Randy Treadway wrote: <<\>Key: Place, Heat, Name, Mark, Wind >1 � �1 � �Bente Landoy, Norway � � � � � � � � � �15:37.53 A >2 � �1 � �Amy Yoder-Begley, Asics � � � � � � � � 15:38.60 A >3 � �1 � �Maggie Chan-Roper, Nike � � � � � � � � 15:45.87 A � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ^^^
Since, as Sideshow proclaims, larger fields at the NCAA are all goodness, then I guess awarding automatic qualifiers to the Norwegians and other non-students comes with the territory.... Thanks regionals, I never dreamed what it really meant! :-) If you're going to expand the fields to make it more marketable, why bound yourself with the silliness of the 'student athlete' myth?>> Randy is being facetious (i hope), but his above example capsulizes in a nutshell what happens when runaway technology joins with a bad idea (Automatic and Provisional qualifiers) to produce a nightmare for the sporting public. Not only does none of the ubiquitous meet software appear to be able to differentiate between who is eligible for an A or P (in the east an A&P?), but those who analyze/disseminate the results can't/don't either. It's agonizing to go to a meet and hear the announcer, or to receive university press releases trumpteding how great their meet was simply by counting all the A and P notations, even if, like the above, none of them are eligible. Or to make a big deal out of somebody getting an A when it's not even their seasonal best. What the hell does this have to competition? (kudos, by the way, to Joe Rubio for his impassioned writing the other day regards the importance of competition to the sport). gh
