Travis Padgett

[tandfman]

Undoubtedly true, but this business of qualifying winners only + fastest times has become standard in NCAA competition, so both athletes and coaches should know it.

[rhymans]

Athletes and coaches sometimes get things wrong - like not checking basis of qualification [see Wright/Hart/Robinson]

[tandfman]

BF mine: possible he was unclear on an unusual 1+4 qualifying system and figured that in 2nd he was just fine?

Apart from the fact that the procedure should have been explained to him, he shouldn't have found it that unusual. They did the same thing at the NCAA indoors this year and also at the ACC championships outdoors (and he won at both of those meets).

[gh]

Clemson website perhaps gives a clue?

<<Perhaps the biggest upset of the weekend occurred when Travis Padgett failed to make it to Saturday's final in the 100m. He is the defending champion and region record-holder in the event. Padgett had a time of 10.43 and was second in his heat. He figures to have a good shot at an at-large invitation in the 100m dash, however. C.J. Spiller ran a 10.69 and was 18th in the field of 30 sprinters. Saturday's final is scheduled for 6:35 PM.

Padgett rebounded in a big way in the 200m dash. The sophomore from Shelby, NC shattered his previous best in the event and won his heat with a time of 20.67 seconds. His previous best was 21.04 at the ACC Championships last month. His time tied for third-best Friday. He will compete in Saturday's final at 7:30 PM.>>

BF mine: possible he was unclear on an unusual 1+4 qualifying system and figured that in 2nd he was just fine?

[Narrion]

Based on what I'm reading....he may still qualify for Nationals. So maybe it was strategy as last year he PR'd at Regionals but didn't perform quite up to expectations at Nationals. Just a theory.........

[Half Miler]

Well, given that then, why the hell did he run so slow in his 100 heat?

[Narrion]

I don't think Padgett's injured being that he ran a 20.67 200m (Wind-2.2) later on last night....with his legal PR being around 21.04 which he ran about a month ago at ACCs.

[Half Miler]

Didn't he go 10.00 last year? I'd also have to guess injury has played a part.

Curiously enough, he ran his 10.00 almost a year to the day before his 10.43 nq.

[tandfman]

The only way he can't get in is if 6 or 7 (depending on how many they add) people run 10.04 or faster in the Regionals and don't finish in the top 5!

Which would mean, of course, that they'd all have to run 10.04 or faster IN THE SAME REGIONAL!!!!

[gh]

The only way he can't get in is if 6 or 7 (depending on how many they add) people run 10.04 or faster in the Regionals and don't finish in the top 5! I believe that's what you call a mortal lock.

[tandfman]

Re: Travis Padgett

if I understand the at-large situation, he should get in.

I read it the same way richxx87 does.

[cladthin]

Didn't he go 10.00 last year? I'd also have to guess injury has played a part.

[richxx87]

Re: Travis Padgett

Is he injured?

I was looking forward to some big things from him this year, but a non-qualifying 10.43 ends his collegiate season early.

I've no idea if he's injured, but if I understand the at-large situation, he should get in. His time effectively places him 10th in the East Regional, and so he should be in the at-large pool (placers 6 through 12). Then the NCAA's so-called "Championships/Competition Cabinet" will decide to add a few more bodies to the Nationals field from the at-large pool of 28 athletes per event nationwide... His SB (10.05) will put him at the top of the at-large pool.

Unless, of course, I'm missing something and there's some clause like 'non-finalists at Regionals are NOT eligible for the at-large pool'. As was mentioned in another thread on this, it's definitely NOT 'fan-friendly'.

[Half Miler]

Is he injured?

I was looking forward to some big things from him this year, but a non-qualifying 10.43 ends his collegiate season early.