The Regional Experiment has failed

It is ridiculous on how the regions vary on the number of entries for the same event. I know many people who are in the East Regional meet, and when I saw the entries/heats and what it takes it qualify to the finals, I thought "Damn, these are going to be tough races". I can't believe how there are only 8 women signed up for the 200m in the West Region. Surely more people qualified than just that!

The Regional system has always perplexed me, because someone who is nationally-capable just needs a bad race to not even make it to nationals, despite the fact they have consistently met the requirements all year.

So what if the calendars change?

But the problem of descending-time lists is that you are basically forcing people to fly out to Mt. SAC or Stanford. And what if you're a stud at some po-dunk school that can't afford it? Or can afford it, but only at the expense of team equipment, assistant coaches, etc?

I think a combination "super-region" AND time-standard system would be best. So you'd have an "auto" time that, if you hit it at any time during the season, you automatically qualified for nationals. But there would also be an East region and West region meet, with the top X finishers in each event going to nationals. You could tailor the auto standards so that the field would be the desired size. Even this isn't perfect, however, since you could have issues where teams would intentionally run a guy at regions who has already hit the auto time simply to keep a rival out of nationals. You also wouldn't have a consistent field.

Or here's another option:

Do the proposed "super-region" meet, with the top X qualifying for nationals. But then add in 5-10 "wildcard" entries, which consist of the people who have ran the top times during the season and did NOT qualify at the regional meet. This would also save our top guys from over-racing (especially people like Rupp and Wheating who will be running USAs and Worlds). This solves the "chasing times" conundrum but also lets in the top guys who have an off-day at regionals.

This is how regionals already works. Top 5 from each event make nationals: 4x5=20. Then they put places 6-12 from each event into a national pool and pull the top 8, putting 28 into the finals. If you've run a fast time during the year, and just finish top 12, you're likely to make nationals. OK, if someone is DQed from false starting, they DNF and don't go into the pool. But seriously, if you're false starting enough to really worry aobut getting a DQ at regionals, perhaps you don't belong at nationals with many rounds anyway.

No, instead your experiment as an opinion-maker has failed.

I love the regional system, even as someone in the East. The issue is the region alignment that is not remotely close to being fair.

The need to add High School filler races to attract more fans. That's how Penn Relays, Reebok GP, and Millrose Games gets such a large crowd.

Hey, why doesn't the NCAA place atheletes in differant regions based on performance lists? They could set it up just like they do in basketball.

ESPN could have a flashy selection show to decide who is going to run in each region. That will balance out the talent. This will be great!!

I like the regional system. The states in a region must be contiguous but the states in the region can certainly be modified.

Regional qualifying hasn't stopped any top athletes from flying out to Stanford to chase fast times. (Flash: runners want to run fast, even if it isn't their route to nationals.) Nor has it stopped teams from splitting squads. Nor has it increased the fairness of the qualifying procedure (it just substituted geographic inequity for financial inequity).

In fact, you could argue Regional qualifying has made some of these situations more pronounced--i.e. coaches and athletes now chase regional times instead of national times. And as for fairness, you could argue that inequities are more pronounced now than they were under the old system. For every kid who got screwed in the old system because his school didn't send him to the right meet to run a fast time, there are multiple kids getting screwed now because their region is freakishly tough in a particular event.

I like the regional system. This gives people an extra chance to make it to nationals.

Didn't they make the regional system as a result of everyone qualifying for nationals at Stanford or MT. Sac. If you didn't go to one of those two races you were shit out of luck.

ex. Bobby Curtis ran 14:01 as his fastest 5k a few years ago, and I believe he ended up getting second in the 5k. (he might have won?) By your explanation Bobby Curtis would not have been able to run at Nats with that time.

The only thing I would change is make it the top 4 and then take the next best 12 people who finised 5-12.

The only real problem with regionals is that the West is too small to be region. It's basically just the PAC-10 schools out here. And with some program's emphasis on certain disciplines (sprints OR distance) it only makes the situation worse. The NCAA should add the West to the MidEast or Mideast and South.

Regions need to be aligned so that similar numbers of athletes are qualifying in each region. The way it's working today, it is too easy to qualify for Nationals from the West. Not only do they have one less race since many events are going straight to finals but you have 25-50% of regional qualifiers advancing instead of less than 10% in the East.

Women's Mid-West Region a joke for distance.....

There is not even a single women under 16min in the 5k and no need to qualify in the 1500....on and on. compare this to the East region - pathetic

some runner wrote:

... But seriously, if you're false starting enough to really worry aobut getting a DQ at regionals, perhaps you don't belong at nationals with many rounds anyway.

Tyson Gay in 2005?

Bobby Curtis--or anybody fit enough to place high--would have found a race to run faster if that had been necessary to hit a standard. It wasn't necessary, so he didn't.

No system is going to be 100% fair. But in my opinion the problems associated with regionals are greater than the problems they were designed to address.

Fromunda Cheese wrote:

Hey, why doesn't the NCAA place atheletes in differant regions based on performance lists? They could set it up just like they do in basketball.

ESPN could have a flashy selection show to decide who is going to run in each region. That will balance out the talent. This will be great!!

Better, why don't they have "teams" advance instead of just individual athletes? Athletics, aka "Track&Field" is a team sport right? hmmmm. yeah.

There are definitely too many regions. Two is probably the best option.

Sure, lets go back to the descending order method of qualifying. What will we see from this method? Fewer legitimate athletes from smaller DI schools making it, fewer athletes from cold weather states making it, fewer athletes who love to compete as opposed to time-trial making it.

While the regional system isn't perfect, it forces fat-cat programs to line up and compete for their spot as opposed to getting their spot because their program has the money to fly their ass all over the country chasing marks.

No matter what, give me head to head competition to answer the question.

I'm not sure all athletes from cold weather states would agree, when they've already run 13:40 and are sent down to Texas or Louisiana for regionals to run a do-or-die 5K in 90 degree heat...

Ultimately, we're talking about a very, very small number of athletes who are a) good enough to have an impact on the national meet and b) come from programs who wouldn't find a way to get them to good competitions if that's what it took. Many years I bet that number is zero. Look at the start lists at Stanford or Mt. Sac--it's not just the "fat-cat" programs who are out there. And that's without the imperative to hit standards. Athletes want to run fast, and most programs will find races for their top kids.

(And if you took all the money spent on regionals, lots and lots more kids could have their asses flown all over the country.)

Just read the Register-Guard article about this that's linked from LR's front page, and it pretty much reinforces what I already think: the inequities associated with regionals are far greater than the inequities that were associated with the descending list system. (And the suggestions to realign the regions are useless. Regions will always have stronger and weaker events, no matter how they're aligned. No way to get balance across the board.)

The most egregious example this year:

In the women’s pole vault, for example, the top-ranked athlete in the East is Florida’s Natalie Moser with a clearance of 13-5 1/2.

However, that’s only 29th on the national descending order list.

There are 12 vaulters from the Mideast, 11 from the West and five from the Midwest with better marks this year. So, the five automatic qualifiers from the East will be taking NCAA spots away from more deserving athletes.