NCAA Regional system is a joke

Get used to it. Nuthings gonna change.[quote]why

I voted for it before I voted against it.

So, are you whinning? And tell me...how would the East's #14 200 meter runner have fared against the West's men?

This is the system that we have, but you, like lots of dildos before you will continue to whine no matter the system that is being used. People (like you), just like to whine apparently.

Live with it.

In fact the Easts #14 200 runner would have run .5 faster than the Wests #14, which is an eternity.

The Wests, and all regions for that matter have equal quality. It plays out that way at NCAAs each year.

The problem is how you get to NCAAs. A 100m/200m female sprinter in the EAST must run lifetime bests three times in one day including the 4x1 to make it to NCAAs then come back and do it all again on Saturday.

In the WEST, by merely finishing the 200 you are in the NCAA at large pool. So great ones can jog and still go to NCAAs. Then they don't have enough teams to even run rounds in the 4x1.

So the system is a joke because it is a COMPLETELY different track meet and COMPLETELY differnt chances to make it to NCAAs due to the inequity in #s.

For the gentleman who said regionals aren't going anywhere......don't be so sure.

The NCAA has told the USTCCCA to come up with an acceptable solution ASAP or the NCAA Championships people (non-track people) will do it for them.

The NCAA has recognized the inequity and will fix it one way or another.

And shifting schools WEST has been proposed in 6 different ways and denied every time. Changing the # of auto qualifers based on # of entries was also denied by the NCAA people. so I suspect there is going to be a drastic change coming soon.

Just you watch.

Sucks that change will come too late for the runners in the East who got screwed yesterday.

The system is indeed a joke. I don't know how anyone can defend it. If the descending order lists are good enough for indoor, why can't it be the same case for outdoor? if they aren't going to bother to try and balance the regions, then get rid of the system. The Midwest is a laugh.

lads wrote:

The Midwest is a laugh.

Not the Men's 5k

Why does the unfairness of the system persist? The explanation is that the 130+ schools in the East are given the short end of the stick and the other 200+ schools get a sweeter deal. Now, when a vote is taken as to whether the system is a good one or not - lo and behold over 200 schools say, "Sure, working well for us." Majority rules. Anyone complains, just tell him he's a wuss for bellyaching.

... ... ... wrote:

lads wrote:

The Midwest is a laugh.

Not the Men's 5k

Only the top 3 guys in the midwest are not laughable.

Then lets take the winner of the east (Bobby Curtis). He was only ranked around 20th, but everyone knew he would be a factor. He ran 3:03 for the last 1200M to win the race. No other region had that because those regions only had a few people that were serious factors. If a only a list was used Curtis would not make the NCAA Champs and the same goes for the 4th place east finisher from American. He only had the 22nd seed time in the east region but got the auto bid.

I think the "idea" of the regional meet is great, but it is a very, very bad set-up as it stands.

How anyone outside of the east region can say it's fair is beyond me. Two of the other regions didn't have enough people to run rounds in the 1500M. That means they run a straight final. Plus the midwest only had like 9 girls start in the 5K vs the east with 40. That's fair? No way!

And yes, when majority rules the 130 team in the east will always get out voted. Why would anyone from the other 3 regions want change? They are living the good life for now.

Actually, the continuing status of this system is a bit puzzling simply because NO ONE seems to like it. I've heard several prominent coaches speak out against it. I realize bureaucracy can be slow, but if something has NO defenders... change it.

I also think the NCAA Regional system leaves much to be desired, but the most common reason I've heard for its existence is what the NCAA likes to call "national representation." This means an "equal" number of athletes from the west, east, south, and midwest.

This is also the reason for the structure of other NCAA tournaments. It would be easy to have the top 32 basketball teams play in March, but the NCAA wants to have representation from mid-major schools in addition to the powerhouses. Most of the top teams in the NIT would do well in the NCAA tournament, but (in the first round at least) it's not just about the best teams in the nation. The college world series is the same way. The best teams may all come from the south region, but you're still going to have representation from the west and east. It's a hard pill to swallow, but the NCAA is not primarily interested in who is the "best" team or athlete in the country.

Now track and field is a bit different. Instead of subjectively ranking teams like in baseball or basketball, it's very easy to objectively rank athletes. This is why the concession was made to fill the fields based on the descending order list; it's hard to justify keeping the fastest runner in the nation at home when he/she has one bad day at regions.

In short, I think the regions need better balance to be successful, but it provides a nice alternative from time trialing all season long to get on the national list. Of course, now you have people time trialing for the regional time. Such is life.

I think perhaps some East Region coaches need to file official complaints stating that the regional system impairs their ability to recruit quality athletes who have the foresight to go to a school that will give them easier entry to NCAAs. Perhaps a lawsuit would be a good start.

I have heard there is so much displeasure with this format and too much inequity, that it will indeed be changed.

What year? I am unsure of that.But look for a possible 1 site 8 day event, where trials will be run one weekend multi days and back for finals.That is one solution being explored I heard,could be bad info, but does make more sense than this. Send decsending order list of 32-64 in each event , duje it out one site, one week.

Lets see how the East and West do when the temperature for outdoor track meets averages below 50 degrees. Not to conductive to good times. This is the normal case for most of the decade that I coached in the Midwest. My athletes watched as athletes in other regions got grat weather to run fast times while we runing conference meets with temps in the low 50's. I would make sure that we traveled to last chance meets with warm weather and the performances would improve greatly.

The Count wrote:

Lets see how the East and West do when the temperature for outdoor track meets averages below 50 degrees. Not to conductive to good times. This is the normal case for most of the decade that I coached in the Midwest. My athletes watched as athletes in other regions got grat weather to run fast times while we runing conference meets with temps in the low 50's. I would make sure that we traveled to last chance meets with warm weather and the performances would improve greatly.

The East stretches from Maine to Florida. There is a significant percentage of cold-climate schools in that group.

i think the regional setup needs to stay intact, but they need to determine at large bids based upon the number of entrants in each heat

for example if the midwest 1500 only has 15 guys, then only take the top five, while taking the top 10-12 from the east which has 40 guys.

they just need to play around with the numbers so that they are fair for each event, regardless of region

proposed, passed by coaches membership, denied by NCAA.

next.....

What was wrong with the way it was before? Too much advantage given to teams with $$$ who could afford to send their athletes to several high quality meets like Stanford? I feel like when an athlete chooses their school, they are aware of the team's budget and what meets they run.