New NCAA seeding rule tabled.

I guess its part and parcel since about 99% of the posts on this message board are negative but I have always tried to post accurate, informative things. Just sad that when those of us who do care about the sport and post accurate information that the naysayers jump on board.

Anyway.....Wejo......to answer your question.

Lets start at the beginning. There were a loose group of cc and track coaches association before Sam Seemes decided to work on creating a unified coaching association. To see what Sam has done is quite impressive as he basically by himself created the association we have now. So every bit of credit should go to Sam. But along the way the apathy that our coaches generally have created problems. As the association began to grow Sam appointed a board of directors to assist but these original members were all good friends of Sams. So in essence, he appointed a board that would approve everything he wanted. As the association continued to grow, and the group got to actually have some voice within the NCAA Track & Field Committee Sam was the sole person to deal with them. He was a one-man show. His power grew, and because there was not a strong over-sight group he started carrying out what he thought was in the best interest of the sport. And mosts times what he tried to do was in the best interest. But there have been several major issues which Sam worked behind the scenes to get passed that was not in the best interest of everyone and never got voted on. And that is really what happened here. The coaches never voted on this issue, but it was one that Sam thought to be good. He had a confidante in the chair of the rules committee, which is now a separate group from the track & field committee. They don't answer to anyone. So together they worked on this issue and got it passed. The only problem was that the coaches NEVER voted on it. And now everyone is pointing fingers at each other to try to get out from under this. I lay most of the blame on this occurrence at the feet of the coaches themselves. There are not enough coaches who are invested enough to really know the issues, and challenge the leadership when something doesn't seem right. And so the rules committee and the CEO took advantage of it. But on this issue they crossed the line, and now there are going to be consequences. For the first time in the associations history the vast majority of the coaches have banded together to address this issue. And there are going to some tough questions asked. Even those within the NCAA organization are starting to ask what happened, and why it happened given the large number of coaches and conference officials who called about this. I believe there will be changes to the organization to have better oversight, which is positive. I do believe that Sam is a good man, but he has started to overstep his leadership role. Any person in a leadership role must remember that he or she is beholden to the membership, which are the people who pay their salaries. Hope this simple explanation helps.

it goes into effect 1 year from now. but entering false marks now is still considered misconduct per the rule book. So those coaches that DO believe in the rule will this year be reporting all of those marks for the committee to evaluate. So the coaches that will speculate, have their athletes run a mark that appears to be a qualifier, and then run the risk to have that mark thrown out.

One way or another, coaches are going to have to start following the rules that already exist in the sport. It led to the demise of last chance meet

The criticisms of Sam can be echoed for each coach that enters their athlete with a mark that they have not achieved. It is overstepping their bounds, it is unethical. Rationalize it any way you want. It will change.

It seems like we should be able to just use common sense.

a time that you have run from ANY meet in the past year, indoors or outdoors, counts.

If you haven't run that time, then you can email the meet director, and it is at his discretion.

You have to give the flexibility for a 13:30 guy who's never run a 10k, or a kid who ran 14:10 in Louisiana, or the 7:55 3k runner who is running his first 5k, or the DMR team with no time but has 4 studs.

It's really not that hard and shouldn't be complicated. You have to give meet directors flexibility though. These hard lined very restrictive stances don't help.

Will there be abuse by meet directors? Probably, but then you can blame the meet, not other coaches. And if that meet gets the reputation, others will pop up.

Thanks for taking the time to write a fair, informed post.

sdfgkyu wrote:

Next, all the coaches that have been screaming about this the loudest will once again enter their 14:25 guys at 14:10.

I'll take that any day over this rule!

.............................. wrote:

it goes into effect 1 year from now.

That's untrue. It's likely, but still untrue & if it does, will likely look very different than it does now.

As of now, it does indeed go into effect exactly 1 year from today. Below is a copy of the email I received at 3:03pm yesterday. I would not be surprised if things change over the next year, but as of now this would be the NCAA's official position.

MEMORANDUM

November 30, 2016

TO: Divisions I, II and III Head Track and Field/Cross Country Coaches and Commissioners at Conferences

Sponsoring Men's and Women's Cross Country and Track and Field.

FROM: John Weaver

Chair, NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field Rules Committee

Mark Kostek

Secretary-Rules Editor, NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field Rules Committee.

SUBJECT: Delay Implementation of Track and Field Rule 4-1.14 (Acceptable Entries).

The NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field Rules Committee and the Playing Rules Oversight Panel have approved delaying the implementation of Rule 4-1.14 in the 2017 and 2018 NCAA Cross Country/Track and Field Rules Book for one year. The rule states:

Acceptable Entries

ARTICLE 14. For indoor, outdoor, scored and non-scored competitions:

a. The meet director shall publish, as part of the online information for the competition, a ranked list of event entries disclosing all performances used to determine entry in each event and the source of those performances.

b. Verifiable entry performances shall be used for the same event obtained during the current season when such a performance exists as reported on the NCAA's designated track and field results reporting system.

c. For an indoor season competition, up to and including the fourth Sunday in January, or an outdoor season competition, up to and including the fifth Sunday following the final day of the NCAA Indoor Championships, when verifiable entry performance for an event obtained during the current season is not available, the verifiable entry performance shall be from the just previous season in which the event is contested.

d. All entries having no verifiable performance as stated above shall be entered with a performance of 'no mark'.

Note 1: Competitors in their initial year of NCAA eligibility shall be entered with a 'no mark' performance until a verifiable current season performance is established.

Note 2: A verifiable performance shall only be those that have been published online as part of the NCAA's designated track and field results reporting system. Note 3: Relay performance marks shall reflect an institution's best verifiable performance.

The rule will now take effect December 1, 2017. Should you have questions regarding this decision, please contact Rachel Seewald (rseewald@ncaa.org) at the NCAA national office. Please direct rules questions to Mark Kostek (kostekmt@gmail.com).

JW/MK:ep

cc: NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field Rules Committee

NCAA Playing Rules Oversight Panel

Selected NCAA Staff Members

Can anyone explain the rationale behind putting a qualifying window so narrow in place? Sure, there are examples of people who get radically slower year to year, but those are few and far between compared to the vast majority who either maintain performance or show steady improvement over the course of their collegiate careers.

It seems to me that all this rule does is penalize long distance runners- a 10k runner wishing to get into a good heat at Payton Jordan (which would fall outside the window to use last year's mark per the new rule) would have to run a 10k in April when he or she is presumably in a heavy training block to get a mark. So now you're asking an NCAA caliber runner who's been racing more or less nonstop since September to run five 10ks over 3 months- PJ qualifier, Payton Jordan, conference champs, regionals, and NCAAs. I pity the coach who has to structure a training plan around that racing schedule.

It also hurts mid-distance and distance runners with good range- if you have to start racing "qualifier" races in December or January to get into stacked heats in February and beyond, it's harder to schedule in off distance races. If you're an XC runner who happens to be a miler and you want to run the 800 through the 3000, you'd have to either come back early from your break/training block in December or race 3/4 weekends in January and then do it all again in the "meat" of your racing season. A short sprinter can race every weekend in multiple events and perform at a high level; not as easy for distance runners.

I'm all for preventing seed boosting in big meets, but why not use lifetime or collegiate personal bests as valid marks? Collegians are forced to race too often anyways; this proposed rule will just make things worse. Seems to me like the NCAA is again putting ancillary concerns over their athletes' best interests.

Its too bad this rules change got put forward in such a misguided method, as the backlash over 'sneaking' the change by the coaches may cause enough of a backlash to not get the important aspects of these changes through in the future.

A few opinions:

-Indoor and outdoor times need to be usable interchangeably (including a mile>1500 conversion)

-TFRRS marks should be acceptable for seeding for the next full season (obviously not counting championship meets).

-There needs to be an option for speculative marks, if those speculative marks are slower than athlete's TFRRS personal best (for an athlete coming back from injury/illness, for non-A squad relay teams, particularly in large meets).

-Freshmen should have FAT high school times from their senior year count, until they get a college mark. If a kid goes 1:55 in high school and then does a 1:59 as a college opener, the 1:59 should then be his allowable seed going forward.

-Conservative/punitive conversion marks could be the go-to replacement for speculative marks. If an athlete has run a 1500 and is moving up to the 5k and thus has no TFRRS mark for a seed, their 1500 PR (lets say 3:50) going through most conversion tables would be ~14:25. A coach could then have the option to give them a seed ~2% slower than the conversion's estimate, in this case 14:42. So that 3:50 kid wouldn't have to debut with 16:30 5k runners in the unseeded heat, but they also don't get the benefit of a speculative seed that's quite as strong as what they have done in other events they've actually raced.

Next full season should say next full year, as in a 5k run in January of 2016 should be usable as a non-championship seed in April of 2017.

Too bad wrote:

Its too bad this rules change got put forward in such a misguided method, as the backlash over 'sneaking' the change by the coaches may cause enough of a backlash to not get the important aspects of these changes through in the future.

Yep...some very influential people & pretty much all of the P5 coaches are out for blood because of this...still organizing for maximal damage at Convention.

there are way too many rules in tack and field, a basically simple sport. We all want legitimate meets. I just dont want it over managed and i dont want rules that might be good for one event group negatively affect another.

My preference is to let meet management decide who they will allow into their meets and how they want to set up their heats and flights. I dont want all these rules to have unintended consequences.

Ncaa track is both a team and individual sport. AD's dont even understand the sport and dont care in most cases. I dont want the sport micromanaged and handcuffed by stupid rules.

Life isnt fair. If a host school screws over your entries then create your own meet or find another.

Also, the sport is diverse enough with 20plus events and meets that range from small duals to huge events like penn relays to distance carnivals and more. A rule might work for one type of meet but be detrimental to a different type.

I'm so happy I can lie to get a few kids into the fast heats. Having everyone on the slow sections that start at 8am was really going to suck. Thanks all!

I emailed duke basketball. Told them they need to schedule our team next year because given what I've seen in practice we really are a top 10 program. I know we are below .500, but I really want to play duke on national tv.