DEAR VIN LANANNA: Here are the reasons to have regionals

I coach at a mid major school that has had a good amount of runners at the first round of nationals this year. Let me be the first to say I hate this system.

If we want to go back to last year's regionals, I am ok with that, but this system sucks.

1. There is no set marks, meaning after conference we had to continue to race our athletes into the ground so they could make the top 48. That is after they doubled and tripled after a conference meet.

2. In this new system an athlete does not get to race all the other athletes in the region. One heat could be fast, and another slow. The slow heat will only get an x number of athletes and the fast heat will get more. In the old regional system you got to race for your spot at nationals, now you do not.

3. This is expensive. Once school ends we have to pay for our athletes to stay on campus and give them 30 dollars a day because our caf is closed. That is about 500 dollars an athlete just for food. This kills our budget and keeps us from going to bigger meets. Our athletes know we can only fly to cali one time a year, meaning they only get one great chance to qualify. If there wasn't a regional meet we could get to Stanford twice and have time to actually train at the end of the season instead of searching for races.

4. This hurts american distance running. By the time USATF nats comes around our athletes are tired.

I agree. It is especially hard on the 10kers.

Its hard on the 10K ers, nearly as hard on the 5K ers and Steeplers and only provides openings for more injured athletes. I'd like to see some proof of that 70% thing because all my coach friends claim that they voted against it. The host school loses money (that's why they have a devil of a time finding host schools), the cost to the athletic departments is nearly unbearable (this is track and field folks--we have limited budgets) and all we get is 90-95% of the same people going to nationals who would have based on seed times from the season. I'm with Lananna on this all the way. WHY???

Old D1 system > current D3 system > current D1 system

You say you could go to Stanford twice. Whoopdeedoo. What about all those who can't?

You don't like doubling and tripling your athletes, well don't double and triple them.

I can understand why you want to get your two meets done at Stanford and let others who compete in less favorable conditions try to match times. It's a lot easier than having to line up and race people head to head.

Anybody who can compete at the USATF for real can waltz through the regionals, where you only have to finish 12th. to proceed.

By the way, it is fairly easy to project what times would make regionals by looking at the times that made regionals last year. And, as far as chasing times goes, if you go to the NCAA's from a descending order list, that means you have to be top 28 or so in the nation, versus only having to be top 48 in the region in order to compete at regionals. So, you tell me, which system causes more time trialing and more chasing after times?

la la land wrote:

You say you could go to Stanford twice. Whoopdeedoo. What about all those who can't?

Then they can line up on any other track, at any other place in the country, and run a fast time there. Cripes. How can it be biased to take the top 24 times? What could be more objective? You run a fast time, you go to nationals.

I love posters who accuse Vin of whining but can't stop moaning about all of the advantages Oregon has. Oregon invests in their track and field program. Isn't that what we want? That makes things unfair? Tough. Run faster.

Why don't they use mechanical device as pacers at track meets ? I can't think of a better way to level the playing field. Cross Country has a lead 4 wheel off road vehicle, electric golf cart, or motorcycle to prompt the runners. Sprinters and track runners at Worlds, Olympics, etc. have a TV camera on a rail that acts as a rabbiting device. Bolt would not have set WRs without that rabbitt.

Eddir Rabbitt wrote:

Why don't they use mechanical device as pacers at track meets ? I can't think of a better way to level the playing field. Cross Country has a lead 4 wheel off road vehicle, electric golf cart, or motorcycle to prompt the runners. Sprinters and track runners at Worlds, Olympics, etc. have a TV camera on a rail that acts as a rabbiting device. Bolt would not have set WRs without that rabbitt.

It's illegal, but that's beside the point.

OP is right, Big Time (tm) schools have huge advantages because they can put on all of the "time trial" meets with plenty of rabbits, good fields, etc etc, SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR! But how the hell is Joe 10k from Small State U supposed to compete with that? Maybe, MAYBE his athletic department could afford to fly him (just him, and one coach) to Stanford to chase a time. That's completely unfair to him. Also gives a terrible disadvantage to states with hot climates, windy springs, etc. The new regionals system is way better. NCAA should pitch in for the costs, though. Mid Major coach is right about that.

113 wrote:Cripes. How can it be biased to take the top 24 times? What could be more objective?

Easy. Let 'em race and may the best man (woman) win.

I'm not saying this year's system is better than the past. But it's way better than the descending order list.

Don't believe me? Look at this year's indoor nationals results, with the same type of qualifying system Vin wants in place for next year's outdoors.

In the 5k, despite a fast race, you had half the field run slow, a third of the field had horrible races. Why? Cause they peaked early on in order to run fast times and qualify. Same goes for the women's 5k plus some DNFs. The men's 3k was slow but a bunch of guys ran badly anyway -- the last 4 places were big names Matusak, Emmanuel, Coe, Puskedra, and also See DNFing. And in the mile, heralded as the best year in the NCAA ever for the mile with all those sub-4s during the season, the field ran a slow race and let the leader run away with it; the pack finished in 4:04. (Plus some sub-4 guys ran 4:08+ in the prelims to miss finals.) Looked like a lot of people burned out from too many fast regular-season races to me.

It isn't illegal to have a cart drive around on the track. They had an electric golf cart pace at the Puma Mile last year and at the Puma Mile this year. Plus the cart paced several other races at the Mt Sac Relays.

P.S. Those last 5 3kers I mentioned were all doubling back from previous events. Wouldn't it be nice if people who wanted to double at Nats had to prove they could handle it at regionals first?

With these Regionals being held in Texas and N. Carolina, all the Joe 10K's from small colleges have to travel half way across the country to try to get one of the 12 spots. Then on the day they show up, the humidity is through the ceiling or the thermometer is stuck on 95%. In the end, mark my word, a half dozen (at best) small college kids will qualify who wouldn't have been qualified by the simple seeding method. In the process, the host school loses a ton of money, and every one of the Joe 10K small colleges has to dig deep to come up with the extra bucks to send their kids off on expensive, and usually fruitless trips.

No, I think Lananna has it right, and I haven't yet seen any solid reasons given for this Regional mess. Of course if your college has a bundle of extra money sitting around to send these kids off to Austin or whereever, then go for it, but I was under the impression that colleges (and the country) were in financial stress and were trying to cut corners?

The Regionals are a big dud. Attendance is terrible. None of the athletes or teams have any heart at Regionals. Having meets in Texas/South/Mid-West in late-May/June is a stupid idea because it makes fans suffer in the outdoor humidity and heat.

I would favor dumping the Regionals in exchange for accepting into NCAAs the top 3 winners for each event at every conference championships, plus athletes that achieve a certain standard.

I want to say this again. First round of nationals kills a mid-major teams budget. Before travel to the meet it cost us $672 an athlete. Let's say you only take 12 athletes that is over $8100.

Then there is traveling to the meet, which is an over 10 hour bus ride because we can't afford to fly 10+ athletes and a coaching staff at the end of the season to a meet. There is another 3 grand. 10 Hotel rooms for 4 nights at $100 a pop $4000. Pier diem for athletes and coaches for the meet about 2 grand.

Grand total on a mid major teams budget=$17,100

And that is for only 12 athletes and a coaching staff.

First round of nats hurts mid-major and small colleges because we have trouble affording it.

Was the previous system a lot better for the budgets of mid major teams? I assume the location would be closer since there were more of them, and the duration of the weekend would be shorter (thus fewer hotel expenses) I am guessing the savings would be a few grand, but in the grand scheme of things not a huge difference.

I understand that it can be hard to come up with lots and lots of money at short notice, but I think athletic departments and track programs should think about this at the beginning of the year a little better. If they know what the end of the year is going to cost, plan for it, and then plan the season accordingly.

I understand it is nice to go run at places like Stanford, but I really don't understand the trend in Track that has turned everyone's attention towards one or two meets being the end all for running fast times. I love watching my teammates run against one another and other schools at dual meets knocking down times that qualify for regionals.

If you are fit enough, you should be able to run a decent time. If you get the chance to race against others that are at your ability you can rise to the occasion and run faster. I think that this new system is the perfect setting for this to happen since you can qualify by running a decent time at an ordinary meet, and then when you actually race at against others of your caliber you have your chance to shine. The times at regionals might not be amazing due to weather, but I am not talking about achieving times - victory and qualifying spots are at stake in this meet, which is what the sport is all about. If the weather cooperates and the meet is fast, then that's great, but I think the main thing is to compete.

To get back to the money issue, I am not sure what was better, the old system or the new. It seems that either would be a strain on a mid major school, but I hope that those programs can find the way to support their athletes when the end of the season rolls around.

Jefe, either you really don't get it, or you don't want to get it. The "old system" as you call it, had the various Regionals. The "old system" was a terrible idea and led to the "current system" which is nothing but a final hurrah to the regionals before we go back to the system that existed before the Regionals. In other words there is little doubt that we will be going back to the system that seeded nationals based on ranked qualifying times.

What is more fair than giving everyone the same 8 weeks or so to achieve known qualifying times? Instead how is it fair to have two events in distant parts of the country, where some can crawl out of bed and compete on their home track, whereas others have to bus half way across the counry, spend money their school doesn't have, and then compete in weather that borders on cruel and unusual punishment? This system stinks, unfairly favors the richer programs, and is basically unneeded.

The interesting thing about this argument is how few remember that the original system worked quite well before they (NCAA bureaucrats) started tinkering with it, thinking they could make money by throwing in these Regional events. Though he is hosting his Region, I'm sure that Pat Henry feels much the same way, and will be happy to see this meet buried for good next year.

Then I would suggest scrapping regionals and adopting a hybrid approach combining standards with auto entries for N (TBD) top conference winners.

Similarly the non-BCS football conferences want a 12 team playoffs with 11 conference champions plus 1 independent.

.....a real college coach wrote:

I want to say this again. First round of nationals kills a mid-major teams budget. Before travel to the meet it cost us $672 an athlete. Let's say you only take 12 athletes that is over $8100.

Then there is traveling to the meet, which is an over 10 hour bus ride because we can't afford to fly 10+ athletes and a coaching staff at the end of the season to a meet. There is another 3 grand. 10 Hotel rooms for 4 nights at $100 a pop $4000. Pier diem for athletes and coaches for the meet about 2 grand.

Grand total on a mid major teams budget=$17,100

And that is for only 12 athletes and a coaching staff.

First round of nats hurts mid-major and small colleges because we have trouble affording it.

This was the best post on this thread and really hits home the point. An extra $15,000 - $20,000 is something that is not possible for a program that only gets $100,000 for men's/women's cc/in/od, to afford. There is no way around it.

I am all for letting the athletes race it out at regionals and giving no free rides but the extra cost will kill programs. In this tight economic time, it makes absolutely no sense to hurt programs like that.

On the flip side, the rich stay rich and will get more opportunities to run fast. In all honesty though, if you are racing anything less than a 5k, there will always be a meet close to get a fast time. There are great 1500's all over, great 800's all over, great steeples all over. Fundraise to get out to Stanford and/or Mt. SAC and travel to one of those meets that are within 5 - 10 hour drive from your school to get another chance to run fast.

You can take 8 athletes in a school van, stay in hotel 2 nights, travel 8 hours one way, compete at a big meet, all for under $1,000. For a lot of schools, traveling 5 hours can get you to plenty of big meets.

We All Know Better wrote:

Instead how is it fair to have two events in distant parts of the country, where some can crawl out of bed and compete on their home track, whereas others have to bus half way across the counry, spend money their school doesn't have, and then compete in weather that borders on cruel and unusual punishment? This system stinks, unfairly favors the richer programs, and is basically unneeded.

Doesn't the exact same situation exist for the NCAA Nationals?