In a message dated Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:00:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Conway"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<<Why would the NCs not mean anything in a world ranking sense ?? Many of the worlds
top sprinters are often still in college .. Williams had to be the
likes of Miller and TRammell to gain that title .. And ran a 10.03 to do so
. How many seasons have we seen the 100 and 200 rankings dominated by college types
??>>
If we have seen any 100 and 200 Rankings dominated by college types, as you say, it
was back in the "pre-professional" days. During the '90s, exactly 4 men made the Top
10 in a year in which they ran in the NCAA: Myles-Mills in '99, Adeniken in 90-91-92,
Fredericks in 91 and Burrell in 90.
As I said, the NC is no longer really a factor in the Rankings. Not by definition, but
by reality; if reality changes, it'll count. Call me back when a high NCAA placer goes
on to win an OG or WC medal in the same year. Of all the people listed above, the
highest ranking any of them ever earned (in the same year) was a 5.
When I started at T&FN I was the biggest college honk on the planet, and I was crushed
after attending my first-ever open nationals and discovering just how inconsequential
most collegians were. And with the open era, where the average age of the top athlete
has risen what, 7-8 years (?), they're less significant than ever. Nothing to be
ashamed of; just boys playing against men in a league where it used to be mostly boys
and against boys. Those who graduate to "man" level at a young age now tend to bail
out of college, rendering the NCAA even more irrelevant (in a World Rank sense only).
gh
