The NCAA News - News and Features

January 5, 1998

The PAST must meet the PRESENT

Division I coaches are unified in the belief that the qualifying system must return to absolute standards

BY STEPHEN R. HAGWELL
STAFF WRITER

If Division I track and field is to solidify its future, it first must reinstate policies and procedures from its past.

That's the view of Division I coaches.

Unified in the belief that the current championships qualifying system must be amended, Division I coaches advocate a return to a system based upon absolute standards.

At the United States Track Coaches Association convention December 4-6 in Dallas, Division I coaches voted to forward a proposal to the NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field Committee to amend the current qualifying procedures by replacing provisional standards with absolute standards.

Changes in the championships qualifying procedures would have to be approved by the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet.

Under the proposal, student-athletes who attain a predetermined qualifying mark in an event would be admitted to the championships. Costs for student-athletes to compete at the championships would be absorbed by each institution, with the NCAA providing reimbursement to institutions whose student-athletes finish within a predetermined number set forth by the NCAA track and field committee.

NCAA championships qualifying used absolute standards until 1985.

Currently, student-athletes who attain automatic standards are guaranteed access to the championships; provisional qualifiers are admitted based upon the available number of slots remaining in each event. The NCAA provides reimbursement to institutions for all student-athletes who compete at the championships.

'About opportunity'

"(This proposal) is about opportunity," said Bubba Thornton, men's track and field coach at the University of Texas at Austin and one of eight coaches who were members of a Division I coaches' qualifying committee that reviewed NCAA championships qualifying.

"One of our biggest mistakes is we've tried to perfect the sport. In trying to perfect the sport, we've gotten away from what track and field is all about."

It's not surprising that Division I coaches are proposing a change in the qualifying system. For years, they have expressed frustration with the current system; however, past efforts to replace the system with one based upon regional, team-based or head-to-head qualifying have failed to garner support from a majority of coaches.

However, at the Dallas convention, only eight of the 119 head coaches in attendance favored retaining the status quo.

"Coaches are frustrated with this (system). They're basically tired of chasing marks," said Bob Fraley, head indoor track coach at California State University, Fresno, and president of the NCAA Division I Track Coaches Association. "The problem is: As tough as the standards are today, how are you going to get to the meet without chasing marks?"

Chasing marks

Advocates argue that the current system -- by basing championships access on provisional standards, placement on descending-order lists and predetermined field sizes -- requires teams to chase marks. They state that the result has been a virtual elimination of team competition as coaches and student-athletes opt instead to trek to all corners of the country seeking to attain new-and-improved provisional-qualifying marks.

Advocates believe a return to an absolute-standards system would increase team competition and cut down on the costly endeavor of chasing marks. They point out that once a student-athlete attains a qualifying mark, he or she is guaranteed access to the championships.

"We want to be able to set up a program that makes it possible for every Division I school to have the opportunity to get (to the national championships) without having to send their kids all across the country," said Fraley, a member of the coaches association committee that reviewed NCAA championships qualifying.

"Right now, the way it is, that's not practical because we've created an elitism...you had better have super athletes or you had better be able to travel to locations where the conditions are absolutely optimum because you can't go every place to qualify."

Reinstatement of a championships qualifying system utilizing absolute standards would certainly increase opportunities for student-athletes.

Fields could double in size

Fraley estimates that the men's and women's championships fields could each comprise 700 student-athletes, which is nearly double the current fields.

Based upon championships qualifying information from 1990 through 1996, approximately 620 men's and women's competitors would have competed at the outdoor championships each year if an absolute qualifying system was utilized. On average, each event would have included 33 student-athletes.

By comparison, current qualifying procedures, which have been in effect since 1990, allow a maximum of 388 male and female student-athletes at the outdoor championships; a maximum of 270 male and 270 female student-athletes are permitted to compete at the indoor meet.

Advocates state that while the championships fields would increase, costs absorbed by the NCAA would remain unchanged because institutions would shoulder the responsibility of incurring costs for student-athletes to compete.

In fact, advocates argue that costs would be reduced because once a student-athlete attains a qualifying mark, travel plans involving cheaper airfares can be arranged.

Currently, the championships fields are determined approximately one week before the start of the championships.

"Our big objective is to allow more people, with the idea that it would reduce chasing of marks, and reduce travel costs," Fraley said. "It gives you the opportunity for earlier notification.

"The way it is right now, people don't know if they're in the meet until a few days before it starts. Under this plan, if a student went out and qualified by meeting the minimum standard, they can go out and buy (an airline) ticket instead of waiting until the last day. They know they're in the meet. It's simple."

Simplicity attractive

Thornton said the plan's lack of complexity is what makes it attractive. He contends that the move away from absolute standards nearly two decades ago has been detrimental to the sport. He states it's time that track and field returns to a system that is time-tested and proven to work.

"Everybody looks back to a time when we were having track and field meets and interest was up," he said. "But as we have reduced the numbers, we have reduced the interest. We have taken track and field out of track and field.

"All we would like to do is have an opportunity to get our athletes back to the championship meet. We have parameters in place. Let's get back to some competition. Let's get back to track and field."