is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?


Main message board: for the discussion of topical track & field items only.

is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby gh » Tue Mar 05, 2013 8:43 am

Am I the only one who finds it completely contradictory to the concepts of real competition and doing meaningful things in a school concept that we've now come to the point in the NCAA where the Conference meets have largely been neutered as the last stepping stone to the Nationals?

Forget all that high-level competition we had a week ago, with the various loops sorting out their best people in meaningful head-to-head, scoring competition. Instead, let's wait another week and have a sequence of glorified all-comers' meets.

Feh!
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby aaronk » Tue Mar 05, 2013 8:55 am

gh wrote:Am I the only one who finds it completely contradictory to the concepts of real competition and doing meaningful things in a school concept that we've now come to the point in the NCAA where the Conference meets have largely been neutered as the last stepping stone to the Nationals?

Forget all that high-level competition we had a week ago, with the various loops sorting out their best people in meaningful head-to-head, scoring competition. Instead, let's wait another week and have a sequence of glorified all-comers' meets.

Feh!


I'm not against Last Chance meets.
(Wish we still had them for the OG and WC meets!)

What I AM against, however, is accepting marks made on OT's for qualifying for championship meets......or for any other reason, for that matter!!

But I guess I'll always be that "lone voice in the wilderness" who just will NEVER accept OT marks....for ANYTHING!!
(i.e. I believe Cain's 9:04.51 is her fastest 3K, as her 9:02 OT mark is NOT acceptable....to me! Ditto with Jenny Simpson's 15:01 "CR" from Seattle's OT! To me, her mark just doesn't exist!!)

BTW, re: front page article on Texas losing their place in the NCAA DMR....due to the many OT marks run at Notre Dame.....That backs up my beliefs!!)
aaronk
 
Posts: 3366
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby exdrake » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:03 am

What is the size of Notre Dame's track?
exdrake
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:46 am

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby aaronk » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:11 am

exdrake wrote:What is the size of Notre Dame's track?


352 yards! (or 5 laps to a mile!!)
aaronk
 
Posts: 3366
Joined: Sun May 06, 2012 9:39 am

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby kuha » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:22 am

gh wrote:Forget all that high-level competition we had a week ago, with the various loops sorting out their best people in meaningful head-to-head, scoring competition. Instead, let's wait another week and have a sequence of glorified all-comers' meets.


When T&FN stops reporting and glorifying times/performances, then maybe it will only be competition that matters. I'm not sure I want to wish you good luck on that, however.
kuha
 
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby Marlow » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:25 am

gh wrote:Am I the only one who finds it completely contradictory to the concepts of real competition and doing meaningful things in a school concept that we've now come to the point in the NCAA where the Conference meets have largely been neutered as the last stepping stone to the Nationals?


It's certainly NOT the faults of the LCMs (Last-Chance Meets) themselves. They are prudently responding to the current NCAA protocol of Descending Order Lists. As long as time-qualification is the primary means of getting in the meet, LCMs serve the vital purpose of enabling the people capable of high marks a venue to do so.

Getting the 'right' people to the NCAAs is, as we have seen again and again, a virtually impossible task. If you want 'competitors', good luck identifying them from the Conference Championships, which just muddy the issue. If you want A-Qualifiers, then we're back to time-trialing and LCMs.

Given the task, LCMs are actually a good thing, because only the 'best performers' will succeed at them and that's not a bad thing either.

Like it or not, T&F is as much about the marks as the competition. Always has been (hence the many lists that T&FN keeps), always will be.

edit - I see kuha has also just stated my last point.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby kuha » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:29 am

Marlow wrote:edit - I see kuha has also just stated my last point.

I am here for you, Bro.
kuha
 
Posts: 9036
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby KevinM » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:32 am

“we’ve now come to the point”? Last Chance qualifying has been a major factor for close to 25 years.
KevinM
 
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby gh » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:34 am

Before this year there was an automatic qualifying standard; that's now gone (hated that too, but not as much as this).
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby KevinM » Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:06 am

I’m still not sure why that further devalues conference meets all that much. Were this year’s last chance meets all that different from the ones we’ve seen the last 10/15 years (since the proliferation of banked and oversized tracks)?

The ND DMR has been a silly exception for a while.
KevinM
 
Posts: 2652
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby dl » Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:09 am

My tweet after seeing what the ND last-chance DMRs had wrought:

@Lilot1TrackMind
For a sport that doesn't like Regionals, NCAA T&F has essentially anointed certain meets as de facto regionals.

But Notre Dame wasn't even as exciting as a regional. There were 3 separate DMR sections.
dl
 
Posts: 1805
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:30 am

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:39 am

Because of the conversions, the OT tracks do not represent the type of advantage that they used to do. In this case, the races were NOT time trials because there were so many good teams they put them in three heats with the good teams evenly distributed. The first legs were run more 'full out' than in a conference meet because time was also an objective but they were very competitive races.

I think that the conversions were about 9 seconds for the DMR, still maybe not enough but better than before. Also, the conversions put all OTs in the same boat, whereas I would make the differential for a 300m track and then adjust it linearly. This could be done in a two-step process so that you adjust the OT marks relative to each other if you have a disproportionate fraction from some distances. They also need to de-link the banked 200 and the OTs, which will make the correction bigger for the large OTs for the longer races.

There are not that many chances to qualify DMR teams on an equitable basis. A team that does not care about conference scoring could run all of their guys fresh and not save anything whereas other teams are fighting for conference points and need to rest runners, especially the milers who have early qualifying heats - in the Big Ten those can be pretty competitive.

Thus, this meet ended up serving as the semi-final for the DMR, and rich schools have the advantage. However, the Texas-types (chose not to race and got knocked out).

Note that a number of sub-4 milers got left out of the NCAAs and a very large number of high jumpers over 7 feet had no chance either - some with a 222 (7' 3.4") clearance did not make the field.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16336
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby skyin' brian » Tue Mar 05, 2013 10:58 am

The DMR is a terrible event anyway. Keep medley relays out of championship meets and leave them at relay carnivals where they belong! Having a DMR at the NCAA meet is an unneeded distraction to the best milers. On top of that it is a silly event...does the 400m runner really contribute that much?

I'd be okay replacing it with a 4x800m though.

On the Last Chance topic, I don't like the idea of qualifying for championship meets on time (especially for distance races).

I guess in my ideal world, I don't think an indoor championship is needed. It isn't really distinct sport, but I do like the idea that a skinny distance runner can be a "3 sport athlete" just because I find it amusing.
skyin' brian
 
Posts: 1128
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:08 pm

skyin' brian wrote:The DMR is a terrible event anyway. Keep medley relays out of championship meets and leave them at relay carnivals where they belong! Having a DMR at the NCAA meet is an unneeded distraction to the best milers. On top of that it is a silly event...does the 400m runner really contribute that much?

I'd be okay replacing it with a 4x800m though.

On the Last Chance topic, I don't like the idea of qualifying for championship meets on time (especially for distance races).


The DMR is one of the most exciting races in track and field, like a mid-meet 4x400. But in the 4x400, you have people with the same specialty and it is better for the really big programs. However, a littler program with a good athlete or two in the sprints and others in the mid-distances can field a good team. In addition, the 'smaller' programs do not have as many athletes in the meet and so does not have to limit someone because they are doing the 200/400/4x400 or the 1500/3000, etc. [smaller is really quality level].
26mi235
 
Posts: 16336
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby RichC » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:27 pm

gh: do not like last-chance qualifiers either but a number of small school coaches have said this to me. They belong to small conferences that have only 200 meter flat tracks. They can't get into the better track facilities (Penn State, Texas A&M, Nebraska, etc) due to their being a "small school". But when they get to go to the one major meet with a good facility within their budget they compete well. I remember an instance where a young lady from the Mid American Conference who was outdoor NCAA Champion and Olympic Trials finalist couldn't qualify to indoors since she only ran on flat 200 tracks and they didn't have the budget or prestige to get her into one of the premier meets.Take a look through the qualifiers and see how many "small" school athletes there are. I think for this small segment last-chance meets are essential to their ability to qualify. (but I still do not like them).
RichC
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:18 pm

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby skyin' brian » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:33 pm

26mi235 wrote:The DMR is one of the most exciting races in track and field, like a mid-meet 4x400. But in the 4x400, you have people with the same specialty and it is better for the really big programs. However, a littler program with a good athlete or two in the sprints and others in the mid-distances can field a good team. In addition, the 'smaller' programs do not have as many athletes in the meet and so does not have to limit someone because they are doing the 200/400/4x400 or the 1500/3000, etc. [smaller is really quality level].



We already have the team score to reward teams with good overall balance. I kind of enjoy the 400 man handing off to the half miler, but too often the anchor leg turns into a repeat (or preview) of the mile race.

It does a good job of illustrating the effects of track conversions though since it is a long race run at a fast pace.
skyin' brian
 
Posts: 1128
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 12:50 pm

RichC wrote:gh: do not like last-chance qualifiers either but a number of small school coaches have said this to me. They belong to small conferences that have only 200 meter flat tracks. They can't get into the better track facilities (Penn State, Texas A&M, Nebraska, etc) due to their being a "small school". But when they get to go to the one major meet with a good facility within their budget they compete well. I remember an instance where a young lady from the Mid American Conference who was outdoor NCAA Champion and Olympic Trials finalist couldn't qualify to indoors since she only ran on flat 200 tracks and they didn't have the budget or prestige to get her into one of the premier meets.Take a look through the qualifiers and see how many "small" school athletes there are. I think for this small segment last-chance meets are essential to their ability to qualify. (but I still do not like them).


Except for the DMR, the revised conversions for Flat 200 tracks should make it easier to qualify on such tracks. However, it is not just the track configuration, it might be that the surface and the underlayment (springyness) are also better at the top tracks.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16336
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby Bruce Kritzler » Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:54 pm

Power Conferences (see list of qualifers by conference) should have one automatic qualifer in each event from their conference championship, regardless of mark. The rest of the field can come from the decending order list.
Bruce Kritzler
 
Posts: 3129
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby polevaultpower » Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:58 pm

I'm appalled that in the vertical jumps, the next best jumps in the athletes' series were counted for tie breaking purposes.
polevaultpower
 
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: A Temperate Island

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby JumboElliott » Tue Mar 05, 2013 4:00 pm

Not to mention it hurt a great meet like the IC4A.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby 26mi235 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 5:57 pm

Bruce Kritzler wrote:Power Conferences (see list of qualifers by conference) should have one automatic qualifer in each event from their conference championship, regardless of mark. The rest of the field can come from the decending order list.


No, No, No! There are events where some of the top conferences do not have anyone that is a reasonably top competitor. It happens often in the weights (especially the hammer or weight throw) and can easily happen in the distances and sprints, If it were one of 64, OK, but ot one of 16. And, the relays would be even worse, since there are only 12 (although no school can have more than one).
26mi235
 
Posts: 16336
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby Mighty Favog » Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:41 pm

Agreed. In the women's weight and hammer, my lowly MAC is a major conference.
Mighty Favog
 
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby 4hurdles » Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:15 am

The real problem with the last chance meets is the manor in which they are conducted. The meets take complete liberty with the established rules for seeding. For example, at Notre Dame, you can't make the best 4x4s all run in the same heat, but use a different seeding procedure for the DMR. They are both timed final relays run in sections. At Arkansas, in the women's hurdles didn't serpentine the prelims. At Arkansas they had different protocols in the men's and women's 800s. Some of the meets barely resemble track meets at all, with many events not existing, or having 1 athlete in it, or having a slew of B teamers from the home school entered simply so the meet can technically "count" as a meet. It is also ugly when you host a last chance meet, and then send your kids to some other meet.

On top of that, it is ridiculous travel immediately following conference weekend travel and immediately before NCAA travel. It is NOT good for our sport that is struggling badly in the NCAA's Academic Progress Rate data.

Combine that with the fact that since there are no AUTOMATIC qualifiers, you are totally taking your chances by NOT competing in a last chance meet just to protect yourself (see Tx men's DMR going from 1st to 14th.)

And I can't imagine how much it is now costing the NCAA for championship travel, when the field isn't set until near midnight Sunday with competitors then trying to travel on Wednesday. Those tickets must be ridiculously high priced.

I am not opposed to last chance meets. I would just like to see that last chance weekend be 2 weekends before NCAAs. This would mean moving the conference meets 1 week earlier, and would eliminate a competitive weekend from the calendar (reducing missed class time and costs). Most importantly, I'd like people to STOP the "funny business" in these meets.

I'd like the NCAA rules committee to take a VERY close look at what is happening at these meets. I've even heard that they have admitted some irregularities and that some marks "shouldn't count" but that they don't want to "punish the kid." Unfortunately, by allowing the marks to count, some other kid is being punished by losing their rightfully earned spots.
4hurdles
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 2:25 pm

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:51 am

You fail to provide those rules that you say are being violated. At very big meets races with lots of top entries but with constraints on entries that can be in each race this approach is common. Furthermore it is not only common but exactly what gets done at the NCAA meet, the WCs and the Olympics. There, the qualifying races are seeded with each race having the same balance by rule (top seed to Heat 1, second seed to 2,..., nth seed to the nth heat, n+1th seed to the nth heat, ...).

I do not understand why this complaint is put forward other than someone feels that a different arrangement would have given them a better chance to qualify, for instance, Texas, who got bumped. Texas must have known that their seeding was precarious because their 'leading mark' was weak by recent standards and the number of sub-four milers was the best every, which should make the DMR results the best ever (dominated by the 1200 and 1600 legs).

Personally, I think that those races were some of the best ever. In each heat the teams had to both be as fast as possible and to run strategically because they had to beat many of the teams in their heat. It was a hell of a 30+ minute period.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16336
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby 4hurdles » Wed Mar 06, 2013 9:38 am

At NCAAs, WC, and Olympics, you are talking about qualifying rounds, where of course the heats are seeded for balance. But this is a TIMED FINAL.

So rule 5 section 10 aricle 1 sub article b. "If the limits of the itme or facilities require, to ensure saftey and equity of competition, races (including relays) may be run as a final in timed sections. When used, the structure for running the final as timed sections shall be determined by the games committee and must be consistent throughout the meet. In addition, no race shall have fewer than two competitiors."

So if they are going to split up the DMR, then they needed to split up ALL the timed finals. That would have included the 4x4, or any other race in that meet without a prelim.
4hurdles
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 2:25 pm

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:44 am

4hurdles wrote:
So if they are going to split up the DMR, then they needed to split up ALL the timed finals. That would have included the 4x4, or any other race in that meet without a prelim.


"If the limits of the time or facilities require, to ensure saftey and equity of competition, races (including relays) may be run as a final in timed sections. [and did they really misspell safety in the rule?]


This will apply differently to different events because the nature of the entries (number, implication for safety, etc. differ. I think your conclusion, That all events are split up in exactly the same way, is not the logical conclusion from this rule.

Are you saying because they used up to six in the 4x400 relays they should have done the same in the DMR (nine). Because they ran the mile races with more in them (~33) all together they should have run all of the DMRs at the same time? The DMRs have different considerations than the non-relays of similar duration (e.g., mile, 3000) and different considerations than relays of shorter duration (4x400). The races also have different distributions of entrants in terms of similarities of time.

For competitive reasons you want some homogeneity while for safety reasons you want some heterogeneity. So, the structure set up for the games committee could be to set up sections to meet both goals without maximizing either one.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16336
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby batonless relay » Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:54 am

to advance your argument you conventiently neglected the underlined text OF THE RULE BOOK in 4hurdles post.
4hurdles wrote:When used, the structure for running the final as timed sections shall be determined by the games committee and must be consistent throughout the meet. So if they are going to split up the DMR, then they needed to split up ALL the timed finals. That would have included the 4x4, or any other race in that meet without a prelim.

all of the timed finals should have seeded consistently.
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby 4hurdles » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:15 am

no, i misspelled safety when typing fast, but if this is part of your argument, then I see where this is going.

i don't want to belabor this one point, because it is only one of many reasons why the current format of last chance meets is unappealing to me.

But, if you are putting the fastest people in the fastest heats in ALL other events during the meet as timed finals, then you must also do it in the DMR. the rule is clear, it was just ignored in an effort to create a better outcome. while that may have merit, it doesn't follow protocol.

If it didn't have to be consistent throughout the meet, then the rule wouldn't explicitly state that it "must be consistent throughout the meet." If you are trying to create "equal" sections with some fast people in each section, then do the same in the mile or the 3k or the 800 or the the 400 or the 200. If you are trying to create safety by having not all of the fast teams smashing into one another an an exchange, then do the same for the 4x4.

i believe i once heard NCAA track and field rules guru Bob Podkaminer say that a high percentage of rules and rule changes stem from the goings-on at last chance meets. There is just something about these meets that is often irregular and suspect. which is another reason why i like having an off weekend between a "last meet" and the ncaa championship. it gives the authorities on these matters adequate time to police such instances.

for example, there was a time at last chance meets that they would run a 60, and if you didn't qualify, they would run another 60 thirty mintues later, and if you didn't qualify, they would run another 60 thiry minutes later. or they would have the pole vault, and if you didn't qualify you would then enter the "invitiational pole vault", and if you didn't qualify you would enter the "elite pole vault" all in the same meet. sorry, but this is how these meets have been run until regulated. Perhaps it is to coaches' credit for getting creative. It just doesn't sit well with me.
4hurdles
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 2:25 pm

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby Cooter Brown » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:10 pm

4hurdles wrote:or they would have the pole vault, and if you didn't qualify you would then enter the "invitiational pole vault", and if you didn't qualify you would enter the "elite pole vault" all in the same meet.


I was at one qualifying meet back in the '90s where the starting height was whatever the qualifying mark was at the time. If you made it, you withdrew from the competition and if you missed 3 times, you waited until everyone was done and the next section started at the same starting height. Must have went through 8 divisions that day until everybody either qualified or was too tired to attempt any more jumps.
Cooter Brown
 
Posts: 2057
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Austin

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby polevaultpower » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:41 pm

4hurdles wrote:for example, there was a time at last chance meets that they would run a 60, and if you didn't qualify, they would run another 60 thirty mintues later, and if you didn't qualify, they would run another 60 thiry minutes later. or they would have the pole vault, and if you didn't qualify you would then enter the "invitiational pole vault", and if you didn't qualify you would enter the "elite pole vault" all in the same meet. sorry, but this is how these meets have been run until regulated. Perhaps it is to coaches' credit for getting creative. It just doesn't sit well with me.


USATF is finally starting to crack down on this stuff too, they are getting stricter about what marks will be acceptable for USAs.
polevaultpower
 
Posts: 4534
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: A Temperate Island

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby Marlow » Wed Mar 06, 2013 1:15 pm

4hurdles wrote: they would run a 60, and if you didn't qualify, they would run another 60 thirty mintues later, and if you didn't qualify, they would run another 60 thirty minutes later.

they would have the pole vault, and if you didn't qualify you would then enter the "invitiational pole vault", and if you didn't qualify you would enter the "elite pole vault" all in the same meet.


Cooter Brown wrote:I was at one qualifying meet back in the '90s where the starting height was whatever the qualifying mark was at the time. If you made it, you withdrew from the competition and if you missed 3 times, you waited until everyone was done and the next section started at the same starting height.


Marks Snobs like me LOVE that! I'm also into 'real' competition, but sometimes I just wanna see what kind of mark you can put up!!! :D
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby gh » Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:49 pm

the yearly men's DMR list (the equivalent of most people qualifying for the Nationals in the shot with a 15-pounder—what a disgrace)


legal track:
9:31.82 Texas 01/25 Razorback Inv
9:33.42 Indiana 02/08 Hoosier Hills
9:34.20 Stanford 02/01 Armory Coll
9:35.06 Oregon 02/01 Armory Coll
9:35.50 Arkansas 02/01 Armory Coll
9:38.49 Indiana Alumni 02/08 Hoosier Hills
9:40.67 Columbia 02/01 Armory Coll
9:40.71 Texas Tech 02/09 Tyson Inv
9:42.79 New Jersey/New York TC 02/16 Millrose G
9:45.23 Virginia Tech 02/22 ACC
(10)
9:45.42 Providence 02/22 N Eng Ch
9:45.50 Nebraska 01/25 Razorback Inv
9:45.70 Virginia 02/22 ACC
9:46.77 Duke 02/22 ACC
9:46.80 Monmouth 03/01 IC4A

Oversized Track:
9:26.60 Penn State 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:27.74 Princeton 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:28.25 —Stanford 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:28.38 Oklahoma State 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:29.22 Minnesota 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:29.40 Illinois 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:29.44 Oklahoma 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:30.22 —Arkansas 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:30.47 Villanova 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:30.83 —Virginia Tech 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:31.11 —Indiana 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:31.23 —Virginia 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:31.43 Wisconsin 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:31.71 —Nebraska 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:31.91 —Oregon 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:33.40 Georgetown 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:33.53 Brown 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:34.51 Air Force 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:35.36 UCLA 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:36.98 New Mexico 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:38.89 Kansas 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:40.20 Washington State 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:41.18 California 02/22 Mtn Pac
9:41.40 —Duke 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:41.67 Montana State 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:42.13 BYU 02/22 Mtn Pac
9:42.77 Loyola-Illinois 03/01 Wilson Inv
9:44.27 Washington 02/22 Mtn Pac
9:44.30 Michigan State 02/22 Big 10
9:45.25 Arizona 02/22 Mtn Pac
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby Marlow » Wed Mar 06, 2013 2:56 pm

gh wrote:the yearly men's DMR list (the equivalent of most people qualifying for the Nationals in the shot with a 15-pounder—what a disgrace)

Or . . . is it that the very best teams went to ND and ran their butts off?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 3:59 pm

gh wrote:the yearly men's DMR list (the equivalent of most people qualifying for the Nationals in the shot with a 15-pounder—what a disgrace)


I think that you are mixing up great races and environment with benefit of the track. Here the track mattered in ways that were not directly related to the OT -- the track is wider and the surface might be better. Anyone who thought that 9:32 was going to be the best mark was fooling themselves. You just needed to look at the marks these guys were putting up in miles, 800s etc., whether on OT or 200 Banked.

In addition, give the meet organizers some credit. There are stories behind statistics. There is a problem with the OTs and the 200 Banked being given the same factors, and that would have changed the outcome ... but go to that point. Given that the 200 Banked tracks violate the basic fairness and an absolute necessary condition of track and field, I do not want to hear about OTs being BAD and 200 Banked being the gold standard [the 200Banked are downhill, especially for the outer most lanes-- to such a degree that I think that the 200 wold not be legal for a road race course!]
26mi235
 
Posts: 16336
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby Mighty Favog » Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:24 pm

Not even remotely close. Maximum net drop in a record-worthy road race course is 1m per km, the same 1:1000 limitation placed on an outdoor track. 200m on an indoor banked track is on the order of ten times that. When 100% of the top ten marks in collegiate history in an event were all run on the same track, you might begin to wonder if the talent of the athlete is less important than the facility.
Mighty Favog
 
Posts: 1789
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby gh » Wed Mar 06, 2013 4:41 pm

26mi235 wrote:... Given that the 200 Banked tracks violate the basic fairness and an absolute necessary condition of track and field, I do not want to hear about OTs being BAD and 200 Banked being the gold standard [the 200Banked are downhill, especially for the outer most lanes-- to such a degree that I think that the 200 wold not be legal for a road race course!]


They satisfy the rules as written for indoor track. And given that every World Championships ever contested, every NCAA since the mid-'80s, and every USATF since (can't dredge that out of the memory cells at the moment) have been contested on a 200 banked track, of course it's the gold standard.

Yes, they are flawed in that outer lanes have nasty advantage in the long sprints (but then, so do they outdoors), and the IAAF/USATF have recognized the foolishness of trying to have a fair competition on them, so they axed the event from the Championships, as should the NCAA.

Sorry, but I'm unapologetic in standing up for following the rules and not using facilities that by rule are illegal, plain and simple.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: is anybody else appalled by the last-chance meets?

Postby 26mi235 » Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:04 pm

I still think that, by the fundamental rules of track and field, OT tracks are fine (they are smaller than standard tracks) but that the when races are run on banked tracks that are downhill they are illegal in more than the sense that some committee decided what the rules should be. In this sense, the OT tracks are not eligible for record consideration (not really illegal) but downhill races really are illegal.

An interesting but impractical idea is to have the banked track have differential slopes, so that the outer lanes slope less than the inner lanes. This would help equalize what is a double disadvantage of the inside lanes: the have tighter turns and they face opponents that run downhill more than they do. Another impractical ideas is to have the outer lanes run further: say a 1 meter drop is worth 0.2 seconds so they start two meters back... Probably the most practical partial equalization is the one mentioned where the outer lanes have to run uphill at first.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16336
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 17 guests