At 11:57 PM 2/28/2002 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Any way you want to cut it, Rich, with all due respect, the worst thing about >regional qualifying is the fact that it is just plain wrong. Wrong---that's >all there is to say about it. And this is not my original statement; I have >heard it put this way by many coaches at both DI and DII schools and the DII >schols are not even involved! >Scott
But what's wrong about it other than it changes the status quo? I haven't heard a convincing argument that is somehow puts the "best" athletes into the NCAA! I know from watching the sport and my own competitive career that time trialing to qualify does not achieve that goal. The opponents of regional qualifying need to be much more analytical about the problem they foresee other than it represents "change." You need to come forward with a clear case of why conference meets or the relays would be adversely affected. The only legitimate argument that I can understand is that somehow the necessity to chase good conditions to get a qualifying mark drives athletes to a few relay meets. That doesn't hold water for meets like Penn and Drake where most of the elite athletes actually compete in non-NCAA events, and field event qualifiers rarely occur! Mt. SAC and Texas may be different, but maybe they need to change their model. I'm not sure how the conference meets might be adversely affected, but the fact is that the regionals will become more important and more interesting to fans. I'm not sure why we need to preserve conference meets, especially with all of the shifting in conference alignments for football purposes. The Big 12 is not the same as the Big 8, and the SEC has changed dramatically as well. Regionals is just another step in that transformation. Richard McCann
