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 o
al Message-From: Guy Oekerman
[mailto:[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 (100
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 much for encouraging competition.
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 cha
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,
an
