Many good athletes are left on the outside looking in because one region is tougher than the other. How do we change this for the betterment of the athletes and sport?
The NCAA gets a lot of criticism but I really like the way they format the East and West Regional Meets. There are an incredible number of great track and field athletes in the NCAA D1. The NCAA is doing a good job in getting the top athletes to the final meet.
Many good athletes are left on the outside looking in because one region is tougher than the other. How do we change this for the betterment of the athletes and sport?
Seriously??? Please don't tell me you are simply comparing results between the two Regions? The sole point of Regionals is to qualify for the next round whether that is in heats or straight through to Nationals while exerting the minimum effort required to do so. Racing bears no resemblance to time trialing....see 2016 Olympics 1500m final. Oh and btw, do you expect that racing a 10k in 78 degree weather in Jacksonville last night might yield different times than racing a 10k in 60 degree weather in Sacramento?
Many good athletes are left on the outside looking in because one region is tougher than the other. How do we change this for the betterment of the athletes and sport?
Options - more regionals (this just leaves athletes out of nationals though), time qualifying for nationals, or a system akin to what world athletics is going to where ranking determines qualification.
The point of a championship is to name a champion. Do you think the best athlete in the country in any event is being kept out of the final by the current structure?
Many good athletes are left on the outside looking in because one region is tougher than the other.
This definitely happened in the 10,000 last night.
The winning time in the East was only 33:13.35; this would have placed 16th in the West and not even qualified. There were four runners in the West who failed to qualify but would have won the East.
Last qualifier in the East was 34:00.60; this would have placed 35th in the West.
Many good athletes are left on the outside looking in because one region is tougher than the other.
This definitely happened in the 10,000 last night.
The winning time in the East was only 33:13.35; this would have placed 16th in the West and not even qualified. There were four runners in the West who failed to qualify but would have won the East.
Last qualifier in the East was 34:00.60; this would have placed 35th in the West.
You don’t think this is climate related? I traveled every year to the West to race 10,000m where I set the school record. Ran 2-min faster at Stanford than Penn.
Many good athletes are left on the outside looking in because one region is tougher than the other.
This definitely happened in the 10,000 last night.
The winning time in the East was only 33:13.35; this would have placed 16th in the West and not even qualified. There were four runners in the West who failed to qualify but would have won the East.
Last qualifier in the East was 34:00.60; this would have placed 35th in the West.
Evaluate after nats, at least 4 scorers will be from East. Chelangat, Olemomoi, Chmiel and Hays.
Many good athletes are left on the outside looking in because one region is tougher than the other.
This definitely happened in the 10,000 last night.
The winning time in the East was only 33:13.35; this would have placed 16th in the West and not even qualified. There were four runners in the West who failed to qualify but would have won the East.
Last qualifier in the East was 34:00.60; this would have placed 35th in the West.
No, not at all. They were different races. Completely different races.
Here is 50th on each descending order list, the diff and which region is better. OP didn't even mention which region they are alleging is better. Looks like the only people who can complain are throwers and decathletes.
West East 10.28 10.26 0.2% E 20.82 20.73 0.4% E 46.31 46.69 0.8% W 1:49.05 1:48.79 0.3% E 3:42.99 3:41.94 0.5% E 13:47.81 13:52.45 0.6% W 28.54.51 29:22.84 1.6% W 13.97 13.94 0.2% E 52.15 51.83 0.6% E 8:54.11 8:56.89 0.5% W 2.09 2.08 0.5% E 5.10 5.12 0.4% W 7.57 7.52 0.7% E 15.15 15.28 0.9% W 17.66 17.75 0.5% W 55.35 53.70 3.1% E 61.99 60.74 2.1% W 62.43 64.70 3.6% E 7049 6416 9.9% W