Track Regionals...whats the deal?

The NCAA Cabinet is meeting today and tomorrow and will make a final decision. So just take a deep breath.

anyone know who is serving on the NCAA Cabinet?

Welcom back NCAA descening order list outdoors for 2010 season!

The NCAA Cabinet is comprised of athletic directors, senior women administrators, conference commissioners, etc. It is the group that the NCAA Track & Field Committee (which is made up of coaches and administrators) reports to.

looks like we will be keeping the current regional system for at least one more year!!!!!!!

Incorrect.

The NCAA Cabinet decided to deny the proposal to eliminate regional competition, therefore there will be a two-site first-round qualifying meet this year. Included in the first-round competition will be the 10,000.

This is going to be great because now all the money schools will have to come and actually compete, and there is no at-large process to save their butts. So if the #1 athlete in the country doesn't finish in the top 12 at their first-round competition (regional) they sit home.

This is just like the other NCAA tournaments that reward people for being good when it counts. No more going to Stanford in March and running a fast time and then living off that the rest of the year. You better bring your "A" game the last weekend of May, or you get to stay home.

For all the smaller programs with good kids and great coaching this is a very good thing.

any proof of this???

This is going to be great? I was a big fan of the old regionals system, because it indeed provide head-to-head competition. But how will the new system do that? It's too big to be manageable.

And how are you going to determine top-12 in events for 800 on down? You can not even make the final and qualify for nationals?

From what I understand, there won't even be "finals" at the new regionals. Rather, the regionals will be the first "rounds" of the nationals.

But forget running events. What will it be like for the field events? Ever see a 6-hour pole vault competition? You will!

This was a poison pill idea by those (like Vin) who don't like regionals and want the new system to be so bad that they'll just get rid of regionals all together.

Wow sounds awesome it will give all your slow a$$ kids a chance to say they raced someone fast because the NCAA forced the really good runners to do a bunch of pointless meets that still end up with same result. But hey maybe if one of the fast guys trips or gets injured your slower runner that doesn't deserve to go to nationals will get in that would be great huh. This will only further screw over our great college runners who are trying to do well internationally and it's all thanks people like you.

Heaven forbid your "studs" run fast when it counts the most-at the end of the season instead of in those anesthetic time trials at Stanford and Mt. SAC. All you geniuses might have to actually coach with a sensible training cycle that includes some kind of competitive peak.

The proposal doesn't include a "bunch" of extra races-it is only one extra meet. Maybe you could encase your precious "studs" in bubble wrap so they don't get hurt. Our top enders need to learn how to race rather than time trial.

There's a difference between racing and running a time trial. It's still a sport, and it's still about competing.

So what you are saying is in men's basketball, those teams with gaudy 28-2 records made during the regular season playing crap schools shouldn't have to play the tournament games, they should just be given a free pass to the final four?

One of the things that really frustrate me is how people can say they love college sports and the tournaments, then think that track & field should be different. This is exactly why the NCAA Cabinet has said repeatedly they have little respect for the sport of track & field. Being able to run fast in March has absolutely no relation to competing well in June.

The top 12 move on - that's the same thing we've been doing at regionals for the past six years or so.

The Overseer wrote:

Heaven forbid your "studs" run fast when it counts the most-at the end of the season instead of in those anesthetic time trials at Stanford and Mt. SAC. All you geniuses might have to actually coach with a sensible training cycle that includes some kind of competitive peak.

The proposal doesn't include a "bunch" of extra races-it is only one extra meet. Maybe you could encase your precious "studs" in bubble wrap so they don't get hurt. Our top enders need to learn how to race rather than time trial.

First of all "when it counts" should be the National Championships. The bunch of races I was talking about were the plans that include a regional and super regional meet schedule plus the heats that a runner might have to be run at each meet depending on event. I might also add when you are talking about a 10,000m race even adding one to the schedule is lot of extra wear and tear that is unnecessary. To further my railing against the regional system I would submit there are several problems that arrise with a regional system.

#1 Under a regional system you only place emphasis on tactical racing. For instance someone could theoretically qualify for nationals or even win and never have run faster than 14:12 in the 5000m because all that matters is winning a series of races . The beauty of track at the pro level, most high school state levels and formerly the collegiate level is that it emphasizes running fast (i.e. for time) during the year and tactics at the end of the year at a championship race. This pushes athlete to run fast times and do well "when it counts". I know you are probably the same guys who rant about rabbited races in Europe but I would point out that that is where national and world records in distance running are almost always set and that is why the pros run their schedule like that.

#2 All regional plans do add time and at least one extra meet a year to the season. This just adds extra chances for injury and extra stress to the top college athletes who are trying to go to Europe or other international races and do well for the country. Your slower athletes who are chilling on the couch after regionals or nationals don't care about this but if we want our top athletes to do well we should think about it. Just look at Rupp don't you think he could have done even better if he didn't have to race his heart out at conference, regionals, NCAA nationals and USA nationals before he got to the Olympics. You go tell him that regionals is "where it counts" Its really easy to be holier than thou when your not the one that has to run back to back 5000m and a 10,000m like 3 meets in a row.

#3 Ask your self why do we need a regionals. The whole point behind regionals seems to be to give runners who don't have a chance other wise and probably don't deserve it a shot at going to nationals. Under the old system you could truly say that the field at nationals was the fastest x number of runners in the country by event. Now you can only say that on that given day these runners beat these other runners. Is it fair to tell the fastest runner in the country that he doesn't deserve a shot at running in the national championships because he got food poisoning, or tripped at some regional meet.

The bottom line is all you guys who don't care how fast anyone ever runs or how well we do as a country are being selfish. You just want to see a bunch of useless "interesting" tactical races and don't really care about what the overall outcome is.

The sport of cross country says hello.

I'm sorry, I really try to be polite in my life, but are you *&&^^%$$ kidding me?

Yes, when it counts should be the national championships and the process to get there.

Point #1 - I thought that was the purpose of competition.....to win the game! I believe that one of the things that has been lost (and is proven every time we compete internationally) is that our athletes stink at tactical races. Rabbited races we are fine. You are way off the mark. High school athletics is about advancing. Every state has sectionals, regionals, divisionals, etc. where one must place in the top 2-4 to advance to the next round, and ultimately the championships. Why should it change collegiately.

Point #2 - Who gives a dam about what athletes do in Europe, all we should be concerned about is what is best for NCAA Track & Field. That IS one of our problems, we have people who think that our collegiate season should be just a warm-up for Europe. No, our collegiate season should only be concerned with college kids. With your analogy, that means the NCAA Basketball tournament should shorten the games played so that when our athletes go oversea's in the summer they aren't tired. Who gives a crap about that.

Point #3 - I won't take up space but there are dozens of athletes each year who come from small budgeted programs, who come and compete well head to head, and beat the more publicized athletes from big-money schools. And then they go on to finish in the top 8. You are part of the cancer of our sport that thinks these athletes do not deserve a chance. ABility, hard work, coaching excellence should be what determines our national champion, not how much money your athletic department has.

Take a look how many of the top 8 placers in the national championships in each event came from small programs that don't have the funds to fly their kids around the country. All these people want is a chance.

I'll admit college competition is all I care about. I could give a rats ass about racing in Europe.

Sorry for the rant.

Well said if we focus on our athletes in our competitions (NCAA)we can make the sport better here at home. Eventually this will make us better internationally when we send college graduates over seas even more prepared to race at an elite level.

Great post "a real DI coach", but unfortunately someone like "retard trap" is not going to even try to understand any one of your points. He is interested in what is best for his program (assuming he is a coach) and not what makes the most sense or what is best for the majority. You can have all the facts you want about the small school athlete that ran well at regionals and nationals and ended up placing, but a person like "retard trap" will not listen. It is extremely logical that nationals shouldn't be about the person who ran fast in March, but the person who is running well in May against head to head competition, but many people don't want to think logically.

In all other areas of track and field, such as high school and olympic qualifying, you have to run well on that day, a day that is fairly close to the state, national or olympic competition. But the NCAA does it differently. Also, for the most part, every other sport requires you to peak at the right time. How many baseball teams have had the best record and didn't end up doing well in the playoffs. You have to win when it counts.

the point is not about those small school athletes who have a great couple of meets and eventually get top 8 at the NCAA's. The point of the entire system is to crown ONE single champion. Everything else is just fluff. The best way to do this is to have the people who have performed the best compete against each other to see who can win.

The NCAA committee should not be concerned if some small school kid beats out some kid who ran fast at stanford from a big time program and gets 7th. As happy as the small school kid may be, he doesn't matter, the NCAA championships is about declaring 1 winner.

While a couple of guys in the 5k and 10k may have run fast in march and are not capable of running fast in june, the risk of including them is worth making sure some of the top guys arent left out for some silly issue (think about if Rupp got spiked real bad at the west regional and was done, there is no reason for him to prove again he belongs at the top, and at no fault of his own would have been left out of the NCAA's)

Finally to the poster who brought up how great the college basketball tournament is, single elimination tournaments are about the worst way to pick a national champion. Luck play such a huge factor that you can easily have results that are not indicative of true talent. It makes for exciting television, but when you have an entire season to show who the good teams are, inviting 64 of them and giving them all the same chance to win is illogical. Similarly, giving some who hasnt run fast all year a chance to get really lucky and have one awesome meet, at the expense of people who have performed well during the year, is illogical.