Biggest "upset" at NCAAs?

[BillVol]

Can any of the historians here recall some of the greatest upsets in the history of the NCAA meet as far as team competition goes? Not as important here is a team picked second and winning the title. But has a team forecast 10th in the formcharts ever won the title? 20th? We don't have the upsets that basketball, for example, has. But what is the lowest a team has been forecast to go on to win the NCAAs in track -- the biggest "upset" in NCAA track history?

[BillVol]

I guess the fact that we don't have Cinderella stories like N. C. State in '83 in the NCAA basketball tournament or Chaminade beating Ralph Sampson and UVa or the USA beating England at Brazil '50 is a negative about the sport of track and field. We have a pretty good idea who is going to win the NCAAs -- down to 2 or 3 teams -- before the thing ever gets started.

[bad hammy]

Part of why T&F is not a team competition. The team constuct in T&F (outside of relays) is totally artificial, I don't care how much folks from powerhouse schools get excited about it.

[dukehjsteve]

Part of why T&F is not a team competition. The team constuct in T&F (outside of relays) is totally artificial, I don't care how much folks from powerhouse schools get excited about it.

I agree completely with the above. Sorry, but the "team title" means nothing to me in NCAA T & F.

[tandfman]

Ditto. I'm a big fan of the meet, but I almost never pay any attention to the team scoring.

[Pego]

Hammy, Steve, tandfman, what about dual meets (the old-fashioned US-USSR, for example), or even better, the World Cup. Do you yawn at those, too?

[gh]

Many (most?) people don't pay attention to the team scoring because they don't have a vested interest. If your school gets involved in it, IMHO, then it becomes the greatest meet going, for the same reason that all team sports are so much more popular than individual ones.

Anybody who tells you otherwise has simply never been lucky enough to be part of the team battle.

I remember well the '85 NCAA when a guy I was sitting near was from a track-feeble school in the East, but he had struck up a friendship with some of the SMU people and when the Mustangs won the 4x4 to edge Washington State (sob) for the crown he leapt up and ripped open his shirt to reveal an SMU t-shirt. Might even have said "SMU--national champions."

[tandfman]

Hammy, Steve, tandfman, what about dual meets (the old-fashioned US-USSR, for example), or even better, the World Cup. Do you yawn at those, too?

I don't. I used to LOVE those US-USSR meets. Heck, I used to like college dual meets when they existed. (I know they still exist, but I haven't been to one in decades.) I even follow the team scoring at conference championships when I attend them. But at the NCAA Nationals, I'm just not interested.

gh is probably right about the correlation between your interest in the team scoring and your own school's potential for impact in the meet. I remember once speaking to a friend of mine right after a really good NCAA meet. His school was a contender but did poorly. I thought it was a great meet; he thought it was shitty.

[bad hammy]

Hammy, Steve, tandfman, what about dual meets (the old-fashioned US-USSR, for example), or even better, the World Cup. Do you yawn at those, too?

WC = ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[dukehjsteve]

Hammy, Steve, tandfman, what about dual meets (the old-fashioned US-USSR, for example), or even better, the World Cup. Do you yawn at those, too?

No, not really. Too much flag waving !!!

When I really cared about dual meets was in my own high school and college days ( oops, no more college dual meets to speak of... which has pretty much ruined college track for walk on athletes. You needed them to fill out a team
, and they were important. Plus it was fun to WIN an event at a dual meet as an individual.... now it's just all Relay meets with field events added as an afterthought. )

[Mighty Favog]

At the state HS meet this last weekend I kept track of the team scores until it was obvious who was going to win the trophies, but that's a relatively easy task when I have time to plan ahead. For me it's just another part of the fun.

[dukehjsteve]

Team titles in Track and Field ( of course just in my humble opinion) only have real significance in dual or triangular meets, where the ENTIRE TEAM is a factor in EVERY event. I have seen State meets won by two or three athletes. That's not a TEAM, that's a school with a few superstars.

[gh]

If the Cavs somehow beat the Spurs, will the NBA final be any the less exciting just because King James is the only player worth mentioning on the Cleveland side?

[Mighty Favog]

No, it will be less exciting because it's the NBA.

I agree that the notion of a team title won by one or two stars is a tad ridiculous. But they do hand out trophies and it's a subtext in a championship meet that I do find interesting.

[tandfman]

Hammy, Steve, tandfman, what about dual meets (the old-fashioned US-USSR, for example), or even better, the World Cup. Do you yawn at those, too?

WC = ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Have you ever been to one?