no more automatic qualifiers (or provisionals)


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

no more automatic qualifiers (or provisionals)

Postby gh » Sat Dec 01, 2012 11:04 am

either this slipt by with little fanfare, or I was sleeping (not an impossible scenario). The NCAA Indoor Championships no longer has qualifying standards. It'll be done straight from the lists:

<<Qualification to the championships is based on the descending-order list for the season and adhering to the qualifying regulations/criteria published on www.ncaa.org. For each men’s individual event contested, including the heptathlon, the top 16 declared student-athletes will be accepted into the competition. For each woman’s individual event contested, including
the pentathlon, the top 16 declared student-athletes will be accepted into the competition. For each relay event contested, the top 12 declared relay teams will be accepted into the competition. The stated maximums are absolute and will not be extended as a result of ties....>>
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: no more automatic qualifiers (or provisionals)

Postby polevaultpower » Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:25 pm

So how will they break ties? They're practically guaranteed in the vertical jumps...
polevaultpower
 
Posts: 4533
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: A Temperate Island

Re: no more automatic qualifiers (or provisionals)

Postby gh » Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:35 pm

I was trying not to bore anyone with too much detail.

<<Ties. Any descending-order list ties, by mark, for the last position to be accepted will be resolved by examining, of those tied, the second-best valid qualifying meet performance submitted during the season and so on until there is no basis for a mark comparison.

For a tie not resolved after all available mark comparisons, acceptance will be awarded to the competitor who achieved the original tying mark later in the season.

For a tie still not resolved, acceptance will be awarded to the competitor who achieved the second-best valid qualifying meet performance later in the season and so on until there is no
basis for date comparison.

As a last resort, the tie for the last qualifying position will be decided by the toss of a coin.>>
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: no more automatic qualifiers (or provisionals)

Postby Marlow » Sat Dec 01, 2012 1:00 pm

gh wrote:<<Qualification to the championships is based on the descending-order list for the season and adhering to the qualifying regulations/criteria published on http://www.ncaa.org.

Haven't been following this closely enough, but I take this statement to be fraught with confusion. All marks are subject to indexing and altitude adjustment, yes? So you can't just look at a list of 'best marks'. The official descending order list has all this built into it, I assume, but the problem arises when you look at the 16th mark, and surpass it, you may or may not have surpassed it, yes?
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: no more automatic qualifiers (or provisionals)

Postby j-a-m » Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:09 pm

Marlow wrote:Haven't been following this closely enough, but I take this statement to be fraught with confusion.

Confusion seems to be the keyword here, especially in the running events with the new conversions, but also in the jumps with the new tiebreaking procedures.
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: no more automatic qualifiers (or provisionals)

Postby j-a-m » Sat Dec 01, 2012 2:12 pm

gh wrote:<<Ties. Any descending-order list ties, by mark, for the last position to be accepted will be resolved by examining, of those tied, the second-best valid qualifying meet performance submitted during the season and so on until there is no basis for a mark comparison.

That wording doesn't seem clear to me. Does the second-best mark have to be from a different meet, or can it come from the same meet?
j-a-m
 
Posts: 2449
Joined: Thu May 24, 2012 8:21 pm

Re: no more automatic qualifiers (or provisionals)

Postby 26mi235 » Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:21 pm

Marlow wrote:
gh wrote:<<Qualification to the championships is based on the descending-order list for the season and adhering to the qualifying regulations/criteria published on http://www.ncaa.org.

Haven't been following this closely enough, but I take this statement to be fraught with confusion. All marks are subject to indexing and altitude adjustment, yes? So you can't just look at a list of 'best marks'. The official descending order list has all this built into it, I assume, but the problem arises when you look at the 16th mark, and surpass it, you may or may not have surpassed it, yes?


They do keep a net descending-order list. That is the one that people will look at. On the last weekend, it will be known what type of track people will be racing on and adjusts/check can be made. What will be hard is the fluidity of the last couple places that last weekend.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16334
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: no more automatic qualifiers (or provisionals)

Postby tandfman » Mon Dec 03, 2012 4:59 am

The good news is that we should be spared all of those mindless press releases by Sports Information Directors (and the equally mindless newspaper stories based on them) with misleading statements about people having "qualified" for the NCAA meet. Often, these items were based on provisional Qs that had no chance at all of putting the athlete in the NCAAs. And we also had stories that told us of a qualifying mark by an athlete who had a better qualifying mark earlier in the season.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: no more automatic qualifiers (or provisionals)

Postby Marlow » Mon Dec 03, 2012 5:06 am

tandfman wrote:The good news is that we should be spared all of those mindless press releases by Sports Information Directors (and the equally mindless newspaper stories based on them) with misleading statements about people having "qualified" for the NCAA meet.

Oh dear sir, your optimism is refreshing but unwarranted. The local everyday media will remain just as uninformed as before in their breathless reporting of 'qualifying' performances.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21125
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: no more automatic qualifiers (or provisionals)

Postby tandfman » Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:02 am

Marlow wrote:
tandfman wrote:The good news is that we should be spared all of those mindless press releases by Sports Information Directors (and the equally mindless newspaper stories based on them) with misleading statements about people having "qualified" for the NCAA meet.

Oh dear sir, your optimism is refreshing but unwarranted. The local everyday media will remain just as uninformed as before in their breathless reporting of 'qualifying' performances.

You mean that some dude breaks into the top 16 in January, and the local paper will say he's qualified for the NCAAs? I do hope you're wrong, but I suppose the guys who made a big deal out of a low provisional Q could mess this one up, too. We'll see.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: no more automatic qualifiers (or provisionals)

Postby Wmbgskip » Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:36 pm

As one of those "mindless" Sports Information Directors - provisional or automatic, it's all a qualifying standard, and if you surpass it, you've qualified for the meet. End of story.

Attendance is another matter, and if you aren't invited because it's a weak mark, than you don't attend. But that doesn't change the fact of the matter that you qualified, and if a wave of sickness had hit the country, you could've been the top person able to actually attend.

It's all the same game that's played by every athlete and every team and every athletic department - you put the best possible face on the facts you have, so that you can look as good as possible to people that determine your funding. As opposed to an actual newspaper, we're not getting paid to present a balanced, only the facts account. If you think that's a nasty, terrible system, so be it - hell, I'll even agree with you.

However, kindly, you can take your mindless characterization and shove it into a very tight crevice.

Cheers,
Skip

P.S. - Speaking to the original point of the thread, from the sports information perspective I think you can look at it either good or bad. Good, from the basic sense of simplicity - you're either top-16 on March 4th, or you're not. Bad, in that you've removed a very simple and powerful tool to get coverage for the athletes (the above mindless qualification).
Wmbgskip
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:30 am

Re: no more automatic qualifiers (or provisionals)

Postby tandfman » Tue Dec 04, 2012 5:27 pm

Wmbgskip wrote:As one of those "mindless" Sports Information Directors - provisional or automatic, it's all a qualifying standard, and if you surpass it, you've qualified for the meet. End of story.

To the average reader, if you've qualified for the meet, it means you're going to go to the meet. But in the case of an athlete who met only the provisional standard, the chances were that he/she would not be going to the meet. So you've misled people. Moreover, even if the performance was an automatic qualifier, if the athlete had a previous superior mark, the subsequent performance did not qualify him/her for the meet. It was meaningless. Knowingly convincing readers that meaningless information is meaningful is worse than mindless. It's deceptive, and it's not worthy of association with a respectable institution of higher learning.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: no more automatic qualifiers (or provisionals)

Postby Wmbgskip » Tue Dec 04, 2012 6:25 pm

tandfman wrote:
Wmbgskip wrote:As one of those "mindless" Sports Information Directors - provisional or automatic, it's all a qualifying standard, and if you surpass it, you've qualified for the meet. End of story.

To the average reader, if you've qualified for the meet, it means you're going to go to the meet. But in the case of an athlete who met only the provisional standard, the chances were that he/she would not be going to the meet. So you've misled people. Moreover, even if the performance was an automatic qualifier, if the athlete had a previous superior mark, the subsequent performance did not qualify him/her for the meet. It was meaningless. Knowingly convincing readers that meaningless information is meaningful is worse than mindless. It's deceptive, and it's not worthy of association with a respectable institution of higher learning.


Re: your first point, of the meaning of "qualified" - I understand what you're trying to say, but I feel you are doing the average fan a disservice. In my experience, even the average or less-than-average fans have grasped the fact that qualified has nothing to do with actual attendance/invitation.

Re: your second point, of subsequent qualifying marks - well taken, that's on the SID to clarify if it was a re-qualification, and if it is a better or worse mark than before. I certainly make that effort, but I can't speak to other schools.

Re: your third point - There is no meaningless information. When we're in a point where, from a technical standpoint, the final invitation in say, the pole vault, can come back to the very first attempt taken on the season to break a tie between two athletes, then every single performance means something. That seems like a pretty fundamental point.

As a writer covering a team, I can't sit there and say "What happened at this meet is less important than what happened somewhere else," even if as a fan and a student of the sport, I feel that to be true. That's doing an immense disservice to the athletes who competed, and to their families, and to the coaches and staff who've been working to get these athletes to compete. Taking that on a scale up, I also have to take that same attitude across every sport, whether its track, or football, or basketball, or bowling.

As a fan, you can decide that you only what to know about the very very best, and the devil take the hindmost. That seems to be the case here - you don't want anyone muddying the waters of focusing all attention on the very top of the pyramid. But if you start down that slope as a department, then you arrive at the sad state of affairs we're at now with teams being cut, and interest and resources being shifted to other sports.

Best,
Skip
Wmbgskip
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:30 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], mcgato, norunner, nztrackfan and 11 guests