NCAA Champs schedule looks it was created by people that never ran track

People [i]who[\i] never ran track.

Sometimes USAs are like 4-5 days max also, although no single-sex alone days.

I see your point(s), but doubles should not be considered as a high importance reason to create a longer, drawn out NCAAs. It's more about balancing athletic integrity with positive net cash flow into the NCAA coffers. Is T&F a net profit for NCAA?

The reason they split the days by gender was for that exact reason, to give the women a day to compete and a men a day to compete. Other than the men's decathlon, the women had all of the television coverage yesterday.

I've always liked the idea of the regional format. You have to show up to the regionals and compete to get to the nationals. No longer can you run a fast time or get a big mark in early April and coast into the national championships.

If the 5k/10k double is too much, why did 6 women run the 10k meet record last night? Yes, some of them did not do the 5k at regionals, but 3 of them did and one of those was the winner.

Runner1218 wrote:

Sometimes USAs are like 4-5 days max also, although no single-sex alone days.

I see your point(s), but doubles should not be considered as a high importance reason to create a longer, drawn out NCAAs. It's more about balancing athletic integrity with positive net cash flow into the NCAA coffers. Is T&F a net profit for NCAA?

Well, the NCAA already blocked out four days for the finals, so the whole event is not drawn out any longer, just the timeline for event. Everybody is gonna be there for that time period, anyways. Why not spread out the races more, just something as simple as semis over two days and finals over two days for each gender? I realize that having all the finals on the same day might be better for economics, but you can still have a four day event with finals spread over two days and mix the men's/women's events and not spend any more money.

HuskyHospital wrote:

The reason they split the days by gender was for that exact reason, to give the women a day to compete and a men a day to compete. Other than the men's decathlon, the women had all of the television coverage yesterday.

I've always liked the idea of the regional format. You have to show up to the regionals and compete to get to the nationals. No longer can you run a fast time or get a big mark in early April and coast into the national championships.

If the 5k/10k double is too much, why did 6 women run the 10k meet record last night? Yes, some of them did not do the 5k at regionals, but 3 of them did and one of those was the winner.

The women's Championship meet record was weak. At least a couple dozen women have run under that time in NCAA history, especially in recent years. All that was needed to break the record in recent years was a brisk pace for most of the race. Alice Wright, Charlotte Taylor, and Anna Rohrer provided that pace, and the top 3 women took it home.

The Championship schedule was dumbed down for TV. Common thought is that people got confused when men and women compete on the same day, while being scored separately. I don't like it but ESPN made that call. I think it was a lazy choice rather than present the sport as is, with some succinct segments teaching new viewers about how the events are scored and officiated.

not "that" wrote:

People who[\i] never ran track.

People whom never ran track.

Lol get it right.

Rick Sanchez wrote:

not "that" wrote:

People who[\i] never ran track.

People whom never ran track.

Lol get it right.

Persons whomst never ran track.

rofl get it write

You're Right wrote:

The Championship schedule was dumbed down for TV. Common thought is that people got confused when men and women compete on the same day, while being scored separately. I don't like it but ESPN made that call. I think it was a lazy choice rather than present the sport as is, with some succinct segments teaching new viewers about how the events are scored and officiated.

How is a men's 200m followed by a women's 200m that difficult to follow for the viewers? It's not. The only hassle of mixed finals is the different hurdle heights, which is an easily resolveable issue. Everything else can be easily accommodated. The schedule just screams convenience and efficiency.

the 1500 and 5k were what, 7 hours apart at regionals? and 100 mins at nationals? or was that a weather thing?

They decision was made to suit ESPN and their broadcast. They wanted separate competitions to un-muddle the team competition for the casual sports fan who might tune in on Friday night.

This is how it should be; as long as there are no athlete safety concerns the NCAA should cater to a broadcaster in order to maximize revenue and exposure.

Honestly you guys will always find something to complain about; if you can't complain about FloTrack and their pay wall you whine about the schedule, or the color commentary, or the venue being located in a warm weather region, or the venue being permanently in Eugene or some other ridiculous complaint.

Sliding Scale wrote:

They decision was made to suit ESPN and their broadcast. They wanted separate competitions to un-muddle the team competition for the casual sports fan who might tune in on Friday night.

This is how it should be; as long as there are no athlete safety concerns the NCAA should cater to a broadcaster in order to maximize revenue and exposure.

Honestly you guys will always find something to complain about; if you can't complain about FloTrack and their pay wall you whine about the schedule, or the color commentary, or the venue being located in a warm weather region, or the venue being permanently in Eugene or some other ridiculous complaint.

This is pretty much right. If the schedule seems “convenient”, well, that’s a good thing. Track meets should be tailor-made for TV. That’s what every single successful sport does with its competitions. Making undue concessions for athletes at the expense of spectators is a sure way to make track an even less successful sport.

I actually like that the schedule makes it more difficult, but not impossible, to double. In a team championship meet there should be some kind of reward for having depth. Every year we see a single athlete score 20+ points at the meet and the 'team' will finish in the top 10. I have no problem with someone doubling in multiple events, but I don't think the schedule needs to make doubles and triples as easy as possible. Having to run all of the prelims on one day make it more difficult. If you're going to do score in multiple events, you should need to be an absolute stud.

I'd honestly like to see the NCAA run the 5k on day 1 and the 10k on day 2 to make the double more challenging.

The 100 and 100 hurdles were back to back and the 400 and 800 were back to back. That surprised me. Those are possible doubles.

But the compressed schedule also reduces the chance that the best athletes run each event, which makes the broadcast slightly less appealing. McLaughlin could compete for the win in the 200 and 400 but we won't see that.

Count me in the group who likes the change to Mprelims, Wprelims, Mfinals, Wfinals.

Sliding Scale wrote:

They decision was made to suit ESPN and their broadcast. They wanted separate competitions to un-muddle the team competition for the casual sports fan who might tune in on Friday night.

This is how it should be; as long as there are no athlete safety concerns the NCAA should cater to a broadcaster in order to maximize revenue and exposure.

Honestly you guys will always find something to complain about; if you can't complain about FloTrack and their pay wall you whine about the schedule, or the color commentary, or the venue being located in a warm weather region, or the venue being permanently in Eugene or some other ridiculous complaint.

I think most of the complaints are pretty legitimate criticisms of mistakes that could easily be fixed with no-brainer solutions.

I too like that it makes it more difficult for athletes to double/triple. Kind of cool that an athlete can't get a team 35 points by themselves.