Need Tire Info wrote:
I think Galen should tell the NCAA to f*** off and just skip it totally.
It is just some two bit indoor meet.
POD
Need Tire Info wrote:
I think Galen should tell the NCAA to f*** off and just skip it totally.
It is just some two bit indoor meet.
POD
If it really is just some two bit indoor meet then why did Rupp run in it?.
Flash Results seems to think the College Mile and the Elite Mile are different events. No combined results and different event numbers.
This fits right in with NCAA's ban of their own official drink Vitamin Water.
cmu. Take your Rupp hate somewhere else. You sound like a little 4 year old throwing a tantrum and kicking and screaming to get attention. The Meet Director thought he had met the 10 requirement. Too bad you can't read AND comprehend..
did anyone else hit ncaa qualifying times in the meet that we disallowed? rupp and kipyego can hit the times again easily, but what about an average joe with an awesome day?
What is this? wrote:
cmu. Take your Rupp hate somewhere else.
I don't hate Rupp. I hate Nike and Alberto and how they manipulated the rules to meet their needs at the Oly Trials. Now they get caught up in silly rules. KARMA is a bitch. LOL
cracks me up wrote:
What is this? wrote:cmu. Take your Rupp hate somewhere else.
I don't hate Rupp. I hate Nike and Alberto and how they manipulated the rules to meet their needs at the Oly Trials. Now they get caught up in silly rules. KARMA is a bitch. LOL
Is karma really a bitch in this case? Rupp can go jog qualifying without much trouble if he wants to bother. I can't really see how that is a big deal for him. Sorry to ruin your fantasy of revenge and spite.
sjc wrote:
no worries, nike will have the decision reversed by tomorrow at noon.
I laughed when I saw this post but the NCAA has reversed course.
We've just learned that a third appeal to the championship cabinet of the NCAA has been successful. They have overturned the track and field committee's two previous decisions and the marks will be allowed (at least on the men's side - not sure about the women).
We changed our story now to reflect the latest news:
http://www.letsrun.com/2009/rupp0217.phpNot the biggest Rupp fan, but he threw down fair and square and should be allowed to use that mark. He is getting the shaft on this one.
I believe the wrong ncaa manual has been linked in the original article by letsrun. the USTFCCCA Indoor Handbook has precident over the ncaa one mentioned originally.
page 10 clearly discusses scenarios where times/marks will not be accepted for post-season qualifications.
this is what the handbook clearly states
This handbook takes precedence over any other printed qualifying procedures,
including the 2009 & 2010 NCAA Men’s and Women’s Cross Country/Track and Field
Rules Book
here's the link I found to it.
cracks me up wrote:
What is this? wrote:cmu. Take your Rupp hate somewhere else.
I don't hate Rupp. I hate Nike and Alberto and how they manipulated the rules to meet their needs at the Oly Trials. Now they get caught up in silly rules. KARMA is a bitch. LOL
I just can't resist. What happened to karma?
sjc wrote:
no worries, nike will have the decision reversed by tomorrow at noon.
wejo wrote:
I laughed when I saw this post but the NCAA has reversed course.
We've just learned that a third appeal to the championship cabinet of the NCAA has been successful. They have overturned the track and field committee's two previous decisions and the marks will be allowed (at least on the men's side - not sure about the women).
We changed our story now to reflect the latest news:
http://www.letsrun.com/2009/rupp0217.php
I agree that all legitimate marks should be allowed.
Even so, it is sad that Nike has so much clout, that they can get their athletes through, especially over others more qualified as they did in the trials.
As someone who has direct knowledge of the NCAA process the person that said the USTFCCCA rule is the one that has precedence is incorrect. The NCAA Rulebook is the official book used in determining what decision to arrive at. Many people come on here and bash the NCAA, yet what the NCAA is attempting to do is keep a level playing field for everyone. I believe everyone would be surprised to find out how many of our coaches try to circumvent rules to get what they want. You know who gets screwed in this??? The non-BCS schools and athletes who make up 75% of DI. The Reebok meet has historically had problems with the correct number of events. They have been told of the problems. So what do they do to solve the problem. Run two different mile races. Geez folks, is there anyone in American who really thinks that if we run the college mile and the open mile they are two separate events? Sorry, the mile is one event, no matter how you slice it up. This decision seems to me to be bad one cause as polevaultpower said, why then can't marks from the PV Summit count since they have about a hundred sections of the vault. The rule was intended to force meet directors to have a "real" track meet and not some single event event.
A real view of what goes on wrote:
As someone who has direct knowledge of the NCAA process the person that said the USTFCCCA rule is the one that has precedence is incorrect. The NCAA Rulebook is the official book used in determining what decision to arrive at. Many people come on here and bash the NCAA, yet what the NCAA is attempting to do is keep a level playing field for everyone. I believe everyone would be surprised to find out how many of our coaches try to circumvent rules to get what they want. You know who gets screwed in this??? The non-BCS schools and athletes who make up 75% of DI. The Reebok meet has historically had problems with the correct number of events. They have been told of the problems. So what do they do to solve the problem. Run two different mile races. Geez folks, is there anyone in American who really thinks that if we run the college mile and the open mile they are two separate events? Sorry, the mile is one event, no matter how you slice it up. This decision seems to me to be bad one cause as polevaultpower said, why then can't marks from the PV Summit count since they have about a hundred sections of the vault. The rule was intended to force meet directors to have a "real" track meet and not some single event event.
I'm not sure how I feel about the precedent being set here. This will come up again next year with the Pole Vault Summit. The past two years, the Summit has been held the first weekend of January and has had very low collegiate attendance. Next year it will be the last Saturday of January, and many more colleges will be interested in coming. A number of the coaches on the development staff (so they're going to be at the Summit either way) are also college coaches and will want their athletes to come and learn and have a quality competition to jump in.
I get why people don't want single-event competitions, but anyone who has been to the Pole Vault Summit knows that it's all run very professionally. They carefully measure all of the standards to make sure the heights are accurate, big time USATF officials are running the top groups, and there are a ton of us around that are also certified officials.
The argument we've been getting lately is that it is a recruiting disadvantage to the schools who can't afford to send their vaulters to the meet. Well I think that argument can be made about sending athletes to Boston or Millrose or really any track meet that involves travel.
Legit meets should count for qualifying. They could put a ban on new meets that don't meet the requirement, but Boston and the PV Summit should count.
Obviously the meet director, Alberto/Vin should have got this cleared with the NCAA beforehand. Someone didn't do all the due diligence they should have. However, I don't think it sets a precedent for a single event type meet. The issue at BIG is how the events are counted. This isn't a case where they are trying to go completely around the rule. They (meet director, coaches etc.) thought they had structured the meet in a way to allow the men's marks to count. If anything, I hope this will spurn the NCAA to take another look at the intent of the existing rule. If the rule is to ensure only legitimate marks from real competitions are being submitted, I can't understand how a televised meet, or a huge event like the Pole Vault Summit, don't count.
It isn't a matter of how "professional" the meet is run...if it only has one event it's not a track meet. It's an exhibition. It would be like having a home run derby and calling it a baseball game. Having a high school pole vault and a college pole vault does not give you two events: it gives you two divisions of one event.
The NCAA had to draw the line somewhere. They drew it at ten events. They could've made the standard eight events, or twelve events, but they didn't. It's ten, and it's a rule people have known about for several years. It's been well known since the last highly publicized incident at BIG.
Does anyone know if Sally's mark is allowed to count? How did the number of events look on the women's side of things?
The NCAA sport is track and field. Not the pole vault. Not the mile. Track and field. The NCAA has defined a track meet as having no less than ten events. Sure, it may be an arbitrary standard, but it's a standard nonetheless.
Now I don't think anyone would argue that BIG is not a track meet. But it doesn't meet the standard for NCAA marks. If BIG wants to attract the best college runners to their meet, they can add another event. Throw in a men's high jump. Done.
Just hours after we posted our initial story, we've learned that the NCAA has reversed course. LetsRun.com has learned that a third appeal to the championship cabinet of the NCAA has been successful. They have overturned the track and field committee's two previous decisions and the marks will be allowed
So now the track and field committee rightfully ends up with mud on it's face and looks silly in it's effort to disallow Galen Rupp's 3000 meter mark in an obvious to everyone but them legitimate Track Meet (Reebok).
So I smell a rat.
Who tried to disallow the marks?
Where there members involved in the decision who would have benefited?
A little investigative journalism is in order.
A real view of what goes on wrote:
As someone who has direct knowledge of the NCAA process the person that said the USTFCCCA rule is the one that has precedence is incorrect. The NCAA Rulebook is the official book used in determining what decision to arrive at. Many people come on here and bash the NCAA, yet what the NCAA is attempting to do is keep a level playing field for everyone. I believe everyone would be surprised to find out how many of our coaches try to circumvent rules to get what they want. You know who gets screwed in this??? The non-BCS schools and athletes who make up 75% of DI. The Reebok meet has historically had problems with the correct number of events. They have been told of the problems. So what do they do to solve the problem. Run two different mile races. Geez folks, is there anyone in American who really thinks that if we run the college mile and the open mile they are two separate events? Sorry, the mile is one event, no matter how you slice it up. This decision seems to me to be bad one cause as polevaultpower said, why then can't marks from the PV Summit count since they have about a hundred sections of the vault. The rule was intended to force meet directors to have a "real" track meet and not some single event event.
Let me get this straight:
Alan Webb is inelligible to run in the College Mile at BIG. And yet he did just that, according to you, if it's indistinguishable from the Elite Mile. Is that right?
Are the men and women's miles the same event as well, too? Webb can't run in the women's mile anymore than he can in the College Men's mile, but you would call them a single event?