DEAR VIN LANANNA: Here are the reasons to have regionals

.....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.

I understand your dilemma, but I'd like to say this. Maybe you should think about why you spend money on track in the first place.

Yes, it would be cheaper to not go to the regional meet. You know what would be even cheaper? To not go to a mid-season meet. You know what would be even cheaper? If you are so concerned about saving money, cut your whole damn track program!

I cannot sympathize with a coach who would rather save money by denying his/her athletes an opportunity to compete and earn their way to Nats. You would really prefer that none of your 12 athletes qualified, that they were all sitting at home watching NCAAs on TV? Or did all 12 of your athletes easily make it into the top 24 in the country? (If so, you're spending that same amount of money anyway to keep them for nats, so what's the big deal.)

C'mon coach, own up. How many of your athletes would not be in to nationals under next year's system (descending order list)? And would you tell those athletes to their faces that you're glad the system is changing, so you don't have to pay to keep them around next spring?

We All Know Better wrote:

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.

Last year, the four regional sites were Greensboro, Oklahoma, Lousiville, and Oregon. One of those qualifies as bad weather. None of them were in very distant parts of the country since it was split in four.

Finally, I CANNOT BELIEVE that people are still arguing that comparing times on a list is more fair than head-to-head competition. Really? REALLY? Honestly this kind of emphasis on times over places is ruining our sport. See my post on indoor nationals.

They are not arguing that comparing times on a list is more fair (although the more mendacious of them may), what they are arguing is that it suits their situation better.

The power schools' arguement is that they want to proceed to the NCAA Championships with as few challenges as possible. The regional round exposes their athletes to possible fatigue and injury. If they can avoid that - and they probably can get their way by simply complaining about it a lot - their situation improves.

Certain coaches fear competition. They succeed on the basis of limiting opposition.

unexpected Q wrote:

Finally, I CANNOT BELIEVE that people are still arguing that comparing times on a list is more fair than head-to-head competition. Really? REALLY? Honestly this kind of emphasis on times over places is ruining our sport. See my post on indoor nationals.

How do runners qualify for the Olympic trials? USATF nationals? How do you get elite seeding at a major marathon? How do you get your coach to put you on a relay team?

Our sport is all about times/distances etc. and always has been. In what other sport could one of the most famous events be an individual time trial (Bannister's four minute mile)? The emphasis on time isn't the problem. The problem is the idea that it is impossible to run fast unless you are at one of 3-4 elite meets. With the old system, you could choose-- if you wanted to fly across the country, you could, but if you wanted to stay home and run a qualifier at a dual meet, you could do that to.

Boy do you have it wrong, again I will say, from a coach that was at the meeting, 72% of the coaches wanted the old regionals to stay. That is about right, 28% of the "big" schools didn't, they wanted the easy route, like Vin.[quote]Cold Water wrote:

Lananna wasn't complaining so much as asking WHY? I haven't seen anyone yet post good reasons why these Regionals are being held. Most of the coaches voted to cancel the Regionals, but the NCAA didn't want to give up a cash cow so they scaled back to just two regionals this year. It still doesn't make sense.

NCAA Regionals are another example of why the collegaite system is not good for developing distance runners. It simply was not designed with distance runners in mind.

Ok, I don't know how this point did not get across yet, but REGIONALS DON'T MAKE ANYBODY A DIME.

You're using tactical prelims as evidence that folks burned out too early? For whatever reason, almost any time there's a slow prelim, even those who seemingly would be able to hang on to the pace drop off the back. You use folks falling off the back as evidence that the descending order list doesn't work. What would you say about results like this, which happened in fields where the majority of athletes qualified by place at regionals, and after another round of prelims at nationals?

2009 NCAA Steeple Final:

1 Kyle Perry 8:29.24

2 Hillary Bor 8:35.12

3 Stephen Lisgo 8:35.49

4 Jake Morse 8:38.25

5 Scott MacPherson 8:38.87

6 Josh Karanja 8:40.16

7 Cory Thorne 8:45.86

8 Kyle Heath 8:45.95

9 Chris Winter 8:46.06

10 Richard Nelson 8:50.08

11 Ricardo Estremera 8:51.50

12 Donald Cowart 8:54.93

13 Gilbert Limo 9:00.28

14 Ryan Gasper 9:26.64

2009 NCAA 5K Final:

1 Galen Rupp 14:04.12

2 David McNeill 14:05.79

3 Chris Derrick 14:07.34

4 Brandon Bethke 14:08.00

5 Elliott Heath 14:08.56

6 Hassan Mead 14:09.87

7 Tyson David 14:10.75

8 Shadrack Biwott 14:11.45

9 Ryan Vail 14:11.78

10 Michael Maag 14:14.67

11 Mark Steeds 14:20.23

12 Alfred Kipchumba 14:21.37

13 Ryan Sheridan 14:21.60

14 Jean-Pierre Weerts 14:22.98

15 Emmanuel Bor 14:23.13

16 Matt Leeder 14:23.19

KevinM wrote:

14 Ryan Gasper 9:26.64

Mother of god.

Conference Champs wrote:

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

Ding ding ding. We have a winner!

I suppose debating the current system has its place, but the coaches association has already been informed that it will change in 2011 due to their discontent with the current system. The association body was charged with coming up with ideas for a new system that met the NCAA criteria (ie, deference to top athletes, access to championships for all teams, and finances) and they have put forth their system to the NCAA for approval. This system would be a straight NCAA final (no regionals), filling 75% of the field off the descending order list (similar to indoors) with the remaining spots going to the fastest (seasons best) conference winners.

I looked at how the fields would have been decided this year in that system, and the descending order qualifiers would be 3:42, 8:48, 13:49 and 29:00. Of course, most of the major conference champions were included in those top qualifiers, so your conference champ qualifiers only had to run season bests of 3:46, 14:12 and 29:30.

The NCAA has also suggested a 2 weekend same-site option. This would basically be a regionals and nationals combination at the same site on two consecutive weekends. In this option, all 31 conference champions would be invited to compete, along with the top 17 off the descending order list. This system would be good for the worst conferences, but hurts athletes that would be ranked between 18-24 from major conferences since their conference champion would probably be higher. If that system were in place this year, guys like Mac Fleet, Brad Miller, Andrew Bumbalough would be left home while 4:00 1500 guys from bad conferences would get in.

There is no easy solution. The NCAA wants to address the problems many on this board have pointed out: that the big time programs have more access to time-trial type meets than the little guys. I believe they also want a broader representation than just a bunch of Pac-10 and Big-12 schools. Underdogs are part of the allure of sports, even if they don't win.

Don't know who you are but I know you know what you are talking about!!!!!!

A real DI coach wrote:

coldwater you are off the mark.

At the last coaches convention which matter over 70% of the coaches voted to KEEP regionals. Unfortunately, the power schools (Like Oregon) torpedoed the process and got our coaches association leaders to go behind the backs of the coaches. The NCAA has never paid for regionals, the schools have to pay for it themselves.

Head to head competition to advance is never a bad thing. The new system next year will do just what the indoor system does.....reward those schools with big budgets or connections to get into the right races.

there is no win in this situation unless money isn't involved, which will never happen. Maybe coaches or the NCAA should work on getting corporate sponsors to host these meets and pay for them, kind of like the BCS. I'm looking at you Nike, but then again if Nike did it then Oregon would never ever lose a National Championship so scratch that. But if we went back to the old system with say the Tostitos Midwest Regional, the Nike West Regional, etc, cost wouldn't be a problem and everyone could shut the hell up

I prefer the old D1 system: Best times during the season make it to NC's. If a coach wants their athlete to go to NC's, then they should set a race up with rabbits. Lots of guys can run a 4:20 - 4:30 mile to pace a 5K race.

I know that one of Vin's frustrations with regionals is that it provides an advantage to sprinter schools. Long distance races take more out of distance runners than sprints. Therefore, the more 10K's you run on shorter rest, the less effective you'll be at a 5K/10K double, esp against people only running the 5K. Running the 100/200 is standard practice and simply doesn't tax the body like the 5K/10K.

As for the guy who said we'd spend the same money to go to the national meet he is wrong. The NCAA pays for us to go to the national meet, not this "first round of nationals"

After reading this I know realize none of you are college coaches, were good college athletes, or have ever seen a college budget.

And for us it takes a lot more then 5 hours to make it to a major track meet. If we want to go to a good meet we have to fly. We don't all live on the west coast.

but seriously folks wrote:

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?

I have to raise the same question: for Nationals there is only one site, therefore maybe even farther distances that some teams would travel, giving those "home-team" athletes even a better advantage. Plus it still costs money, maybe only one trip to and fro, but also perhaps more nights in hotels. I guess the "bright" side for smaller teams is they probably have fewer athletes qualify for nationals anyways, and thus their budget would be reduced.

As an athlete, I really like the idea of having a qualifying meet for nationals. More athletes have a chance to compete with others whom they would rarely if ever have the chance to race against otherwise - especially if their school can't afford to go to races like Stanford. I understand it can be a drag on a team's budget, but if that is the main problem, we should focus on fixing that rather than just scrapping an entire competition. I'm not arguing that the current system is the best, but it does seem like a large amount of its criticism is monetary and not as much related to competition.

Just saw the new post, so I see why Nationals wouldn't be a burden on a team's budget. To clarify I was an athlete at a D1 school and I knew NCAA paid for nationals (at least XC because that's what I went to) but with all the money talk, I forgot that -rather important- point.

I still am in favor of a qualifying meet prior to Nationals. Either getting the NCAA to pay for it like they do Nationals, or getting them sponsored would really help, but if the monetary issue is solved or at least alleviated, we can focus on the competition aspect more.

...a real college coach wrote:

As for the guy who said we'd spend the same money to go to the national meet he is wrong. The NCAA pays for us to go to the national meet, not this "first round of nationals"

After reading this I know realize none of you are college coaches, were good college athletes, or have ever seen a college budget.

And for us it takes a lot more then 5 hours to make it to a major track meet. If we want to go to a good meet we have to fly. We don't all live on the west coast.

I hit all 3 standards. Midwest/East Coast meets off the top of my head:

NC State

Georgia Tech

Louisville

Sea Ray

Penn Relays

Jesse Owens

Hillsdale

I am sure I am missing some that could/would/should have fast 1500 meter races and down.

In a 5 - 10 hour drive you should be able to hit at least 1 of these meets of you live in that area, if not 2 or 3.

...a real college coach wrote:

As for the guy who said we'd spend the same money to go to the national meet he is wrong. The NCAA pays for us to go to the national meet, not this "first round of nationals"

Exactly. If this really is "nationals," the NCAA should pay for athletes to travel, just like they do for national competitions in every other sport. Of course it isn't, and this terrible compromise is exacerbating the very same problems it was supposed to fix.

Are athletes still chasing marks? Yes, because the regions use a descending order list.

Are small/low-budget schools still financially pinched? Yes, because they have to pay to travel to the "first round of nationals" and they still have to chase marks to get in.

Is there still the possibility for inequities between sites? Yes-- the #12 5k time in the West region is 13:48; in the East it's 13:57. The spread in the 10k from West to East is almost 30 seconds.

Is the meet spectator-friendly and popular with fans? No.

A lot of this thread is getting caught up in the descending order vs. competitive qualifying debate, which is a separate issue. The question is whether this particular system of competitive qualifying works, and it sure doesn't seem to be the case.

So, next year you need to be top 17 in order to get a spot.

That really sets up the ideal conditions/time trialers up well. It also will allow them to post a 10k in late March and a 5k in mid-April and a free pass to both events at the NCAAs, where half of them will tank in the second event.

Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown....