I'm pretty sure Vin doesn't mind having regionals... since its always been there. He is just wondering about the selection process/process of which regionals is run. This system is about "letting the little guys have a shot". This is the NCAA Championship, why is there 48 people in every event in each region? The top times fall off about 20 people deep.. The fields that are going to Eugene will be 95% the same no matter what regional system there is so why make the top tier people run more races..
"This sport is about competing"
Bullshit, this sport is about winning.
Everyone wants to see the best 12 athletes in these finals, why make them run in this shanty regional meet and take the chances of them getting hurt.
DEAR VIN LANANNA: Here are the reasons to have regionals
College Running
D1
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
There is no drop off at twentieth place.
In the 100, the 20th guy ran 10.27, one of them with a 3.7mph wind. The 40th. guy ran 10.38 with a 1.3mph wind.
In the 200 it's 20.71 to 20.81.
In the 400 it's 46.06 to 46.43.
In the 800 it's 1:48.23 to 1:48.95.
In the 1500 it's 3:42.11 to 3:43.23
In the 5k it's 13:48.26 to 13:53.09
In the 10k it's 28:56 to 29:12.
The differentials are so small that descending order lists make a mockery of the qualifying process. Those programs that get multiple races in ideal conditions enjoy a significant advantage of the other competitors. But put them on the line against the so-called little guys and you'll find out that some of those little guys aren't little competitors - they come up big. That's what scares the crap out coaches who only want to play when the deck is stacked in their favor. -
la la land wrote:
Webb, Ritz, Teg, Goucher, Meb, and Abdi may be hurt, but none of the injuries stem from NCAA regional competition.
The problems that Centro and Wheating had were not caused by competing at regionals, but rather from their reaction to the sum total of their race/training program.
Derrick does not have to run 5/10 every other weekend, even if they want him in the 5/10 at NCAAs.
The top runners and their so called coaches need to balance their entire programs so that they don't overextend themselves. They need to do this with or without NCAA regionals.
I happen to coach someone currently right near the top of the NCAA list. I'm going to limit that person's race schedule for the very reason you allude to. I'm not going to put that person on the track six times in three weeks. Those coaches who are using their athletes up by doubling and tripling them or pushing their training to the break point should know better. Killing a meet that provides a great competitive environment for developing runners isn't the answer to that problem.
What the real problem is, and why regionals is being killed, is that some of these coaches will do anything - ruin their own athletes, reduce competitive opportunities for others' athletes - in order to glorify their own egos by placing higher at the NCAA Championships.
I think you just explained your blindness above. You coach A runner. Most coaches are RESPONSIBLE for an entire team. They represent the university and have an obligation to show that money is not being wasted. And a good coach will actually have great team performance at the meets that MATTER as number 1.
The big fish in a small pond program would have no concept of what is required for a true team.
Lananna and the big boys absolutely do. The NCAA is about developing athletes to be great, all the underlings are just part of the process to make it as competitive as possible at the top and nothing more. Sorry for the harsh reality but it's really not an equal opportunity thing, it's about making our best great. Anything that the teat sucklers get from being part of that is just secondary and an afterthought.
And you really can't compare sprinting to distance running in terms of what the body goes for and recovery time. Aerobic work VS. anaerobic is nowhere in the realm of comparable.
Regarding the guys you listed above being injured, you missed the point completely. The point is, it's difficult enough to stay healthy for our top guys, why make it more difficult for no good reason?
And as far as the college first international competition second thing, yes that's true. It's also true that if these guys make world teams / olympic teams it's very inspiring to high schoolers and makes it seem less of a fantasy and more of a reality, meaning that good athletes who may or may not pursue running may just be more likely to stick with running. This is the cycle of progression manifesting. More young runners inspired means more young runners competing and more talent showing through and going onto college.
Watering down college only waters down high school running and we go back to the 1990's. It took a high profile coach selling a soccer play on the Oregon legacy and Prefontaine to get Rupp converted and a Prefontaine movie to hook Wheating. Fernandez was inspired by Hall who ran 13:15 at the NCAA championships. The point here, is that great accomplishments inspire great prospects. The whole regional concept caters to sub-greats and that makes NO SENSE. Ok, you guys couldn't run fast so let's drag the studs on an all day and possibly overnight travel, cramp their legs on planes, busses and vans all day to and from the competition and have them alter trainings so the pooper scoopers can have a shot to scoop poop at NCAA's?
The point should be about making our top 4-8 runners in each event the best and most high profile they can be. Have them race fast times, have them race eachother on fresh, healthy legs. These are the guys where our future greats emerge from. Being counter productive to that is counter productive to the whole system.
Every year you miss out on possible talent as it is simply not interested in running. The goal for American running has to be to get more potential out, not less because we are interested in an NCAA charity event. When a high schooler happens to see the USA championships and Derrick is wearing a Stanford shirt, Wheating an Oregon, Fernandez and Ok State that has an impact. Last summer Derrick was fried and Wheating and Centro were injured. That's not the kind of thing we want to encourage.
A lot of people regard the olympic trials 800 final as one of the greatest races they have seen. What would it have been if Wheating wasn't in there going from 7th to 2nd down the homestretch behind Symmonds? Certainly not the same. I think you all need to do a little 10 hour travel trip with a nice delay or layover to rethink your passion for regionals. -
Clearly having someone run a qualifier the last weekend of March for a National meet that is the 2nd weekend in June makes far more sense then having people earn their way in.
Wheating was impressive at the 08 Trials cause he was race sharp via the NCAA qualifing process. Sharper than alot of post collegiate guys that over coached themselves into less racing....
Going back to the desending order list is just the big programs' coaches' big egos trying to convince people less comp is better. Yea better for them maybe but crappy for a sport that has enough problems....
Maybe if they can get this change made we can get the IAAF to revamp the WC of OC's to one section finals selected from a worldwide decending order list... -
naw, wheating was sharp that year because his coach knows when and how to peak him. it's not his or vins fault that other programs don't peak right or more importantly stay cool under pressure.
not sure if this was posted yet, but here's vins true perspective:
http://www.runnerspace.com/video.php?do=view&member_id=42&video_id=27021
very level headed and professional. from his perspective the current system doesn't make sense, I think if any of us were in his position we'd agree. -
You are so right. These guys with a coupe athletes come posting their drivel here without having to actually deal with the collegiate situation. The poster would have Drake, Penn Relays, Oregon Relays, etc. all dry up because they want a silly Regional meet at the end of the year to be the only meet that matters in getting to the championships. Methinks enough sane posts have pretty much proven that the "la la" and "quesion" are so opinionated that they can't see reality when it slaps them in the face.
Thankfully, the majorit of the coaches see it for what it is and this will be the final year of these sill regionals.
I had to laugh at the posts condemning Vin Lananna for over racing his kids. Wheating has raced very few times this year (count them), Centro has raced even fewer time (count them and MacNamara fewer yet (count them). No, Lananna isn't complaining ("whining" as the OP claims), he is asking a legitimate WHY? I think most of us understand, but there are a few whose agendas don't leave room for reason. EOT. -
That's a laugh. Most of the fast performances come at meets like Peyton Jordan. People go to Drake or Penn to compete, not chase regional marks. Regionals hasn't hurt those meets in the slightest, and eliminating regionals won't help those meets either.
Tacomasfan wrote:
You are so right. These guys with a coupe athletes come posting their drivel here without having to actually deal with the collegiate situation. The poster would have Drake, Penn Relays, Oregon Relays, etc. all dry up because they want a silly Regional meet at the end of the year to be the only meet that matters in getting to the championships.
Please feel free to provide counter-arguments to my original points or any of my other posts in this thread. So far, nobody's been able to do so. They can complain about costs or saving our prima donna stars' legs, but when it comes to what's best for competition and selecting the national field, nobody's been able to argue that the descending order list is better. -
Actually, while no one has made a great case for the descending order list being better, plenty have pointed out that for the majority of the field, especially the front part, it's probably equivilant. And in the face of equivilance, cheaper wins.
-
Let's wait and see how many of the top 12 in the fields of the regionals actually secure a spot in the top 12 who proceed to nationals when it goes head to head this week.
We may see that those from the top 5 or 6 progress rather as expected, but once you get past that the form chart will break down because there will be some athletes who compete better when it counts and some who compete better when it doesn't. -
No offense, but I don't care much about the 12 guy in the region (or the 23rd or 24th guy in the national field). Yes, there will be a bit of spot-changing in the back of the field. Great for them, probably not going to impact the all-american spots.
But I will bet this: print out the lists of the current top 10 times in all mid-distance or distance races. I will predict that of the ones that run regions (I assume some will not run each event), > 90% will make nationals. -
You're on.
No way will 90% of the top ten guys make nationals. I'm glad that you make that claim, because it will well illustrate that in real world terms it doesn't work like that.
I commend your forthrightness, though. Good post. -
Sounds good. I copied the top 10 from the most current lists I know of- http://www.tfrrs.org/. 800 through 10k, men. I'll let you know how many of those who start at regions make it to Eugene.
-
All is well and good that you will compare the top 10 or 12 and see how they do. I am pretty certain that 10 - 12 of the tops at Regionals will come from the top 12-15 from current lists. This will pretty much establish the 90% + argument and pretty much dispel any other notions about the "little guys" and etc.
However, this does nothing for the OP's argument because that asks about Regional Meets (not a single event). That fact highlights the fallacy of his argument(s). In order to disprove him you will have to go through this exercise for all the events at Regionals, not just middle distance/distance races. Nreverthless, if you do take the time to do this with the Hammer throw, high jump, 100 meter hurdles and ad nauseum all the events, the results will be near the same--90% of ultimate NC qualifiers will come from the top 12-15 top qualifying marks/times in each event.
So, the real question will become, "should we be holding unnecessary and expensive Regional meets for that 10% whom the Sisters of the Poor are whining about (yes, the whining is actually coming from the Sisters of the Poor and not from the Vin Lananna's). I can already hear their miserable wailing once intelligence and sanity prevails and the Regionals are no more. -
I think that you're going to see some of the top guys get eliminated in the first round of the 800 and 1500, never mind from the semi-finals.
Your beloved descending order list will be shown to have the integrity of swiss cheese.
Times don't mean a thing, if you ain't got that swing. -
la la land wrote:
I think that you're going to see some of the top guys get eliminated in the first round of the 800 and 1500, never mind from the semi-finals.
Your beloved descending order list will be shown to have the integrity of swiss cheese.
Times don't mean a thing, if you ain't got that swing.
ONE THING FOR SURE, the weaknesses of the descending order will be exposed for all to see on this message board. -
Perhaps in the 800/1500 that could happen, but the thread is about the Regional Meet (not a couple events). If you are purposely changing your lost argument, then go for it. Even I might agree that the descending order can be disrupted in an individual event. But, Lananna's comments were about the holding of an unnecessary meet, which costs far too much for the little that it will accomplish. Lananna obviously is congnizant of economic terms like the law of diminishing returns.
-
The arguement is about "why" not "how come it costs money"?
And why we have the regionals is so that athletes can earn their way into the meet through competition head to head, because that's what competition is all about.
If the descending order lists so accurately represent the absolute ranking of performance, you have nothing to worry about. All the guys in the top ten will progress -- after all, they only have to come in the top twelve. You will have the brilliant proof that the regional meet was unnecessary.
However, if you find that many athletes who weren't ranked in the top 12 or top 15 or top 20 and who would never have been considered for nationals proceed out of the meet qualified for nationals, you will have evidence that the regional meet is superior as a means of selection to nationals - unless, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear this - you will argue that losing head to head doesn't prove anything. -
I couldn't agree more with post author. Regionals is a good concept. An expensive one, but good for the sport. Descending order lists are only encourage racing for TIMES, but does nothing for head to head competition.
Vin (and others) want to block out others from the national meet.
The Wilson plan will NOT stop folk from going to Stanford in MARCH, qualifying with a "fast" time for a NATIONAL C'ship to be help 8-10 weeks later. That is crazy. Most of the 5k and 10k field will be oicked from one meet late March. This sysyem sucks. Awarding national spots in March is wrong. My suggestion is too close the window of opportunity to qualify for the meet to mid-April, especially for the 5k and 10k. Athletes should be rewarded for peaking at he RIGHT time.
What was wrong with the old Regional system minus the "Time" qualifiers? Going to a Regional meet for head-to-head competition is good for the sport. Teaching athletes that RACING is better than running for TIME is good. -
I couldn't agree more with post author. Regionals is a good concept. An expensive one, but good for the sport. Descending order lists are only encourage racing for TIMES, but does nothing for head to head competition.
Vin (and others) want to block out others from the national meet.
The Wilson plan will NOT stop folk from going to Stanford in MARCH, qualifying with a "fast" time for a NATIONAL C'ship to be help 8-10 weeks later. That is crazy. Most of the 5k and 10k field will be oicked from one meet late March. This sysyem sucks. Awarding national spots in March is wrong. My suggestion is too close the window of opportunity to qualify for the meet to mid-April, especially for the 5k and 10k. Athletes should be rewarded for peaking at he RIGHT time.
What was wrong with the old Regional system minus the "Time" qualifiers? Going to a Regional meet for head-to-head competition is good for the sport. Teaching athletes that RACING is better than running for TIME is good. -
Why don't we get rid of the Olympic Trials while we're at it? We should just get a list of times from when the last Olympics ended to about June of the current Olympic year and just send our top three based on time. I'm sure it'll all work out in the end, the medalists at the Games will still probably be the same. So what's the problem?
The problem is, you don't win races by being the fastest on the track, you win races by beating everyone else. I'm so sick of the U.S. having guys that are time trialers. We need guys that can go out there and race. Racing at the Regional is going to get you more experience than running a set up rabbited meet in March/April for a meet 3 months later.
Of the top 30 times in the 10000m Run for the East 2/3 of them were set at a West Coast meet (Stanford, Mt. SAC, Payton Jordan). And in the top 20, 15 of them! Does nobody else have a problem with these glorified time trials?
The current system is probably as good as it's going to get. Taking the top 48 in each region in distance events is great, guys don't have to run completely spectacular times to get into the regional meet so they can train through the outdoor season and not having to worry about having a top 15-25 time in the country (and chasing a time until the very end) to make it to nationals.
An All-American guy can run a 29:30 at his conference meet get his ticket to the Regional and be good to go at regional for a real race. And race (god-forbid someone do that) his way to the National meet and a high placing when it counts.
Just my thoughts on the issue.
