NCAA Division I approves two-site Regional format in 2010

I total agree with this comment by RoJo

"3) I think it's great the 10k guys aren't immune from regional qualifying. Now you actually have to run well near NCAAs - not the first week of outdoors at Stanford."

Far too long have guys been maintaining their indoor peak and running in stanford once in the early outdoor season. It is not inline with developing athletes with the outdoor track season in mind. The NCAA should be doing everything in it's power to support summer track, which the rest of the world follows.

you missed one of the best facilities in the East... brand new

when will this ruling go into effect? 2009 season?

A real DI coach wrote:

The problems with this format come in meet management issues. How will we handle 48 athletes in each event. Depending on what happens with those answers will hugely impact the fairness issue. No matter what anyone thinks the regions are not going to be balanced by quality, by quantity yes, but not talent. The East region will be insane on the sprint side and the West will be crazy on the distance side. I think in the long-term this new model will create significant issues. I think this time they (the coaches) have a right to be upset as they never voted on this model nor were they ever given it to digest and discuss. This all is on the head of the CEO of the coaches association. Once they look at the details I think they will see issues.

I couldn't agree more. It seems absurd that this format would be released without working thru the details and asking coaches for their input. Depending on how the details are worked out, this new format could be either much better or a disaster. And I don't have a lot of faith in the USTFCCCA getting this right. Allowing 96 athletes/event into regionals is excessive and it is going to be costly. Can anyone find out when the details will be released?

FYI, there was an article in the March '08 issue of T&F News(P. 42) that talked about this. The article discussed a "Super 64" / "Sweet 16" setup that might be very similar to how this proposal ends up -- except that rather than starting with 96 athletes/event, it starts with 64 athletes/event with 16 going to Nationals the following week.

It this Super64/Sweet16 proposal the 5K and 10K would be run as straight finals (no semis) at both the Regional and National weekends.

Let's hope the details of this proposal are passed by the coaches before they are approved. If done poorly, it will be impossible for anyone to double in the 5K/10K or even the 1500m/5K. Taking the top-64 to regionals (and advancing 16) would be sufficient. The Region meets would be more manageable and less costly.

If the NCAA's goal is to promote summer track then how does running a qualifying 10k, the regional 10k, an NCAA 10k, and then run the 10k at the US Championships help that goal? Seems like that's a lot even for the top guys and gals.

I don't understand why people get upset that guys go to Stanford to run the auto time. If someone blows up at NCAAs because they are past their peak it's embarrassing, but they earned the right to be there.

The alternative is giving someone an opportunity to break through at NCAAs, which is not the purpose of the National Championship.

2nd place wrote:

you missed one of the best facilities in the East... brand new

Where?

complete with 400m warm up track

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

http://www.unfospreys.com/sports/2007/11/14/facilitieshodges.aspx?

complete with 400m warm up track

Why on earth would the University of North Florida build such a big stadium?

A real DI coach wrote:

The problems with this format come in meet management issues. Rojo brings up some great points ...

And my final point in this is that coaches do have a tendency to whine about change. I think this time they have a right to be upset as they never voted on this model nor were they ever given it to digest and discuss. This all is on the head of the CEO of the coaches association. Once they look at the details I think they will see issues (like longer travel for smaller budgeted programs).

It's weird that Rojo and 'real DI coach' present this as coming out of the blue. There has been a lot of discussion of this proposal, with detailed descriptions of the alternatives circulated widely among the coaches by USTFCCA over the past year. A series of proposals and counter proposals, including the meet structures for the 'super-regional meets', have been going back and forth from NCAA Championships Committee and USTFCCA for quite a while. It's not as though this was behind closed doors - even I saw the proposals, and I am a lowly volunteer assistant.

The short version of the debate is that the NCAA wanted track championships to be more parallel to the structure of their tournaments in other sports. The coaches originally tried to talk NCAA out of this and stick with 4 regions. NCAA insisted, and the USTFCCA came up with a compromise that got pretty good support, after going through the details.

10 years ago USF didn't have football, now look at them.

UCF now has a developing program and amazing facilities with the support of very high student fees and a huge student body

FAU hired Schnellenberger to start football there

I can only guess UNF will be next. Football is truly King in the south.

And the stadium has actually been there for more than a decade with just a soccer field in the middle.

Now they can host state meets, major invitationals, "regionals" even NCAAs i would suppose if they wanted to

I know you are a lowly volunteer but you need to read about this more. This proposal was not the one voted on last year at the coaches convention as that was a single site. The coaches did not want this. Sure, there were all kinds of different formats presented (about 20 in all) but the system just passed wasn't really discussed until March of this year. And you are wrong about it - some of the most important decisions were behind closed doors.

some of the posts above show that there is a complete ignorance about how the ncaa works in regards to changes in championships format.

the ncaa track and field committee and representatives of the ustfccca (if you have forgotten who these people are, ask your conference representative from the ustfccca) have been working on this issue for 3 years. from 2006-07, they thought they had a solid proposal to realign the current 4 regions, which was passed at the 2006 ustfccca convention by a large majority. the ncaa division i championships/competition cabinet and the brackets and formats subcommittee of that cabinet refused to pass the proposal because it would disadvantage the midwest and west regions.

the championships/competition cabinet (now championships/sport management after ncaa reorganization) basically said come back sept 2008 with a different type of proposal that is fair or we will come up with something ourselves (i.e. no coaches input). the 2007 coaches convention came down to votes on a single site proposal and an adjustment to the auto qualifying procedure proposal. the adjustment to the auto qualifiers proposal received more votes (though both passed), but the ncaa track and field committee (not related to ustfccca though most of the coaches are members) did not feel this proposal would gain support with the cabinet and did not bring it forward.

with time running out on the september deadline, the ncaa track and field committee helped form a study group with several of its members, members of the ustfccca, ncaa staff, and members of the cabinet - basically all interested parties. they explored a number of options (i know that coaches had a chance to e-mail in their proposals at one point), and it eventually came down to 2 proposals that the group felt were both better than the current regional format, a three-site proposal and a two-site proposal.

both proposals were presented to the cabinet - you can view the ncaa track and field committee's report here:

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/DI_Champs_Sports_Mgmt_Cab/2008/September/Supp_23_MW_Track.pdf

the cabinet felt that since the two site proposal had more competitive equity, that was the best proposal. all conferences were represented on this cabinet.

the idea that "the coaches did not want this" is ludicrous - the coaches did not have the opportunity to vote on this because of the time frame (i.e. this proposal did not exist as of convention last year and last year's convention did not result in a proposal that went forward to the cabinet). no one knows how the coaches would have voted on this proposal.

regardless, it's a moot point now because the ncaa set the time frame, and the ncaa made the decision. the coaches had a say in the process through their representatives (the ncaa track & field committee & ustfccca, both of whom had people on the study group).

i'm sure conspiracy theorists will get on this board and bash my response (that i don't know anything about the process, that things were decided in smoky back rooms, etc.). i am trying to shed a little light on how things REALLY work and how they worked in this case, in case anyone is interested in knowing how the system really works instead of burying their heads in the sand and crying about how things are going on without their knowledge.

i'd be happy to answer any serious questions about the process in general or this particular case if they are posted.

I USUALLY DON'T GO ON MESSAGE BOARDS BUT A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE SAID I MIGHT WANT TO REPLY. I WILL PUT MY RESPONSE IN CAPITALS FOR EASE OF READING AFTER EACH PARAGRAPH

some of the posts above show that there is a complete ignorance about how the ncaa works in regards to changes in championships format.

THERE IS NOT A COMPLETE IGNORANCE, BUT SOME INFORMATION IS INACCURATE, BUT SOME IS ACCURATE. AND THE QUESTIONS SOME RAISE ARE LEGITIMATE QUESTION.

the ncaa track and field committee and representatives of the ustfccca (if you have forgotten who these people are, ask your conference representative from the ustfccca) have been working on this issue for 3 years. from 2006-07, they thought they had a solid proposal to realign the current 4 regions, which was passed at the 2006 ustfccca convention by a large majority. the ncaa division i championships/competition cabinet and the brackets and formats subcommittee of that cabinet refused to pass the proposal because it would disadvantage the midwest and west regions.

THIS IS COMPLETELY ACCURATE

the championships/competition cabinet (now championships/sport management after ncaa reorganization) basically said come back sept 2008 with a different type of proposal that is fair or we will come up with something ourselves (i.e. no coaches input). the 2007 coaches convention came down to votes on a single site proposal and an adjustment to the auto qualifying procedure proposal. the adjustment to the auto qualifiers proposal received more votes (though both passed), but the ncaa track and field committee (not related to ustfccca though most of the coaches are members) did not feel this proposal would gain support with the cabinet and did not bring it forward.

THE LAST SENTENCE IS INACCURATE. THE NCAA TRACK & FIELD COMMITTEE NEVER CONSIDERED EITHER PROPOSAL DUE TO THE FACT NEITHER HAD STRONG SUPPORT FROM THE COACHES AND THERE WAS A DESIRE TO FIND OUT WHAT THE NCAA CABINET ACTUALLY WANTED. EVERYTHING THAT WAS SENT TO THE CABINET KEPT COMING BACK SO TO FIND A SOLUTION MEANT FINDING OUT WHAT MODEL THEY WOULD SUPPORT.

with time running out on the september deadline, the ncaa track and field committee helped form a study group with several of its members, members of the ustfccca, ncaa staff, and members of the cabinet - basically all interested parties. they explored a number of options (i know that coaches had a chance to e-mail in their proposals at one point), and it eventually came down to 2 proposals that the group felt were both better than the current regional format, a three-site proposal and a two-site proposal.

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT QUITE ACCURATE. THE NCAA TRACK & FIELD COMMITTEE GOT DOWN TO CONSIDERING ONLY TWO PROPOSALS (2 REGIONS OR 3 REGIONS) SINCE THAT IS WHAT THE NCAA CABINET SAID THEY COULD CONSIDER. THE NCAA CABINET INDICATED THAT 1 REGION, 4 REGIONS, 5 REGIONS, ETC WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. WELL, IF THATS THE CASE THEN WE ONLY HAD TWO OPTIONS (2 OR 2 REGIONS). THERE WAS ALWAYS THE STRONG SENSE THAT KEEPING FOUR REGIONS WITH MODIFICATION WAS THE BEST OPTION (AS SUPPORTED BY THE COACHES IN 2006).

both proposals were presented to the cabinet - you can view the ncaa track and field committee's report here:

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/DI_Champs_Sports_Mgmt_Cab/2008/September/Supp_23_MW_Track.pdf

THIS IS ACCURATE

the cabinet felt that since the two site proposal had more competitive equity, that was the best proposal. all conferences were represented on this cabinet.

THIS IS ACCURATE TO THE POINT IT GOES. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE NCAA TRACK & FIELD COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THREE SITES. IT WAS THE LEADERSHIP OF THE USTFCCCA THAT SENT A LETTER TO EVERY CABINET MEMBER TELLING THEM THAT THE COACHES WANTED 2 REGIONS.

the idea that "the coaches did not want this" is ludicrous - the coaches did not have the opportunity to vote on this because of the time frame (i.e. this proposal did not exist as of convention last year and last year's convention did not result in a proposal that went forward to the cabinet). no one knows how the coaches would have voted on this proposal.

THIS IS ACCURATE ALTHOUGH THE USTFCCCA COACHES EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DID VOTE 19-12 IN DES MOINES FOR A 3 REGION MODEL.

regardless, it's a moot point now because the ncaa set the time frame, and the ncaa made the decision. the coaches had a say in the process through their representatives (the ncaa track & field committee & ustfccca, both of whom had people on the study group).

YES, IT IS A MOOT POINT ALTHOUGH I WOULD CLARIFY, IT WAS THE NCAA CABINET THAT MADE THE DECISION.

i'm sure conspiracy theorists will get on this board and bash my response (that i don't know anything about the process, that things were decided in smoky back rooms, etc.). i am trying to shed a little light on how things REALLY work and how they worked in this case, in case anyone is interested in knowing how the system really works instead of burying their heads in the sand and crying about how things are going on without their knowledge.

NOT A CONSPIRACY, BUT POLITICS, AND THE LEADERSHIP OF USTFCCCA PLAYED IT QUITE WELL. THIS WAS NOT A TRANSPARENT PROCESS TO MANY COACHES AND SINCE I WAS AT THE TABLE LISTENING TO THESE DISCUSSIONS I DO KNOW.

THIS IS A MAJOR CHANGE IN THE WAY DIVISION I TRACK & FIELD DOES ITS BUSINESS, AND WITH ANY MAJOR CHANGE THE STAKEHOLDERS (COACHES) WOULD LIKE TO BE INVOLVED. IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE THEY WERE NOT AS INVOLVED AS THEY WOULD LIKE, AND WERE KEPT IN THE DARK ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE.

I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE HOW THE COACHES WOULD HAVE VOTED. MY GUESS BASED ON HOW THE CONVENTIONS HAVE GONE RECENTLY WOULD BE THAT TWO REGIONS WOULDN'T PASS.

BUT NOW WE MOVE FORWARD.

THANK YOU.

Ok, so this is what we're going to have.

How will you qualify for the NCAA meet in, for example, the 100m? 12 people make it. Do they run 2 semifinals and the top 6 from each heat? Top 4 and next 4? I assume there won't be a final because it wouldn't make sense to run it and risk injury. It seems like it would be the prelims for the NCAA meet, not a regional championship. Can't imagine many fans would want to watch it. And how about 48 vaulters in the same competition? What a zoo.

Maybe someone is building a 16 lane track?