REPORT OF THE
NCAA DIVISION I MEN’S AND
WOMEN’S TRACK AND FIELD COMMITTEE
ACTION
ITEM.
Outdoor Track and Field Regional Realignment.
1. Recommendation. That the outdoor track and field regions be realigned effective with
the 2007-08 season.
2.
Rationale.
Attached is the current regional alignment (Attachment A) and the proposed realignment
(Attachment B). The proposed model was designed by an
ad-hoc committee comprised of members of the NCAA Division I Men’s and
Women’s Track and Field Subcommittee and members of the US Track and
Field/Cross Country Coaches Association (USTFCCCA) and, received overwhelming
support from a vote of coaches attending the USTFCCCA convention in December,
2006.
The ad-hoc committee reviewed a number of
potential realignment models, including some three and five region models. In addition, extensive realignment
discussions were held on the floor of the coaches’ convention. The recommended model was supported by a
vote of 209-18 (92 percent) at the convention. A total of 52 of 302 (17 percent)
institutions which sponsor men’s and/or women’s outdoor track and
field will be realigned in the recommended model. Of those 52 institutions, 29 (56 percent)
were present at the convention.
Also included, is correspondence from the coaches’
association (Attachment C) and a letter
of concern from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln (Attachment D).
a. History. The original regional model was designed
by an ad-hoc committee comprised of members of the subcommittee and members of
the USTFCCCA. The ad-hoc committee
established the initial/current regions by attempting to balance the three-year
average number of student-athletes who qualified to the championships meets in
the previous “descending order” system. The original recommendation for regional
alignment was approved by the Division I Championships/Cabinet in 2002.
b.
Concerns.
After four years of regional competition, inequities in the number of
participants in each region have become problematic. Below are the average number of participants
for each region during the past four years:
|
East |
|
|
West |
|
1004 |
919 |
718 |
652 |
Using the data collected to establish the
numbers listed above, the recommended realignment would change the average
number of qualifiers in each region to:
|
East |
|
|
West |
|
869 |
836 |
752 |
790 |
The inequity in the number of competitors at
each region has resulted in three competitive concerns that the current
recommendation attempts to resolve:
(1)
The
number of heats in running events. Generally, the more student-athletes
in a running event, the more heats are necessary to conduct the event. The more heats in the event, the more
difficult it is to advance to the next round in that event. As an example, during the 2006 east
regional meet five heats were required in the men’s 110 meter hurdles. With that number of heats, the winner of
each heat and the next three fastest student-athletes coming out of all five
heats advance to the finals the next day.
By comparison, the west region had entries for just three heats in the
men’s 110 hurdles, allowing the winner and the next five fastest student-athletes
to advance to the finals. The
current imbalance in the number of student-athletes requires the east region
hurdlers to exert significantly more effort to “win” their heat,
than the west region hurdlers. As a
result, the advancers in the east region had to run on average .20 second
faster that the west region student-athletes, just to advance to the finals.
(2)
The
number of rounds in some running events. In some situations the
lower number of competitors in events has reduced the number of rounds. In the 2006 west region, the men’s
100-meter event was conducted as a “final only” on the second day
of competition when just eight student-athletes declared for the event. Meanwhile, the other three regions were
conducting a minimum of three preliminary heats on the first day of competition
and the finals on the second day.
(3)
The
operational efforts to conduct the meets. The conduct and timing of
a two-day meet with nearly 1,000 student-athletes is different than the conduct
of a two-day meet with 650 student-athletes. The recommended realignment is a
concerted attempt to make each regional meet approximately the same operational
size.
c.
Goals. The ad-hoc committee identified four key
criteria that needed to be considered in any new regional plan that was
developed. These were:
(1) Competitive Fairness/Balance;
(2) Numbers of Participants;
(3) Conduct of the Meet (field sizes, number of
heats, flights, rounds);
(4) Gender Considerations.
The recommended realignment includes attempts
to balance numbers while also keeping competitive balance among the
regions. The committee considered
the relative strengths of institutional programs and the competitive impact of
moving teams in or out of regions.
The recommended realignment is an attempt to
provide better balance in the number of student-athletes in each region, and
therefore, create equity in the number of heats in the running events and
effort that is needed to advance to the finals and beyond to the championship
meet. The committee recognizes that
balancing overall numbers does not insure that each event will be balanced. However, the committee believes that the
first step toward competitive equity is to try to balance the overall number of
competitors in each region.
3. Estimated
Budget Impact. There is no budget impact to the NCAA to
realign the regions. Each regional
host receives a stipend of $10,000 to assist in the conduct of the regional meet
and keeps all ticket, concessions, parking revenues.
4. Student-Athlete Impact. The recommendation will have a positive
impact on student-athletes by balancing the advancement procedures across the
regions. In most cases,
student-athletes will compete at regions knowing that their advancement
opportunities and competitive efforts will be similar to each of the
student-athletes in the other regions.
As with any change, some student-athletes will be competing in different
regions against different student-athletes and at different venues that may
require longer travel than what they may have been used to in the current
system.
Committee Chair:
Staff Liaisons: Mark Bockelman, Championships
Keanah
Smith,