NCAA Division I approves two-site Regional format in 2010

bump this.

Are schools in DC not allowed to participate in Regionals, or do they have to go to the West Region?? That is an oversight that should be corrected immediately. It makes the NCAA look bad.

Gtown is in the west region. Just kidding.

But it used to drive me nuts when I was living in DC how they get no respect. DC is way bigger than many states. And on the phone the salesmen would be "What state?" I'd say, "None."

As for the new regional system, I'll give my two cents. I literally have given zero thought to it as I didn't know they were even considering changing it.

1) It has to be better than the old system.

2) I'm thrilled that there are no people getting in at-large. It was totally pointless to have a regional qualifying system and then take people who didn't perform at regionals. It was like if you had the Olympic Trials and then took people to the Olympics not from the top 3. The whole beauty of the Trials is top 3 go.

3) I think it's great the 10k guys aren't immune from regional qualifying. Now you actually have to run well near NCAAs - not the first week of outdoors at Stanford.

4) I'm sure there will still be huge difference in the quality of the regions but I think by having equal numbers in each region, you are really helping things because at least now guys have to run the same number of heats in every event. It drove me nuts how the east region used to have so many 800 heats.

And by having top 12 go, there should be fewer complaints as you're only keeping out at best the 13th best guy in the country.

5) Sadly, even though the new system seems way better, I'm sure tons and tons of coaches will whine and complain as tons of coaches instinctively seem to all hate change and the new system is by no means perfect.

Hmm, the above is the best response for this new legislation. Either this bored board is viewed by overage distance runners who no longer care about collegiate track or you are all taking naps down in your mom's basement apartment that is rent controlled and haven't been following this legislation.

This change in college outdoor track finally and I do mean finally provides opportunities for more individuals than ever before to make a run at the NCAA Championships. There will be 96 qualifiers for 24 spots and no freebies or walkovers. These two regional meets will be competitive and entertaining and will be nearly as exciting as the NCAA Championship.

This will provide the needed attention that did not materialize for collegiate track when the original regionals were introduced.

Despite such a large committee working on this, they did not create a camel. Instead collegiate track will be blessed with two weeks of great competition in late May and early June. Nice going NCAA and coaches.

No disrespect for your comments RoJo, you posted just as I was writing my comments, so I didn't see yours until after I posted...Your comments are right on target.

now that they qualify the top 12 from each region will they even run a regional final in an event like the 1500, or will they just run prelims and semis and then whoever makes it out of the semis goes to nationals? assuming this is how it would work would there be a reason to run a regional final beyond bragging rights?

I was thinking the same thing, no need for a regional final.

This is so stupid. Why is the Dec exempt and not the 10k? Now, you are going to have to run 4 10ks: qualifier, conference, regional, national, with 3 of them being in the last two months of the season.

Maybe for the top guys the 10k at conference won't be that tough, and the regional will probably be tactical, but for the borderline guys who in the past could have peaked really well and snuck in there for AA, it will be much tougher.

What was so bad about the old auto system they had before the regional? Seems to work well indoors.

rojo wrote:

But it used to drive me nuts when I was living in DC how they get no respect. DC is way bigger than many states. And on the phone the salesmen would be "What state?" I'd say, "None."

DC is way bigger than many states you say? Wikipedia seems to think its smaller than all 50 states, and has a population only larger than that of Wyoming.

If I'm ever a phone salesman I will remember to ask "What state, district, insular territory, or military installation?"

The problems with this format come in meet management issues. Rojo brings up some great points about no at-large entries, having the 10K be like other events (but what about the combined events?), etc. What do you all think about having a meet of 1700-1900 athletes in the same venue? How will we handle 48 athletes in each event. Lets take the 10K. Do you run one big race?, two equally seeded races with the top 6 out of each race going?, do we run a fast/slow race based on entry marks? Depending on what happens with those answers will hugely impact the fairness issue. No matter what anyone thinks the regions are not going to be balanced by quality, by quantity yes, but not talent. The East region will be insane on the sprint side and the West will be crazy on the distance side. But at least everyone will run the same. How will we handle 48 Pole Vaulters in the same spot? What facilities can handle this meet? Right now it is almost impossible to find institutions to host big meets. While I know some (maybe even many) think the 4 region model was poor, I think in the long-term this new model will create significant issues. And my final point in this is that coaches do have a tendency to whine about change. I think this time they have a right to be upset as they never voted on this model nor were they ever given it to digest and discuss. This all is on the head of the CEO of the coaches association. Once they look at the details I think they will see issues (like longer travel for smaller budgeted programs).

Conference meets will become irrelevant for those who cannot be sure of their spot in the top 96 in each event. No point in wasting a 10k, 5k, or even a 1500m effort when so much is on the line. On the bright side there will never again be those regional qualifiers who can't break 15, 9:30, or 3:55.

For reference here are the 96th place times in distance events in 2008, and the number of regional qualifiers based on time in each event:

800: ? (88th was 1:50.38)

1500: 3:46.51 (134)

Steeple: 9:04.89 (111)

5k: 14:11.08 (100)

10k: ? (26 ran at NCAA's)

Of course these times are irrelevant since the lack of time standards will change everything.

It will be interesting to see how NCAA coaches game the system. Last-chance meets will have more on the line (imagine being ranked 92nd in the last weekend to qualify with a time from Stanford). College coaches will also have an incentive to make sure everyone not on their team runs slow. I can't imagine how that will play out, but there will probably be some interesting gaming of the system that nobody could have foreseen (For instance it will be imperative that your athlete gets into the fast section, but also that someone else's athlete is kept in the slow section).

As always, most of the qualifiers in the distance events will come from Mt. Sac and Stanford. And we're gonna see a couple huge championship 10k's, or 4 worthless semi-final 10k's. There will be a discrepancy between the two regions that in some events will seem extremely unfair.

Why do you have to run the 10k at conference?

ride tha pole wrote:

rojo wrote:

But it used to drive me nuts when I was living in DC how they get no respect. DC is way bigger than many states. And on the phone the salesmen would be "What state?" I'd say, "None."

DC is way bigger than many states you say? Wikipedia seems to think its smaller than all 50 states, and has a population only larger than that of Wyoming.

If I'm ever a phone salesman I will remember to ask "What state, district, insular territory, or military installation?"

Honestly, why do you feel compelled to be such a f***ing idiot? Why do you bother with the insignificant details that have nothing to do with the big picture of the topic? I bet if I WIKIPEDIA your ass it would say you are a f***ing idiot with a penis smaller than that of the average Asian mans.

Big 12 is looking good wrote:

Why do you have to run the 10k at conference?

I know. I mean, did Teg run 10K at his conference? Look at how well he turned out.

I spent some time and went through the national regional qualifiers list from 2008 and seperated it into runners for the new east region and the new west region. Then I counted through and found the 48th qualifier from each region (24th for relays, and noted when there weren't 48 total from a region on the 08 regional list). I've only completed the women so far but here is what I found...

100: E-11.71 W-11.73

200: E-23.90 W-23.91

400: E-54.30 W-54.61

800: E-2:09.36 W-2:08.98

1500: E-4:27.37 W-4:26.84

Steeple: E-Only 43 qualifiers @ 10:48.79 W-10:38.44

5k: E-16:45.62 W-16:46.96

10k: E-Only 23 @ 34:53.01 W-Only 23 @ 34:57.21

100H: E-13.68 W-13.81

400H: 60.30 W-Only 40 @ 60.81

4x1: E-45.4 W-45.67

4x4: E-3:40.75 W-3:41.20

HJ: E-Only 36 @ 1.75 W-Only 38 @ 1.75

PV: W-3.85 E-Only 37 @ 3.85

LJ: E-6.04 W-6.02

TJ: E-12.41 W-12.43

SP: E-14.59 W-14.57

DT: E-46.92 W-47.52

HT: E-Only 39 54.35 W-54.35

JT: E-Only 39 43.45 W-44.09

Men to come later. Will probably look more in depth to a few aspects as well.

I agree that I think the biggest concern with the new system is 48 pole vaulters at one competition.

I think one of the main reasons for not including the multi events is because they are a huge drain on a facility. If you've got them throwing, vaulting, etc. you can't have the actual throwers, vaulters, etc. doing so and with these many numbers it almost becomes impossible.

A real DI coach wrote:

How will we handle 48 athletes in each event. Lets take the 10K. Do you run one big race?, two equally seeded races with the top 6 out of each race going?

I hadn't given any thoughts for how to run the races.

In the 10k, they need to have one race of 48. I bet that they don't end up doing that but that's clearly what they should do.Plenty of room for 48 guys if you are just trying to get in the top 12.

Additionally, I doubt all 48 will enter the 10k. Let's hope they don't accept 48 in each event. Just say the top 48 are eligible. Everyone else is out of luck. So you might end up with a list of 35-45.

As for the 5k? 48 in one race is a bit much. Not sure.

The way I see it they well undoubtedly take 48 in each event. If the top 10 runners in the 5k scratch in favor of the 10k then runners 49 through 58 in the region get added to the regional meet for the 5k.

They will probably split things into multiple heats with for example the top 4 advancing out of 2 heats plus the next 4 fastest times. Just like the Olympic Trials qualifying round, which this is supposed to emulate I believe by their stating that this is the "first round" of the NCAA championships.

Logistically how many places can actually host this meet? It's bigger than NCAA meet. Having multiple circles for throwing and runways for jumping are necessity, housing, stands and eating.

East- Ohio State, Indiana, LSU, Icahn, Tennessee

West- Texas, Arkansas, Oregon, Nebraska

If you look at this meet as the qualifying rounds for the NCAA championships, then the regional meet is not an end all, rather it is the qualifying rounds for the semi-finals for the NCAA meet. So there is no need to run 48 in an event or 12 in a final round (impossible anyway for the lane races). You run two sections and take qualifiers and the next fastest to get to a semifinal round of 12 for the NCAA meet (per region). There would then be rounds for the shorter races at the NCAA meet and a final of 24 for the longer races (5k, steeple and 10k). Doesn't this make sense? The field events will require some time for all to qualify, but it comes out pretty easy that the top 12 performances move on to the finals at NCAA's.