By which he means "bad for Pat Henry".
you are forgetting that for most of the year teams fly all over the country to run in non-scored invitational meets where it doesn't matter if you win as long as you run fast and post a good national calibre time. how is this weekend any different?
What is different is that the teams that spend big bucks in recruiting the top kids and flying them all over the country to run fast, don't like it when they get beat by lesser funded, lesser reputationed athletes and programs.
there are too many good teams and good athletes in the country to not have everyone "compete" for the right to make it to NCAAs.
really? what do you get for being the Stanford invitational winner? NOTHING but the time you earned. at least at regionals your place earns you something: the right to continue on.
Curious Cardinal wrote:
Please, take your track-fanboy glasses off! True track fans will sit through anything, and yes, be rewarded by a few great performances here and there. And all of this "drama" will be deathly boring to anyone not already heavily invested in T&F. However, for track to survive (and avoid being the next program cut in the next budget crisis), it has to be more attractive to the casual fan. Having a product that can be completed in 3 hours or, even better, two hours would be much more fan friendly. I don't go to movies that are three hours long, why would a casual fan devote all day to a track extravaganza?
Criticize it or not, fans like true team competition. In an NCAA Championship meet, it's possible for the top 2 teams to never go head to head in any single event. The meet can go several events in a row without event results having any implication for the team title. In a limited-attention-span society, this is death to TV viewership. And how often do we see the title come down to the 4x4 and only one or two of the top teams is represented? Last year was great with FSU, TAMU & UF in the 4x4, but it was less compelling because Oregon didn't have a team in that event.
Why not have a true 1-on-1 team competition like Tennis? Have the top 8 dual-meet teams (based on points or a poll) compete in dual meets until one team wins the national crown. The individual championship could follow a week or 10 days after the final dual meet. I guarantee, that would generate a hell of a lot more fan interest on the college level than the mess we see now. I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN picked up some or all of the "playoff" meets for live television. Moreover, it would be a lot harder for a team to win a title by relying solely on sprints or distance.
And for those who complain that this format favors the "rich" track programs, so what? Who wins football and basketball every year? Yes, there are a lot of complaints, but we all watch.
Crusty Old Retired Coach wrote:
Soooo if a school has a very weak team overall, and they recruit/land a superstar athlete that wants to stay close to home, under your system, he or she would never see the national meet? That's cool, just so I understand you. I mean, who cares if talent is left sitting at home through no fault of their own. I don't say this often on here, but, for you here goes, IDIOT!