Abolish the Regionals and use the descending order list. It worked just fine for all of the good athletes before. Our athletes always go to Regionals but qualification is necessary for Regionals, also. It's simple: if you're good, you're good! That's the ticket to NCAA. Why burn out these athletes before the main event?!
It is simple. If you're good, you're good, and you'll be able to get to nationals. And, guess what, if you're the best you will win once you get there.
Suck it up and compete or stay home.
sameolstuff wrote:
actually being in the top 64 does mean something as there are over 300 DI teams that play basketball. Tell the coaches who get a nice bonus for making the NCAA tournament that it means nothing!!!! must mean something to somebody.
Your attitude towards protecting the top 10% of athletes is dumb. Who gives a rat azzz about the top 10% if they are that good then they will get through.
Can you give some examples of athletes who did not make it through To NCAA's who would have been a National Champion because of the Regional system?
There are several examples.
But I have even a bigger point to make.
The point is that there are many "mid-major" type D-1 schools that have NO BUSINESS being in D-1 !!!
They are essentially D-2 schools that are only in D-1 because of their BASKETBALL PROGRAM and the MONEY that comes from appearing in "March Madness" every year.
Moreover, it is THESE schools which get to show up with the SAME WEIGHT of the vote when it comes to the NCAA committee that has presented this new "Super Regional" format. These small schools get the same weight of vote that a Oregon or Stanford or LSU or Texas or Arkansas gets.
And why is that???
Because of BASKETBALL.
Plain and simple.
It's politics people.
And it has NOTHING to do with track and field.
It's about BASKETBALL and MONEY!!!
How can Super regionals increase most of the fields if they are only allowing 48 in each event when 100 used get to go under the other regional format?
throwing this out there.
Let's use a descending order list of the top 8 in events like like the 100, 200, 400, 110h etc, then we can eliminate all qualifying heats whether they be regionals or at NCAAs themselves.
Okay, how about something different? We have the two site, first-round qualifying whether we like it or not. How about some intelligent idea's about how to make it better. I'll start. Why don't we just take 32 in each event in each site (for a total of 64 nationally) in each event. That would allow good depth, provide some good access for the non-BCS programs, and still keep within what the NCAA would like to do. Then we can run one race in the 10,000 and let the chips fall where they may. Also, from what I have heard they will not run a fast-slow section in the 10K if they do allow 48, but go to two equally seeded sections and take maybe the first 3-4 out of each race and the next fastest 4-6. Will prevent an obvious problem in a fast-slow scenario.
Other idea's?
Welcome to America!!!!Everybodies vote counts here. Why dont you take your communist thoughts and theories back where you belong.
It is not important what time it takes to get to the East or West Regional. It is important how competitive it is once you get there. It is more important to look at the top 20 or so in each region. Who the hell cares about 48? That is not significant. The West year in and out will be much tougher to qualify out of in events 800m or definitely 1500m and up. The Sprints will be tougher in the east - specifically coming from the southeast and the SEC.
This is exactly the problem.
You have to take 48 or so in each event because the competition is so good.
Let's pretend for a moment that not every male distance runner gets to, say, time trial a 13:43 at a big meet. But someone capable of that might win their conference in a big way running 13:57 and end up 40th on the list in their region. This hypothetical person certainly is a threat to make nationals and be All-American.
Cutting the field down to 32 per half of the country would leave out lots of these people in many events.
I personally think the ideal system would be around 6 different regionals, for both track and cross country. You want enough people going per region that a stacked region doesn't get screwed, but few enough regions that there are no weak ones.
Have they announced the new regional alignment yet? Obviously Texas is in the west since they are hosting. What states are in the east and west regions?
DI Interest wrote:
I personally think the ideal system would be around 6 different regionals, for both track and cross country. You want enough people going per region that a stacked region doesn't get screwed, but few enough regions that there are no weak ones.
That concept was proposed many years ago, but was rejected by major d1 schools outright.
how come we don't have regionals indoor?
how come d 2, d3 naia and d 1 indoors all have descending order lists and there is no revolt?
East: Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia and West Virginia
All remaining states are in the West
.............................. wrote:
how come we don't have regionals indoor?
how come d 2, d3 naia and d 1 indoors all have descending order lists and there is no revolt?
How come we don't have super regionals in XC? It would be a perfect scenario.
We have nine regions right now. Run a regional race first weekend in October. Take top 12 teams from each region - gives you a field of 108 teams, also throw in top 12 individuals. Have 4 super regional races of 32 teams (seed the top 8 according to place in region and leave everybody else in their own region) and let the top 8 teams from each super regional progress to nationals.
The teams that don't make super regionals focus on their conference championship and could formulate a secondary championship in their region if they wanted another race.
How many relay teams go to regionals?
To the coaches complaining about the regional format and saying how unfair it is to the star athlete out there. How many of you still took your "second tier" athletes to regionals. If regionals is so bad and they are letting so many small schools send their undeserving athletes to regionals then why are you also sending your undeserving athletes to regionals.
Now I know under the new system they are going to take 48 no matter what, but under the old system there was no requirement saying you had to take everyone that hit the qualifying time. You could have made the regional less congested. So please dont complain about the small school sending all these lower tier athletes when you are doing the exact same thing.