Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Guide To The Regionals

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: A Guide To The Regionals

    >i am gonna win the 100 in the west region so it
    >doesnt matter to me who wins the two. notice
    >felix only entered in the 200. haha hmm i wonder
    >why.

    Who is this joker? Am I the only one who hopes he gets a FS?

    Leave a comment:


  • gh
    replied
    Re: A Guide To The Regionals

    >It appears the early favorite for biggest field
    >(Women's west region PV) was "edged out" by the
    >eastern womens HJ at an unbelievable 51 entries.>>

    While some posters have pointed out the teeny size of the Western 200s, there are correspondingly monstrous fields elsewhere. The verticals are going to get pared down to size pretty quickly though, thanks to high starting heights. (high relative to what the Q was)

    mHJ 2.03, mPV 4.76, wHJ 1.66, wPV 3.52. In all the events the second height is right about even (or higher) than the Q standard, so a lot of people are likely to be falling by the wayside right quick.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: A Guide To The Regionals

    Obviously there is something to
    >this plate tectonics thing and the Pacific plate
    >took a big leap towards Japan over the winter,
    >stretching all those western tracks so they were
    >running 210s instead of 200s.

    funny.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: A Guide To The Regionals

    >And for the biggest dog in the Regionals, is
    >there anything more pitiful than the West men's
    >200? Direct to a 7-man final>>

    Guess what guys? If you think the men's 200 is a hound, then the women's is a bitch, cuz they only got 7 listed too.

    Obviously there is something to this plate tectonics thing and the Pacific plate took a big leap towards Japan over the winter, stretching all those western tracks so they were running 210s instead of 200s.

    Leave a comment:


  • jsquire
    replied
    Re: A Guide To The Regionals

    I meant an actual page dedicated to regional coverage. While there is little if any original material, it's an organized set of links to regional meet information.

    Leave a comment:


  • gandalf
    replied
    Re: A Guide To The Regionals

    >Trackshark.com had that up more than a week ago.>>

    No, what trackshark had up a week ago was the declarations list. My commentary was based on the actual heat sheets which were only posted very late yesterday/very early today,

    Leave a comment:


  • bhall
    replied
    Re: A Guide To The Regionals

    It took longer than I thought to get the stats HTMLed. Anyway, these may provide a glimpse at the initial state of the regionals system and particular regions.

    http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/genera ... stats.html

    Leave a comment:


  • jsquire
    replied
    Re: A Guide To The Regionals

    >Yo, Squire! Don't you think whoring once for
    >another site is enough per thread?

    Well, maybe it's a better site. They have nothing to sell, so "whoring" is a strong word.

    And yeah, I do have an opinion on everything. That's what these boards are for--expressing opinions. I'll let it be up to the administrator whether I leave, and not anyone else.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: A Guide To The Regionals

    i am gonna win the 100 in the west region so it doesnt matter to me who wins the two. notice felix only entered in the 200. haha hmm i wonder why.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Re: A Guide To The Regionals

    Yo, Squire! Don't you think whoring once for another site is enough per thread?

    You seem to be enjoying this board well enough by having an opinion on everything and anything. If you don't like the content just haul your ass over to trackanchovy and stay there.

    Leave a comment:


  • bhall
    replied
    Re: A Guide To The Regionals

    I think you missed the point of what I posted. It was the # of programs that qualified athletes vs. the total number programs in a region, which is one stat that at least on the surface shows that the West did the "worst" job in getting schools to qualify.

    Leave a comment:


  • jsquire
    replied
    Re: A Guide To The Regionals

    A much easier guide:

    http://www.trackshark.com/images/regions.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • bhall
    replied
    Re: A Guide To The Regionals

    I'll post a breakdown of regionals by the numbers in the next hour or so. Some of them are really interesting. Here is a sample (layout may be bad here).

    Region Name QualifiedMensPrograms/TotalMensPrograms QualifiedWomensPrograms/WomensPrograms
    E EAST 99/110 102/112
    ME MIDEAST 74/78 75/81
    MW MIDWEST 39/39 39/39
    W WEST 30/40 33/42

    Leave a comment:


  • jsquire
    replied
    Re: A Guide To The Regionals

    >That means
    >that one of the 21.18 guys is already an
    >automatic Q for the Nationals!!!!! I don't think
    >that's what the powers-that-be had in mind when
    >they invented this concept.

    That's a procedural problem. The west region has only 40 men's teams out of more than 260 nationwide. Of course, those 40 programs are generally quite competitive; if the Pac-10 can't come up with more than two regional qualifiers, that seems like a Pac-10 problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • bhall
    replied
    Re: A Guide To The Regionals

    >Trackshark.com had that up more than a week ago.

    While they had a lot of data up early your statement is incorrect. Much of the data wasn't available until the last couple days, some only became available today.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X