Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coach slams new NCAA Regionals format

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    now I find that interesting

    In the prelude to Coach Harwicks letter the CEO of USTFCCCA is quoted as saying that the PAC 10 and Big12 coaches were strongly for this new two region monster. Yet Lonewolf had discussions with Big12 coaches who didn't seem to favor it! Seems like a little confusion doesn't it?

    Here is what one of the PAC10 coaches said - "We were told by the CEO of USTFCCCA that we should side with the two region qualifying system since it has 12 qualifying slots for our region, and that will be in our favor since Texas is going to be in the West under either the two or three region model. The three region qualifying system only had eight qualifying slots"

    Hmmmmm......!

    Comment


    • #17
      Needless to say, we're hoping coaches will get a bit verbal on this. One problem will be, of course, that there are a significant number of them who are against the Regionals concept altogether and they're probably quite happy to see the whole thing implode under its own weight with this new proposal.

      Comment


      • #18
        I'm still confused by this part:

        Starting in 2010 the current 2-day 4-region scheme will be replaced by a 2-region format to be run off in 3 days. Devised in response to coaches' concerns about competitive inequity and unfairness in the advancement process, the new-look regionals will be massive track meets, with more participants than the current NCAA Championships.
        1. What was the methodology for determining the 'inequity and unfairness'?
        2. What was the methodology for determining that the 2-region format was the best possible answer?

        Comment


        • #19
          Didn't GH write an editorial sometime in the last year about how unfairness=excitement? For example, the Cubs not being in the World Series could be called "unfair", or the fact that they actually had to play their way into it could be called "exciting". Even Cubs fans would have to admit the playoffs were something they payed close attention to, even if they didn't like the outcome. Ditto for the Patriots and last year's Super Bowl. Absolute and complete fairness is not what is in the best long-term interests of this (or any) sport.

          Comment


          • #20
            The survey says....

            Originally posted by gh
            Needless to say, we're hoping coaches will get a bit verbal on this. One problem will be, of course, that there are a significant number of them who are against the Regionals concept altogether and they're probably quite happy to see the whole thing implode under its own weight with this new proposal.

            About three years ago (maybe two) the NCAA put out a survey that went to all athletic directors. I'm assuming that the AD's would have asked their track coaches opinions. The survey asked, "Do you want to keep regionals?" The results were posted and 70% of the respondents said yes. This leads me to believe that the majority of track coaches favored the regional concept, but there were quite a few "power" coaches who did not. Lets be honest, the most vocal against the regional system were about 10-15 coaches who come from the SEC, Big12, PAC 10, and ACC. They wanted to protect their athletes from having to run in the regionals. At each of the coaches conventions they have spoken loudly about their beliefs. Unfortunately our coaching body listens to these so called leaders too much. I think what is important in this current issue is for the coaches of small to mid level programs let their feelings be known. After all, there are only 117 DI-A programs (using the football analogy) which leaves over 200 non-BCS type schools. Those voices are important.

            Comment


            • #21
              What bothers me the most about this whole mess is that Barry Harwick's original "tweak" of the 4-regional system seemed to completely fix the inequities. The proposal was beautiful in its simplicity.
              It's not to late to go back!! If coaches, A.D.'s, and others make enough noise it IS possible to get these folks to reconsider their decision.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Mighty Favog
                Didn't GH write an editorial sometime in the last year about how unfairness=excitement? For example, the Cubs not being in the World Series could be called "unfair", or the fact that they actually had to play their way into it could be called "exciting". Even Cubs fans would have to admit the playoffs were something they payed close attention to, even if they didn't like the outcome. Ditto for the Patriots and last year's Super Bowl. Absolute and complete fairness is not what is in the best long-term interests of this (or any) sport.
                Say what?! The Cubs not advancing was extremely fair. They didn't win the games they needed to. Same with the Patriots. It would have been just as 'exciting' (to many, many fans) had Cubs or Patriots won.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Marlow
                  Originally posted by Mighty Favog
                  Didn't GH write an editorial sometime in the last year about how unfairness=excitement? For example, the Cubs not being in the World Series could be called "unfair", or the fact that they actually had to play their way into it could be called "exciting". Even Cubs fans would have to admit the playoffs were something they payed close attention to, even if they didn't like the outcome. Ditto for the Patriots and last year's Super Bowl. Absolute and complete fairness is not what is in the best long-term interests of this (or any) sport.
                  Say what?! The Cubs not advancing was extremely fair. They didn't win the games they needed to. Same with the Patriots. It would have been just as 'exciting' (to many, many fans) had Cubs or Patriots won.
                  This is my point: best during the regular season doesn't guarantee you squat in the post-season. Modern sports created extended post-seasons to give many teams (or individuals, in the case of NASCAR & PGA) equal shots at a championships even though their regular-season results were unequal, thus creating heightened interest for that particular part of the season. The regional format for track hasn't garnered any excitement because it's too easy to make it to nationals--nobody's title hopes are on the line.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    There is no monster here. Only confusion. Let me inject some uncomfortable reality.

                    -This new format eliminates NCAA Regionals. The two sites are the first round of the NCAA Championships. Regionals are gone. This is NOT a new regional format. It still isn't as fair as a one site first round, but it does provide a more honest advancement process for the potential NCAA scorers than the 4 region format. (God help us when we aren't about what is best for our best athletes)

                    -AD's are only in favor of competing your way to the big show and don't have strong opinions on how it happens. They do require fairness. They gave the coaches plenty of opportunity to create something that would work. The 4 Region format wasn't equal or fair (or exciting) and could never have been equal or fair. Fix the men's 200m, screw the women's pole vault. Geographic regions are not equal. You can't convince AD's that Nebraska should have to go to Sacramento for their region. From 10,000' it looks silly.

                    -Harwick's proposal, while more fair, still could not make the meets exciting to the casual fan. In the end, the 4 region format only served as a opportunity for stars to get tripped up and bubble athletes to slip through.

                    -The voting at the coaches convention is wildly unfair. Every school getting one equal vote is just silly. Can you imagine Indiana State getting the same voting power as Indiana in Men's Basketball? It would never happen. But in track and field, Akron gets the same voting weight as Texas. Schools that rarely score NCAA points should not get a equal vote with BCS schools trying to win the meet.

                    -This late in the game, just because the coaches vote for a plan, does not mean that plan will be accepted by the AD's. It only means that plan will be recommended at this point. Coaches lost credibility and therefore, power a long time ago. The AD's don't have time to thoroughly consider every change every year. I don't blame them for taking over the process.

                    -Gary Hill should NOT be weighing in on a subject he has not researched very well. He is far too good of a journalist for this. Message boards and blogging represent an accelerated ethical entropy in journalism. Don't get sucked in any further Gary.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by decafan
                      The 4 Region format wasn't equal or fair (or exciting) and could never have been equal or fair.
                      I'm back to, "Say what?!" The 4-Region format injected an excitement factor sorely missing from NCAA track. I went to the East Regional at UF 2 years ago and besides Dix's 19.69, I was treated to a show surpassing even the SEC meet. Reading the results from the other 3 meets was not only exciting in themselves, but really got my blood pumping in anticipation of the Big Dance.

                      Mark-chasing was BORING. Two too-big qualifying meets will be extremely boring. The 'fairness' was addressed with at-large bids. I am not alone in having been a big fan of the 4-Region format. I really can't believe anyone but the biggest D1 coaches liked mark-chasing, and this new format will generate zero enthusiasm except from the kids who get to show up and run with the big boys and girls, with little chance of advancing.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Marlow
                        Originally posted by decafan
                        The 4 Region format wasn't equal or fair (or exciting) and could never have been equal or fair.
                        I am squarely with Marlow here. What exactly decafan about the previous college schedule did you or the casual fans you know consider exciting. The only decent offerings where major conference championships and major relay carnivals. The rest of the college schedule was basically crap. The regionals added a sorely needed MEANINGFUL meet.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by decafan
                          ....
                          -Gary Hill should NOT be weighing in on a subject he has not researched very well. He is far too good of a journalist for this. Message boards and blogging represent an accelerated ethical entropy in journalism. Don't get sucked in any further Gary.
                          There's no journalism required here.

                          As a member of major-meet LOCs for many years, I recognize a logistical nightmare when I see one. One that may well have trouble finding a home.

                          As a fan I have no desire to sit through 3 long days of what amounts to qualifying rounds, with no climactic competitions and no winners named.

                          And as one who believes in fairness I'm concerned that the will of the majority has perhaps been finessed.

                          Allow me to suggest that your post might be taken more seriously if you came out from behind your handle and IDed to which school you hold alliance, since it's clearly more Indiana than Indiana State and you're hardly an unbiased observer it would seem.

                          edited to add this ps:

                          ps--upon reflection, I realize that this last paragraph may be a bit unfair, as it sounds as if I was issuing a challenge. I'm not, because I do realize that you may be in a position where it would be damaging if you went public with your statements. So allow me to amend it to, "how about a hint as to where your school affiliation lies so we can better judge your motivation?"

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by donley2
                            Originally posted by Marlow
                            Originally posted by decafan
                            The 4 Region format wasn't equal or fair (or exciting) and could never have been equal or fair.
                            I am squarely with Marlow here. What exactly decafan about the previous college schedule did you or the casual fans you know consider exciting. The only decent offerings where major conference championships and major relay carnivals. The rest of the college schedule was basically crap. The regionals added a sorely needed MEANINGFUL meet.
                            And the new, over-sized, no-final first-round, regionally based non-regional, will be exciting???? Do you want to talk boring. Currently there are complaints that a subset of athletes do not always try to win, they just try to place high. However, they score the meet and people generally do care. Now, we are going to get the excitement from races that literally have no winners. How are you going to sell it to the press - why should they bother with these non-meets?

                            And what exactly is wrong with gh's comment that they will be very difficult meets to conduct?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I am not formally, or informally, allied with any school or conference but as a fan and grunt who has voluntarily worked twenty to thirty meets a year for thirty years,from coast to coast, border to border, I do have an informed opinion about optimum size of field and scheduling.

                              I prefer the four regional plan with regional champions for both team and individual incentive and fan interest.

                              Qualify top 16 seasonal performances (and ties) within each region in each event. Qualifying closes one week before regional.

                              Advance the top three places from each regional and next four performances from all regionals to nationals.

                              Presto! Any field event can be conducted in less than two hours and all races up to 400m require only semis, distances above 400m can be run as a final.

                              Easy two day meet.

                              IMO, there is little glory in being completely outclassed in a regional or national meet. This plan gives the top 64 athletes in each event a shot at the national championship with minimum clutter. Realistically, there are not even 64 athletes in each event with a chance to win or even score at national..

                              From a purely selfish personal standpoint as an official, spending five hours conducting a field event is not only phsically demanding , one tends to lose concentration and venue maintenance suffers. Multiply that by two genders and two events and it segues from fun into work.

                              Now, yall can go on belaboring this but there is the solution.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by lonewolf
                                Advance the top three places from each regional and next four performances from all regionals to nationals.
                                I like everything but that point. The conditions are too variable - one site will inevitably be favored for each event. I'm cool with the national at-large qualifiers from pre-meet performances, but I would stipulate a smaller window (closer to the Regional) than the current one (excl. the 10K and multis).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X