At 01:49 PM 3/1/2002 -0800, t-and-f-digest wrote.. >Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 08:36:52 -0500 >From: Bruce Lehane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: t-and-f: SEC Champs and regional qualifying > >Some of the costs of going the regional route: > >1. There will be grossly disparate levels of performance in numerous >events from >region to region. Athletes with inherently superior marks will not proceed to >nationals while others not nearly as good will. Geography, in the name of >"head >to head competition" will become an oversized part of the selection equation.
Having different numbers of qualifiers, and allowing for some additional time qualifiers at the margin will fix this problem. And current system gives way too much weight to athletes from either wealthy schools or those located with good weather. These conditions have nothing to do with the caliber of the athletes per se, although they will tend to attract more of the better athletes. >2. Competitive schedules will need to be revamped nation wide. A regional >meet >does not just affect the schedule on the day. The weekend before the meet and >the weekend after the meet will, at minimum, be impacted. The weekend after is open, just as it generally is today. Regionals will be the last meet before NCAA. No more of those stupid Last Chance meets. Yes, conference meets will have to move up, and many are already in the right slot. And some of the smaller relay and invites will be squeezed out of the schedule. All of the major relays are done by the end of April, and they should be able to hold their positions. But this is not an insurmountable problem. I think the opponent need to show how the schedule would NOT work with these parameters. >3. The regional meet will occur after the regular season is over. At most >institutions this means that the dormitories are closed and that the track >team's budget has to pick up the tab for housing the athletes. The cost of >this, as well as the cost of flying the athletes and housing the athletes >to the >regional meet, will eat up at least a third of the team's outdoor budget - >maybe >more. If a third or more of one's budget must be devoted to a regional meet, >that money needs to be saved by cost cutting during the regular >season. That is >done by eliminating team travel or reducing numbers on the team or both. Wrong, the regionals would happen on the same weekend of what is now the common weekend for many if not most conference meets, two weeks before NCAAs. Most other conferences are now 3 weeks before NCAAs. All of these schools have had to house athletes for these meets. Also, I don't know if this is different in the East, but in the Midwest and West, the vast majority of students other than frosh (who are less likely to run in the conference meets) live off campus and pay their own housing costs. A small minority of universities will be affected in the way that you discuss. >4. When Scott Davis says that regionalization is wrong, I think that he's >right. The NCAA championship is a national championship, that is, it is >meant >to bring the best athletes of the whole nation together to compete. For >the US >Olympic trials, no one is arguing to create regional meets from which a >percentage of athletes will get to compete for the Olympic team. Why would no >one argue that? I suggest because, as Scott Davis so eloquently put it, it is >wrong. Scott's measure of who are the "best" is wrong. It's not who can time trial the fastest. It's who can compete the best. And the ONLY way of measuring that is through head to head competition, not time trials under conditions chosen by the athletes themselves. If this wasn't true, we would say that the world record holders, rather than the Olympic champions, were the greatest athletes. Regionals is a rational basis of funneling athletes through the qualifying system to achieve that goal. There also is a second consideration--fan interest. Fans love to watch competition. Time trials bore them to death. If we want to generate more interest in our sport we should look to develop more competition. The Penn Relays draws 40,000 a day due to great competition. Nobody really gives a damn about the time for the DMR because no one can relate to the time. NCAA qualifying should work the same way. If you want to continue to send track the same way as wrestling we can continue to use the same boring qualifying method, or we can add some excitement and maybe regenerate the fan base. >Two final points, with a softer edge to them, about the current qualifying >process, which ain't perfect neither. If an athlete is a "heavy hitter" or a >real solid threat to score, reaching the qualifying mark is not really a >problem. He or she can go out and do just that when the time's right to >do so. >So, for the top end of the NCAA competitors, qualifying is not that much of a >problem and they don't really need to spend a lot of energy chasing >marks. It's >the bottom end of the qualifiers (and their coaches) that spend the best of >their energies chasing marks and they grow weary and frustrated doing so. And >for those athletes who are great at time trialing but can't compete, they may >make the meet but they'll on get chewed up and spit out when they get there, >because the "real deal" will be at the meet looking to rumble. But why should they be at the meet in the first place? And too often, someone who posts a great mark does it once or early in the year, and then fizzles at the NCAA. They don't peak at the right time. Regionals is more likely to assure 1) proper peaking for everyone and 2) fewer of the marginal athletes who really shouldn't be there. Richard McCann
