lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 4:37
PMTo: Track Field ListSubject: RE: t-and-f: NCAA
200m
Is this a
situation where the 200m is not taken seriously as an event? Or could it be
that it attracts too many runners (100m going up + 400m going down) for the
NCAAs t
In a message dated Wed, 28 Mar 2001 6:53:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Michael
Holloway" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Guy we are starting to get a little harsh here, the NCAA uses this system at the
indoor championships and they use it for the 400 outdoors.
Exactly! The indoor sucks and
PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2001 1:10 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f: NCAA 200m
In a message dated 03/28/2001 11:25:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're probably right about that. So
as for "thought process," all i can think of is that in these days of
small squad sizes, coaches want to load up on sprinters who can run the 1, 2
and a relay, maybe both relays, without burning out.
gh
You're probably right about that. So much for encouraging competition.
What do they do
In a message dated 03/28/2001 11:25:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're probably right about that. So much for encouraging competition.
What do they do with the 400 m at NCAA?
- ed Parrot
Oh that is easy Ed. One round, an aggregate of times. Cuts down on time,
and
Is this a
situation where the 200m is not taken seriously as an event? Or could it be that
it attracts too many runners (100m going up + 400m going down) for the NCAAs
taste? Like provisional qualifying that allows the NCAA to place a limit on the
number of competitors in each event of a
L PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: t-and-f: NCAA 200m
In a message dated 03/28/2001 11:25:50 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You're probably right about that. So much for encouraging competition.
What do they do with the 400 m at NCAA?
