NCAA Regionals time qualifying

[billthedog]

It seems odd that the NCAA, having admirably moved in the direction of rewarding competitors instead of time-chasers by instituting the Regionals, should lay such an unfortunate emphasis on times for qualifying for regional finals. West Regionals sprints: two heats, two winners plus seven best times or three winners, six best times.

And another thing: Time was when heats were drawn so as to minimize competition between teammates. (I remember knowing that Leni Riefenstahl had it wrong when her announcer described a race in which Wykoff as well as Owens ran as an early round of the 100; two Americans couldn't possibly meet until the semi-finals.) Now it's the computer, I guess, that seems almost deliberately to cast teammates into the same heat. West Regionals again: Among the men, there are two USC 100m runners, both in the same heat; two Arizona State 200m runners, both in the same heat; two UCLA 400m runners, both in the same heat; three BYUers in the 1500, all in the same heat; two Oregon high hurdlers, both in the same heat. Among the women, two USCs and two Stanfords in the 200m, each pair in the same heat; two ASUs. two UCLAs, two Stanfords in the 400m, each pair in the same heat; three USCs in the 800m, all in the same heat and in the same event two from Hawaii-Mona, both in the same heat; two Stanford in the 1500m, both in the same heat.

[trackstar]

Re: NCAA Regionals time qualifying

I was shocked to see that Sanya Richards' best time this year is only a 53.57. Of course, she ran a relay leg in the 50 range.

[ycn]

Re: NCAA Regionals time qualifying

I'm a solid believer in having at least half advance through their placement in their races, not comparative times acrosss the heats.

Having only the heat winner advance automatically is stupid. What if it is a relatively even field, as is often the case in the 100/200, and a weather front moves through in the middle of the heats?

So we could have someone in one heat getting in on the basis of a 4 meter tailwind, while the next athlete, who finished two places better in his/her heat, doesn't advance because of a 6 meter headwind?

Obviously having a large number advance on the basis of time favors the higher seeds, who are less likely to be eliminated. But why should they get any more of a break than they already get? The already know that they are, at least by marks, better competitors, and they get more favorable lane assignments.

I've been against the way the NCAA basketball tournament is seeded forever. The top seed plays the worst team in the tournament in the first round, and at most the 32nd best team in the second round. And they call that fair...

In a two round event with sixteen competitors, I would do it the same as I would do basketball. In one semifinal I would have the

1-3-5-7-9-11-13-15 seeds,

and in the other I'd have the

2-4-6-8-10-12-14-16 seeds.

Top 3 in each semi and the next 2 overall would advance. (If to a final with 8 competitors.) The NCAA has weird finals where 9 race (in most track events) for 8 scoring places.

[gh]

Re: NCAA Regionals time qualifying

Bill, the answer lies here, where the NCAA stipulates there is no "teammates rule"

<<NCAA Rule 5-11-3a
The declared competitors shall be assigned to first-round heats in the order their names are listed on the ranked performance list, working alternately from left to right and right to left. THIS PROCEDURE COULD CAUSE TWO OR MORE TEAMMATES TO BE ASSIGNED TO THE SAME HEAT.>> (caps mine)

And while it looks as if it were done on purpose to pair teammates, I think you'll find that if you look at the seed sheets, it's just a coincidence (heightened by small fields) of how many pairings there are. Seeding West men's 100 in A B B A A.... fashion, you'll see the USC guys as 2 and 3 on the list, so they're both B's.

Thanks to Bob Podkaminer for clarification on this.

[billthedog]

Re: NCAA Regionals time qualifying

It's an explanation but not a good reason. I realize it's not deliberate, but it could be avoided. What's the reason for not avoiding it?

[400ih]

Re: NCAA Regionals time qualifying

>It's an explanation but not a good reason. I realize it's not deliberate, but
>it could be avoided. What's the reason for not avoiding it?

Perhaps that's why they but such an emphasis on time, so teamates in the same heat that race each other and push each other to good performances will both benefit, instead of one runner coming up with the performace of their lives to place well at the expense of a teamate.

[gh]

Re: NCAA Regionals time qualifying

Allow me to solve this little thing in the Middle East, then I'll get on to trying to understand the NCAA mentality on these things.

[Jefferson Buffalo]

Re: NCAA Regionals time qualifying

I know a genie that has a map.