Do you really believe that the best runners in the nation should not run at the NCAA finals if they are sick the day of the regional race.. for example.. Why cant we do both... just like a qualifying heat does.. Winners at the regionals join the fast times for the NCAA finals.
hittheroad wrote:
Do you really believe that the best runners in the nation should not run at the NCAA finals if they are sick the day of the regional race.. for example.. Why cant we do both... just like a qualifying heat does.. Winners at the regionals join the fast times for the NCAA finals.
Part of being an athlete is taking care of your body. If you're sick well tough shit. It sucks but that's the way it works. If they NCAA wants to include a by to the Regional or even the National meet for past winners (and winners only) I'd be alright with that as those guys are showing up when it counts.
You would be ok with a past winner getting a bye but not the runner who has the fast time in the nation or sets an ncaa record?
hittheroad wrote:
You would be ok with a past winner getting a bye but not the runner who has the fast time in the nation or sets an ncaa record?
Correct.
Time trialing means you can run fast when time is all that matters. Winning an NCAA title would imply you can compete at that level, which hopefully go hand in hand, but it isn't always the case.
In the East 10k, out of the 12 qualifiers, 5 were ranked in the top 10 of the East. The other 7 qualifiers were ranked 18, 19, 20, 23, 32, 36, and 46.
In the West 10k, out of 12 qualifiers for nationals, 3 were ranked in the top 10 of the West. The other 9 were ranked 13, 14, 16, 19, 23, 30, 31, 34, and 38.
So much for the incontestable infallibility of the descending order list for picking best competitors.
Well those whiny girls from Oregon did pretty well today. They are obviously are good team so keep your damn mouths shit and compete. You got that Acosta. Ya ugly bum.
Since the original argument was about the Regionals Meet and not just about the 10K, let's look at the bigger picture. As the day progressed today, through th 800/1500, Javelin, Long Jump, etc. it became pretty obvious that most of the 12 spots were taken by those high on the ascending list. That and the fact that they only sold 1,092 tickets today (about half of who were in the stands), shows that no one is willing to pay a few bucks to watch this meet. It is over people--one year and OUT with the Regionals. Next year we can get back to sanity and quit worry worting about the College of the Sisters of the Poor.
From descending order lists found at:
http://www.tfrrs.org/view_list.html#22
Women's JT- 2, 3, 4, 8, 6, 9, 10, 1, 35, 21, 48, 7
12 Qualified to Finals, 3/12 were not seeded to make it to the National Meet.
Women's LJ- 7, 39, 1, 31, 13, 25, 2, 11, 31, 4, 48, 13
12 Qualified to Finals, 8/12 were not seeded to make it to the National Meet.
Women's SP- 1, 2, 11, 5, 4, 3, 7, 10, 24, 15, 6, 27
12 Qualified to Finals, 3/12 were not seeded to make it to the National Meet.
Women's HJ- 13, 16, 13, 7, 35, 2, 2, 35, 6, 13, 20, 5
12 Qualified to Finals, 7/12 were not seeded to make it to the National Meet.
Women's 10000m- 3, 23, 8, 1, 13, 2, 25, 24, 15, 4, 12, 7
12 Qualified to Finals, 5/12 were not seeded to make it to the National Meet.
Men's HT- 6, 4, 2, 1, 8, 9, 6, 10, 12, 11, 25, 13
12 Qualified to Finals, 2/12 were not seeded to make it to the National Meet.
Men's PV- 13, 1, 7, 1, 21, 9, 14, 39, 4, 21, 15, 7
12 Qualified to Finals, 6/12 were not seeded to make it to the National Meet.
Men's LJ- 1, 8, 4, 16, 11, 7, 3, 20, 18, 9, 2, 19
12 Qualified to Finals, 4/12 were not seeded to make it to the National Meet.
Men's 10000m- 1, 20, 23, 5, 10, 44, 38, 19, 2, 28, 7, 63
12 Qualified to Finals, 7/12 were not seeded to make it to the National Meet.
In those events that are now finished at the first round meet in Greensboro, NC (East Regional) there were 45 National qualifiers that were not in the descending order's top 12. 9 events were completed on Thursday. Meaning 108 qualifiers. 45 out of 108 is 41.66%. That means that 41% of the spots in the top 12 were taken by athletes that weren't seeded in the top 12. While, a majority of the spots were taken by those seeded in the top 12. I hardly think that 63 out of 108 is considered most of the spots.
Thank you for compiling those statistical facts.
Your stats show that Luke Puskedra was seeded 63rd (12th qualifier in men's 10K). How can this be?
Also error in two of the first four events that you show. How can there be two 13 seeds in one event?
The majority of events are yet to come, and I suspect that percentage will rise substantially as the meet progresses, especially if you fix the mistakes in your stats.
Also, it looks like:
1. Most of the high seeds (the real players) are advancing
and 2. The fans have very little interest in this meet with only about 500 sitting in the stands at A&M yesterday.
Men's Javelin East:
1st place was 2nd. seed
2nd place was 1st. seed
3rd. place was 19th. seed
4th. place was 18th. seed
5th. place was 4th. seed
6th. place was 12th. seed
7th. place was 13th. seed
8th. place was 8th. seed
9th. place was 17th. seed
10th. place was 6th. seed
11th. place was 47th. seed
12 th. place was 3rd. seed
7 athletes came from the top twelve descending order list.
5 athletes came seed positions of 13 and higher.
Let the games continue.
I like the top 3 from conference, plus those meeting a time standard throughout the year idea. Simple. What are conferences but regional groups anyway. The current system seems redundant, and opens up all the injury/burnout/cost problems where they could simply be avoided while maintaining a merit-based qualifying system.
Hasta la Vuelta wrote:
Your stats show that Luke Puskedra was seeded 63rd (12th qualifier in men's 10K). How can this be?
Also error in two of the first four events that you show. How can there be two 13 seeds in one event?
The majority of events are yet to come, and I suspect that percentage will rise substantially as the meet progresses, especially if you fix the mistakes in your stats.
Also, it looks like:
1. Most of the high seeds (the real players) are advancing
and 2. The fans have very little interest in this meet with only about 500 sitting in the stands at A&M yesterday.
I stated it was the East Regional.
Quite easy for there to be multiple seeds of the same number. We call them ties.
But, thank you for playing.
Out West the men's steeple ran closer to descending order list than some other events. Of the 12 top ranked in the West, 9 made it to nationals. The other 3 who made it came into the meet ranked 13th., 14th. and 18th.
The men's 800 saw 8 from the top 12 make it to nationals, with the other qualifiers coming in ranked at 13th., 15th., 17th., and 46th..
The East's 800 was tighter, with 10 of the 12 from the descending order list qualifying. The 2 others came in ranked at 14th. and 16th.
So, out of those 3 events, we see a 75% correspondence between the descending order list and actual head to head outcomes.
There were some great races run at this meet. It's a fantastic tune up in the shorter events for the championships.
Women's 100 East:
8 of top 12 on descending order list made it. The other 4 were ranked 17, 18, 26, and 56. 5 of the 12 qualifiers tied or beat their seasonal best. That's another event at 75% correspondence.
The point of the opposition to regionals was that qualified persons who ran great races before the regionals would be excluded by regionals.. and the results prove it. Do we want the best runners at nationals? We had runners overcome by heat, ill, shoes knocked off, pushed, and for various reasons didnt make the finals. It makes no sense not to have them at the finals.
The solution: Top times are auto qualified. The rest run for the remaining spots.
Well sort of, but not exactly. The opposition has to do with a lot of issues: exhorbitant expenses, travel time, lack of fan interest, few changes from the ascending time list to those who will actually qualify at a regional meet (in most events, the results this weekend are proving this), increasing the chance of injury and overuse before NCAA's.
The results this weekend show about a 75% correlation to the ascending lists, with the remaining coming mostly from the 12 - 20 spots. Even with this, the occasionalal aberration is from athletes who will not be a factor at nationals.
Regionals by the Numbers (and colors)
la la land wrote:
Women's 100 East:
8 of top 12 on descending order list made it. The other 4 were ranked 17, 18, 26, and 56. 5 of the 12 qualifiers tied or beat their seasonal best. That's another event at 75% correspondence.
la la land, when you say from the "decending order list"
are you referring to the order list just the people entered in the respective events at regionals (who are actually racing those events) or the national decending order list? I'm assuming it's the former or those stats would be pretty skewed.
additionally, any decent coach knowing that there is no decending order list wouldn't have a lot of motivation to get their guys in super fast races. for example puskedra. why take him to stanford or cardinal for a 10K unless you think he's going to set a jr. or collegiate record it doesn't really matter.
if guys are using a decending order list to get to nationals, the guys who should have the fastest times will go and get those marks because they have a major reason to. if you are not using a decending order list than they only need marks to get into regionals or conference and nothing more. other than that they only need to race to win and see what times come from that.
i guess my point is that a "decending order list" of guys who weren't worried about where they stacked on a "decending order list" isn't all that valid.