The NCAA has decided to keep the two region, top 48 post-season format that we had this year for the coming year. The 24/8 plan was sent back to the committee for more analysis and so the 2011 outdoor season will have the same post-season format as the 2010 season had.
Somebody send a box of tissues to Eugene and College Station because you know Vin and Pat are both going to be whining over this one!
The laugh is on us fools. NCAAs are going to be in Des Moines 2011 & 2012 which is wonderful. But get this, then it will be back in Eugene for another series of disasters in 2013 & 2104 with the rain, pollen, Nike corruption, and rotten/ incompetent OTC meet management. God help us all.
So who will host the two regionals? No one has stepped up and it doesn't look like much fun to organize. To be fair, though, no one knew until today that there would even be any regional meets next year.
link please?
need proof
you can't win with D1 T&F. either lose millions at regionals, or go back to Meth Town USA and get screwed by the ex 60s Hippies and Draft Dodgers and current Meth Addicts of the Oregon Track Club, the White Eunuchs from Nike, the assholes on staff at UO T&F, or by the Homeless Bikers Tour Group.
Here you go:http://www.ustfccca.org/featured/ncaa-sticks-with-current-outdoor-tf-post-season-format-for-2011
RuKiddingMe! wrote:
link please?
need proof
Exxxcellennnttt.
I hope both meets go to good sites.
Stanford? Eugene? Berkeley?
LSU? Indiana? Arkansas?
Do you think after all the concern about the Texas heat this year that Eugene will attempt to host the meet next year?
I think that Eugene would be a great site for regionals. Easy on the Oregon group as well - no travel and the hometown crowd support can't hurt.
I found the NCAA more interesting because I had the chance to see at least half the qualifiers at the regional meet. Knowing the competitors more increased the resonance of the finals.
I really like this system, in that it is fair and allows everyone to step up their game at the end of the season when the chips are on the table.
la la land wrote:
I really like this system, in that it is fair and allows everyone to step up their game at the end of the season when the chips are on the table.
Regional qualifying is better than just taking top times from the season, but unless the regions are equitable it cannot be described as fair. There will never be a regional split that makes all the events equitable, but look at a few of these events:
Mens 100: Top8- 5e and 3w; East went 1-2-3
Mens 1500: Top12- 4e and 8w; West had 8 of the top 9!
Mens 3kSt: Top14- 6e and 8w; East went 1-2, but west had next 7!
Mens 10k: Top12-4e and 8w; West went 2-6 after Chelanga
Mens Decathlon (I know they didn't do regionals): Top12- 3e and 9w; West went 1-5
Mens Hammer: East 1-4 and 6 of top 8
Womens 400: Top8- 6e and 2w
Womens 800: Top8- 6e and 2w; East 1-3
Womens HJ: Top8- 3e and 5w; West 1-4
Womens 10k: Top8- 2e and 6w; West 1-3
Womens LJ: Top9- 2e and 7w; West 1-4
Womens TJ: East went 1-5
Womens PV: West 7 of top 10
Womens Shot: East 9 of top 11
Womens 400H: East 1-4 and 6 of top8
Womens 110H: East 7 of top 8
I'm not trying to say that one region is superior to the other, that depends on which event you are looking at, but the system was hardly fair for the guy who got 13th in the west 1500 or the women's hurdler who got 13th in the east. The east 1500 guys went to Hayward and took 7 of the bottom 8 in the semi-final while the west took 8 of the top9 in the final.
I know many people will say that doesn't matter because the top guys will still make it and you shouldn't cater to the fringe or bubble athletes. I agree with that in part, but I think we still want to get the best 24 people there regardless of geography.
Cool. Spread it around. There should be a 10 year rule for NCAA Finals and Regionals. I.E. no school can host it more than once in 10 years. The only exception would be neutral sites like Sac Hughes, Mt Sac, Home Depot, Mt Hood, etc.
Wily Vin Lananna has already announced that Oregon will bid to host the 2011 West Regionals. This is a no-brainer of course and I cannot imagine Oregon not being selected Face it, Oregon was not happy in wasting tens of thousands of dollar just to send all their athletes down to the Austin disaster this year. So, since this meet is going to be alive for one more excruciating year,why wouldnt Oregon want to save th travel money and hold the meet at home.
Of coure the NCAA, thinking of their own pocketbook, will have a no-brainer in selecting Oregon. Even if only 3-4,000 attend, it will be a huge crowd compared to the no show fans who didn't go to the big money losing regionals this year. Smart move by Lananna, but who would expect otherwise? Pat Henry has already indicated that he is in complete support of the Oregon bid.
2012 will go to the 24/8 plan, so it looks like we only have to put up with this current Regional mess for one more year.
Good point. After the attendance disasters of this year, who will step up and host the Regionals for 2011? I nominate the blowhard Californians who come here to criticize everyone about the state of track and field. Put up, or shut up Californians, it's time for you to put on these immensely popular (tongue in cheek) regionals meets that you are so in love with. By the way, get ready to throw your own money in because the fans won't pay to see these regional meets.
10 Year Rule wrote:
Cool. Spread it around. There should be a 10 year rule for NCAA Finals and Regionals. I.E. no school can host it more than once in 10 years. The only exception would be neutral sites like Sac Hughes, Mt Sac, Home Depot, Mt Hood, etc.
Yeah, cos I know I liked running in front of 1800 people per day, in college, better than running in front of 10,000 per day.
Eugene will likely get more in attendance at regionals, than the NCAA's do...
Marketing-wise there's choice but to spread around the NCAAs to different locations to increase popularity. Poor weather sites must also be banned from consideration based on the date of the competition. The 10 year non-repeat policy is used by many NCAA sports.
Nutty Flakes wrote:
2012 will go to the 24/8 plan, so it looks like we only have to put up with this current Regional mess for one more year.
If you read those points from the NCAA, there were some real concerns about conference representation. Even with the 24/8 plan including 57% of conferences (as opposed to 40%) there were apparently some people in the NCAA that didn't think that was high enough. So don't be so sure about the 24/8
The NCAA actually suggested a plan months ago and sent it to the USTFCCCA, but the association went ahead and endorsed the 24/8 plan instead. I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA shoved their plan through over the 24/8 plan. That is essentially what happened 2 years ago when the coaches voted against this 2 region system and the NCAA pushed it through anyway.
The NCAA suggestions was-
All 31 conference winners qualify for the NCAA's
Next 17 best marks qualify for NCAA's
Total number of athletes/event= 48
The meet would take place in the same sight over 2 weekends.
I actually don't mind this system for qualifying. Yes, you are going to have some weak conference champs that qualify, but you figure at least 6-10 conference champs will be top 20 in the country in most events. So, you're going to get at least the top 24 guys off the descending order list, plus every other conference champ. This should appease the coaches that want straight descending order list, and also makes the NCAA and small schools happy because they have a shot to get athletes from small schools/conferences qualified and 100% of conferences will be represented. Of course the big conferences will never be satisfied because their athletes could theoretically be ranked in the top 20 in the country and finish 2nd at the conference and be left home while MUCH inferior athletes from bad conferences make it.
The worst part of the system would be spending 10+ days in one location. It's expensive, bad for kids in summer school, bad for coaches/trainers and their families and just a long time to be on the road. If you could keep this qualifying system, but do it in a one-weekend meet I think that would be a great option. I don't think you could realistically go from 48 athletes to 8 (for lane races) in a one-weekend meet.
So, some good and some bad with that system. I think the coaches would be wise to take the NCAA suggestion and tweak it, rather than rejecting it completely and having the NCAA ram theirs through as-is without coaches input.
Years ago I studied 16 hours a day weekends, all summer included to get through Chemical Engineering. That was before coursehero/cramster and profs websites though. Today it would be possible spend 2 weeks in the summer, most of the time sitting around the hotel room studying. But I would very very highly suggest to the NCAA and USTFCCA that the meet site be limited to only locations that have an extremely high probability of good weather for 2 weeks in June. That would only be Sac, Stan, HD, and Mt Sac. Re-scheduling messes up when you are ready to compete and affects studies for days.
What goes around wrote:
The 10 year non-repeat policy is used by many NCAA sports.
Like which?
baseball is in omaha every year
football...well...its football
basketball is hosted by butler every 5th year in indianapolis
I think the Oly Sports at the NCAA HQ have that rule to promote their sport.
The Super Bowl moves around each year. The Super Bowl was invented in L.A. by TV. The first two or three were held in the L.A. Coliseum to fine tune the product, then it went on the road to a different location each year to promote the NFL around the United States. That's why the NFL is what it is today. NCAA T&F and USA T&F should take a hint and do the same.