Twinn wrote:
There is a trade-off between a season/schedule system that develops the sport, and one that develops athletes' performances.
The system we have now allows a coach to develop an athlete to perform. Ask any coach of any scoring team at NCAA if they would compromise that to make their team more appealing in the January post-meet press release.
They would care if that january meet counted towards qualifying their team.
I think another problem is that "the system is broke" rhetoric is simply an opinion. There are people who feel strongly that it is broken. There are people that feel strongly that it is not. These are opinions.
Like I said before, we are not a popular sport. We are a boring sport. I love it. I always have. But it is not an attractive sport to average sports fans because it is simply too boring. Not length of meets. Just boring to the average sports fan because there is nothing that connects the athletes to each other. No contact. No plays. No connection with a ball for defense and offense. Even NASCAR has contact, timing, crashes, pit stops, etc.
Changing the NCAA system is a waste of time.
At your school, what meet do other coaches and administrators ask you about? If they ask at all, they always ask "how did you do?" Because even if they attended the meet, there is no way of telling.
After the conference meet, they don't ask that question, they ask "How did you feel about ___ place." They know where you finished, it is measurable, they understand.
Maybe it is not a problem, maybe it is genius that track coaches can go an entire career without ever being evaluated by program performance. Sad, but genius.
Sadly, track and field has gladly accepted its role as a title 9 equalizer sport. The sport where you can have 1 coaching staff but 6 sports towards the NCAA sponsorship requirement. We have plenty of "value" in that regard with no value placed on doing it well.
In the high school where I coach, the indoor season runs like this:
-A series of tri and quad meets against other teams in your league (the equivalent of a college conference, 10-12 teams) head to head, scoring against each team individually.
-The team with the best record against other members is the league champ
-At the end of the season, there is a league meet where you have to hit a qualifying standard to enter and the winner is the League Open Champ
Nationals could still be handled the same way, with a decending order list. High-powered individuals could still compete in professional meets, but that would come with the potential of missing a dual meet and impacting their teams score. Nothing builds a fan base more than being able to have a quantifable winning record and a conference rivalry.
Our sport is not boring!
Maybe you are not a fan of track and field. No fan of track and field would call it boring. Can there be moments at a meet that don't have a lot of excitement? Sure. But I have seen many meets where the slow heats were very exciting. The joy of track and field is that in each race there is something that can potentially be exciting.
I think scored meets would help. I do worry that some teams would be hurt as a result. Teams that don't offer the number of scholarships that others do. I didn't read the whole blog post so there may be an explanation why it would not.
My frustration is that we always crave fans, but we try and charge excessively for championship meets. Get fans addicted then raise prices. We have a sport that is more exciting on a number of levels than probably any other sport. People are just not aware.
One person posted they went to meet that had a large number of heats and they wanted to leave. Again, I would question their love of the sport. Many of those athletes were competing to attain a personal best and trying harder than some of the elites at a similar meet.
We need good marketing, scored meets would be great, announcers that help novice fans understand and people there to witness performances.
Track and field has a different kind of excitement and one i like. Go to a youth meet and watch the parents, coaches, teammates cheering for the athletes. Same thing at high school and college meets. There is excitement at all levels.
We dont get the type of fans that go to basketball and football games. However when i watch on tv it seems even those major sports are losing live fans.
Why do we need to fit into the template of other sports? We have great athletes.
Why cant we be proud of the sport we offer. It is a sport that teaches you to push your limits. There are winners and losers - we keep place of finish.
I have no idea how threatened the sport is because we dont have a lot of scored meets. Most have a scored conference championship and that is fine. Non scored meets offer more flexability in athlete development. I would rather we train people to be their best rather than compromise that because someone who doesnt even care about the sport wants a team score on a given weekend.
I am afraid the neglected part of the blog post is one of the obstacles. Our sport is filled with bad coaches more interested in job security than results. They are enabled by ADs who only care about how little attention the program needs. If there was an objective standard for success in our sport (what I believe coach Wise is claiming is necessary for more fan interest), then there will be a whole lot of coaches out there exposed as frauds.
It has been interesting reading all of your comments. Thank you to everyone for some great thoughts and opinions on the great sport of college track and field!
What is clear by just reading the 25 or so comments here (and 20+ years in the sport) is that we will never agree with how to do anything (we all knew this already as well).
Someone mentioned how this has been talked about for the past 30 years - and you are correct. The question we must ask ourselves is are we satisfied with being the same as we were 30 years ago? Think of how many of the sports around us have changed through the years and are we ok with being how we are forever? For some people the answer is yes, but for the majority of fans and coaches of the collegiate level the answer is no.
I am a coach at a Division I school and this weekend's conference championship is the most important meet on our schedule to our administrators. They are excited when we have All-Americans and Olympic Trials qualifiers but winning a conference title is the most important thing.
At some schools the NCAA Championships are what administrators (and fans) value the most. Whether its the conference or the NCAA meet what is most important to those schools is the score and the placing, not how fast someone ran.
There are definitely exceptions to this for schools that don't have the means to field a full team or qualify athletes to NCAA's. Is this a reason to keep from seriously discussing change in how we do things?
Change can be a good thing Sometimes it can be the best thing. And if not doing something is because we're "not sure" then our sport at the collegiate level will always remain the same. Be prepared to be passed by sports we consider beneath us in the near future.
John Wise wrote:
It has been interesting reading all of your comments. Thank you to everyone for some great thoughts and opinions on the great sport of college track and field!
What is clear by just reading the 25 or so comments here (and 20+ years in the sport) is that we will never agree with how to do anything (we all knew this already as well).
Someone mentioned how this has been talked about for the past 30 years - and you are correct. The question we must ask ourselves is are we satisfied with being the same as we were 30 years ago? Think of how many of the sports around us have changed through the years and are we ok with being how we are forever? For some people the answer is yes, but for the majority of fans and coaches of the collegiate level the answer is no.
I am a coach at a Division I school and this weekend's conference championship is the most important meet on our schedule to our administrators. They are excited when we have All-Americans and Olympic Trials qualifiers but winning a conference title is the most important thing.
At some schools the NCAA Championships are what administrators (and fans) value the most. Whether its the conference or the NCAA meet what is most important to those schools is the score and the placing, not how fast someone ran.
There are definitely exceptions to this for schools that don't have the means to field a full team or qualify athletes to NCAA's. Is this a reason to keep from seriously discussing change in how we do things?
Change can be a good thing Sometimes it can be the best thing. And if not doing something is because we're "not sure" then our sport at the collegiate level will always remain the same. Be prepared to be passed by sports we consider beneath us in the near future.
Would your training change if there was a schedule change as you suggest? Do you feel that a change that values the "regular season" meets more than a single qualifying race would be a detriment to those all americans and qualifiers to are trying to peak for the end of the season?
Where would you cut off potential to be a late-season performer, as opposed to training athletes to perform for the now important early season races?
Being a sprint coach it wouldn't affect us at all. We want to run fast from the first meet on (as do most sprint coaches). In fact in my proposal we would eliminate any meets in December so we would actually be starting later than usual. This "non-effect" would be the same for virtually all events except the distance runners. Although I've talked to a lot of distance coaches and many (not all) don't think it's a major change either. You wouldn't HAVE to run all your distance kids every week, it depends on how good your team is. You would need to at least cover the events with one decent athlete in each event, however, which only seems fair.
I wrote that blog in 30 minutes on the way home from a track meet so I'm open to amendments!
Conferences should retain the right to customize meetings between member schools. But remember situations like ECAC and Hawaii. You cant just fire away changes and alter the whole system. There are winners and losers to every administrave wide decision put forth.
John Wise wrote:
So I am the guy who wrote the blog and am glad it is being discussed here.
I think it's a win-win for just about everyone. Here's the thing for the smaller schools that don't have all the events or scholarships ... All it would change would limit how many people they can get to the NCAA meet. If they had a great distance runner it would still allow that kid to go to NCAA's.
The schools that would be affected the most would be a distance powerhouse that has plenty of money and resources but simply chooses not to have a complete team. With a little bit of effort (recruit one LJ/TJ, one SP/DT, etc) they would be able to field a somewhat complete team and have the required RPI rankings to get plenty of people to nationals.
What it would then do is make the scored meets meaningful and the score would actually matter. You can still run at Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington, etc. to meet any post-season times you need. For outdoors I would put the 10k qualifying (as well as multi's) on a non-team scored meet weekend. So everyone can still run the 10k at Stanford or Mt Sac and also qualify to NCAA's.
You are correct that we aren't like football and basketball. This is a problem all of us in the world of track understand - unfortunately the people who decide if we are going to be relevant are NOT track people and we need to makes sure we are thinking of how to get those people watching.
I'm pretty sure Nick Saban is not in favor of a college football playoff system and guess what? He doesn't get to decide about it either. What I am proposing is something that track coaches and fans will generally like and be able to work with BEFORE the NCAA comes in and does something we all don't want.
Hi coach!! See ya at practice
Seeing this thread on the message board makes it look like it was posted by Scooby Doo
The Kansas University/College indoor track and field scene, is really impressive. Between meets at WSU, KSU, or KU, there is intense team duals, and great quality performances.
Very smart coaches and great teams.
Twinn wrote:
Would your training change if there was a schedule change as you suggest? Do you feel that a change that values the "regular season" meets more than a single qualifying race would be a detriment to those all americans and qualifiers to are trying to peak for the end of the season?
Where would you cut off potential to be a late-season performer, as opposed to training athletes to perform for the now important early season races?
I think there is an answer in here somewhere.
As a start, no T&F meet should last more than 3 hours (ala Prefontaine Classic - I always leave that meet wanting more) preferably 2 hours. So these dual/tri/quad meets could rotate events so that the athletes, especially the distance runners, aren't run ragged. That way the outcome is never certain and you could score it on an event day and cumulative basis.
I like the regional flavor an earlier poster mentioned using Kansas as an example. Split the conference affiliations up into a North/South like football and race more frequently against them.
Have a "Directors' Cup" amongst conference competitors so that T&F contributes to the greater good.
From a training perspective, 5k guys could drop down to the mile and half milers could become 400 guys when speed work was called for and sprinters would move up in distance for their strength days. Even better make the field event participants run a race for points in a 400 meters and get the 100 meter guys run a half mile. This concept would have to fit nicely into their training blocks.
The goal would be to allow the athletes exposure rather then just sequestered away in training and only stick their heads up during championship season.
The danger here is that the distance events would become jog fests as they same themselves for the real racing so maybe incorporate unique distances and relay events rather than a 5k/10k.
This format, while reminiscent of a "silly season", could actually build interest for the real racing season.
Allow betting - not sanctioned stuff but maybe like a Class II type event to win prizes.
All this would take a lot of coordination amongst ADs and Coaches which leads me to believe that nothing will change but it's fun to think about.
I went to a small university (around 3000 students) with a distance focused team. I was a sprinter. We had 1 coach and 1 grad assistant for the entire program, men and women. Occasionally a good field event athlete would show up, such as a javelin thrower who won conference as a true freshman. We did not have enough coaches to cover the different events at practice. If 1 was timing distance runners and 1 was with a field event athlete, there were no coaches available for the sprints and other field events. Trust me, it is frustrating to be at practice and have no coach available to watch or time you. Pole vault would often require the attention of both coaches. I would rather our program limit the events we participate in if that is what is necessary to give adequate coaching attention to all the athletes.
Eliminate indoor and start outdoor season in February like baseball. Have indoor meets but no conference or natiknals. Have duals in Feb/March and open in April. Conference, regional and national in May:June
There was a thread discussing these issues last week and I posted the following. Coach Wise is correct: if the coaches don't change the system fast it WILL be changed for us by administrators and anonymous NCAA types.......
The divide among coaches when it comes to team-scored track meets is often between either distance coaches and sprint/field coaches OR small schools and Power5 schools.
Distance coaches will point to lost training time and over-racing as reasons not to have these weekly scored meets. Sprint/field coaches often counter that argument by saying the fans/AD's want to see people racing for place with points on the line regardless of the performances.
Most Power5 schools now want team championships, while smaller programs do not because it will squeeze their athletes out of the NCAA's.
My solution....
1) Create 2 "divisions" just like football. Your 10 FBS conferences and your 20+ FCS/non-football conferences.
For the "FBS" schools.......
2) Remove long distances from the current indoor/outdoor season and move towards scored formats with events of 1mile and below, plus field events. The long distance runners compete in fall XC and have a separate spring season consisting of distance carnivals (steeple through 10k), road races, and/or XC races. I bet most AD's would rather have a road racing team than a triathlon team (current "emerging sport" that costs $$$).
3) XC/LDR receives its own scholarships (5-6 scholarships is currently being debated by USTFCCCA). Track/Field receives its own scholarships In an ideal world, track and field would go from 12/18 to 16/24 and all scholarships would become head count (ie, full ride only).
4) Track and field imposes a roster limit. Somewhere around 35 to 40. This will help create parity among programs, particularly if head count scholarships are used.
5) Men's and women's programs, coaching staffs and competitions are separated.
6) Eliminate some events: Hammer, Triple jump, Javelin, 400H all up for consideration . Maybe add another relay (4x8?, SMR? DMR?)
7) Each school participates in 4 intra-conference quad meets throughout the season. 2 athletes per team per event. 8 athletes per event so no prelims, straight finals in all events. These are meets scheduled by and through the conference to essentially create round-robin standings. For example, on March 15, April 1, April 15 and April 30 the Pac12 will have 3 quad meets per day. Results yield top 8 teams to go on to conference championship where there will be 16 athletes per event, allowing for prelims and finals. Certain invitationals and meets like Penn/Drake can be protected weekends if conferences choose to do that.
8) NCAA selection could be by either by comittee or qualifying through the conference championships. Perhaps top 2 teams from Power5 conferences and top 1 team from Group of 5 qualify, plus 1 at-large. 16 teams compete in four seeded quads, with winners going on to finals.
With this scenario (single gender meets, events 1mi and shorter, quad meet scoring), you could run a meet in 90min with scored results and constant action. Distance coaches/athletes are happy because they have their team scored sport in the fall and individual sport in the spring. Sprint/field atletes/coaches are happy because they don't have to worry about distance. The only folks caught in the middle are the milers b/c some of them will want to run XC but can't.
I have read some college coach's promotion of himself and program and you think they won 9 national championships by the time you are done reading it!
The fact is they are a second division team. Perhaps it fools some people?
More solutions:
Run XC simultaneously to indoor track. Eliminate distance runners having to be in-season for 10 months. That way each event area gets 2 seasons. If you are on an XC scholarship you run XC/outdoor. If you are on a track scholarship you run indoor/outdoor.
Eliminate 200m from indoor like iaaf. For same reasons they did, and greatly shorten indoor meets with that change alone.