I think there are a couple of different goals to be addressed with any of these changes.
- How do you make track and field more valuable to the department to help avoid cuts and hopefully lead to enhancements?
---This one, we can make at least a symbolic effort that may pay off all out of proportion to the actual effort. Score the NCAA Championships to 16 places, not eight - that expands the number of schools in the final standings, and that earn Directors Cup points (which DO move the needle at least to some degree with ADs). Right now, you could qualify 40 kids to NCAAs, and if they all place 9th or lower, you didn't officially participate as a team. That doesn't lead to a very good cost-benefit analysis. Swimming already has a 16-place scoring system you could borrow (hell, they even have a 24-place if you want for outdoors) that places a premium on winning, and a premium on getting in the top 8 vs. 9th or top-16 vs. 17th. All this would take is changing an option in Meet Manager, no extra officials, no extra competition, nothing. I'd have to run the analysis again, but when I did this last summer for the last five years there weren't any major placing changes between top-10 teams, and no change as to NCAA title winners.
- Can we make the regular season and regular meets more compelling to athletes, fans, administrators, and media?
--- Absolutely. I think some level of what John is suggesting can make sense, sure, but I think the trade-off is that (like several others have suggested), you need to decrease the number of events on a regular basis, and/or learn to be satisfied with non-best marks at a majority of meets. For instance, in swimming, a dual meet will have 75% of the events you see at a championship meet, and the times (unless some kid wakes up and eats a big bowl of wheaties) are going to be nowhere near good enough to place in their conference, much less NCAAs. They truly train to peak once, maybe twice a season, and the rest doesn't particularly matter beyond beating the kid in the next lane. What I would suggest is that for a dual- or quad-meet (anything but one of the big invitationals), the USTFCCA come up with a rubric that says you need at-least X events, or which A must be sprints, B middle-distance, C throws, etc. Maybe even a default program that if the coaches can't agree amongst themselves on other events, you do. For instance:
- Dual-Meet -- teams must compete a minimum of 10 events, of which at least:
a) - two must be events 500m or shorter
b) - one must a hurdle event
c) - one must be a relay
d) - one must be an event between 501m and one mile
e) - one must be an event longer than a mile
f) - one must a vertical jump
g) - one must be a horizontal jump
h) - two must be throws
Coaches must agree on which events to compete two weeks prior to the meet, if they cannot agree, then the default program below applies in whole or in part (if they can agree on all but group E, then the default for E will be used). Coaches can agree to compete more than the minimum events, but no fewer than the minimum in each group.
- Default 10-event program
a) - 100m (60m indoors) and 400m
b) - 100m/110m hurdles (60m hurdles indoors)
c) - 4x400m Relay
d) - Mile
e) - 3,000m
f) - high jump
g) - long jump
h) - shot put and javelin (weight throw indoors)
Not necessarily in that order, and maybe you place things according to the current NCAA "meet order" list as it stands now.
- How do you make teams develop a whole team rather than focus on one niche?
--- Tougher one to crack, but in the end, I think the answer is that you shouldn't. The beauty of the American system of higher ed is that not every school is exactly the same, and that extends down to varying degrees to athletic departments and teams. A team that recruits only distance runners and relies on walk-ons for the rest is little different in my eyes from a football team that recruits only running backs and relies on walk-ons for QB and WR. They each have their distinct advantages and disadvantages, and if a coach and AD feel that is what they need to do to be successful, well, we pay them to make those decisions and they accept those consequences.