The NCAA News - News and Features

The NCAA News -- April 12, 1999

CHASING the right standards

Proposals designed to bring uniformity to qualification methods in track

BY HEATHER YOST
STAFF WRITER

Chasing provisional standards is a growing trend in track and field that some people think has the potential to make coaches look good and bad at the same time.

Case in point: In studying a weekend's meet options to qualify a sprinter, a hammer thrower and a distance runner for provisional championship performances, it might seem optimal for a coach to split the squad to give each athlete the best opportunity to make the Division I outdoor championships.

"Coaches are smart," said Ralph Lindeman, head track and field coach at the U.S. Air Force Academy. "They will look at the options that involve altitude, wind and temperature. They are sending them across the country if necessary, which is costly. I knew a coach once who wanted to send a kid to Mexico City to qualify. It's 7,000 feet above sea level. It makes us both foolish and brilliant at the same time."

Sending athletes to different meets for a greater opportunity to qualify can reduce the team atmosphere in the sport and gives coaches, who certainly can't attend three meets simultaneously, less opportunity to coach.

Some people in the track community think that NCAA championships qualifying standards have forced coaches and athletes toward the "chasing" mind set. Others feel that the qualifying methods leave everyone in the dark, claiming that the descending order list of athletes and their best qualifying times -- some of which are automatic and some of which are provisional -- defies logic.

"The media, the few fans we have and our own administrators are confused by qualifying times," Lindeman said. "We have to come up with some simplified way to determine the championships field to attract more media and more fans and cut down on the confusion for everyone involved."

The cry to cut ambiguity in the sport, reemphasize the team aspect and relieve the need to chase marks created the need for an ad hoc committee after last year's outdoor championships. The group of nine was charged with the task of finding alternative ways to qualify the nation's top collegiate athletes for each championship event.

Championships week weighed

Last year, the NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field Commit tee discussed the option of a championships week, which would have brought more athletes to the championships by allowing them to qualify two days before the championships. Institutions would have to pay the athlete's way to qualification, though, and would be reimbursed only if their athlete qualified out of the semifinals for the championships meet.

The unknown factor of costs to an athletics department compounded with the added expense of sending athletes who were eliminated home during the week deterred the committee from proposing the championships-week concept to the Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet for further consideration.

Thus, the ad hoc committee, composed of four members of the track and field committee and five representatives of the United States Track Coaches Association, formulated two proposals during a January meeting in Chapel Hill, North Carolina -- an absolute qualifying standard and a regional qualifying process.

The proposals, which will be distributed to track coaches for comment, could dramatically change the way athletes qualify for the national championships.

Absolute qualifying standard

Looking at the previous year's championship performances under the absolute qualifying standard, the track and field committee would use the 27th best time to determine the absolute qualifying standard for the upcoming NCAA championships, while relay standards would be based on the 16th best performance.

Any athlete meeting the standard in that event would qualify for the meet without exception, and the final day for qualifying would be 10 days before the start of the championships.

Ultimately, the number of athletes qualifying for the championships would vary from year to year due to national performance levels.

"I think this would greatly reduce the phenomenon of chasing marks," said Lindeman, who chaired the ad hoc committee. "Once you have this time, the uncertainty is eliminated. Coaches will be less inclined to split squads."

Lindeman said the advantages for this option include early notifica tion of qualifiers, which would allow fans to better plan for championships expenses and attendance. The change would not impact championships dates or conference championships meets, nor would it lengthen the season.

Although absolute qualifying times would not impact current institutional costs, the variable championships cap leaves financial question marks.

Unpredictable field sizes could mean fewer than the minimum number of 17 athletes at one extreme or more than the number of athletes budgeted for in each event by the NCAA at the other.

"We've looked at the numbers and times over the past four years, and it would average out to 27 (athletes per event)," Lindeman said. "There are some events that due to increased performance levels such as the pole vault and the hammer throw would be difficult to predict, but it seems to average out."

An increased field size may demand additional rounds for field events or more lanes in other events. Otherwise, the absolute qualifying system would maintain the current championships format.

Regional qualification

In the regional qualification alternative, four regionals would be established and a one-site regional-qualification meet would be staged in each area. Each meet would produce five automatic qualifiers in each individual event and three in relays.

Seven individuals in each event and four relays would be at-large selections to the championships in addition to the regional qualifiers. The regional meets would conclude 10 days before the start of the national championships and team scoring would be used at the regional qualifying meet.

"Head-to-head competition in regional meets reduces a lot of ambiguity," Lindeman said. "You have fewer athletes wondering if they are going to make it. It is not unlike basketball when your automatic qualifiers are already breathing easy.

"Two-thirds of the qualifiers would leave the regional meet knowing they are going to the championships."

Boundaries for the four geographic regions have been proposed and researched by the ad hoc committee and exist as relatively vertical lines. The divisions also are based on qualifiers from the 1998 championships and the number of institutions within the regions that sponsor track and field.

With the regional boundaries, however, there is no guarantee that in any given year (because of inequities within the regions) the best athletes will be featured in the national championships.

Regional qualification would assure the cap of 641 athletes is maintained at the Division I meet, although the number of athletes who compete at the regional level would increase. Expenses are increased for the NCAA, though, by staging the four regional meets, and for the institutions by keeping student-athletes who participate in regional qualifying meets on campus after final exams.

At-large qualification after the regionals is seen as a positive for the proposed system as athletes are not necessarily eliminated from the championships field because of one poor performance.

The addition of team scoring in regions also would allow recognition of eight teams as regional champions -- four women's and four men's -- which some see as appealing to fans, alumni, media and administrators.

Regional competition also would reduce the number of last-chance meets that may not meet bona fide competition standards and may be costly for institutions to attend at the last minute.

"People are questioning each other," said Margaret Simmons, secretary-rules editor of the track and field committee. "A regional would give more credibility to the time devices and the tape measurements. We want to be as consistent and fair as possible."

For now, though, the two proposals are under review by the membership. The track and field committee will review the survey results during its June meeting before forwarding any recommendations to the Championships/
Competition Cabinet.