When I say descending order list, I am referring to the people who are actually entered into the event. For example, the East 1500 descending order list would not include Andrews of Virginia because he did not enter the 1500, deciding to run only the 800.
I guess I'm not getting the point of "making it to nationals" Have any of you ever taken the 21st or 23rd ranked kid to nationals and watched them get their doors blown off? Obviously the regionals let's some lower seeds get to nationals, fine. But it's gonna be chalk for the scoring positions, because the freaks got through in both regions put together. I only care about the 5-8 best, I could care less about 12-24. I'd also like to make the point that in these 10k and 5k races at regionals, some of these kids had brutal battles at their conference meets only two weeks ago, where Joe Mid-Major could tempo his way to a title and probably feels awesome. If you've never coached or ran in the Pac-10 or Big 10 or SEC or Big 12 you have NO CLUE how stessed out those kids are. The conference meets are a million times more taxing than even the national championships. Don't even reply to that statement if you've never coached or competed in that venus, because you can't understand.
Men's 3k Steeple East:
Six of the 12 fastest from the descending order list made it to nationals. The other six were ranked 13, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 34.
50% correspondence for this event.
la la's agenda is showing again:
His post
"Six of the 12 fastest from the descending order list made it to nationals. The other six were ranked 13, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 34.
50% correspondence for this event."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
la la knows full well that the discussion conceded that the best athletes may well not be 1 -12 in the descending lists,
and that 13-18 or so could well be as capable as 1-12. The argument was that these 25 - 48 types will never score, so why put everyone through the stress and expense of such a second rate meet? This steeple race makes the point very well since only one 25-48 athlete moved on. Was it really worth it to hold this meet, force 48 athletes to go through the motions for this? Any bets on hw that #34 guy will do at nationals? The results of this race is exactly why there will be no Regionals next year. Thankfully.
Why?
Because it is the most fair and honest method for selecting the 27 or so athletes per event for the NCAA Championships. It lets the athletes decide it through head to head competition, under the same conditions.
Men's 100, East:
6 from the top 12 made it to nationals. The other 6 who made it through were ranked 14th., 15th., 18th., 18th. (tied), 29th., and 39th..
Another event at 50% correspondence.
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.
Yeah. There has to be some reasonable people out there who can see the obvious, that regionals are a big dud for the fans. The team aspect has no significance at all. Die hard track NCAA track fans don't even show up for regionals.
On the other hand, the conference champs continue to be blood rivalries and a real treat for athletes, coaches, parents, alumni, and track fans.
However I think conferences to enhance the importance of the conference champs, it should be an all-or-nothing competition with only the top 3 (or so) auto to NCAAs.
The next best times/marks from all the conference champs gets in. All previous times/marks are disregarded. I.E. no BCS-style points ;-)
unexpected Q wrote:
Dear Vin:
Your quote on the front page was from an article where you whines about your athletes having to earn his way to nationals.
Really? You don't know the reasons to have qualifiers? Here are plenty!
1) Equal opportunity. Taking only the top 24 times limits the nationals field to people who get in the right race at the right time and run really fast, probably at Stanford for distance races. Some teams can't afford that or schedule it.
2) Peaking at the end of the year. This way you can't peak for a midseason time-trial, get burned out and useless by late May, and still slide into nationals. On the other hand, good athletes don't have to worry about being their very best early on. They can train through the early season, run good enough times to make regionals, then peak for the last 3 weeks of the year. The people who make the national meet are the ones in the best shape when it counts.
3) Earning your spot. Our sport is not mainly about times, it's about beating people to prove you're better. Times are a convenient way to broadly categorize but they shouuld never be the final call (else we'd just hand Chelanga the 10k medal right now). Everyone with a good enough time should have the chance to go head-to-head to prove who belongs at nats.
4) Earning your double. Lots of people can go time trial a fast 5k one week, then go time trial a fast 10k 3 weeks later. That doesn't mean they are capable of or deserve to double at nationals. To qualify in two events, you should have to prove you can double by qualifying in both events.
Otherwise, it'd be so easy for someone like Jeff See to declare in both the 1500 and the 5k, run the 15 hard, and then jog it in in the 5k. Now if you want to double you have to bring your A game.
Face it Lananna, you're lazy and want your athletes to get an easy pass in to filling up the fields. That goes against the spirit of the sport and of competition. Man up and earn your way in like everyone else. If you're really the best then you shouldn't be afraid to prove it.
The way the regionals actually played supports your post. It showed that fast times or long marks early in the season doesn't necessarily mean that the athlete who produced them can beat others head to head in qualifying rounds for the championship.
It also showed that doubles are possible, but by no means automatic.
If a poll of all those athletes were taken as to whether the regional system is fairer than a straight descending order list I think that you'd find a heavy majority saying yes, mostly on grounds of equal opportunity.
It will not be easy to tell empirically whether the system works. Some people may not have run all-out to make the top 24 during the season -- only to make the top 48 in their half of country. Fewer people declared to run doubles than would for the descending order list system. And so on. (That's why the letsrun 24/8 report on the front page isn't worth much).
But we will be able to at least get a sense for how fair this system is in weeding out "fast" performers (for example, Acosta wasn't able to pull of the 15/5k double) and in allowing "slow" performers a shot at scoring points.
We won't have a great indicator until the results from Eugene are in.
unexpected Q wrote:
It will not be easy to tell empirically whether the system works.
Huh? It's already been proven. Those who who could handle the trial under fire have made it to Nationals. Those who couldn't will be watching it on TV. This is the fundamental foundation of our sport: competition from point A to B. The sport wins, the one-off time trailers in a vacuum lose.
la la land wrote:
50% correspondence for this event.
There is a 100% correlation bias towards those who perform when it matters.
The time-trialers didn't fare so well.
malmo wrote:
la la land wrote:50% correspondence for this event.
There is a 100% correlation bias towards those who perform when it matters.
The time-trialers didn't fare so well.
Well said.
How does 2-3 months of qualifying not enough? D2 and D3 do it and its fine. If there are too many people qualifying, make the time/distance faster/further. This not only makes the athletes strive for more but also helps American athletics internationally. And yes I think Vin has a good reason to be upset about it (if he really is). So should other coaches of the top athletes in the country. Its a needless race to add more fatigue to the athletes.
You are one of the ones who get it, and didn't get sucked in by the trolling la la land and malmo (two children playing in the play ground). Your query about Vin Lananna was astute in that if any comprehending person listened to the video they would see that he wasn't "whining", but was asking "WHY?". Since this thread certainly didn't provide any compelling answer to "WHY?", perhaps Pat Henry's comments at the conclusion of the meet will provide us wth some guidance on Vin's question http://www.flotrack.org/videos/coverage/view_video/237133-2010-ncaa-outdoor-track-field-west-preliminary-round/337814-coach-pat-henry-texas-am-after-2010-ncaa-west-region
malmo wrote:
[[ unexpected Q wrote:
It will not be easy to tell empirically whether the system works. ]]
Huh? It's already been proven. Those who who could handle the trial under fire have made it to Nationals. Those who couldn't will be watching it on TV. This is the fundamental foundation of our sport: competition from point A to B. The sport wins, the one-off time trailers in a vacuum lose.
What I mean is, we want to know if the top 10-12 in each event (the point scorers and those on the bubble) would be much different under the different systems.
I think regionals are way more fair and better for the sport. However, it'd be nice to know how they change the outcome.
But what I meant was, it'll be really hard to tell who would've made nats/competed for those spots under the descending order system. For instance Chelanga was not in the top 24 5k times, but could've been if he needed to. Plus, more people who could double would've declared for it if they didn't have to run regionals first. Etc.
So while I'm a big fan of a regional system (of any kind), I'm wary of throwing around numbers from this season to prove my point. I think they'd have more validity in the sprints and throws where people generally go all-out every time.
no u f***ing moron
Why does the NCAA have to be different than USATF/Olympic Trials?
People are complaining about hitting qualifiers in March but at USATF you can take a qualifier from the prior year.
Can you imagine a regional system to make it to USATF?
Both meets have the same objective, to get the best 24-36 athletes in the country in each event to compete in prelims and finals.
A top college athlete in the east, for example, has too many obligations especially if they are world class.
They will have some invitationals to run a fast time (to qualify for USATF), Penn Relays, Conference Championships, IC4A's, 2 rounds of NCAA regionals at one location, 2 rounds of NCAA's at another, 2-3 rounds at USATF, European season, World's/ Olympics in most years.
The usefulness of the regional system is solely to qualify athletes to the NCAA Championships that probably will not make it to the finals, in place of athletes that would have made it on time but would not have made it to the finals, all at the expense of over-racing the better athletes as well as costing additional money.
Maybe we should just take the top three guys (from that year and the prior) and send them to the Olympics. Screw the trials.
toro wrote:
Why does the NCAA have to be different than USATF/Olympic Trials?
People are complaining about hitting qualifiers in March but at USATF you can take a qualifier from the prior year.
Can you imagine a regional system to make it to USATF?
Both meets have the same objective, to get the best 24-36 athletes in the country in each event to compete in prelims and finals.
A top college athlete in the east, for example, has too many obligations especially if they are world class.
They will have some invitationals to run a fast time (to qualify for USATF), Penn Relays, Conference Championships, IC4A's, 2 rounds of NCAA regionals at one location, 2 rounds of NCAA's at another, 2-3 rounds at USATF, European season, World's/ Olympics in most years.
The usefulness of the regional system is solely to qualify athletes to the NCAA Championships that probably will not make it to the finals, in place of athletes that would have made it on time but would not have made it to the finals, all at the expense of over-racing the better athletes as well as costing additional money.
You don't care that when the fields race head to head in order to qualify that 30-50% of those who would have automatically advanced by descending order list can't make the top 12 but are pushed out by those further down on the order list?
If all meets were held under the same conditions or roughly the same conditions, then I'd have no problem with the descending order list. But collegians are locked into their college schedule and not all get to run or jump in nice weather with good competition.
There are so many good athletes in events that the differentiating factor on performance is for the most part the conditions at the site of competition. This all gets evened out if you just have them go head to head for the spots. That way, they all face the same conditions.
The excitement about regionals generated on this forum does not correspond to the lack of excitement in the stands and by the athletes competing at the regionals or by the coaches of the leading teams in the country. The NCAA Lacrosse Championship game drew 37,000 fans for only two teams participating. Track championship meets last days and days with little fanfare and less attendance. Who are we kidding? Our culture today looks at sports as entertainment. Track and field is not entertaining for the average sports fan. All this stuff about fair and equal goes out the window when no one but the participants care. The Wilson plan answers some of the issues that most top tier coaches see clearly. At the NCAA Championship, more is not better. Track athletes want inclusion at the cost of popularity of their sport. This isn't youth soccer or Little League Baseball where everyone gets to play. Having 96 athletes competing in an empty stadium so the "best" 24 go to nationals is not my idea of a good time. Make the National meet an attractive venue for athletes and fans, build on it the way college baseball did and Track and Field will also draw 35,000 to 40,000 people to their meet in due time....It is time Track and Field reinvent itself and fit the sports mold the ordinary fan expects. Track and Field at the college level has gone too long thinking it's the catalyst for the Olympic Games. College Track and Field has fallen to the side of the sports roadway and needs to be resuscitated.