NCAA Disallows Edit: ALLOWS Galen Rupp's 3k Qualifier From Reebok Boston

At one of the UW meets, a college can bring a full team and have an event for everyone. Not true at a meet like the PVS.

Some programs may have the budget to do it, but I'm sure the NCAA doesn't want individual athletes flying around the country to specialty events. One weekend Syracuse had athletes at four different meets...while they were hosting a home meet. Doesn't that strike you as strange? To me that's not how college sports should work.

I think the problem with the "different sections" way of dividing up a meet is, once again, with field events. If you can make 10 different sections of the vault, all you would have to do would bring 10 guys into a facility and put each of them in their own "section." As long as you have 9 other vaulters in your area, you could have meets as often as you wanted. For that reason, FROM THE NCAA'S PERSPECTIVE different sections should, I think, be counted as one event for qualifying purposes.

To the guy who made the Alan Webb analogy: you're looking at it wrong. If an event is "collegiate/open" then clearly there are going to be guys who aren't NCAA-eligible. Those people don't concern the NCAA though when it comes to qualifying. Once again, imagine how the rule would play out in real life if the NCAA looked at it like you do. If you're organizing a meet and you came up one event short, all you have to do is bring in some random dude who's no longer NCAA-eligible and have him run one race; that would add in an event because it would be an "open" race. For this reason, at meets like Millrose/BIG/Stanford/etc, the collegiate/open race should only count as one event.

That said I think there does need to be some kind of stipulation for meets like BIG or PV Summit that are clearly reputable, yet do not meet the ten-event rule. Perhaps some kind of clause regarding number of athletes involved, or maybe something involving the officials? If there are NCAA or USATF-certified officials presiding over the competition, then maybe they could make it count that way.

If the NCAA determined the BIG meet had 9 events (with 2 sections of the mile), they had to disallow the mark.

Then Oregon appealed to Championships Cabinet and won. Oregon moved it through the process and the appropriate procedures and Rupp is in the meet.

If the BIG meet management cared so much about the athletes competing and they tried to get the Men's events to 10, why didn't they do the same for the Women. They knew exactly what the issue was going to be, but they only attempted to address it for the Men's side.

At the end of the day Rupp is in the meet. If someone wants to change the rule that states 10 events makes a college meet, then change the rule.

Jeepers, your logic doesn’t hold up either. Meet organizers could just as easily bring in some random Joe and have him run an “open” race at some odd ball indoor distance, say 500m. Your saying the collegiate & open 5K races should be counted as one event, does not solve the problem you pose. A meet director could easily add an event at some uncommon distance.

What half the posters fail to acknowledge is that the meet directors thought they did have the correct number of events. Perhaps they even checked this out in advance with some NCAA officially. None of us know that wasn’t done. Many posters simply assumed BIG meet directors didn\'t check out their schedule with the NCAA in advance.

And to all you Nike haters out there, you have no idea if Nike even knew about this problem before the successful appeal went through. Saying Nike was responsible, when you have no idea, just destroys your creditability on any other point you make. Save your time and don’t bother to post. You fail to convince anyone of anything except that you have a strong anti-Nike bias and will accuse them of anything without any evidence.

Nike employees have no standing before the NCAA and if NCAA officials were going to be this picky about some rule, then they certainly weren’t going to listen to Nike. Lananna did an early appeal – and he lost. I suspect Letsrun’s story on this got back to the NCAA and they quickly realized this was going to be a PR disaster. How could the NCAA not accepting two collegiate record performances by two of the fastest collegiate distance runners in the history of NCAA T&F. The times were set at the top indoor T&F meet in the US, which is one of only two US indoor meets listed as being official international meets by the IAAF.

It is clear this rule needs to be changed in some way to better match up with what it is intended to control. Let’s hope that is the one good thing to come from this.

Rojo,

What is the outcome of the other half of this BIG story with Kipyego? Please call the NCAA (or Sally's coach) and get an answer on this for us.

Or are we going to have to wait for T&FNews or Trackshark to do this? It's only one phone call! Wouldn't you be following up it Sally's appeal was known but Rupp's wasn't?

If Kipeygo's case is still under appeal with a decision yet to be rendered, just tell us that.

I hoped that nonsense T&F rules ended at the high school level, but unfortunately that’s not the case. On two occasions I had to carefully read several sections of the NCAA rule book to determine the details of a rule for an athlete. I’m a lawyer and I can tell you that there are quite a few sections of the NCAA rulebook are not at all clear on what the rule is. And one section clearly explains a rule in such a manner that what is being stated is clearly not the intended rule. You need to call the NCAA employee who addresses rule questions and he will often tell you something that, while it makes sense, is clearly not what the rulebook literally states.

Even without any rule changes, the NCAA rule book for T&F needs a major rewrite. There are sections where one has to read a paragraph several times to understand exactly what is being said. I even came across one paragraph that contradicted itself.

Let's just be glad that the NCAA doesn’t keep track of collegiate records and certify them. That would require another 100 pages of rules with lots of technicalities that are bound to cause unfair outcomes.

TrackandFieldnews.com does a pretty good job with college records and all-time lists. Perhaps the NCAA should contract out to T&Fnews the qualification process for its national championship meets.

Someone please call Brandon Ireton, Graduate Intern and Texas Tech Media Relations contact for T&F (806-742-2770) x271 and get an answer for us on Kipyego's appeal status.

I found his contact here:

http://texastech.cstv.com/media/text-media.html

But I'm just leaving the office and don't have time the call myself.

- - - - - - - - - -

If the BIG meet is good enough for Rupp it should be good enough for Kipyego, but don't be surprised if the NCAA shoots itself in the foot twice on this matter. The NCAA rule book is bound to have some rule dealing with foreign runners from Texas needing to meet special requirements (I think it's called the G. Bush proximity rule).

Rojo, where are you??

Calling an intern won't help. The Texas Tech AD has to invite NCAA T&F committee members to an all expenses paid trip to TT to perform some useless function like take splits for a meet, observe the officials, check for rolled shorts & jock straps, etc. I.E. offer to wine and dine them for free, a junket. That's what we've had to do for 100 years at our school. It's life in the fast lane.

HERE ARE THE PERTAINING NCAA RULES:

On page 10 of the 2009 DIVISION I MEN’S & WOMEN’S INDOOR TRACK AND FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS HANDBOOK it states:

"This handbook takes precedence over any other printed qualifying procedures, including the 2009 & 2010 NCAA Men’s and Women’s Cross Country/Track and Field Rules Book (Part III NCAA Qualifying). For the 2009 indoor championships, marks will not be acceptable if they are set in meets or events:

1. Where collegiate competition does not adhere to the NCAA Rules Book.

2. Where fewer than two four-year institutions with a minimum of 14 athletes per gender

per institution compete, or fewer than five four-year institutions participate;

3. Where fewer than 10 collegiate or open events per gender are contested

4…."

These rules go on to list 15 more items which don’t pertain to this matter.

HERE IS THE BOSTON INDOOR GAMES (BIG) SCHEDULE:

http://www.bostonindoorgames.com/events-results/

The men had 10 events – but only 9 if the “Men’s college mile” and the “Men’s Mile” as counted as one event. The women only had 8 events -- none were at the same distance where the NCAA might try to combine them.

So if I read the above NCAA rule carefully and literally as a lawyer would, then Rupp’s performance should not be a qualifier even if the college and men’s mile events were not counted as one event. This BIG meet simply did not meet the NCAA requirement of having 10 events for the men AND 10 for the women. Depending on how you count the men’s events, there could be 10 events for the men, but there clearly was only 8 events for the women. A careful reading of the NCAA rules book (don’t expect the NCAA officials to do this) clearly shows this meet did not meet did not meet NCAA requirements because fewer that 10 events per gender were contested.

Because the NCAA officials backed off and let Rupp’s time be a qualifier they have to do the same for Kipyego. Otherwise they are discriminating against Kipyego and asking for a gender discrimination lawsuit.

The meet is either a qualifying meet or not. That it. There is nothing in the NCAA rule book allows the meet to be a qualifier for the men but not for the women (or vice versa). Perhaps the NCAA intended a meet could qualify for the men if they had 10 events and not qualify for the women if they didn’t have 10 meets – BUT CLEARLY THIS NOT HOW THE RULE WAS WRITTEN (see above). THe BIG meet is not a qualifier meet because it did not meet the requirements of item #3 in the rulebook.

This just confirms what an earlier poster said about the need to rewrite much of the NCAA rule book. What the NCAA rule book might intend to say and what it actually says are often two different things.

Sally, if the NCAA refuses to honor your performance while accepting Rupp’s performance, I know a great NYC lawyer that would be eager to bring a discrimination lawsuit on your behalf against the NCAA. I’ll email your coach with his name once I learn the outcome of this appeal as it relates to you.

If you are a lawyer then you are going down the wrong path. Let me set the record straight.

The T&F Committee ruled that the BIG only had 10 events.

Oregon appealed the ruling based on the collegiate Mile and the Open Mile being two separate events.

The T&F Committee denied the appeal.

Oregon appealed (as is their right) to the NCAA Cabinet which is composed of administrators who don't know jack about track & field. The Cabinet sided with Oregon on the Collegiate Mile and Open Mile being two separate events, therefore the BIG had 10 events.

There is no similarity to the women. This is why we can't stand lawyers as they are always BS'ing about discrimination.

If the meet director who obviously could care less about the women had had the same events Sally would get in. But because they only had 8 events its a moot point.

You are an idiot. The NCAA rule CLEARLY states that a qualifying meet must offer 10 events for both genders. It did not. So whatever reason that Rupp was let in should apply to Kipyego as well.

If what you say is the NCAA's opinion, there WILL be a lawsuit.

Does rojo give a **** wrote:

If what you say is the NCAA's opinion, there WILL be a lawsuit.

Really? What if Kipyego was planning to run the 3k at Big 12's or if she doesn't intend to run the 3k at nationals? Is someone going to file a lawsuit that Texas Tech or Kipyego aren't interested in?

No you moron:

The NCAA ruled that the men DID have 10 events, therefore Rupps time counts.

That same case can not be made for the women. They did not, and can't use the same logic.

Dam we have some stupid people on here.

No, you are the moron. Did you even read what Lawsuit Time posted. The NCAA rulebook clearly states that for a meet to be a qualifying meet, it must have 10 events for BOTH the men and women. While it did have 10 events for the men, it did not have 10 events for the women. Therefore the BIG is not a qualifying meet and neither Rupps nor Kipyego's time should be a qualifier.

But if the appeals committee decided for some reason to allow Rupp's time then they need to honor Kipyego's time for the same reason.

You need to carefully read the NCAA rule. This rule does NOT say that a meet can be a qualifer for the men if they have 10 events and not for the women if they don't have 10 events. Rather the rule says for the meet to be a qualifier it must have 10 events for both the men and women. Can you understand that simple logic?????

Rather the rule says for the meet to be a qualifier it must have 10 events for both the men and women. Can you understand that simple logic?????

Yes, but we all know that's not true. Single-gender meets count as qualifiers, correct? This is just another example of the NCAA's rule book being ridiculously complicated, unclear, and full of contradictions.

I don't know if single gender meet count as qualifiers. Perhaps they are. But according to the rule the NCAA wrote on this, single gender meets should not count. That is clear. In this situation the NCAA's nose should be held to the grinder. They have a legal obligation to follow what their written rules state. If those rules do not state what is intended, then the NCAA has the obligation to correct its rules. Unfortunately thier appeals committee won't even take the time to read their own rules.

In matters like this, the appeals committee likely asks for a rules interpretation by asking their rules expert who I believe is still Mark Bockelson. Mark is a gruff character and will tell you he doesn't give a damn what the rules read, he knows what they are. So he likely told the appeal committee that Rupp's time could qualify if they felt this meet had 10 men's events, but they could not let Kipyego's time qualify because there were only 8 women's events.

Maybe that is what those who developed the rules wanted, but that is very clearly not what the rules state. If I were the Texas Tech AD, I'd fight for the NCAA to live by the rules they wrote down on paper, not the rules that some old timer feels the rules should be.

This likely won't go to court, but if it did, the NCAA would clearly lose on this. What is put in writing will always override what some one thinks the rules are. If the NCAA had any sense of fairness and any PR knowledge, they would vote to accept Kipyego's time as well. But they won't because they are bunch of old bureaucratic farts.

A 5 star hotel in Fayetteville? Have you been to Fayetteville?

Something strange may be going on here. Rojo removes any mention of this matter from the home page in less than 20 hours after putting it up. He also doesn't mention what the ruling was on Kipyego, and we are left to speculate Rupp got a waiver and Kipyeto didn't.

The NCAA rule on this matter also seems to indicate that Rupp got special treatment and Kipyego didn't. This is just going to fuel more dislike of Rupp and those assoicated with him.

NCAA Stupidity wrote:

I don't know if single gender meet count as qualifiers. Perhaps they are. But according to the rule the NCAA wrote on this, single gender meets should not count. That is clear.

single-gender meets definitely count. the big ten runs separate championships meets for men and women, and plenty of athletes qualify out of them. there are plenty of single-gender meets, all are legit.