RE: t-and-f: Regionals
set back the NCAA championship meet by a week or two -- where it used to be. [Booming Ed McMahon voice]: YEEHHSS! You are correct, sir! HEH-Heh. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 4:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Regionals It seems to me that the simplest way to solve most of the problems involving regionals would be to set back the NCAA championship meet by a week or two -- where it used to be.
Re: t-and-f: regionals won't kill the NCAA schedule
Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 01:39:44 EDT From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: t-and-f: regionals won't kill the NCAA schedule Well, the USC-UCLA meet has traditionally been the first Saturday in May, and the weather has generally been pretty good for it. Moving it a week earlier would probably invite poorer weather. Weather in LA pretty much locks into generally sunny, warm conditions by early April. California weather, unlike the rest of the US, is remarkably stable and predictable on a seasonal basis. It only varies with El Nino conditions. Mt. SAC in mid April is always held in sunny weather (when was the last time it rained at that meet). The dual meet has nothing to worry about. BTW, USC and UCLA might have a dozen athletes of interest now to the Mt SAC crowd. Neither of those programs are the powerhouses they once were. The Pac-10 Championships have indeed been only 10 days before the NCAA Championships, and it has been difficult for teams to perform well in both the Pac-10s and the NCAAs. Adding regionals might make this problem worse. Even fewer athletes would have seasonal bests in the NCAAs. Given that the Pac 10 schools have been the dominant teams for decades, and only recently have been challenged by schools from one other conference, the SEC, this statement is hard to believe. In 1981, we finished 7th at the Pac 10 and 10th at the NCAA as the No. 5 Pac 10 school in Baton Rouge under conditions that could not have been more foreign to West Coast athletes. The decline of the conference at the national level is readily apparent in the conference meet performances, not just at the NCAA. Few athletes from ANY conference one SBs at the NCAAs because the meet is too often held in hot, humid conditions that are not conducive to good performances. Richard McCann
Re: t-and-f: regionals won't kill the NCAA schedule
Excuse me, but what percentage of the time when a gun is fired at Penn is there even the theoretical possibility of an NCAA qualifying mark being recorded? While I cannot answer to Division I (and I know that a lot of the list members believe that DI is the only real track and field division out there), I know that the staff at Penn (and I am pretty sure that at Drake and Mt. SAC) spend a lot of time signing POP forms for Division II and III athletes. Perhaps Dave Johnson can give some approximate numbers. And by the way, before all of those track gurus chime in a attest of the "quality of DI racing", I can say that I have witnessed many more and just as competitive and exciting 3:25 4X400's than 3:00 4X400. As to the regional concept, I know that administrators, for years, have wanted more head to head competition, especially when they authorize millions of dollars for facilities on their campus. How can facilities be justified when a school has only one or two meets a year at home? The other question that comes to mind is what is wrong with head to head competition. I certainly don't think that all of those thousands that used to sit in the stands in the 50' and 60's to watch USC and UCLA duals really cared about whether someone qualified for the NCAA meet. They were more interested to see the athlete in their favorite uniform beat the one in the other school's uniform. I think that some of the biggest complainers of the regionalization of track are those who have either had to run a lot of meets at home are compelled to do so. Having a home meet is a real pain when one figures that the home coaches have to do most of the grunt work. Regionalization is going to mean that more dua/tri/quad meets might have to be run and since there will be another meet(s) in the schedule, then more expense will have to be incurred. I am not sure where the idea for regionalization is coming from: the Presidents, the A.D.'s, the media, USATF, or the coaches. I do know one thing, we as coaches have, at times, done more to hurt ourselves as a profession and the sport in general. We have done more coaching an athlete how to reach a mark than we have in coaching an athlete on how to hate to loose a competition Perhaps regionalization will help bring back that head to head competition of the "person in the blue uniform beating the person in the red" in order to get to the next level. Only time will tell, not 500 posting on all of the negative aspects of regionalization. A wise old sage said once, "Be careful of what you ask for, you may get it." Trey Jackson Assistant Coach - Track and Field Lebanon Valley College Annville, PA
Re: t-and-f: Regionals
Dan wrote: The problem with that being the head to head competition in track and field as opposed to golf. If you let local runners into a meet who wouldn't normally be there, they are most likely going to get beaten handily. In golf it isn't as easy to see because Johnny Local and Tiger Woods aren't actually teeing off at the exact same time. Johnny Local would get embarrassed by Mo' Green. The kind of Johnny locals who make it to the U.S. open are the equivalent of maybe a 10.4 100m runner. Such a runner will certainly be eliminated in the trials, just as most of the bottom seeds are now, and willnot be embarrassed any more than the bottom seeds are now. The point is to build a meaningful series of developmental meets so that all but the top 10 seeds or so in each event have to consider the regional championships as a meet they may want to run. - ed parrot
Re: t-and-f: regionals won't kill the NCAA schedule
In a message dated Fri, 13 Apr 2001 11:26:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "denise lockett" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I just don't understand all the whining about a change that seems so clearly positive from the point of view of encouraging competition. Because you've uncovered one of the sport's dirty little secrets: everybody is more interested in protecting their own teeny little bit of turf than they are in fostering the sport as a whole. As it was in the beginning, is now gh
Re: t-and-f: regionals won't kill the NCAA schedule
In a message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2001 1:47:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, the USC-UCLA meet has traditionally been the first Saturday in May, and the weather has generally been pretty good for it. Moving it a week earlier would probably invite poorer weather. LOL! The WORST day in LA from January through May is probably better than the BEST day in the majority of the rest of the country. Bitching about SoCal weather is like being upset when your Ferrari shows up and it's black instead of red. gh ps--every coach of a team north of the 40th parallel should be ecstatic at the prospect of the Nationals being held a week later, after his kids have had that much more of a chance to train in decent weather.
Re: t-and-f: regionals won't kill the NCAA schedule
Have to agree. Certainly thre will be some wrinkles and bugs to work out as folks absorb the change. Big thing is it may help pump a bit of life into college track which has been moving toward terminal for a long time. We can't achieve March Madness but at least this may help get more notice and stir regional competition. Here in Texas (a high school hot bed) college track is almost unheard of (brief flurry at Texas Relays time), Once with the likes of Bobby Morrow, Eddie Southern, etc. it was a big deal. Now you can hardly find mention in a metro paper about a college track meet in Texas much less best times lists etc. Our high school kids go off to college (like to Stanford, Butler Co., etc.) and may just disappear. So let's give this Regional thing a try - it may be a much needed shot in the arm. Gordon Pynes TCU alum
Re: t-and-f: regionals won't kill the NCAA schedule
I just don't understand all the whining about a change that seems so clearly positive from the point of view of encouraging competition. Because you've uncovered one of the sport's dirty little secrets: everybody is more interested in protecting their own teeny little bit of turf than they are in fostering the sport as a whole. As it was in the beginning, is now gh If "fostering the sport as a whole" means enhancing the NCAA Championships, I would have to agree. But, pardon my provincialism if I find conference championships -- with their true team competition among athletes we have come to know -- a much more important part of collegiate athletics than NCAAs. Denise seems to think moving regionals into May should not endanger conference championships. But that's not what the coaches are saying.
Re: t-and-f: Regionals
Coach Nick makes some good points. One more I'd like to make is that even the big track powers who send legions to nationals, win titles, produce world class athletes and so on...THEY DON'T MAKE ANY MONEY FOR THEIR SCHOOLS OR THE NCAA! Its a blackhole financially. College track, post-collegiate track, all of it. People should be happy to get whatever scholarships or money they get, as its basically just charity. Grote adiRP/MMRD - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 8:18 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Regionals Ed- (and list) your problem here is you think it is the NCAA's( and schools themselves) job's to get these kids ready for International comp?? GET REAL, this list is so off base when they talk about this stuff, it isnt funny. If those 100 or more kids want to start in mid may that is fine, just let them pay their respective tuitions and do their thing. College Track is way more than the 1% who go to nationals, and as many of our european folks will say, "school is for learning and Athletics is run by clubs" School is for people who wish to learn, school's sponsor sports (especailly non revenue one's) to give an all around experience for "mind and body". While most schools love the press that having an athlete of theirs make the Olympic team or such gets them, don't think for a second that school Ad's or presidents give two shits what USATF wants or does. 98% of Kids who do NCAA Track will never go to a NCAA Meet, most schools never send anyone, and they dont stop having teams. These kids do it for their love of the sport, and the schools have the sport to enhance kids experiences, and they know they will see that money back many times over in donations and the like. Fire away! nick (with first hand experience at many different levels)
Re: t-and-f: regionals won't kill the NCAA schedule
In a message dated Sat, 14 Apr 2001 1:13:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Jack Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If "fostering the sport as a whole" means enhancing the NCAA Championships, I would have to agree. But, pardon my provincialism if I find conference championships -- with their true team competition among athletes we have come to know -- a much more important part of collegiate athletics than NCAAs. No, I'm not saying that at all; I'm saying that the paramount goal in collegiate athletics should be to make competition part of the equation again. The bulk of the collegiate season will no longer be spent chasing the elusive Q. Not only will there be a better looking product, we'll also be teaching our athletes how to be tougher in real competition. gh
RE: t-and-f: Regionals
My understanding is that the NCAA meet will be a week later with the Regionals two weekends before. Thus the conference meets would only have to be a week ealier to be two weekends before Regionals. If the rest of the west coast schedule also goes a week earlier (including Mt.SAC) there would be no problem in the west except for anyone who goes east for Penn and Drake. And certainly weather isn't an issue in Southern California. Remember that Mt. Sac used to be a week later against Penn and Drake but moved earlier to avoid the conflict and has done better ever since. I appreciate Scott's concerns about moving from the status quo again, but my guess is his meet will continue to do well if it adjusts. East of the Rockies, I guess Penn and Drake would be reluctant to go a week earlier because of weather. The loser could be the IC4A in the East which serves as a super conference meet of almost 100 schools. Coaches will not want it the week before Regionals, and two weeks before will crowd it against the league meets. Unless the league meets in the east go to April (like the ACC in the south), the only alternative may be for the IC4A to be held the weekend between Regionals and Nationals as an "NIT" meet for the athletes who don't make it to the big dance. While I have strong loyalties to the IC4A (which is the oldest track field meet in the United States), I still think the pluses of the Regionals outweigh the costs. Getting rid of last chance qualifiers is a HUGE plus. Ed Koch --Original Message-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: April 13, 2001 8:17:12 PM GMT Subject: t-and-f: Regionals It seems to me that the simplest way to solve most of the problems involving regionals would be to set back the NCAA championship meet by a week or two -- where it used to be.
Re: t-and-f: Regionals
In a message dated Fri, 13 Apr 2001 4:24:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that the simplest way to solve most of the problems involving regionals would be to set back the NCAA championship meet by a week or two -- where it used to be. the Nationals is indeed now going to be run a week later. The latest the Nationals was ever held was June 21-22 of 1946. One thing we can hope for is that the pushing back of the NCAA will also force the USATF meetwhere it should be, even later in the year. Like the last week of June, or even in July. gh
Re: t-and-f: Regionals oops
i missed one: the latest nationals ever was June 22-23 of 1934. The first time the meet was ever held with competition in May didn't come until 1977. gh
Re: t-and-f: Regionals
gh wrote: One thing we can hope for is that the pushing back of the NCAA will also force the USATF meetwhere it should be, even later in the year. Like the last week of June, or even in July. Which would then make it easier to create a nationwide set of local and regional meets - with the USATF meet where it is now, it isn't feasible to conduct an effective lead-in to nationals other than the big invitationals. (which are fine for a few elite and for the fans but do little to develop the sport) gh - what would you see as the most logical date if you were in charge of scheduling? I suppose it might vary depending on the WC and/or Olympic dates, although really it should stay the same weekend every year if we wanted to maximize promotion. I'd love to see a variation on golf's U.S. open scenario, where 25% of the USATF nationals participants come via local and regional qualifiers. It would create more local publicity for the national meet without affecting the top places very much. More importantly, it would create a logical and easily publicized set of competition opportunities at the sub-elite level. To some extent, this second item may be assisted by the USATF club nationals being introduced this July, but that doesn't help the current nationals. Another question - when do the various national championships of the European countries occur? And when do the Kenyan nationals occur? - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Regionals
Another question - when do the various national championships of the European countries occur? And when do the Kenyan nationals occur? The third or fourth week of July, when the European circuit pretty much "shuts down" to allow athletes to return to their home countries for their NC's. And that's where it makes most sense to have the USATF meet. The complaint has always come from collegiate coaches that it stretches the season way too long for their athletes after the NCAA's- it would be an entire month of "down time" waiting for USATF NC's. But for elite athletes, the IAAF tour starts at the end of May and goes full steam up to mid-July, then takes that break. So they usually miss a key meet or two in June right now to have to come to USATF NC's if they want to be assured of a berth on whatever international team happens to be formed that year. The answer for the collegiate athletes: if you're not good enough to go to Europe (or can't accept any prize money), here's the opportunity for USATF to set up a USATF Tier II Grand Prix circuit from mid-June up to NC's at end of July. The CAN AM series (for middle-distance and distance track races) is a superb example. Don't EXPECT too many top elite athletes (they'll be in Europe), so do anything dumb like depend on sale of a lot of gate tickets or anything. Fund it out of development funding or corporate sponsorships. Who knows, if successful, one or two of these Tier II meets might qualify for IAAF GPII staus, or at least IAAF-permit status. But don't make that the end-all objective. Also keep in mind that a USATF NC at end of July makes venues such as New Orleans EVEN WORSE as far as heat and humidity, so the slate of candidate host cities might migrate a little northward. So much the better (for everybody except sprinters). Sorry Darrell. Seattle or Minneapolis or Buffalo would be great in July. RT
Re: t-and-f: Regionals
What about the existing U.S. IAAF meets? While I would love to have my meet later in the summer when the weather in Oregon is likely to be better, I am sure that the quality of the fields would be lessen by more competition with the European circuit. Both the Pre Classic and the adidas Oregon Track Classic were able to do ok last year despite the European conflicts because of the importance for many Americans of the upcoming Olympic Trials and their interest in staying home. I don't think that would carry over to non-Olympic years. I would think that continuing to have the U.S. IAAF meets in late May and early June would work best with additional meets held during the summer, whether the U.S. Champs changes dates or not. Paul Banta adidas Oregon Track Classic 503-620-4052 www.oregontrackclassic.com - Original Message - From: "Randy Treadway" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 3:33 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Regionals The answer for the collegiate athletes: if you're not good enough to go to Europe (or can't accept any prize money), here's the opportunity for USATF to set up a USATF Tier II Grand Prix circuit from mid-June up to NC's at end of July. Who knows, if successful, one or two of these Tier II meets might qualify for IAAF GPII staus, or at least IAAF-permit status. But don't make that the end-all objective.
Re: t-and-f: Regionals
What about the existing U.S. IAAF meets? They are at the beginning of the IAAF season, right? So a U.S. athlete will run the U.S. meets before going to Europe. Then, head over to Europe for 4-5 weeks, then back for USATF nationals during the break. No extra trips to Europe and gives athletes a chance to get their feet wet at home before heading to Europe. - Ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: Regionals
Another question - when do the various national championships of the European countries occur? And when do the Kenyan nationals occur? The third or fourth week of July, when the European circuit pretty much "shuts down" to allow athletes to return to their home countries for their NC's. And that's where it makes most sense to have the USATF meet. The complaint has always come from collegiate coaches that it stretches the season way too long for their athletes after the NCAA's- it would be an entire month of "down time" waiting for USATF NC's. This is one of the ironies of NCAA track field. The best athletes in each event will generally qualify for USATF meet and some of them will be vying for international team spots. And the entire NCAA Division I setup is geared towards these individuals. Much of the complaints about lack of competition during the NCAA can be directly linked to the steps being taken to accomodate these top 100-200 athletes. Yet if we really wanted to serve these individuals, their season wouldn't start until mid-may, period. But that wouldn't be acceptable because it doesn't fit with college calendars and it would bring home the fact that those athletes who are not in the top 100-200 don't really matter that much to the NCAA. So what we have is the worst of all possible compromises, with a schedule that doesn't serve the elite athletes well becuase they have to compete from early April on, and doesn't serve the non-elite athletes, either, because little is done to enhance their experience. I have always believed that the current development structure in the U.S. is out of whack and the inability of USATF, the NCAA and high schools to form a cohesive program that actually serves the athletes is the main problem. It is easy enough to see that the NCAA has the most power of the three, which is why both USATF and high schools build their programs around the NCAA to a large extent. I'm all for having the USATF meet at the end of July where it belongs. In three out of four years, the meet is a selection race for international teams, and if the collegians can't be expected to be ready in late July, they certainly won't be ready for a championship meet the following month. Keeping the USATF meet in June simply assures that we will have more athletes competing for us internationally who are way past their peak. - Ed Parrot
RE: t-and-f: Regionals
I am sure that the quality of the fields would be lessen by more competition with the European circuit. What scheduling conflicts from July 10 - July 28? malmo Both the Pre Classic and the adidas Oregon Track Classic were able to do ok last year despite the European conflicts because of the importance for many Americans of the upcoming Olympic Trials and their interest in staying home. I don't think that would carry over to non-Olympic years. I would think that continuing to have the U.S. IAAF meets in late May and early June would work best with additional meets held during the summer, whether the U.S. Champs changes dates or not. Paul Banta adidas Oregon Track Classic 503-620-4052 www.oregontrackclassic.com - Original Message - From: "Randy Treadway" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 3:33 PM Subject: Re: t-and-f: Regionals The answer for the collegiate athletes: if you're not good enough to go to Europe (or can't accept any prize money), here's the opportunity for USATF to set up a USATF Tier II Grand Prix circuit from mid-June up to NC's at end of July. Who knows, if successful, one or two of these Tier II meets might qualify for IAAF GPII staus, or at least IAAF-permit status. But don't make that the end-all objective.
Re: t-and-f: Regionals
Ed- (and list) your problem here is you think it is the NCAA's( and schools themselves) job's to get these kids ready for International comp?? GET REAL, this list is so off base when they talk about this stuff, it isnt funny. If those 100 or more kids want to start in mid may that is fine, just let them pay their respective tuitions and do their thing. College Track is way more than the 1% who go to nationals, and as many of our european folks will say, "school is for learning and Athletics is run by clubs" School is for people who wish to learn, school's sponsor sports (especailly non revenue one's) to give an all around experience for "mind and body". While most schools love the press that having an athlete of theirs make the Olympic team or such gets them, don't think for a second that school Ad's or presidents give two shits what USATF wants or does. 98% of Kids who do NCAA Track will never go to a NCAA Meet, most schools never send anyone, and they dont stop having teams. These kids do it for their love of the sport, and the schools have the sport to enhance kids experiences, and they know they will see that money back many times over in donations and the like. Fire away! nick (with first hand experience at many different levels)
Re: t-and-f: Regionals
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:18:46 EDT, you wrote: While most schools love the press that having an athlete of theirs make the Olympic team or such gets them, don't think for a second that school Ad's or presidents give two shits what USATF wants or does. Agreed. So why should USATF bend itself into a pretzel to fit around an NCAA schedule? The USATF doesn't depend on collegians even one tenth as much as its federation predecessors did 30 years ago. USATF should set its own calendar based on its OWN needs, then provide opportunities to help bridge any gaps between the NCAA calendar and the USATF calendar, as development opportunities for the top tier collegians. RT
Re: t-and-f: Regionals
On Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:18:46 EDT, you wrote: While most schools love the press that having an athlete of theirs make the Olympic team or such gets them, don't think for a second that school Ad's or presidents give two shits what USATF wants or does. and RT wrote: So why should USATF bend itself into a pretzel to fit around an NCAA schedule? The USATF doesn't depend on collegians even one tenth as much as its federation predecessors did 30 years ago. USATF should set its own calendar based on its OWN needs, then provide opportunities to help bridge any gaps between the NCAA calendar and the USATF calendar, as development opportunities for the top tier collegians. Absolutely. But guess who makes the decision - the men's and women's track and field committees of USATF. Technically I guess the Board of Directors has to approve it, but it's a hard to see them disagreeing with the two track field committees unless the athletes advisory committee made a huge deal about it. Want to take a guess who makes up a substantial majority of the track field committees - NCAA coaches, that's who. Want to take a guess who has the most influence in those committees - NCAA Division I coaches. If the NCAA coaches don't want the date moved, it probably won't be moved. - ed Parrot
Re: t-and-f: regionals won't kill the NCAA schedule
Well, the USC-UCLA meet has traditionally been the first Saturday in May, and the weather has generally been pretty good for it. Moving it a week earlier would probably invite poorer weather. The Pac-10 Championships have indeed been only 10 days before the NCAA Championships, and it has been difficult for teams to perform well in both the Pac-10s and the NCAAs. Adding regionals might make this problem worse. Even fewer athletes would have seasonal bests in the NCAAs. Still, the regional qualifiers might work if it cut down the NCAA Championships in size and reduced the number of heats. Steven
