I agree. One thing that annoys me is scanning through a results sheet and
seeing the same event being staged umpteen different times only with
different titles that make it difficult to establish which is the main one.
Calling them 'A' and 'B' makes it obvious which is the more important.
Further, an 'Invitational' event in a Championships tells me it may be worth
reporting.
But I'm often faced with web page full of links to dozens of events with
nothing but the not very descriptive names to go by (e.g. Olympic
Development, College, Jo Bloggs Memorial,Open, Elite). When the events vary
in standard so much that you have the likes of Michael Johnson and Maurice
Greene competing in the same event as a schooolkid running 4m30 for a mile,
it's not easy to know which are worth looking at without opening the file.
I'm not aiming this at any one particular meeting. The terms I've used
which might be peculiar to one meeting I've mentioned merely because they're
recent and easier to recollect. It's a general thing, which perhaps can't
be helped given the size of some of the American meetings, but it's annoying
nonetheless if you don't know the meet.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Hersh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Michael Reilly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "[unknown]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 12:19 PM
Subject: t-and-f: Entry list for Cardinal Invitational
> Message text written by Michael Reilly
> >
> Cardinal Track & Field Invitational
> Cobb Track and Angell Field
> Stanford University
> May 4, 2001
>
> LIST OF DECLARED ENTRANTS
>
> . . . .
>
> Men's 3000 Meter Steeplechase (2 sections)
> NON-Championship section will be at 7:15pm.
> Championship section will race at 7:30pm.<
>
> IMHO, it is a corruption of the English language to speak of a
Championship
> section in an Invitational meet. Invitationals and championships are two
> different and inconsistent things. Why not just call these races
> non-seeded and seeded sections?
