TFN –The NCAA is giving serious consideration to a plan that would redefine the nature of a collegiate meet, but the ramifications wouldn’t stop there
For the past 5 years collegiate coaches have engaged in a soul-searching discussion of a strategic plan to make collegiate track & field more relevant and understandable—and frankly to position the sport so it’s not perennially a candidate for athletic department chopping blocks.
T&FN loves the fact that the coaching fraternity recognizes that its system is broken, and is taking a deep look at the problems and possible solutions.
As a result, very soon the NCAA may move forward with major—opponents would argue Draconian—rule changes to strictly define what counts as a college meet.
Post-collegians and organizers of meets in which pros and preps compete alongside NCAA athletes could end up squeezed out of the picture if the new setup limits qualifying for the Nationals to competitions which meet the definition of a “college meet.”
For simplicity’s sake at this point, let’s just address the Div. I outdoor scenarios (indoors and cross country have their own added stipulations, and the numbers aren’t quite the same for Divs. II and III).
Under the proposed changes there will be two classes of “college meets” from which athletes can qualify for the Regionals (and hence, the Nationals). Left unclear is whether or not marks made in meets not organized by an NCAA member (say, New York’s Armory) would qualify at all.
Category 1: Scored Meets
A meet in the “scored” category has to meet 4 tests:
• 1. Contest all “non-optional” events, which Means all 21 events contested at the Nationals, except the 10K and multis. There is a mandated order of events on the track.
• 2. Be scored competitions between 2 or more teams.
• 3. Include from each school a squad of specified minimum size, which is 14.
• 4. Include only NCAA-eligible athletes.Additional events for non-eligibles (like pros and high schoolers) could be added to the Meet, but they need to be scheduled outside the window of the scored-meet proper.
Category 2: Non-Scored Meets
There are 4 tests in this category as well:
• 1. The meet must stage all the events required in a scored meet (meaning all the Nationals events), plus another 6 relays (4×2, 4×8, 4×15, SpMed, DisMed, shuttle hurdles).
• 2. The meet requires 40 or more NCAA member institutions for each sex.
• 3. Each relay event must have a minimum of 4 NCAA teams.
• 4. Each individual event must have a Minimum of 6 eligible NCAA athletes.
Under those rules, it’s amazing how many current major meets—ones that would fall under the non-scored rubric—are not in compliance and would have to revamp their programs.
As this year’s outdoor season dawned, for example, the Texas Relays, Florida Relays, Kansas Relays and Stanford Invitational would not have been up to snuff.
Backers of the proposal say that many meets Could meet standard simply by “adding a few more events.” That’s a lot easier said than done if you’re hosting a 3- or 4-day meet, but try cramming all the non-scoring requirements into a 2-day affair.
The motivation behind the proposed rule changes, is spelled out in an ’09 mission statement of the USTFCCCA Div. I coaches:
“To showcase this sport through entertaining, action-packed, fast-moving, and relevant meets that are valuable to the general public and media outlets… and standardize what constitutes an entertaining track & field presentation and market the events for public consumption.”
It is hard to argue that the collegiate sport isn’t crying out for radical remodeling, but opponents of this particular proposal see it as throwing the baby out with the bath water.
“It would kill sub-elite racing and field events,” says one concerned coach. “It would greatly hamper elite post-collegiate racing and field events.”
Another is seriously worried about “geographic discrimination” for schools in isolated areas (see sidebar).
Becca Gillespy-Peter, who organizes USATF club-level meets, says, “This boils down to a marketing problem with the sport, and they are trying to fix a marketing problem by changing rules, which never works.”
Expect a spirited exchange as the coaches reach their deadline for discussion.
The new rules could be voted on as early as this June.
Geographic Discrimination?
In a lively discussion on our message board about the proposed new NCAA rules (a proposal that received no support from that quarter), New Mexico assistant coach Rich Ceronie weighed in passionately:
“These new proposals in many regards may do exactly the opposite of what they claim they will do. A real live example. We here in Albuquerque put on quite large meets every weekend during the indoor season.
“When you look at the Western U.S. there are not that many indoor tracks to begin with, and few banked, fast indoor facilities. I keep track of how many NCAA DI, DII, and NAIA qualifying performances are made at our facility each year. Lots of them!
“To host a meet costs us about $18,000— $19,000 per weekend and unless we have a large number of teams plus unattached/postcollegiates (who contribute about $10,000 per Year) we cannot even pay the rent.
“So the real possibility is that we will host less meets, or no meets. And I ask you—how the heck does that help to promote our sport?
“And not too long ago the university looked at dropping men’s xc/track. “If we are not able to host meets and showcase our athletes, that real possibility becomes more likely.
“One of the phrases that I have used recently when asked my opinion about the new proposals is Geographic Discrimination.
“Within a 5-hour radius around Albuquerque we have no Division I programs. How are we supposed to only have DI teams in attendance?
“There are no other DI men’s programs in the state. So all the Mountain Region schools—plus those in isolated areas—are going to be drastically affected by this proposal.
“There are always unintended consequences and these new proposals while claiming to be for the betterment of the sport may do the direct opposite.”
