Announcement

gh · 05-22-2009, 12:52 AM

The June issue of the magazine has a piece on how the Regionals is set to go to the unworkable 2-site system next year, but includes this:

<<....A prominent NCAA coach, speaking not for attribution, told T&FN, “I think that once they see the reality of the magnitude of trying to stage these meets and discover how expensive it will be—and how few sites can/will stage them—they’ll just wipe out the whole Regionals system and go back to marks-based qualifying.
“I’ve always been anti-Regionals, but if they do continue with it, the new 2-site system is the worst possible solution.”....>>

The conspiracy theorist in me says that the anti-Regionals forced pushed for the 2-site setup because they knew it would lead to the collapse of the whole thing (of course, our buddy the economy isn't helping in that regard).

**jkjoregon** · 05-22-2009, 12:58 AM

Well on the record -at least for the Daily Camera

, Colorado Coach Mark Wetmore had this to say:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Veteran Colorado track and field coach Mark Wetmore said he would be thrilled to see the regional meets eliminated.

The regionals were instituted in 2003 with the idea that they would provide more opportunities for more athletes to qualify for the NCAA Championships. Wetmore was against the move.

"I hated regionals from the time it was proposed," Wetmore said. "I was a banner carrier at the front of the bastions opposing it. We were defeated secretly behind closed doors and now it looks like it's going to die on the vine at least due to costs if not due to stupidity."

Wetmore said the old system using a descending order list of times, distances and heights to establish eligibility for the NCAA championships worked well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gm · 05-22-2009, 01:35 AM

Women - Team Rankings - 21 Events Scored
================================================== =============================
1) Texas A&M 126.50 2) Texas Tech 111
3) Nebraska 109.50 4) Baylor 84
5) Texas 79 6) Oklahoma 76
7) Iowa State 62 7) Missouri 62
9) Kansas State 39 10) Kansas 29
11) Oklahoma State 22 12) Colorado 19

Men - Team Rankings - 21 Events Scored
================================================== =============================
1) Nebraska 148 2) Texas A&M 126
3) Texas 83.50 4) Texas Tech 75
5) Missouri 74 6) Kansas State 71
7) Baylor 54 8) Oklahoma State 53
9) Iowa State 43 9) Oklahoma 43
11) Colorado 34 12) Kansas 12.50

**Bruce Kritzler** · 05-22-2009, 03:36 AM

Along this same line of thinking, is the Big 12 proposing to eliminate baseball, softball, gymnastic regionals, as a cost saving measure.

**Halfmiler2** · 05-22-2009, 04:09 PM

I wish they would at least give a three-region system a try.

It figures that Wetmore and a few other elitist coaches would be against regionals because they can control the system better with pure performance qualifying - even though it makes a joke of competition all season with everybody just chasing times and marks at the expense of anything else.

If they do away with regionals, I'd just as soon end team scores at the NCAA meet. I'd rather determine a true team champion with a tournament of quad meets anyway.

**jazzcyclist** · 05-22-2009, 05:45 PM

If the coaches at the smaller schools are just looking for more opportunities for their athletes to make it to the big show, why not just give conference champions an automatic bid provided they meet a "B" standard. The big schools would continue to get their athletes into the meet with the automatic "A" standard and everyone would be happy.

**Mighty Favog** · 05-22-2009, 06:34 PM

People don't like regionals because they're too expensive and add another round of competition. People don't like marks-based qualifying for many reasons, such as unequal access to the best competition venues (due either to geography or money) and the reduction of the regular season to little more than a series of time trials.

This is what we call a "false dichotomy" It does not have to be one or the other. A thought that's been bouncing around my head...

Just about every other sport selects its post-season participants subjectively via committee. Raw objective data is taken into consideration (example: basketball RPI) but the final decision comes down to people, not numbers.

Track could do this. In this information age, compiling a seasonal record for the top 40 or so in each event is doable. From there, a committee could pick 24 in each event to go to nationals. Such a merit-based selection system would make actual bona fide competition important--every time an athlete stepped on the track. That makes regular-season meets meaningful and newsworthy.

Lacrosse--LACROSSE--has a stinkin' NCAA tournament selection show on ESPNU. And we have nothing.

**jazzcyclist** · 05-22-2009, 06:53 PM