D3 nationals numbers

Did the fastest men and women get in? oh wait, yes they did. Who gives a shit if the 20th place man running 4:14 and a non sub 5:00 female didnt get in like they used to.

I like the top-20 across the board approach. It makes it a little easier to assess your position, choose whether to run a last-chance meet, etc. It also just feels fairer. It always sucked to be athlete #18 in an event where 17 make it even though other events have 20-21 entries. And yes, that happened to me.

113 wrote:

I like the top-20 across the board approach. It makes it a little easier to assess your position, choose whether to run a last-chance meet, etc. It also just feels fairer. It always sucked to be athlete #18 in an event where 17 make it even though other events have 20-21 entries. And yes, that happened to me.

Agreed. Having a more straightforward and less arbitrary qualifying process seems more important than reaching a certain number of total athletes at the meet. And aren't they adding the 3k to the indoor meet for next year, which would boost the numbers there?

The new system is great and knowing the top 20 performances go may partly explain the improved performances this year.

no one has answered the question. did they fill the slots or not?

Yes, each men's individual event has 20 entrants; each women's individual event has 22 entrants; each men's and women's relay has 16 teams entered. The meet filled up just like the committee intended:

http://www.deltatiming.com/events/2012/2012-ncaa-division-3-outdoor-championships/

Straightforward and less arbitrary are good ...

Leaving kids at home that the NCAA has slotted to pay to go to NCAA's is bad. If the NCAA is willing to send 260 kids to Outdoor Nationals, then that's how many should get a chance to compete -- it's awful they would have some kids denied their chance so they can have nice, even numbers.

Maybe Will "Power Trip" Freeman should have actually thought this through or studied past results better -- even though that would have taken away from the time he spends whispering to himself how great he is and how much everyone loves him.

Can someone explain the issue? Do some schools elect not to send athletes who are qualified?

I think the issue is that even though each event is filled to the maximum number of participants, because of athletes doubling, tripling, etc in events, that the numbers of athletes actually competing at D3 nationals is less than the number of athletes that the NCAA allotted for - with the new system. If the NCAA said they would pay for 260 athletes of one gender, yet only 209 athletes participated, the NCAA saved money by not having to pay for 51 and, in theory, D3 athletes 'suffered' because the new system did not include the maximum number of athletes allowed into the meet. I think some years there will be less athletes doing more than one event and that would allow participation to be closer to the number of athletes allowed. I think there needs to be a way that allows the committee to go over the so called maximum per event when so many athlete (not event) slots are open so that we don't lose numbers of participants at each national meet because the NCAA will see what we are actually using in numbers and will cut us back. Do we actually have to have the exact same number in every event? No! This is too PC.

What is the number of total athletes the NCAA will send to outdoor nationals? I don't think it's 260, that might be for indoors.

260 was the indoor and not the outdoor number. That was pointed out in the original post that started this thread.

Thanks for not answering the question. What is the outdoor number?

My count for the woman is 403 athletes. 343 in individual events and 60 in relays only.

260=209 wrote:

Straightforward and less arbitrary are good ...

Leaving kids at home that the NCAA has slotted to pay to go to NCAA's is bad. If the NCAA is willing to send 260 kids to Outdoor Nationals, then that's how many should get a chance to compete -- it's awful they would have some kids denied their chance so they can have nice, even numbers.

Maybe Will "Power Trip" Freeman should have actually thought this through or studied past results better -- even though that would have taken away from the time he spends whispering to himself how great he is and how much everyone loves him.

What a silly argument. I am not a Will Freeman fan myself. But that isn't the issue. There simply aren't any other levels of track and field in which you plan a championship meet around the number of athletes in total. At every other level, you set a field size for each event, and then you fill the fields. (Yes, in some conferences there is a total number of athletes allowed PER TEAM, but that's a different story.) The previous method produced all sorts of silliness: weird disparities from event to event (24 athletes in some women's events, 17 in some men's), preliminary heats with five runners, and bizarre fluctuations in field size from year to year. Above all, it made it IMPOSSIBLE to know where you stood (unless of course you had an auto qualifier).

I ran 10+ years ago, and I envy Division III athletes in the current system. You know you've got to be top-20, and with the always-updating TFRRS list, it's pretty easy to figure out how secure your spot is.

Yes, watching the shifts in the top 20 list was really exciting the past few weeks.

My numbers of entries, which are not official of course.

Men

83 relay only

325 individuals

408 total

Women

60 relay only

343 individuals

403 total