Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

    Does anyone know who was awarded the NCAA Div l Outdoor Track & Field Championships for 2005-2007? I thought they were suppose to vote on that during the summer. I haven't heard a word about it since June. I know that Sacramento, L.A., Oregon, were all bidding.

  • #2
    Re: 2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

    Nothing's been decided yet, but since the NCAA cross meet was awarded to Indiana State for a three-year run, I assume the NCAA will do the same with the outdoor meet. But where, I dunno.

    Personally, I hope it's Eugene, although the NCAA meet this past year in Sacramento was an awesome meet and the Home Depot venue should be a hotbed for track in the next few years as well.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

      I thought the NCAA's theory behind the three year run was in looking for a "sense of community" such as collegiate baseball has generated in Omaha? Eugene will surely score at the top of the list for that criteria and Sacto can't be far behind. But much as I'd love to be able to hop in my car and head out to Carson, the meet will just get swallowed up down here and have zero "presence." Bad idea. Wasn't Texas also supposed to be itnerested?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

        I'll cast another vote for Eugene. You've already got a strong track community to build on and if people there know the NCAA championships will be there every year on the second weekend of June, they'll plan to be there.

        Sacto sucks, as far as I'm concerned. The sight lines are awful, the rest rooms are disgusting, and the weather in June can be outrageous. It's bad enough the Trials are there.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

          Yeah, let's have it in Eugene so we can simulate the Winter Olympics with regularity

          What's wrong with a different site every year?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

            I think the NCAAs should be held somewhere where there is a good, knowledgeable, enthusiastic track following and where the likelihood of injury to the athlets is minimal. I remember one year quite a few of our athletes got injured in was it Buffalo or some cold place.
            why don't people pronounce vowels anymore

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

              My personal preferences for the NCAA Champs are: Baton Rouge (great track. Love that straight in the middle of the track) and/or Austin, TX.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

                How about this spring's (2004) NCAA regional meets? Are they at the same sites as last year? I have not seen anything on it.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

                  The Mid-west regional will be at Texas A&M, And Austin TX. will host this years NCAA championships

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

                    >How about this spring's (2004) NCAA regional
                    >meets? Are they at the same sites as last year?
                    >I have not seen anything on it.>>

                    Go to "calendar" on the front page of this site and check out the future fixtures part; has been posted there for months as Florida, LSU and Texas A&M, with the West site pending. Is it still?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

                      I missed it! Thanks guys!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

                        Any site hosting the national meet should do the regional meet the year before as a test run and to build fan interest. In fact, I'd consider givng sites a four year package in each region: three years hosting the regional followed by a fourth year hosting the national meet.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

                          Um, at least for the regional meets, how about in a major Northeast market ? Tons of fans in Boston-New York-Philadelphia . . . in mid-June chances of a cold spell are pretty slim.

                          Maybe instead of a permanent site, they could just have 3 sites (East, Midwest, West) and rotate.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

                            >Um, at least for the regional meets, how about in
                            a major Northeast market ? Tons of fans in
                            Boston-New York-Philadelphia<<

                            Tons of fans, perhaps, but is there a suitable track in any of those cities?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 2005 NCAA Track & Field Meet

                              >Um, at least for the regional meets, how about in
                              >a major Northeast market ? Tons of fans in
                              >Boston-New York-Philadelphia . . . in mid-June
                              >chances of a cold spell are pretty slim.>>

                              The Regionals are mandated by the NCAA to rotate in a north-south direction inside the region. Last year (the first year) it was mandated to be a school in the "middle" of the region; next year it will be in the South; in '05 it will be in the North. I don't know if they have hard and fast rules as to what constitutes the dividing lines on that, and whether or not it varies by region. Note that George Mason (i..e., DC) was the "middle" of the East Regional last year, for whatever that's worth.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X