Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Permanent NCAA site prediction

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

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

  • #16
    Re: Permanent NCAA site prediction

    Have the sites for 2005 Regionals been announced?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Permanent NCAA site prediction

      Posted something similar on an earlier thread, but how can a sport absolutely crying for public attention best be served by a night meet on the West Coast? Seems like it should at least be in the Midwest, just to get the results and a little ink in papers east of the Mississippi.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Permanent NCAA site prediction

        Also, why should we insist on catering to a small group of events, weather-wise?

        The majority of track and field events are NOT unduly affected by warm, humid weather. Most, in fact, are helped by those conditions.

        Eugene weather is way too unpredictable, San Diego has no facility, and Sacramento is a dull, lifeless compromise.

        Why not somewhere like Minneapolis? Chicago (lack of facility, though)? Madison (facility?)?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Permanent NCAA site prediction

          >Also, why should we insist on catering to a small group of events,
          >weather-wise?

          The majority of track and field events are NOT unduly
          >affected by warm, humid weather. Most, in fact, are helped by those
          >conditions.

          Eugene weather is way too unpredictable, San Diego has no
          >facility, and Sacramento is a dull, lifeless compromise.

          Why not somewhere
          >like Minneapolis? Chicago (lack of facility, though)? Madison (facility?)?

          The proportion of events affected is about equivalent to the other events. Certainly the 1500s on up are affected. That's 4 events--there's only 6 sprint events, including the relays. (And counting the 800 and 400 hurdles in the "inbetween" region.)

          If we were talking about Seattle (which is always gloomy in early June), the sprinters would be up in arms about the poor weather conditions! Why should the distance runners recieve fewer consideration? The fact is that distance runners are more stressed by adverse conditions than sprinters. Why do you think the 10k is NOT contested at Regionals? Especially with heats in the distance races, distance runners spend much more time in the heat and humidity than the sprinters.

          Sacramento is the appropriate compromise (or a California site in general) because it provides most of the warmth that sprinters want, and the low humidity and cool evenings that distance runners need. (Notice the distinction between "wants" and "needs.") BTW, I'm not arguing for the meet to be in the "best" location for distance running, but rather the one that best balances the conditions for all events.

          If you want really unpredictable weather, you would put the meet in the upper Midwest! I've seen snow on the ground in mid May in Michigan--not a common occurrence even in Eugene.

          Also, the meet should be in a mid-sized city to get the best media exposure. Omaha has made the most of the College World Series (there was story in today's Sacto Bee--probably wire service--about Omaha's relationship with the event.)

          Comment

          Working...
          X