What I don't understand is whether someone from each school in a meet has to participate in each event. I think of a school that has a distance emphasis. If they don't have a javelin thrower and the meet has the javelin, does that mean they need to enter a distance runner or some other athlete to chuck the javelin 20m to maintain compliance?
Yes.This rule will push teams to have to become more balanced. Until they possibly increase scholarships and give only xc scholarships on top of track. Then they could unbalance it again.This rule will be very bad for teams like Furman, Iona, Providence
ShackShock wrote:
What I don't understand is whether someone from each school in a meet has to participate in each event. I think of a school that has a distance emphasis. If they don't have a javelin thrower and the meet has the javelin, does that mean they need to enter a distance runner or some other athlete to chuck the javelin 20m to maintain compliance?
The article is poorly written.
The rule is that an outdoor meet must have 9 running events and 6 field events, indoors it is 7 running and 4 field events. AND that there must be athletes from 2 teams in in each of those events.
It doesn't mean the meet has to be scored, it doesn't mean a team must have an athlete in every event, it doesn't mean that you can't send your distance runners to Stanford and your sprinters to Texas Relays.
The article mentions scoring and splitting up teams, but this rule does not address either of those concerns. The committee would like to see more scored meets, and the committee would like to have full teams competing together, but this rule doesn't accomplish any of those things.
So as long as the meet has the correct number and break down of events and that each event has athletes from any 2 different teams in it, then the meet is fine
It used to be you had to have 10 events in a meet. So now you need more.
So much for wanting shorter meets.
And yes, you can have 2 distance runners from different teams both run through the long jump pit and foul and the event counts, so the rule is really just a "paper tiger." It accomplishes nothing, and certainly doesn't accomplish what is stated is the preference of the "committee."
If you want real change you will have to mandate a certain number of dual meets or dual scores as part of the sponsorship requirement.
If you want real change, you need scholarship reform so that you can't "specialize" and go "all distance" or "ignore distance."
I do like that you have to wear the same uniform. At the NCAA finals, there was a team with 2 guys in the 100m final. Both wearing totally different uniforms. Unless you were close enough to read the name on the front you would have NO IDEA they were on the same team. Imagine a basketball team wearing different uniforms. That rule is a GOOD rule and a no brainer. It shows why we need rules, because basic common sense is ignored without rules.
I don't think it was poorly written. I think the rules committee is trying to achieve a standardized track meet. This was how it was introduced. You are seeing the same meet in Washington that you are seeing in Florida."The minimum requirement for participation is two teams, with a person representing each team in each event."People will still be able to send distance athletes to Stanford and sprinters to Texas. As long as you also hit your 6 outdoor meets with one person competing in those 14 events.
.............................. wrote:
The article is poorly written.
The rule is that an outdoor meet must have 9 running events and 6 field events, indoors it is 7 running and 4 field events. AND that there must be athletes from 2 teams in in each of those events.
It doesn't mean the meet has to be scored, it doesn't mean a team must have an athlete in every event, it doesn't mean that you can't send your distance runners to Stanford and your sprinters to Texas Relays.
The article mentions scoring and splitting up teams, but this rule does not address either of those concerns. The committee would like to see more scored meets, and the committee would like to have full teams competing together, but this rule doesn't accomplish any of those things.
So as long as the meet has the correct number and break down of events and that each event has athletes from any 2 different teams in it, then the meet is fine
It used to be you had to have 10 events in a meet. So now you need more.
So much for wanting shorter meets.
And yes, you can have 2 distance runners from different teams both run through the long jump pit and foul and the event counts, so the rule is really just a "paper tiger." It accomplishes nothing, and certainly doesn't accomplish what is stated is the preference of the "committee."
If you want real change you will have to mandate a certain number of dual meets or dual scores as part of the sponsorship requirement.
If you want real change, you need scholarship reform so that you can't "specialize" and go "all distance" or "ignore distance."
I do like that you have to wear the same uniform. At the NCAA finals, there was a team with 2 guys in the 100m final. Both wearing totally different uniforms. Unless you were close enough to read the name on the front you would have NO IDEA they were on the same team. Imagine a basketball team wearing different uniforms. That rule is a GOOD rule and a no brainer. It shows why we need rules, because basic common sense is ignored without rules.
The very line you quoted is the one that doesn't make any sense, and is what makes it poorly written.
"The minimum requirement for participation is two teams, with a person representing each team in each event."
The logical conclusion is, if you think of it in terms of a large meet with 100 teams, it means that there must be at least 100 participants in every single event to make it valid, because every team must be represented.
I'm sure that's not what they're after. In this case, they should have specifically stated that an event is not valid if multiple teams are not represented in it. Since, that appears to be what they're after.
Score meets? That's it? That will make it fun? That's the problem with our sport. People think a simple change like that fixes everything. I've been to many meets some had scoring, some didn't; some were fun, some were very boring. In fact, at most scoring meets, 90 percent of the teams are completely uninvolved. How does that make the SPORT fun?
My point is that simply adding a score to meets doesn't make it fun. I'm not saying it wouldn't add to certain meets, but is not the answer.
If an administration decided to not have javelin or pole vault for liability/insurance reasons does that program not gain sport sponsorship, or remain compliant, because one of those events need to be competed in?
There is simply no way that every team must have an athlete in every event. That is NOT what the rule says.
Also you have to have 6 field events, so LJ, TJ, HJ, SP, DT, HT there are 6 events without the polevault or javelin.
"Relay participation"
"Another rules change in the sport makes any eligible athlete who is a member of a university’s team eligible to participate as a member of a relay team at any time during all competitions.
Rules committee members said this reflects what is currently occurring at NCAA indoor and outdoor track and field competitions throughout the year, including conference championships. A university is the entrant for a relay event; therefore, the school should be able to run any combination of eligible student-athletes on its relay team in any round at any time during all competitions."
. . . . . .
So is the old rule, requiring a school relay team to include at least two of the four runners who ran the qualifying time to run at the meet, now eliminated?
.............................. wrote:
I do like that you have to wear the same uniform. At the NCAA finals, there was a team with 2 guys in the 100m final. Both wearing totally different uniforms. Unless you were close enough to read the name on the front you would have NO IDEA they were on the same team. Imagine a basketball team wearing different uniforms. .
You don't play defense in the 100m. Why don't they just make EVERY runner wear a meet issued uni?
I can't agree more. There has to be a point to a race besides, "Hey guys I know each of you is in a separate 1500m heat, but let's run 'fast' to run fast." I get once or twice going to an invite for a time qualifier, but what's the point of entering races to "tempo" and "time trial".
Justthefacts wrote:
Jersey Shore wrote:Track isn't football or basketball and it never will be. Why do we continually talk about creating football-like competition? Most college coaches care about 2 things: conference meets and NCAA qualifying. How many college coaches spend time thinking about our sport? How many college coaches truly concern themselves with the health of our sport? Instead, a few coaches and conferences get together and make blanket rules that don't make much sense for the sport as a whole. You want a better sport? Make the meets more fun.
Make it fun? Score meets.
Yes. Meets need to be scored and there needs to be more head to head competiton in track. Teams are so scared (especially in D1) to put their whole team on the line at a meet that isn't the conference championships. Probably so they can doctor up a nice press release about how GREAT their team did this weekend at 5 different meets and how many personal bests they had. OH JOY! I'm a distance runner myself but damn it coaches. Putting all your schools resources into one event area is such a huge disrespect for this sport. I'm talking to YOU distance-only coaches.
Jersey Shore wrote:
Score meets? That's it? That will make it fun? That's the problem with our sport. People think a simple change like that fixes everything. I've been to many meets some had scoring, some didn't; some were fun, some were very boring. In fact, at most scoring meets, 90 percent of the teams are completely uninvolved. How does that make the SPORT fun?
My point is that simply adding a score to meets doesn't make it fun. I'm not saying it wouldn't add to certain meets, but is not the answer.
Have you been to a good high school dual meet lately? Kids like to compete and win meets. Our sport has been victimized by coaches who focus on specializing and trying to bring one or two athletes to nationals. I am not saying just scoring will solve the problems of track and field, as there are so many for the sport it will always be a step-child in any athletic department.
Changes can happen to make things better, but they take so long because coaches and committees look what is best for them and their program and not what is best for the sport.
My comment was a quick retort, not a solution to the woes of our sport.
Jersey Shore wrote:
Score meets? That's it? That will make it fun? That's the problem with our sport. People think a simple change like that fixes everything. I've been to many meets some had scoring, some didn't; some were fun, some were very boring. In fact, at most scoring meets, 90 percent of the teams are completely uninvolved. How does that make the SPORT fun?
My point is that simply adding a score to meets doesn't make it fun. I'm not saying it wouldn't add to certain meets, but is not the answer.
If you build a competitive team and put a score on the scoreboard with live results AND the coach cares about winning (aka conference standings with your ass on the line) then and only then will things turn around.
Conference dual/tri meets will save the sport in NCAA. We've gone too long chasing times no one understands or cares about. You think the Athletic Director knows or cares what a good javelin throw is? A good triple jump?
By my understand Penn and Drake relays would not be considered possible counters to basically any team? And would conference meets be exempt? Looks like many conference champions wouldn't qualfiy for a counter.
Bowie's Starman wrote:
By my understand Penn and Drake relays would not be considered possible counters to basically any team? And would conference meets be exempt? Looks like many conference champions wouldn't qualfiy for a counter.
No, this is incorrect.
Why would conference meets be exempt? Multi-day meets are considered as one competition, so, if the rule is 12/14 (whatever it is for your division) and you have 7 on one day and 7 on another, it counts as one.
Same thing with Penn/Drake/Texas/Mt Sac/etc.
As a pole vault person, I have concerns about this rule.
Lots of college do not offer pole vault. While I wish that every college had great facilities, a pole vault coach, great selection of pole vaulting poles, scholarships for pole vaulters, etc... I would much rather a school NOT offer pole vault, than half ass it and offer the event in an unsafe manner.
I fear this rule will pressure more schools to have a token pole vaulter or two, who may not have adequate coaching and poles to compete safely.
In referencing relays and conferences I don't think it would be a counter because teams in both instances could/would not have athletes in 9 different events/6 field thus not a counter.
Bowie's Starman wrote:
In referencing relays and conferences I don't think it would be a counter because teams in both instances could/would not have athletes in 9 different events/6 field thus not a counter.
That's not how the rule is meant to be interpreted. The MEET has to have those events, not the team.
Penn and Drake all have enough qualifying events, and most teams bring enough athletes.
For instance, Penn last year had:
100, 1500/Mile, 5k, 10k, Steeple, 110/100H, 400H, 4x1, 4x4 from the traditional schedule (existing, if you will), and also the entire field catalog.
The NCAA isn't telling teams they have to compete in 15 events, it's telling meet hosts what constitutes a legal meet.
I agree that the press release by the spokesperson is poorly written. It must be, because we on here cannot agree as to what the changes actually mean!
I wish that the NCAA had provided a link to the actual wording of the rules involved, but maybe they haven't been written up yet. We may have to wait several more months to find out what is in the rulebook, and even then the meaning may be ambiguous.
All that said, I am very much in favor of scored meets for colleges and universities. The sending of selected athletes to certain places to chase marks has helped to accelerate the decline of interest in collegiate T&F.
When you go to a true dual meet, or one with up to about 4 teams that is scored, you not only see and hear a huge amount of cheering by athletes and fans, but you also frequently witness good performances! A competitor knowing that their teammates are counting on them for a contribution to the team score pushes them to good performances. So sending the athletes to special invitationals may not even always be the best strategy for getting good marks.