Two thoughts:
1) "trying to mess up..." they screwed track and field 30 years ago. You want dual meets? Great. Give the programs the equivalent of one scholarship per event.
2) Other than that, I see some merit to what they are saying. They are protecting Drake and Penn and condemning the "last chance" and "exhibition" meets that regularly occur. Nobody is saying you can't do them, they are just saying you can't qualify out of them. As this goes forward, qualifying marks will have to be relaxed, some meets like stanford and Texas will have to expand, and we'll see actual team competition.
I don't necessarily agree with all this, I'm just playing devils advocate.
It seems like this would really kill post-collegiate racing for club teams. Being a runner in the Northeast you always see sub-elite runners (like 17min 5k girls, 4:25 men milers, etc.) race at the Boston University meets, at the Armory, etc. and be competitive in it. This would really hurt them.
Again, the collegiate athletes can still run these meets, they just can't qualify for nationals out of them. I would think things in New England would remain the same indoors with pressure for qualifying coming out of conference meets or major collegiate invites like Yale, Torpenny, etc. I see BU making one of their meets as collegaite only and everything else staying status quo.
Again, the collegiate athletes can still run these meets, they just can't qualify for nationals out of them. I would think things in New England would remain the same indoors with pressure for qualifying coming out of conference meets or major collegiate invites like Yale, Torpenny, etc. I see BU making one of their meets as collegaite only and everything else staying status quo.
My understanding is that club athletes could still run in the collegiate meets, but they will have to have their own 'club only - no NCAA' heats. If there are not enough club athletes to fill the heats, was it ever really an issue in the big picture to start with?