efficient. Everyone stays warm, loose, no down time for flight one. Keeps the fans interested.

But I agree in that having the final 9 go down on two runways is a little silly. Sure, it might save time so that the people moving to the new runway don't need to remeasure their marks. But if there was only 1 or 2 people from runway A making it to the final... why not consolidate?

The sound wasn't the greatest so I could not hear everything the coaches were saying. As I was trying to listen to the regional discussion, I wondered "how does NCAA final qualification work for gymnastics or swimming?" There are both team and individual aspects to those finals. I believe swimming has a regional-like setup for the national qualification but I'm not 100% sure. NCAAs for outdoor track is always going to be screwy because of the academic school year varies around the country, so you're always going to have athletes who are out for weeks on end until their athlete season is over.

I agree the current system is terrible and there needs to be a real shift in philosophy towards ncaa track becoming a team scored sport if we hope to maximize television revenue and build a fan base. To do that, however, major changes need to occur that make the rules the same for all teams. Basketball is competitive because there are 12 full ride scholarships on the team, a max roster of 15 guys and 5 guys in the floor at a time.

Team track would require rules as well, perhaps eliminating some events from 21 to 15; limiting entries per event to 2 per school; separating genders(which may require separating combined coaching staffs); introducing headcount(full ride only) scholarships to cover majority of "starters" (~20 for non distance); capping rosters at a figure that includes starters and reasonable backups(~45); separate XC scholarships(~5). Frankly, in my opinion, team track should only include through 1500m. XC could have its own scholarships and head coaches, and athletes could continue to compete in the 5k/10k/steeple in stand-alone distance carnivals as they do now, or even team scored road races.

If that can't happen then just abandon team scoring and be strictly an individual showcase. Team track is not really a team sport (and won't be successful) if you qualify competitors individually or if Oregon, as an example, can turn their 12 scholarships into 30 virtual full rides by optimizing financial aid, academic scholarships and in-state waivers and go to a meet with twice as many athletes as their opponent.

Rule #1 for any team sport is: how many people on a team?

Gymnastics - there are regionals for women, not for men. Both genders invite both teams and individuals.

Swimming - no regionals, two qualifiers -- auto standard, and then backfill with B standards (like track used to do). A couple years ago, they made a good decision of removing relays from the qualifier pool. Rather than having those athletes count against the entrant cap, they make the schools pay for them. If a team has 1-3 athletes qualified individually, then they can swim any relay that has an "A" standard, and can bring up to four additional athletes on their own dime. If a school has 4+ athletes individually qualified, then they can swim any relay with an A or a B standard, and can bring up to four additional athletes on their own dime (still subject to an overall roster cap of 18 athletes per team, divers count as .5 people). Conceivably, you can set the world record on a relay and not swim it at NCAAs if non of your athletes qualify individually.

For track, I think you have three possible alternatives to either (a) current or (b) descending order.

- take the cross country model. Run nine regionals, take the top two teams and then like two individual qualifiers per event to nationals.

- take the wrestling model. Establish the number of bids each qualifying conference (6+ teams) receives in an event from a rolling model of previous years, then have 2-3 at-larges per event that are selected by a national committee.

- take the IAAF model. Each conference is a "nation", gets up to three qualifiers plus maybe a fourth for the defending champ per event, pick 'em however you'd like (conference championships, descending order, T&F News Rankings, whatever)

1) As Pat Henry states, Regionals is a (unnecessary?) burden for elite athletes.

Why not let the top 8 from each advance directly to Nationals, and throw the rest a bone to fight over? We're cool with play-in games in basketball. That's essentially what this would become.

Also, the NCAA does not dish out a dime for Regionals. It would save schools who aren't located near the host sites (most) a major cost.

2) Chris Bucknam is all about recreating the conference vibe at Nationals. I would agree nothing is like the conference meet in terms of excitement and it would be great to have that at Nationals. He goes on, and correct me if I'm wrong, to implicate that individuals who are elite should just compete at USAs a few weeks later.

Personally, I don't think this is fair to athletes like Shawn Barber, Demmi Payne, Emily Sisson, Thomas Awad, etc. I feel confident this is what the majority thinks, so it's not going to change, but the fact that a major, championship-winning coach thinks this is a good idea is a bit worrisome.

Bucky makes a good point by referencing baseball. If the ncaa wants to push team competition (which is what every AD and TV exec seems to think will best benefit the sport in terms of fandom, viewership and money), then you cannot worry about top individuals missing out. How many 1st rounders from last weeks baseball draft missed the CWS?

Frankly, using Sisson as an example proves Bucky's point. She and Kate Avery both opted out of ncaa 10k to pursue USA/UK champs and worlds. What does that say about what they feel is more important?

The coaches panel scoffed at the suggestion, but holding a "consolation" finals for individuals is reasonable.

Pat Henry:

"Give me liberty (of venue) or give me death."

I like a modified XC model. Have regional meets. Each team gets a maximum of 2 entrants per event (To keep numbers from getting out of hand you have a reasonable time standard). Score the meet and the top teams from each region, plus next highest finishers in each event not on one of these teams moves on to nationals. This way individuals can still compete for individual titles and every team competing for a team title has the same number of entrants.

The other alternative is the gymnastics model where you have a team competition, and then afterwards you have separate individual finals. Maybe some of the distance events (10k certainly) are individual only because you couldn't recover in time to double back.

As it is now, conference meets and NCAAs are two completely different competitions. Winning conference meets is about who has the better depth, while winning NCAAs is usually about who has the better stars.

It's says they feel a worlds/Olympic team is more important. Wouldn't you agree? Shooting for a Worlds/Olympic team should not penalize someone from getting an individual NCAA championship. It's just so silly to tell someone "You want to compete at the NCAA level (money aside)? Well, you need to go to a Power 5 school."If those Power 5 schools decide they want to create a new organization consisting of just themselves, and leave the NCAA, then this idea happens. If not, and the NCAA stays as currently constituted, it's not going to bite its own tail. Last, agreed that the CWS and best baseball player analogy is a fair comparison.

Mac wrote:

Bucky makes a good point by referencing baseball. If the ncaa wants to push team competition (which is what every AD and TV exec seems to think will best benefit the sport in terms of fandom, viewership and money), then you cannot worry about top individuals missing out. How many 1st rounders from last weeks baseball draft missed the CWS?

Frankly, using Sisson as an example proves Bucky's point. She and Kate Avery both opted out of ncaa 10k to pursue USA/UK champs and worlds. What does that say about what they feel is more important?

The coaches panel scoffed at the suggestion, but holding a "consolation" finals for individuals is reasonable.

Hmmmmmm wrote:

It's says they feel a worlds/Olympic team is more important. Wouldn't you agree? Shooting for a Worlds/Olympic team should not penalize someone from getting an individual NCAA championship.

Not only do I agree, that was my point. I'm not suggesting they should be penalized for running USA's or other world events, but it strengthens Bucky's point that future adjustments to NCAA track cannot be based on ensuring the top individuals always are protected.

Pat Henry was a big proponent of track having a home. That is exactly what he campaigned for the last few years. I heard him compare it to Baseball being in Nebraska every year changing the game for NCAA Baseball. He said it would do the same for track and field. Maybe he has had a change of heart since then, or maybe it was because Holloway point out that it is not fun to travel 12-13 hours every year.

Mac wrote:

If the ncaa wants to push team competition..., then you cannot worry about top individuals missing out.

Agree. Look at football: You might get drafted or signed to an NFL team if not at a power school, but you'll never play/win in a bowl game. Dudes KNOW this while entering college. So T&F athletes need to just take a good look at themselves and ask, is my goal to win at NCAA's, or just to do my best in whatever conference / collection of schools I'm in? Neither choice would penalize anyone from going U.S. Nationals. (I know some will say that you need good competition to run a fast qualifying time for Nationals, but in all serious, the whole goal is to PLACE IN THE TOP 3 at Nationals...and if you're good enough to do that, you don't need someone towing you to a good time, so it won't matter where you come from.)

While the marketing of track having a home sounds appealing, the actual practice of it does not. I'm sure it would be Portland, Eugene, or Sacramento. That mean 3/4 of the country is traveling across the USA, and it's not like T&F programs are rich with ca$h.