Track Regionals...whats the deal?

green tambourine wrote:

Wow, take an example from 5 years ago, that had little to do with the Regional setup, and more to do with an incompetent official, and use that as a argument position?

How did it have "little to do with the regional setup"? It had everything to do with the regional set up he was disqualified for a technicality at REGIONALS. If there was a decending order list and auto quailfyers Craig would have run nationals and won vs not run nationals and be robbed of chance to win when he was the clear favorite. He asked for an example of a person favored to win and was not able to run nationals because of the reginal system. Yes in this case it was an incompetent official, that was my point, any one of a hundred things (including an incompetent official) can happen at REGIONALS that could prevent people who desreve to be at nationals from being there.

green tambourine wrote:

Wow, take an example from 5 years ago, that had little to do with the Regional setup, and more to do with an incompetent official, and use that as a argument position?

How did it have "little to do with the regional setup"? It had everything to do with the regional set up he was disqualified for a technicality at REGIONALS. If there was a decending order list and auto quailfyers Craig would have run nationals and won vs not run nationals and be robbed of chance to win when he was the clear favorite. He asked for an example of a person favored to win and was not able to run nationals because of the reginal system. Yes in this case it was an incompetent official, that was my point, any one of a hundred things (including an incompetent official) can happen at REGIONALS that could prevent people who desreve to be at nationals from being there.

You are talking in circles your first point that its about all American status seems to further prove his point that if anyone can "get lucky" and get in to nationals the chances of them scoring a top 8 are more likely than winning obviously which means once again you have someone who doesn't deserve to be there getting an honor that they really don't deserve. As for your second point how does running a top 20 time in the country NOT prove you deserve to be at nationals? The fact that people run fast at Stanford every year doesn't guarantee that if anyone who enters that race will run a top 20 time you still have to run a top 20 time based on your fitness and abilities. No system even proposes to take in to account "proving over the course of a season" because that makes no sense in track. Would you perfer to qualify to nationals based on # of wins? His point was that time is the great yard stick by which you can measure everyone in the country’s worthiness to attend the championship not performance at an extra meet simply invented to give slow runner a chance. You site XC of all things as an example, that makes no sense. The whole reason we run on a TRACK is that it is a STANDARD length and dimension. All times are converted to sea level so that a time run in Mississippi is the same as one ran at Boulder or Stanford. That is why we keep records for school, state, country, the world etc. Obviously we can't compare to different XC courses by time because they are DIFFRENT all tracks are supposed to be close enough to compare the two other wise why run around in a circle at all?

No, no. I don't view it as "getting lucky" and getting in to nationals; I view it as EARNING YOUR WAY IN by beating people at regionals.

Regarding the top 20 times argument, just look at the DMR last year in indoor. A lot of teams made it ON TIME that probably didn't deserve to be there, whereas some teams (like Providence, who ran a 9:35 on their own and didn't make it) probably were much better teams and could've beaten them heads up given the chance.

Would I prefer to qualify to nationals based on number of wins? No. I'd prefer to qualify based on ONE win, a win at regionals.

Your final point -- all tracks are (supposedly) the same length but not all are created equal. And not all times of the year were created equal either.

The descending order list incentivizes being able to run a fast time early in the year in cool conditions behind a rabbit. That's great if you want everyone to peak their training for March. A good system would emphasize being able to run fast and place high/win races in June.

Finally....If we went by the time-based approach we wouldn't have even allowed Shannon Rowbury to run at Worlds as she was our 4th-fastest athlete; why give a slow runner a chance? Maybe because she was the best at RACING (not time=trialing) when it mattered.

It seems to me that the two region format is set for next year. I'm pretty excited for the meet. It shall be a great meet with all the athletes there having a clean shot at making nationals.

I don't know what all the pissing and moaning is about. Let's get ready to rumbullllllll!

retard trap:

Just one slight correction. You used the example of Alistar Craig getting screwed out of winning the NCAA due to the regional set-up. That is not accurate. John McDonnell, asked one of his buddies whether Craig needed to run, and was told no. If McDonnell had: 1) read the simple meet information he would have known the kid needed to run, and 2) if he had asked any of the meet management from the NCAA Office he would have been told the kid needed to run. It wasn't the regional system that doomed Craig, it was his coaches old-boy network which screwed him over.

Just wanted to make that correction.

When does the official decision of 2-region format versus descending order list get made OFFICIALLY? There still is no site for either one been made public. If regionals was such a done deal, college coaches would know where it is so they could do budgets already!

Me think we are going to descending order list for "cost-saving" which is all the rage amond administrators now!

I haven't heard anything official. I've been told by a person on the executive committee (not the more powerful cabinet) that there are 2 sites penciled in for the 2-region format.

The official decision was made officially last year. This week's meeting was simply for the NCAA to confirm that yes, they did have the intestinal fortitude to go ahead with their prior decision.

As for location, last year's East Regional wasn't announced until March, so don't hold your breath.

A real DI coach wrote:

retard trap:

Just one slight correction. You used the example of Alistar Craig getting screwed out of winning the NCAA due to the regional set-up. That is not accurate. John McDonnell, asked one of his buddies whether Craig needed to run, and was told no. If McDonnell had: 1) read the simple meet information he would have known the kid needed to run, and 2) if he had asked any of the meet management from the NCAA Office he would have been told the kid needed to run. It wasn't the regional system that doomed Craig, it was his coaches old-boy network which screwed him over.

Just wanted to make that correction.

I am sure you are correct that Mcdonnell asked one of his buddies about having to run or not. However his buddy was in fact a meet official at the regional meet correct? The way you put it seems like I am sure that there are a lot of people on these boards that know the story better than me because I wasn't there but the way the story was told to me was that Craig had some sort of slight injury and asked to be allowed not to run and qualify on time. Because the rule just stated you had to enter and attempt to run the race or something to that effect. The meet official told him he was good but really didn't have the authority to make the call. As I understood it if he had toed the line and ran a 100 meters or so and then pulled off claiming an injury he would have been fine it was that he did not even start the race. Either way regardless of how it went down my point was the best runner in the country was not allowed to run at nationals because of a technicality. You can say it wasn't the regional system but ask yourself would it have happened under the old system, obviously not.

I really like the fact that their will be no at large bids. Under this system I will get more people into nationals than ever. In the past I have had 8 throwers get into nationals that were between 50-100 on the national descending order list. However I have had 5 more that finished between 6-9 at regionals that got knocked out because of early big marks and windy discus marks.

This will make people compete and will separate the talent brokers from the real coaches.

Just beacause you ran fast in march and have a top 24 time does not mean you are still that good in May or JUne. If you are that good then prove it.

DI Interest wrote:

Finally....If we went by the time-based approach we wouldn't have even allowed Shannon Rowbury to run at Worlds as she was our 4th-fastest athlete; why give a slow runner a chance?

Shannon Rowbury is not slow. Bad example!

The rule states that you must run and finish in the top 12 in order to receive an at large bid. It is very clear and everyone (well almost everyone) knows this rule. Finish 13th go home don't compete go home plain and simple.

sameolstuff wrote:

Just beacause you ran fast in march and have a top 24 time does not mean you are still that good in May or JUne. If you are that good then prove it.

People love to make this claim, and it really bothers me. Fine maybe some people wont run as fast as they ran in march, but the other people that I wouldnt include have never run that fast. If you have run a time or thrown a distance or jumped a height, you have the ability to do it again, if you never have, then you never have. Until you hit a mark you cant say you are that caliber of an athlete, whereas those who have done well all have the ability to potentially repeat their success.

Distance runners love to talk about the kind of "shape" they are in, 99 times out of a 100 ill take a kid who has run fast (even a couple of months earlier) then the kid who says he is in shape now.

Retard Trap...

here is the problem with the sport of track and field...One we have lost track (no pun intended) of competition. It's great to run fast, not saying it's not, but what sport is about is competition. Head to Head, win or lose competition.

Second the Division I athletes who all think they are far superior than every other division need to get off their lazy asses and quit whinning about competeting...You say those trying to run internationally?? How many really are. For christ sakes its like saying every college football player is going to try to play in the pro's. Its not going to happen, its a minority that do make that happen, and to be honest we havent' done crap internationally lately so why dont we get back to grass roots and run at home and compete.

I like the fact that the NCAA is saying COMPETE!

If the fastest runners can't beat the competition at regionals, what makes you think they can do it at Nationals? Being in the same race is the ultimate measuring stick, much more so than times run in a different time and place. Of course having a regional increses the risk that an accident will deprive someone of the right to compete at nationals, but risk is part of life. There are safety nets in place to ensure the top athletes advance on time regardless of whether they've advanced by place (assuming they've toed the line).

not so fast wrote:

Distance runners love to talk about the kind of "shape" they are in, 99 times out of a 100 ill take a kid who has run fast (even a couple of months earlier) then the kid who says he is in shape now.

I agree with "Hello People." Take the guessing out of it and let the two kids race each other!

how many relay teams to regionals?