What TFRRS Means to Track & Field
This decision will impact each and every NCAA college program, meet director, online
registration company, timekeeper, and software developer in track & field... and no one
knows about it! Please read this full letter in order to understand its full magnitude.
A system to consolidate all collegiate results in the country—effectively mandated by the
NCAA—was forged between the USTFCCCA and DirectAthletics over the summer. No one
was given a chance to provide input or suggestions and no alternative bids or solutions were
invited. The move was made by a select few insiders without outside input. Even now,
after the announcement was quietly made public on the USTFCCCA web site, no one we
have spoken to—timers, coaches, members of the track & field media, even USTFCCCA
board members (??!!)—had heard the first thing anything about it.
When is it going into effect? Not next year, not next spring, but next month! The system
will go live in just a few days (November 2) when all coaches will be emailed and told to
put their rosters into this system and then it will be mandated for all meets seeking to have
their results count for NCAA qualifiers when indoor meets start at the end of November!
On the surface, it sounds really good. It is a “free” system that will consolidate results,
make it easier for the NCAA to validate qualifiers, and provide a web site for rankings to
the public. However, this secretive program presents some major challenges, creates an at
least temporary monopoly for Hytek in meet management software, creates a closed
rankings/results monopoly, and makes it virtually impossible (or at least impractical) for
anyone to use any online registration system but DirectAthletics (not to mention pretty
much mandates that you use DA, even if you typically do your own entries).
Background
As most people know, MileSplit is primarily a high school based company. It's not
exaggerating to say probably 98% of our traffic and revenue come from high school. We are
starting to dip our toe into college and certainly hope to do more in that area, but this is no
means our bread and butter. So that is to say, while we do stand to gain/lose from this...
not significantly so. Our concern is calling this out for what it is and offering a solution.
Back in February, we received a tip that the NCAA had been planning to do something like
this and we were urged to reach out to them. I did so personally, and after talking to the
decision maker there I was told that there were no plans of the sort and that if that should
change we'd be given the opportunity to pitch what we could offer. Neither of those things
turned out to be true.
We develop a race management software that is available for free called RaceTab. While
we certainly integrate it with our own online registration, we try to be good citizens by
opening it up and integrating it with other services also. We have worked with both
DirectAthletics and CoachO to make this a reality. Last month, we reached out to
DirectAthletics about the new version we are developing and offered tighter integration
with their system. They agreed and sent back a technical document that referenced
something called TFRRS and the USTFCCA. “What in the world is this?”, we wondered.
Come to find out about a week later, the USTFCCCA announced on their web site that this
new system was being released and is going into effect virtually immediately! It was being
mandated by the NCAA that it would be the only way for a qualifying mark to count for
nationals. Putting this information together with the programming document we were
sent, it quickly became apparent to me that what I was looking at was not good and
essentially just created about three monopolies.
Here is the announcement:
http://www.ustfccca.org/featured/ustfccca-announces-new-track-fieldresults-
reporting-system
Monopoly #1: Online Registration
I frantically reached out to DirectAthletics for answers. After several days of trying (it was
over a weekend) I finally talked to the developer at DirectAthletics on Monday. I have
known him for years and greatly respect him as a fellow programmer and nice guy. He
assured me that it did not create a monopoly and anyone was free to use any other system
they pleased. I asked for an explanation because to my eyes that simply was not the case.
The system works like this... Every meet, team, and athlete are assigned an ID number by
DirectAthletics/TFRRS. People must go to their web site to set these things up and get
their ID number. The entries to a meet are then downloaded into a meet manager (Hytek)
and have these numbers embedded in the download. Then, after the meet, Hytek will
transmit these results back to DirectAthletics/TFRRS and they will feed into this new
system automatically by use those ID #s. Any results without this ID# will not count.
Problem #1 – Day of Entries
I'll do this one first because it's simplest. At every meet I've ever been to there are changes
and additions day of. The timer is keying in new entries and athletes on the fly. Because
these are being typed in at the meet, the ID # of the athlete would not have been
downloaded. Without that, their result will be thrown out of TFRRS.
DA's explanation is that this ID # is stored in a hidden field in Hytek called registration #.
There is apparently some option deep within Hytek to unlock this field (one very
experienced timer I talked to had no clue where this possibly was). So the timer would
unlock this field and then they would have to enter the athlete and type in their ID # as
well.
The ID# is a 14 character alphanumeric string. Even if the coach happens to have a print
out of their roster with these “TFRRS ID#s” at the meet, tell me is this really going to be
done in the heat of the battle at a meet? No.
Problem #2 – Locking out other systems (the bigger problem)
These ID numbers only exist in DirectAthletics/TFRRS. Using any other online registration
system as-is, the download of the entries would not contain this number and so any meet
that desired for their results to go into this TFRRS system and count as NCAA qualifying
performances would have no choice but to use DirectAthletics.
Further, as a side note, any meet that did not normally use an online registration system at
all or had their own system (think Penn Relays) would be out of luck. They would have to
use DirectAthletics in order to get these results counted... or else somehow obtain and then
manually key in all of these 14 character ID#s for every single athlete and team in the
meet!!! (Not to mention having to also register their meet on TFRRS first)
DirectAthletics responded to this question saying this was not the case. Their solution and
answer is technically true: it is technically possible to use other online registration
systems. However, technically true doesn't make it so in practice. The process forces
coaches registering through other systems to jump through hoops that anyone who has
worked in technical support or been a time-pressed coach knows they would not do.
Bottom line: Direct Athletics=easy, Others=pain in the ass.
Their solution was that all other online registration systems must alter their software to
support holding this new id # and a way for coaches to enter it into their roster for each
athlete. This is doable, though probably not possible in the mere month we have to
comply!!! As coaches put in their entries into the meet, they would also be required to
type in this 14 character alphanumeric ID for each and every one of their athletes. Now
you tell me how a coach with 50 athletes on their track roster is going to react to that?
My immediate (simple) request was that an option be provided that would allow for
programmatically querying their system for the roster. So if Florida State is registering for
a meet, it would dynamically pull in the roster of names and ID#s from TFRRS. If there was
a match then it could automatically put in those ID#s, making coaches' lives easier and
making it not quite as much of a hassle to use other registration systems. This suggestion
was basically shrugged off.
Monopoly #2: Meet Management Software
Hytek has such a strong position in the industry, maybe this is not a big deal to most.
However, we all should agree competition is good. And also, there are a number of people
who use other meet management software for various reasons (cost, tradition, ease of use)
or even those who use something like Excel.
No dice anymore.
At least for now, Hytek is the only meet management software that will work in this new
system. Why? Because Hytek is the only one who can import entries, store the ID#, and
then submit the results into this new system.
It is surely possible for other meet managers to support this system in the future. And to
their credit DirectAthletics is actually reaching out to them (or at least to us with RaceTab)
to get others to support it in the future. However, they didn't exactly give developers much
time to respond did they? TFRRS is going live for its first meets in just a matter of weeks.
There is barely time to scramble to digest all of this, let alone develop a new software
update and test it adequately, etc.
And anyone who is not using a compatible system or is using some other program (like
Excel) to type up results? They are left with no choice but to either use Hytek or to do a
whole lot of manual typing of these ID#s and formatting the results into a tedious and long
CSV format with 50 columns! Yes, 50.
So there is now a temporary monopoly in software. Hopefully, I will be able to react
quickly enough and make RaceTab the second.
Monopoly #3: Results and Rankings Web Site
Many web sites out there are working to establish sites for college, posting results and
rankings. These include MileSplit, Athletic.net, prTrack, and RunnerSpace... and there are
probably others. Basically, they just introduced a closed system that makes these services
obsolete and basically shuts down that portion of these web sites.
Now, I am not about to open my rankings database of high school statistics to others and I'm
pretty sure Athletic.net would feel the same. After all, we spend hours upon hours with a
large staff and lots of money and resources to get those statistics into our system. This,
however, is different. This is an automated system that is being mandated by the NCAA! So
they are essentially choosing one company in the space and cutting out the others.
Further irritation to this point for me, is they would like me to integrate our free meet
management software, RaceTab, with their system. Thus RaceTab would be fully
supporting it and feeding large amounts of results into their system.
So we are essentially required to spend our development time, customer support, and
resources into integrating with their system (if we want to be able to be used by any
college meets) and inputting these results directly into their system. And yet, we are not
returned the same favor by being able to pull anything back out!
If this is an NCAA mandate and it is supposed to be this collaboration then it needs to be
open. It needs to be a two-way street and not a “walled garden” that declares one
company the victor.
What happens in an anti-competitive environment?
DirectAthletics is already the highest priced vendor in the scholastic/collegiate online
registration industry. What then happens when they are given the keys to the kingdom and
can charge whatever they want?
If you put on meets this should speak directly to you (and your bottom line).
What about the timekeepers?
They now must work harder and use DirectAthletics. If they had relationships with other
vendors or had designed their own system (like many have)... oh well. If they have their
own custom registration system, sure they can invest the time and money to have changes
made to their system to work with TFRRS. However, given the short timeframe it makes it
nearly impossible to accomplish by track season.
Besides that, it would be such a hassle for the coaches entering their teams in these meets,
they would surely revolt! (or at very least become very frustrated)
What am I suggesting?
I would love to suggest for this whole thing to be thrown out or at least tabled, put out for
bids, and opened for everyone to have input instead of having it backdoored and rammed
down our collective throats.
But I don't believe that is going to happen. The decision makers have made the call, the
announcement has gone out, and the system is already developed!
On Monday, I presented a nicely-worded letter to the USTFCCCA (CCing DirectAthletics,
NCAA, and others stakeholders) with some changes that could be made to make TFRRS a
little more open. After a follow-up email and several phone calls, I finally talked to Sam
Seemes (the CEO of USTFCCCA) on Thursday morning (October 29). I was informed that the
decision had been made and that they were not interested in discussing any changes at this
time. I attempted to express my concerns and the anti-competitive issues this created, but
these issues did not seem to matter. Sam insisted this was not a mandate (even though it is
required for qualifying for nationals) and asked why he should ask for anyone else's opinion
when running his business (a not-for-profit whose goal is apparently not to further the
sport, he told me). He continued to insist that people are free to use whatever system they
want—even if doing so requires so much work that it is no longer practical.
I now clearly know that the USTFCCCA is not in the mood for any tweaks, but basically my
proposal just asked for nine simple changes/additions to the programming interface to
make it a little more open. It doesn't solve all of the problems but at least solves some of
them, makes it a little more open, integration and two-way communication possible, and
makes it slightly less anti-competitive (still clearly turns the tables in DirectAthletics' favor,
just less so). As a programmer, I can assure you that these changes are not major or time
consuming. If I were tasked with them, I could complete these changes in 2-3 days (16-24
hours).
In abbreviated form they are:
1. Make it compatible with Javascript for web page interface (think Gmail or
Facebook). JSON and AJAX for you technically savvy folks.
2. Creating new meets. Even if somehow you find a way not to use DirectAthletics, you
still need to go to the TFRRS web site to create your meet. It would be easy to allow
other programs or web sites to do this and not require that extra step.
3. Retrieve roster. If the roster could be imported from TFRRS to another system, it
could be matched by name and save the coach from having to enter it manually.
4. Retrieve a team list. Teams also have a TFRRS ID# so for anyone else to integrate
with it, the teams need to be associated to their number.
5. Pulling results out. As mentioned earlier, this needs to be a two-way street. If you
are requiring people to put results in, they should be able to get it out.
6. Create new athletes. If people use our system or another system to enter their
roster, why not automatically update their roster in TFRRS as well... eliminating the
double work for coaches.
7. Edit athletes. Same as above. Fix a name or grade in another system, let's keep
TFRRS in sync also and cut the coach's work in half.
8. Download season. Very very minor, the interface they currently offer does not
specify the season (outdoor, indoor) of the meet.
9. Programatically let partner sites know about new results being posted (called pinging
by developers). Then we can use item #5 to automatically pull them in. Otherwise,
the alternative is called polling where a program will keep checking at a certain time
interval for new results (assuming they open this up to begin with), which is harder
on both the sending server and adds more load on the DirectAthletics/TFRRS server.
Nine simple requests to make this system workable and more open.
What can we do?
We are going to have to start making some noise and letting people know about it. Since
this is all coming at us VERY QUICKLY there is not much time for waiting around or hoping
they contact us back and want to try to work with us on it. The time is now.
No one knows about this! So, first of all, get the word out! Forward this letter to whoever
is a stakeholder in this: coaches, meet directors, timekeepers, media, software
developers, etc. Talk it up and let people know what's going on.
Secondly, I have been contacted by many people who are very concerned and just finding
out about this. From these folks who know the politics and decision making process of
these groups far better than I, they advise me to have everyone express their concerns to
Liz Suscha at the NCAA.
This is NOT to throw her under the bus and she should NOT be yelled at or disrespected. By
all accounts I've heard she is a nice, considerate, and good-willed person. However, I
believe she did not realize the side effects and anti-competitive concerns this program
introduced. Please let her know you are concerned about it and this needs to have some
discussion and changes at the very least.
Email her at
or call her at the NCAA Office at (317) 917-6222.
Thank you all for your support and for standing up for our sport. Please let me know if you
have any questions and please keep me in the loop of what you find out.
Sincerely Yours,
Jason Byrne
CEO and Developer of MileSplit
(877) 833-7223 x601