his name is cragg by the way.
his name is cragg by the way.
definitely. how often does it get stressed that championship races are TACTICAL ones, meaning, being able to run faster does not necessarily guarantee a win? winning at regionals, not a fast time, is more important.
the new system just f***s 10kers...well the ones that are going to be in the 1st heat anyway....the second heat will have a huge advantage! or are they just gunna run 50 guys in one straight final in the 10k? either way its retarded! haha good luck 10k guys!
It's not a good idea to force collegian 10k specialists to run that many of them in one season. Exempt the 10k from extra qualifying. You run a fast time at Stanford, then you deserve to go to nationals. Other events, this is less of a problem.
What is the dividing line for the two regions? Also does anyone know how many relays will get to go to regionals? Where can we find more information on this new format?
Why should the 10,000 be exempt? Running a fast time at Stanford has absolutely no relevance to what happens in the middle of June other than denying great racers a chance of getting into the NCAA's, and making sure that if a school doesn't have the funds to fly to Stanford, and enough BS to get into a fast race at Stanford, that they will sit home. I am confident that our 10K athletes will rise to the occasion.
This also makes it EASIER for the 10k runners. They no longer have to worry about being ready in late March, or late April, and instead can focus on preparing to run well at conference and then regionals. All they have to do is run a fairly easy time during March or April to qualifying for the regionals, then train or race at other distances. I see this as a huge benefit for the longer distance athletes. I know that I was always worried about getting my athlete ready to race at Stanford, and then worrying about finding enough funds to get the athlete out there. This will make it much more comfortable for me.
I agree that the 10k runners should have to race at regionals, but this system is not the best answer for them.
If you are not in the top 24 in your half of the country, you're going into the slow heat. That means you're probably going to have to hel push the pace and time-trial to have a chance to go to nats.
Depending on how they do the qualifying....
I would assume that the top seeds would run in the second heat, which would give them an advantage of knowing what times were recorded in the first heat.
I would think that the top runners will not have to push really hard to finish in the top 12 in their region. Let's say a guy who runs 28:40's or a woman who runs 33:30's will probably be able to finish in the top 12 in their region by running 29:20 or 34:10. The ones who will be more impacted, of course, will be those who can "only" run 29:10 and 34:20. They will pretty much have to go flat out to qualify for nationals, but, then again, they are the last ones to squeak in to the meet, so making the meet is in and of itself their primary goal.
I think the meet will be very exciting and a good developmental step for runners learning how to compete, not just run time trials.
By the way, it was announced that the two sites will be Austin, Texas and Greensboro, North Carolina.
Do you guys have any idea how hard it would be to have to race three hard 10ks in the space of 3-4 weeks (Confrence, Regionals and NCAA's)? And that's not even taking into acount the possibility of trying to double in the 5k. There is a reason that even professionals like Bekele only race one or two 10ks in an entire season.
Dingler:
Ok tired of hearing distance guys bitch about having to run races..first take Bekele out of the equation, most of you are not that calbre. Second you will not have to race 3 hard 10ks. Conference 10ks are for the most part never really that fast because of athtletes doubling. Regionals and NCAA's are usually the same, they will go out very tactical and maybe...just maybe the pace will pick up for the second half of the race.
Biggest thing is quit comparing what you do at the NCAA level to that of the international level...you all aint there, and as I said previously we haven't done crap on the international level, maybe they should race more. We are probably the best country at training, but suck at racing, so quit all the training and start racing more.
I'll just remind everyone a couple years ago Arman Dixon from Sacred Heart won the East Regional 400m. He ended up with some hamstring problems and didn't fare as well at nationals, but that was Arman's first race against anyone of that calibur. Sacred Heart doesn't have the budget to send anyone out of the Northeast and he never saw comp like that until regionals.
All you descending order list people tell me that he didn't deserve to go to nationals [He won the best sprinting regional!]. His best 400m times that year were by winning races by over a second every weekend. If SHU had the money they would love to send him down south and race some good competition, but that wasn't in the books. They relied on a fair national qualfying system, based on racing on the day, to get their guy to nationals.
People keep citing that the point of nationals is to crown a single winner, well what happens if that single winner is from a school who can't afford to travel and relies on a fair qualifying system to get to nationals? Just because it's not common doesn't mean that it's not a possibly the NCAA has an obligation to provide.
Yes, some small school runners rely on regionals to try and squeak into nationals 'artificially' but some of them liegitmately belong there and use regionals as their only shot, they don't have the Stanford 'At-large Regional' to rely on in March.
Since Mem Day in Mon May 31, I wish the NCAA scheduled the regionals either Fri-Sat-Sun May 28-30 or Sat-Sun-Mon May 29-31. Instead the NCAA has scheduled it for Thu-Fri-Sat May 27-29. Many fans can't take off work on a weekday, three times in a 30 day period to attend the conference, regional, and final champs. We want to support NCAA T&F, but the NCAA has to schedule meets better to accomodate us fans.
You can thank BYU for that. No way will the NCAA schedule it on Sunday.
Dingler:
Why is this much different than cross country. Athletes will run a hard 8k or 10K, come back 13-14 days later to run a hard 10K, and then come back 8 days later to run a hard 10K. The courses could be muddy, hilly, and terrible weather. You know what? Our athletes do great, and no coaches complain about this system. The reason you all are whining is because its different. I am sure that our athletes will do a good job of adapting to this newer system.
If it's just BYU then they can adapt. The Mormons stopped polygamy, stopped excluding minorities, plus they don't wear magic undergarments while competing. The thing all schools have to think about is whether having fans in the stands is important or not. USC and UCLA don't care about fans, their only goal is winning medals at the IAAF Worlds and Olympics. Uni Ore is happy with fans that don't know anything about our sport. The stands are 99% wrinkled old 1960's hippies, meth addicts, and home biker riders.
Anyone realize how lopsided these regions are for the distance events?? Terrible system
The we don't have the money argument doesn't hold water. If your program has a kid who has a legitimate shot to make NCAA's, then spend the extra $500 to get him a plane ticket and hotel room for a night to go to a meet. Every program can afford that. Go ask you AD for the money. And if you are still moaning about how you don't have money then do some fundraising. Sell some candy bars or brownies. Have a god damn car wash if you need to. Take one less kid to your conference meet (he/she wasn't going to score anyway).
I looked at the final USTFCCCA rankings for 2009 (before ncaas I think) for all the events based on the new regional alignment. I took the top 24 performances (16 in the relays) and wrote down how many were from which region. (13-11E means 13 came from east and 11 from west)
Throws appear relatively equal, it looks to be tougher to make it out of the east in the sprints, and the west looks tougher in the mid distance, distance and jumps.
100 13-11E
200 13-11E
400 14-10E
800 14-10W
1500 15-9W
5000 16-8W
10000 17-7W
110h 14-10W
400h 12-12T
3000st 14-10W
4x1 9-7E
4x4 9-7E
HJ 12-12T
PV 13-11W
LJ 16-8W
TJ 15-9W
SP 15-9E
Disc 13-11E
HT 14-10W
JT 13-11W
Dec 13-11W
I haven't looked in depth at many of the distance events, but in the women's 1500m the 48th best mark in what is now the East region was 4:25.57. The 48th best mark in what is now the West region was 4:26. Not that lopsided to get to the region (or whatever you want to call it).The other events I looked at were similar. Women's 100m was 11.66 (east) vs. 11.74 (west); women's 200m was 23.94 (east) vs. 24.01 (west).The east is definitely stronger and will probably require faster times to get to the Supa-meet, but that is any system where the country is divided into regions. There will always be inequities.The interesting event is the women's 400m Hurdles. Last year the West only had 37 girls post regional qualifying marks and that was 60.63. That will be an easier event to get to the meet in.Also, I believe that the times that it would have taken last year to get to the 48 people will be faster this year because you have to run, without knowing what it will take to get to the meet.Interesting stuff this is.
jekyllman wrote:
Anyone realize how lopsided these regions are for the distance events?? Terrible system