Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bay Area coaches pull no punches on Regionals

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Bay Area coaches pull no punches on Regionals

    as, the only thing that sucks worse than current setup is the proposed new one.

    http://www.insidebayarea.com/stanford-s ... i_12472813

    Edrick Floréal of Stanford: <<"Dump all of it, burn it, shove it down the toilet," he said of the regional system. "I just think it's a farce.">>

  • #2
    And tell me again why the NCAA went to a "regionals" format in the first place?

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm on-board with the hating of next year's format, but I still can't see why coaches wouldn't like the current set-up. It's like having a Super-Conference meet, that adds paths to the Natl Championships (at-large still exist). The big studs will still get through on their marks, so what's the beef? It's definitely a fan favorite. The old Marks-Chasing format was so passionless. Our sport needs MORE high-stakes meets, not less.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by einnod23
        And tell me again why the NCAA went to a "regionals" format in the first place?
        Partially because some more enlighteend minds wanted to see more of the dreaded C-word.... competition!

        But also because the NCAA was concerned that too small a portion of the athletes got to compete in the "nationals" than in other sports. The Regionals (like the first 3 weeks of March Madness) is viewed as part of the "national championship."

        I believe (some) coaches wanted to make the NCAA Champinoships meet itself larger, but that was turned down. (probably because it was an unmanageable affair: oh, wait! you mean like the 2-region system will be?!)

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Marlow
          I'm on-board with the hating of next year's format, but I still can't see why coaches wouldn't like the current set-up. It's like having a Super-Conference meet, that adds paths to the Natl Championships (at-large still exist). The big studs will still get through on their marks, so what's the beef? It's definitely a fan favorite. The old Marks-Chasing format was so passionless. Our sport needs MORE high-stakes meets, not less.
          Wow, I agree with you Marlow?!?! The best thing the NCAA did was add Regionals, but the two Regional meet as currently being proposed loses all that the previous version had gained. Team and Individual Champs and qualifying drama all things that were good for T&F. So, a few fav's falter. How many like it when all the #1 seeds make the Final Four of the other sports tournies? Give the underdog's of T&F a chance and it might bring in more interest.

          Comment


          • #6
            I have an idea!

            NCAA should form a committee that meets secretly in some hotel room on the Sunday before nationals.

            Then they emerge with a set of seedings -- the top 64 athletes in every event. Millions await breathlessly for the news, revealed on ESPN. To make sure they're fair to late-bloomers, the selectors allow one "play-in" meet, whose champ makes the field.

            A thousand Web sites then offer PDFs of the heat sheets, and a gazillion dollars is bet on who will emerge on top.

            Even President Obama gets into the act, and he eventually invites the gold medalists to the White House. (But don't wear flip-flops, gals.)

            Call it May Madness. :wink:

            K E N
            K E N

            Comment


            • #7
              Call it May Madness. :wink:

              K E N[/quote]

              I was always tempted to have a midnight cross country practice on the early morning of the first allowable day. It might have gotten some press.
              As I no longer coach, anyone can feel free to use the idea.

              Comment


              • #8
                <<Floreal cited the example of Kimyon Broom, a hurdler from rival Cal who dominated her event last season but didn't get to the NCAA nationals because she spilled at the regionals.

                "She kicked everyone's butt head to head, and for her not to make it to the NCAA championship, I don't think it's fair," he said.>>

                Guess what happened to Broom this year?

                And based on Pac-10 I figured she was ready to go well down into the 12s. :-(

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by gh
                  <<Floreal cited the example of Kimyon Broom, a hurdler from rival Cal who dominated her event last season but didn't get to the NCAA nationals because she spilled at the regionals.
                  "She kicked everyone's butt head to head, and for her not to make it to the NCAA championship, I don't think it's fair," he said.-(
                  Apparently he is unfamiliar with the OT model, huh?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by gh
                    <<Floreal cited the example of Kimyon Broom, a hurdler from rival Cal who dominated her event last season but didn't get to the NCAA nationals because she spilled at the regionals.

                    "She kicked everyone's butt head to head, and for her not to make it to the NCAA championship, I don't think it's fair," he said.>>

                    Guess what happened to Broom this year?

                    And based on Pac-10 I figured she was ready to go well down into the 12s. :-(
                    Exactly . . .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Like Big 12, Pac-10 may be about to vote nay on the Regionals concept in these cost-cutting times

                      http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... ers04.html

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Beware the rule of unintended consequences.

                        If I'm an AD and you're telling me you're sacrificing the regional meet because of expense here's what I'm telling you:

                        "I like that you're cutting expenses. I know you've adjusted the track calendar to fit around the regional meet. Now that we're going to cut out the regionals, we'll just move the NCAA champs meet to the last weekend in May. That way we'll save the travel money and the extra money to keep kids on campus that much longer."

                        Not only is the likelihood that the meet won't be on the current weekend, the risk is that it won't go back to the previous first weekend in June date.

                        If they want to kill regionals, tie the move to the horrid mess of conducting two super-regional meets. Don't tie it to economics.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          another view of regionals

                          I'll go on record as saying that I am a proponent of regionals. Yes, I understand that there is a cost factor involved. But when the NCAA Tennis committee sends teams from the East Coast to the West Coast to play a first round match and the NCAA does not pay for the first two rounds, that is costing money also. You could look at softball and baseball and how they are sent around the country spending huge sums of money. Why is track & field being singled out? This past weekend, there were 6 women who automatically qualified in the Pole Vault that wouldn't have been selected to the NcAA if there was only a descending order list. These kids came prepared to compete head to head and defeated some of their more heralded rivals. If we do away with regionals, we do away with this happening. Does anyone think the cold weather states will be unfairly affected by eliminating regionals. Think that the New England states have the same advantage as the schools in the sunbelt? While I understand the financial issues facing collegiate athletics, I also believe that a small group of schools (Stanford, Oregon, Texas A&M, Texas, LSU, South Carolina, etc) are doing all they can to blow up the regionals. Each time the regional format has been evaluated, over 70% of college coaches have voted FOR regionals. Returning to a descending order list and no more than tim-trialing is not in the sports best interest. Ask yourself this question - haven't the last 7 years of the NCAA meet been some the greatest meets of all time? If it isn't broke, don't try to fix it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'm ambivalent about the Regionals. The Pac-10's were exciting and meant something to both the athletes and spectators. I can see though how the Regionals help some conferences and schools. But I gave away my tickets to the Western Regionals and didn't feel too bad about it. Yes there is some drama, but not highly exciting from a fan point of view. Next year with two super-regionals scheduled - :shock: -what a mess.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The regional system is simple the Trials for NCs. Overall its not a bad or unfair system.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X