New D1 Regionals System

Ok dug up the file. In 2008 if the regions were realigned by the current standards for 2010 this would have been the 48th best mark in each event...

Women

East

100: 11.71

200: 23.90

400: 54.30

800: 2:09.36

1500: 4:27.37

3k St: Only 43

5k: 16:45.62

100H: 13.68

400H: 60.30

HJ: only 36

PV: only 37

LJ: 6.04

TJ: 12.41

SP: 14.59

DT: 46.92

HT: only 39

JT: only 39

West

100: 11.73

200: 23.91

400: 54.61

800: 2:08.98

1500: 4:26.84

3k St: 10:38.44

5k: 16:46.96

100H: 13.81

400H: only 40

HJ: only 38

PV: 3.85

LJ: 6.02

TJ: 12.43

SP: 14.57

DT: 47.52

HT: 54.35

JT: 44.09

I could take the time and write out the men's as well if someone would like

Good information. What would the men's look like?

OK everyone - lets get this straight. Next year it will be the top 48 declared athletes in every event (except the Dec/Hept which still go straight to the NCAA). Note declared, so if there are people that scratch out of an event, those lower on the list will move up.

I am sure they will come up with a standard, but it will only be a standard that gets you on the list. You still have to be one of the top 48 declared in each event to go to the first round even if you meet the standard.

I dont know where the previous posters came up with their numbers, but I looked at the 800 and 1500 for each region based on last years regionals and the time it would take to be in the top 48 was slightly faster than the old regional marks - so if you just squeaked in last year, you might be out of luck this year.

I also believe the conference champ provision is out... but not 100% sure of this.

I hope this helps.

Perspective - I'm not going to argue with you since your numbers are accurate but what you didn't use was actual declared entrants. You can't just use a list to find the 48th performance in each event since not everyone in that event declares. In some of the distance events there are 25-35% of the qualifiers who declare in another event. As an example, indoors about 18 are taken in the 5000, but once declarations are done you have to go down to the athlete ranked in the 30's or even 40's to find that 18th person since athletes are declaring in the DMR, the mile, or the 3K. The performances I provided were based on actual entries which you must use. So if you went back and looked who actually declared in the events that would change your numbers drastically. That is why my numbers were different. Also, the conference champion provision is out given that about 96% of all conference champions in the last two years would have fallen within the 48 in each region provisions.

Thanks. Good discussion.

You are correct that the declarations would water down the numbers somewhat, but it would have been far to tedious to compile the declarations lists into a descending order list. I did this work simply as an idea of what general range it would take to qualify in the new system. It is obviously not exact.

Did you take the time to do compile the declarations lists?

I'll dig up the men's numbers I have later.

I would assume that the 5k will soften up a bit from previous regionals, as the top 10k runners will no longer run the 5k at regionals, given that they will have to now run a qualifying round in the 10k.

A lot of coaches are against the regionals on the basis that it is expensive to keep athletes post season. From what I've heard, it's altogether possible that regionals will be abandoned and that we'll go back to a straight descending order list.

As a 10k runner, I must say that the idea of making us run another 10k that close to nationals is a bit sickening. Obviously, this was a rule made by those who 1)Don't understand distance running. or 2) Only understand it in the perspective of an elite.

Either way, its a bit upsetting... should just stick to the provisional/auto system that works for the 10k.

I disagree. As a distance runner I have always felt the 10K should have been part of the regional system. If you look at the national qualifiers the past 3 years over 90% have come from Stanford's meet or Mt SAC. If you run 29:00 at you conference meet, 2 weeks before regionals your season is still over. Besides, it doesn't seem to be a problem on tougher surfaces in cross country running conference, regionals and nationals.

You just need to grow some balls.

If you are real DI coach then why are you wasting your time on this discussion board.

In addition to all this there's the question for distance events of HOW to narrow down a field of 48 to 12.

In the 1500 ... 4 heats of 12, take top 2 from each heat and next 4 times to nationals?

In the 3k, 5k, and 10k ... have 3 heats of 16, fast heat medium heat slow heat, take top 12 times to nationals?

Whatever it is, it won't be completely fair since not everyone will get to race everyone. If it's done this way, there will be intense last-minute racing to not only get in to the regional meet but get into the fast heat as opposed to the slow heat.

All of your claims aren't even high enough to make the regional qualifying mark let alone the top 48!!!!! This list is not even close.

Go back and do your homework again.

to run regionals in the 10k is a very bad idea for those athletes that will go to nationals. how about those responsible for this decision actually try racing two closely scheduled 10ks themselves, and then maybe they would see how foolish of an idea it is.

It was obviously take a tougher stadard to make the Super regional than it did to make the 4-region system, right?

Seriously, how long does it take for a distance runner to recover from a 10K race? More than 2 weeks?

Also, how long is the time period between these new regionals and nationals? Will it be 2 weeks like it was under the pre-2010 schedules?

Remember that the standard for the 4 region system was the 100th. best mark for that event the preceeding year.

Now, we'll be looking for the 48th. best mark out of 2 regions, which means 96 people will compete nationally in the event - which means that the standard will be pretty close to what we've already been looking at.

If someone can't get in the top 48 in their region, do they have real business being at the NCAA championships?

I wonder what that system would be like if it were put into XC. Imagine the top 48 went, and if your team didn't have five people, yuo can't score as a team. How would the results differ?

C/M Runner wrote:

Seriously, how long does it take for a distance runner to recover from a 10K race? More than 2 weeks?

Also, how long is the time period between these new regionals and nationals? Will it be 2 weeks like it was under the pre-2010 schedules?

Maybe they should follow the lead of the Olympic qualifying system, where the event that takes longer to recover from (Marathon for Olys, 10K for NCAAs) is done prior to the rest of the events. Might make the season go too long though, as you probably couldn't hold the 10K qualifier any earlier than the current regionals so you'd have to push the non-10K meet and national meet back a week.

i am beyone confused wrote:

It was obviously take a tougher stadard to make the Super regional than it did to make the 4-region system, right?

the standard should be easier to obtain.. as the old system was based off the 100th time and this system is based on the top 48 declared people for each region. also, noobs from shitty conferences wont be racing from now on.

I think the problem with "a real D1 coach"'s numbers is that they are based on the top 48 from each of the 4 regions as they have existed. The problem with this is that there will only be TWO regions, not FOUR. This means that his data was essentially looking at the top 48 runners in each of the 4 regions (4x48) which basically gave us the average 192nd NCAA D1 runner for the past couple years. What we really need to look at is the 48th runner for only the two regions, which would have us finding the average 96th NCAA D1 runner for each event.

That's why many of the times that " A real D1 coach" suggested seem so slow. His idea was right he just hadn't accounted for the reduction in number of regions. I hope that clears everything up and makes sense.