Why NCAA has regionals

Agreed. The sport needs to be about racing and winning. Besides, why should running fast in March get you into a meet in June?

But now they still have to qualify on a descending order list, then they HAVE to fly to Texas or North Carolina (all on the school's dime). What's the difference? At least before there was an option to stay home and try to run a fast time in your area (contrary to popular belief, fast times have been recorded outside of Palo Alto).

I think we can all agree that the current compromise system is poorly run, poorly designed, and doesn't really make anyone happy. I'm a descending order guy, but I'd rather have the four-region system than this two-site "opening round" nonsense.

I've never heard someone complain about a descending order list for indoor track's qualifying purposes, despite the fact that the majority of the people who get in get in because they run "glorified time trials" at Washington or Notre Dame or what have you.

No, a descending order list isn't a perfect system, but I think it's better than the current one. I'll point out that I have no personal stake in it this year, since my behind will be firmly ensconced on the couch during First-Round-Nationals.

I also want to say that it's not exactly accurate to call the upcoming meet "Regionals." It's the first round of the national championships. There are no team scores, no incentives to win (only advance), no real "competition." There's absolutely no reason to finish 3rd as opposed to 6th, and no reason at all to exert yourself in a longer race with another coming up in a week or so.

Can we have some suggestions on better systems rather than just complaints?

I think everyone agrees we want more competition. I think everyone agrees we want a system where more people watch the national meet. One factor is just having more competitors. If you had 32, 48 or even 64 per event it would be more compelling. Its not like there has never been a meet with that many athletes before.

So then you just have to pay for it. What if you took the travel budget and handed it out based on the descending order list. The top 8 would get 100% or a flat $2000. Then 9th 95% or %1900, 10th 90% and so on down to 31st 10% and 32nd 5% or $100. You could spread it even more for even larger fields.

Teams could then decide which is better for them, to spend the money early for a good time and a payed trip to nationals or to just run a top 30 time at their conference meet and mostly pay their own way. Together, this would cost about the same as 20 full trips.

I guess then the Olympics aren't fair either. The kenyans and ethiopians should get more than 3 spots for the distance events and the americans should get more for everything else based on the world rankings.

It is good practice to have a regional system because you have to learn that doing it on the day matters. It matters because the ultimate standard is the Olympics which comes once every 4 years and there are no free passes. I don't understand why many of the "big" schools are wanting free passes when they are coaching the athletes who need to learn this trait the most.

Tyson Gay should have had a free pass to the Oly's in the 100m and the 200m, but he didn't get it. If the fastest man in the US (ever) doesn't get a free ride, then no one should, even on the NCAA level. Earn your way. One good race or jump at any point in the season doesn't make you a champion, it makes you an enigma. Race a prove it.

What about the free pass system in place at the World Championships?

craigmac4h wrote:

I also want to say that it's not exactly accurate to call the upcoming meet "Regionals." It's the first round of the national championships. There are no team scores, no incentives to win (only advance), no real "competition." There's absolutely no reason to finish 3rd as opposed to 6th, and no reason at all to exert yourself in a longer race with another coming up in a week or so.

How come only the smart kids get it?

Notice at Regionals, there or only 'first round' 'quarterfinals' and a few times, 'semifinals'. It is just a dress rehearsal.

Even Vinnie and his Divas will manage to get through this, harrumph, ordeal', without a bit of effort. Now if a real challenge comes up, say a hangnail or something, all bets are off. DAMN THOSE REGIONALS!

I am not even sure how the latest regional version works.

Maybe they can have have an auto qulaifying standard and utilize regionals as a play in to make the NCAA's for those that didn't hit the auto standard.

Then the top guys can go hit their time, sit out regionals and minimize the number of races they need and those without ideal time trial conditions can race there way in.

As I understand it even those with the top time have to at least participate in regionals.

I also prefer the World Championships free pass over the Olympics and would like them to let up to 8 people from the same country if they all have top 10 performances.

Just get the best people to the big meet.

While were at it, just to make sure it's really fair and since the top guys are breezing thru anyhow, why don't we creat a middle regional? Allow 48 out of the first regional. A week later we'll have a second regional somewhere completely different and far away so that climate advantages can be more evened out. Plus if some guy who was 30th in the first regional on a bad day, but could have been 23rd and hence made it to NCAA's in order to get lapped twice in the 10K, well now he'll have his second shot.

This is about the most fair way, people have off days and some people can't run well in heat/cold/rain etc so this way those midpackers who are the bubble get the absolute best chance to make it thru and recieve a proper ass whooopin in Track Town USA. Plus for first timers it gives them a chance to figure out the regional concept on the first go and compete like a veteran at "middle regionals".

It shouldn't really be about the fast times and the top guys at the big show in Eugene, it should be about love and peace and opportunity for all. Anyone who finishes last gets a ribbon and anyone who gets lapped gets a victory lap with the winner!!

I used to be a descending order list guy. Then I started looking at the wind readings listed for all the sprint events. Start to look at what is getting in the 100 and 200 events and look at the wind readings. Too much can happen in a 100m race run at 1.2 positive wind vs the 3.7 that still counts for NCAA qualifying and hundreths of seconds are separating dozens of athletes. There needs to be a way to run off and earn advancement.

Alas, there simply will be no absolutely equal system. The east is way more populated with schools and people. In some events it shows. but it really only shows at the bottom.

The current system captures enough atheltes to allow that noone who could/should be at NCAA finals is missed, and still gives opportunity to those who might not EVER make it to NCAAs to have a post season beyond conference. To me that is good.

The meet size appears to be too big and so we shall see how that plays out this week especially in the field events.

The Stanford meets haven't really gotten smaller because of regionals. People are still flying out there to run fast and PR and to have something to market to recruits.

So who knows.

I firmly believe the rich are trying to get richer and will use their power to make the sport as advantageous for them as possible.

All these major conferences are talking of expanding and pretty soon there will be about 50 schools that have any chance to doing anything at all athletically in any sport. Everyone else might as well become Division 3.

Texas A&M knows they have to recruit against LSU and UCLA. they are fine with that. They would rather just deal with them then have to worry about La Tech, North Texas and UC Irvine. If they can run those smaller schools out of business, then they will make their job easier.

toro wrote:

I am not even sure how the latest regional version works.

Maybe they can have have an auto qulaifying standard and utilize regionals as a play in to make the NCAA's for those that didn't hit the auto standard.

Then the top guys can go hit their time, sit out regionals and minimize the number of races they need and those without ideal time trial conditions can race there way in.

As I understand it even those with the top time have to at least participate in regionals.

I also prefer the World Championships free pass over the Olympics and would like them to let up to 8 people from the same country if they all have top 10 performances.

Just get the best people to the big meet.

Regarding the free pass thing for countries and the world championships, it is a little different. Not many people can easily choose which country they want to live in/compete for so diversity isn't spread much at all. People can go to nearly any college they want provided grades.

Olympics ARE about countries competing and only top individuals or relay teams get any award, NCAA track is really just about top athletes competing and a team gets a title based on points the athletes scored. At the olympics, no country is awarded the T&F team championship either. Yeah we know who got the most golds or medals or whatever, but perhaps a team who loaded up on 4ths and 5ths and got some hardware would actually come in 2nd or 3rd place if it were scored on a point system like ncaa track. But they don't do that because it's not the point.

Really it's apples and oranges to use worlds or olympics for and example when the points are completely different than NCAAs.

yes that sucks but guess what whoevers number wherever they are will be number one. being less than number one sucks, thats life deal with it

We All Know Better wrote:

What if the top 24 800 meter runners in the country came from UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, USC (the big time programs etc. in the Pac 10). In that case, 12 of the "Best" would never get chance to go to Nationals, because 12 "Lesser" runners from the East would qualify.

T.L. Stallion said" "yes that sucks but guess what whoevers number wherever they are will be number one. being less than number one sucks, thats life deal with it"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

We All Know Better wrote:

What if the top 24 800 meter runners in the country came from UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, USC (the big time programs etc. in the Pac 10). In that case, 12 of the "Best" would never get chance to go to Nationals, because 12 "Lesser" runners from the East would qualify.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EXACTLY!! And this is why the Region concept is a joke. The number 1 guys can run fast in March and they can run fast in June. They will be #1 while the rest can argue about how unfair it is or isn't to have a chance to "run against the best" in some ridiculous regional event with a sparse "family and friends" fan base and no universities willingly holding the meet because it loses so much money. EOT.

The number 1 guy can also place in the top 12 at regionals and proceed to the NCAA Championships. Is that really that much of a strain?

Have you ever noticed, though, how some guys can put up strong early season marks, but when it comes down to head to head championship competition that they fold like a K-Mart beachchair?

Probably worth noting that the current system was imposed on the USTFCCA by the NCAA, who wanted qualifying for nationals in T&F to be similar to the system used by other sports. I am a little out of the loop now, but the coaches were proposing tweaks to the old regional system and had a reasonable consensus emerging, until the NCAA imposed the 2 super regions.

It was pretty clear that the majority of coaches preferred head to head qualifying over descending order lists, and pretty clear that many coaches from the powerhouse schools would rather do away with regionals.

sc42 wrote:

Probably worth noting that the current system was imposed on the USTFCCA by the NCAA, who wanted qualifying for nationals in T&F to be similar to the system used by other sports. I am a little out of the loop now, but the coaches were proposing tweaks to the old regional system and had a reasonable consensus emerging, until the NCAA imposed the 2 super regions.

It was pretty clear that the majority of coaches preferred head to head qualifying over descending order lists, and pretty clear that many coaches from the powerhouse schools would rather do away with regionals.

I see the problem as one of numbers. If the NCAA allowed 48 qualifiers to the national championships I don't think anyone would complain about a descending order list being used to select those 48 individuals. Having only 24 athletes come to the NCAA Championships makes it that much more difficult to rely on times over head to head competition. It is natural to prefer head to head competition when only 24 athletes are selected to compete at the NCAA Championships.

Perhaps when travel expenses for the regional meet are calculated and found to be "over the top" for many of the middle of the pack schools, wiser heads will come to the conclusion that two regional meets are not the best solution in selecting who competes at the nationals.

Back in the 60's and early 70's, approximately 48 men (this was prior to women competing) were accepted for each event and each school paid their own way to the national championships. Athletes who made the final were provided with some per diem funding, I believe. I am not advocating we return to this type of system, but certainly something closer to this would satisfy the majority of coaches and make life easier for all athletes. There would still be lots of jumping around looking for the perfect competition to get a qualifying time, but less pressure than the way things have been done over the last 20 years or so.

la la Lander said: "

Have you ever noticed, though, how some guys can put up strong early season marks, but when it comes down to head to head championship competition that they fold like a K-Mart beachchair?"

_______________________________________________

No, I haven't noticed much of that. Give us a few names. By and large, the top time guys are the top finishers at NCAA's.

BTW: the correct title to this POST should have been "Why NCAA is scraping Regionals after this year"

I think some of the annoyance with the regional system has to deal with the, why?

Why make the elite athletes run another race when they dont need to. It only adds risk.

I remenber seeing critism about the college system when Galen Rupp ran at Worlds last year. (blamming the long season, to his lack of post season susccess) [i think]

Individuals have 2-3 months to run a fast time, let the full track season determine championship season.

To me it seems like just an oppertunity to be "more fair" to all; Hurt the people on top, by making them run another race, so that way the people on bottom might have a chance to qualify.

i'm not saying its perfect, but there are pleanty of opperunitys for athletes to prove themself, and they dont need regionals to be another one.

Because nobody cares about indoor!