No announcement yet.

Regional format criticized


Unconfigured Ad Widget

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Re: Regional format criticized

    I generally like the new format but think it will take time and publicity to build a spectator base. I'd suggest the following tweaking:

    1. Award the regional sites in two or three year packages to build the spectator base.

    2. Emphasize to bidders that publicity is expected especially if they want to get the national meet in the future;

    3. Cut the at-large picks to four, so there would be only 24 athletes per event which means no more than three trial heats in lane events. This would trim some time off the national meet schedule.

    4. Shift more mid-major schools to the west and midwest regions out of the east and mideast.

    5. Try to sell the four meets in a package to Fox Sports, or failing that to the new college sports network. Eventually shoot for ESPN2 and ESPN.


    • #32
      Re: Regional format criticized

      4. Shift more
      >mid-major schools to the west and midwest regions
      >out of the east and mideast.

      Would someone please tell me what a "mid-major" is? We have D1, D2, D3. As far as I'm concerned, anyone in D1 is major.

      5. Try to sell
      >the four meets in a package to Fox Sports, or
      >failing that to the new college sports network.
      >Eventually shoot for ESPN2 and ESPN.


      • #33
        Re: Regional format criticized

        As I understand it, the regionals was divided up with the intent of splitting the elite programs evenly but in doing so, the east and mideast ended up with far more "non-elite" schools. The east region had about 100 colleges while the west had under 50. As a result, even though the qualifiers may be roughly comparable from each region, the fields for some events in the east were huge. Some tweaking is in order.


        • #34
          Re: Regional format criticized

          I thought of this a long time ago -- I guess only a nerd like me would come up with it.

          The regional qualifying marks were pegged at about 100th on last year's collegiate lists. Obviously far more than 100 made it into most events, because the marks suddenly became significant where they hadn't been the year before.

          Will next year's regional qualifying marks be re-adjusted to 100th on this year's list? If so, most regional fields won't be quite as big.


          • #35
            Re: BTW, dl...

            >>>Do you have any suggestions on how to improve Sea Ray? How is Sea Ray different from Texas, Penn, Drake, Mt. SAC, etc., as far as organization of the meet? I'd be very interesting in reading your comments.>>>

            I did not mean to single out the Sea Ray Relays for criticism. I know how hard it is to put on such a meet and I mean no ill will toward the Tennessee program. But my remarks were in response to quotes from Bill Webb.

            The Sea Ray Relays will never be Zurich. It can't and it shouldn't. It's a different animal. But what I think such a meet as SRR can do a better job of is creating windows of, say, several hours of excellent track that an average sports or Tennessee fan would enjoy.

            Okay, it's a 3-day meet, but on Saturday, have a 3-hour window with all the relay finals (not multiple sections thereof) and some excellent field events. A good announcer with spotting/field event communication is also key to the spectator's enjoyment.

            If you're going to have an open men's 200, run heats on Friday and have a final on Saturday, don't just make it 12 timed finals.

            There's no easy answer to the problems of collegiate track. But I think regionals are a step in the right direction. Now with a lessened need to chase marks, perhaps more meets like the Sea Ray Relays, can cut down on individual events and concentrate on what fans like, relays against rival schools.


            • #36
              Thanks for comments

              Enjoyed the comments. I agree all around. They have got to change the format so there is, as you said, a window of great track and field for a few hours. The ten timed finals are awful. Are you reading this, Bill Webb and Charles Oliver??? I think the format is one reason the quality in the meet has gone down in recent years.

              You mentioned track announcer. Tom Black Track has gone from one of the best to one of the worst in recent years. Now, I haven't seen a meet there in about five years (depressing to think it's been so long), but Dr. Buck Jones hung up the mike about 7 years ago, I believe. I'm not even sure if he did the NCAAs in '95. Somebody terrible took over. I think it's some former Vol track athlete. Awful.

              Dr. Jones gave introductions that made you feel like you were at the Olympics. He added tidbits during races that added to what he already said in introductions. He described race strategy during 5 and 10Ks. He got the fans to get involved during crucial times in longer races. I've told him many times that the Vol program is not what it used to be since he left. But I guess he's done with PA work -- unfortunately. :-(