NCAA meet now an "all-comers thing"?


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

NCAA meet now an "all-comers thing"?

Postby BillVol » Tue Jun 03, 2003 9:09 pm

Knoxville News-Sentinel writes: "In the men's 200, athletes ranked 40th, 44th, 50th and 65th earned automatic bids in the West Regional."

Schools are spending all of this money to compete in front of sparse Regional crowds and risk injury to elite athletes (if they don't sit them out altogether) so we can get guys ranked 40th and below into the NCAAs?

http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/gv_other_sp ... 32,00.html
BillVol
 
Posts: 3761
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Re: NCAA meet now an

Postby Guest » Wed Jun 04, 2003 5:27 am

In hoops, low seeds making it farther into the big dance is considered high entertainment, something track is sorely lacking.
Guest
 

Re: NCAA meet now an

Postby gcheves » Wed Jun 04, 2003 5:33 am

That implies that there will be a 65th seed in the final of the 200. I would dare say that if a runner hasn't run better than 21.0 FAT by the regional qualifying meet, he will not run a time of around 20.6 that is needed to make the final in the 200.
gcheves
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: NCAA meet now an

Postby bubba » Wed Jun 04, 2003 5:33 am

You think the Vols are pissed now. Wait until one of those "all-comers" takes a point or two away from their team score.
bubba
 
Posts: 205
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:30 am

Re: NCAA meet now an

Postby CoachKoby » Wed Jun 04, 2003 12:47 pm

Think that it is too soon to start passing judgement on the success or failure of this new format. Besides, what is wrong with the NCAA meet being an "all-comers thing?" People just don't like change.
CoachKoby
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: NCAA meet now an

Postby tandfman » Wed Jun 04, 2003 1:01 pm

>Knoxville News-Sentinel writes: "In the men's
200, athletes ranked 40th, 44th, 50th and 65th
earned automatic bids in the West Regional."

Schools are spending all of this money to
compete in front of sparse Regional crowds and
risk injury to elite athletes (if they don't sit
them out altogether) so we can get guys ranked
40th and below into the NCAAs?<

Well in that case, they probably think that Mr. Gatlin shouldn't run the Olympic 200 because he'll have to run at least one round against some guys ranked 40th and below in the world.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

apples & oranges

Postby BillVol » Wed Jun 04, 2003 1:16 pm

The Olympics encompass the entire world. You can't expect to have only 20 guys in the 100m in the Olympics. But the NCAA has the power to weed out the lower-ranked athletes, as they have done every year until now.

Olympic athletes also don't have conference and regional meets so close either. The trials are at least a month before, aren't they?
BillVol
 
Posts: 3761
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Apples and apples

Postby tandfman » Wed Jun 04, 2003 2:07 pm

>The Olympics encompass the entire world. You
can't expect to have only 20 guys in the 100m in
the Olympics.<

Why not? They could do that if they wanted to. In fact, that's exactly what they're going to do in the relays next year. They will be limited to the top 16 teams.


>But the NCAA has the power to weed
out the lower-ranked athletes, as they have done
every year until now.<

The IAAF and the IOC could do the same thing for the Olympics if they wanted to.


>Olympic athletes also don't have conference and regional meets so close either. The trials are at least a month before, aren't they?<

Two answers to that. First, you can be sure that most of the world's top athletes will compete somwhere in Europe during that period between the trials and the Games.

Second, and more important, the fact that the regionals are two weeks before the nationals shouldn't affect the competition at all. Everyone has to do the same thing.

Is competition every other weekend at the end of the season too much for the athletes too much? I don't think so. Nobody every complained that the Final Four guys have to play two games of basketball for three straight weekends. Nor does anyone complain that two weeks before the National Championship game, those teams often have to play against teams not ranked in the top 40.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Apples and apples

Postby BillVol » Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:36 pm

Why not? They could
>do that if they wanted to. In fact, that's
>exactly what they're going to do in the relays
>next year. They will be limited to the top 16
>teams.


>But the NCAA has the power to
>weed
out the lower-ranked athletes, as they
>have done
every year until now.<

The IAAF
>and the IOC could do the same thing for the
>Olympics if they wanted to.

Key word there is "if."


>Olympic
>athletes also don't have conference and regional
>meets so close either. The trials are at least
>a month before, aren't they?<

Two answers to
>that. First, you can be sure that most of the
>world's top athletes will compete somwhere in
>Europe during that period between the trials and
>the Games.

Second, and more important, the
>fact that the regionals are two weeks before the
>nationals shouldn't affect the competition at
>all. Everyone has to do the same thing.
>

Is competition every other weekend at the
>he end of the season too much for the athletes
>too much? I don't think so. Nobody every
>complained that the Final Four guys have to play
>two games of basketball for three straight
>weekends. Nor does anyone complain that two
>weeks before the National Championship game,
>those teams often have to play against teams not
>ranked in the top 40.

Good points here. I can't argue with any of that.

But may I ask you what you most like about the Regionals?
BillVol
 
Posts: 3761
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Re: Apples and apples

Postby BillVol » Wed Jun 04, 2003 6:39 pm

Is there an edit feature here, for idiots like myself?

I meant to say that the IAAF likely wouldn't want to limit events in the Olympics to 20 athletes because it looks better to have more countries and athletes involved. Yes, IF the IOC wanted to weed out the rif-raf, they could. But they don't want to do that.
BillVol
 
Posts: 3761
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Re: Apples and apples

Postby tandfman » Wed Jun 04, 2003 7:02 pm

>But may I ask you what you most like about the
Regionals?<

Two things. First, it offers a great opportunity for head-to-head competition that means something. If the colleges took the meet seriously, winning a regional title (or even finishing high) would be an accomplishment that lots of schools could aspire to. Teams that do not have a realistic chance of winning or even being top three at the Nationals, could still be in the hunt for something beyond their conference. If I were a coach at a team that finished fourth in my region, I'd be telling my AD and my local newspapers that this is the equivalent of making the Sweet 16 in hoops. People should be able to understand this.

Even on an individual level, these meets should have meaning. Four times as many kids can be regional champion than national champion. It can and should be an exciting bunch of hotly contested individual events.

Secondly, the regionals offer us a chance of getting away from the farcical mark chasing that has contributed much to what most fans think is wrong with what has become of collegiate track. Teams could go back to dual and triangular competition with natural rivals. This can only help.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Apples and apples

Postby jhc68 » Wed Jun 04, 2003 7:30 pm

The thing is, Billvol, that, aside from worrying about your own school's athletes having to race against some no-names who just might be able to (gasp!) beat them, you haven't produced a compelling argument to convince anyone that head to head qualifying competition is unfair or less exciting that simply seeding "elite" performers into the nationals. It seems great to me that athletes we've never heard of can barge into the highest levels of competition simply by virtue of out performing better known rivals.
jhc68
 
Posts: 3291
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Apples and apples

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 05, 2003 3:31 am

Another issue: regional advantages. Don't tell me that qualifying by time is "fair" unless you've tried to run a fast time in April north of the Mason-Dixon line!
Guest
 

Re: Apples and apples

Postby BillVol » Thu Jun 05, 2003 5:40 am

>The thing is, Billvol, that, aside from worrying
>about your own school's athletes having to race
>against some no-names who just might be able to
>(gasp!) beat them,

I have never said that. I've seen plenty of "mid-major" athletes come in to Sea Ray and other meets in K-town and beat UT athletes. I have no problem with this.

you haven't produced a
>compelling argument to convince anyone that head
>to head qualifying competition is unfair or less
>exciting that simply seeding "elite" performers
>into the nationals. It seems great to me that
>athletes we've never heard of can barge into the
>highest levels of competition simply by virtue of
>out performing better known rivals.

But is it going to generate intererst from fans? And is it worth the expense (among other things)?


To j squire: There is also a difference in marks recorded out west (especially at altitude). Seems like the major programs wind up competing in the South, Southwest or West at some point, though, during the season. Interesting point, though.


To tandfman: Thanks for the post. I hope it does generate some interest. I have no doubt it creates great racing. What would be great is if somebody made a Cinderella run to the finals of an event, thanks to being able to qualify through the regionals.
BillVol
 
Posts: 3761
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Chattanooga

Re: Apples and apples

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 05, 2003 6:14 am

I am a fan and I'm very interested. The only thing that would make it more interesting is if all of the meets took place in Florida so I could see them live.
Guest
 

Re: Apples and apples

Postby jsquire » Thu Jun 05, 2003 11:14 am

To j
>squire: There is also a difference in marks
>recorded out west (especially at altitude).
>Seems like the major programs wind up competing
>in the South, Southwest or West at some point,
>though, during the season. Interesting point,
>though.

Altitude is factored in to the NCAA qualifying system. While I haven't yet broken it down by individuals, various team projections were totally upended by the regional results. Minnesota beat all the Big 12 teams at the Midwest regional, and Ohio State (4th in the Big 10) beat Tennessee (2nd in the SEC). Michigan's women beat everyone in the Mideast except NCAA-favorite LSU. Even Nebraska's women beat Texas. I wouldn't read a lot into this except that on the whole those northern teams did better than their qualifying marks presumed they would.
jsquire
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], BruceFlorman, Exabot [Bot], Speedster and 11 guests