What does everyone think the new format?

[Erica]

Is regional qualifying really bringing down the level of competition at NCAA's? If the guy who jumped 18 feet in March hasn't jumped that high later in the season, and no-hieghts at half his meets, should he really deserve a spot in the National meet over the 17 foot guy who rises to the occasion and earns his spot? If you can't compete in regionals, what makes you think you can rise to the occasion at nationals and qualify for one of the 16 spots in the final. The 16 people who make it to the final competition have proven to be better than the top 16 people on the list.

[Cpvault]

It's hilarious when people talk about "that guy" who jumped 18 feet at the beginning of the season, then no heighted in half the rest of his meets. Now, let me bring you back to reality: that RARELY ever happens. If a vaulter has gone 18 feet, most likely that person is a pretty good vaulter and even if he no heighted in half of his meets, probably jumped better in the other half than that 16'10" guy who so inspirationally "rose" to the occasion at regionals. Perfect example: Brian Hunter. He would jump between 18 and 18'6" a few times during the season, then No Height in the next 60% of his meets. You can't tell me that he doesn't belong in the NCAA meet. Bottom line, the 18 foot guy is an 18 foot guy. The 16'10" guy, is a 16'10" guy ( but, I'm sure glad that he's really consistent).

[vaultin chris]

here are the results from 2003 w/regionals

Finals
1 Eric Eshbach JR Nebraska 5.45m 17-10.50 10
5.15 5.30 5.45 5.55
O XO O XXX
2 Trent Powell SO Brigham Young 5.45m 17-10.50 8
5.15 5.30 5.45 5.55
O O XXO XXX
3 Brian DaCunha SR Florida 5.45m 17-10.50 6
5.15 5.30 5.45 5.55
O XXO XXO XXX
4 Mike Westlund SR Oklahoma 5.30m 17-04.50 5
5.15 5.30 5.45
O O XXX
5 Jeffrey Ryan SR Southern California 5.30m 17-04.50 3.50
5.15 5.30 5.45
O XO XXX
5 Yoo Kim SO UCLA 5.30m 17-04.50 3.50
5.15 5.30 5.45
O XO XXX
7 Pat Luke JR UCLA 5.30m 17-04.50 2
5.15 5.30 5.45
XO XXO XXX
8 Paul Panning JR Ball State 5.15m 16-10.75 0.25
5.15 5.30
O XXX
8 Giovanni Lanaro JR Cal State-Fullerton 5.15m 16-10.75 0.25
5.15 5.30
O XXX
8 Brent Warner JR Duke 5.15m 16-10.75 0.25
5.15 5.30
O XXX
8 Trevor Woods JR Oregon 5.15m 16-10.75 0.25

1999 w/o regionals

1. Jacob Davis, Texas, 5.56 (18-2 3/4); 2. Toby Stevenson, Stanford, 5.45 (17-10 1/2); 3. Borya Celentano, Long Beach St., 5.45 (17-10 1/2); 4. Jake Pauli, Northern Iowa, 5.45 (17-10 1/2); 5. Jeff Hansen, Brigham Young, 5.45 (17-10 1/2); 6. Jim Davis, Fresno St., 5.30 (17-4 1/2); 7. (tie) Jeff Dutoit, Arizona, Russell Johnson, Tennessee, and Dennis Kholev, Southern California 5.15 (16-10 3/4).

Similar results?!?!?

[Skyin' Brian]

It's hilarious when people talk about "that guy" who jumped 18 feet at the beginning of the season, then no heighted in half the rest of his meets. Now, let me bring you back to reality: that RARELY ever happens. If a vaulter has gone 18 feet, most likely that person is a pretty good vaulter and even if he no heighted in half of his meets, probably jumped better in the other half than that 16'10" guy who so inspirationally "rose" to the occasion at regionals. Perfect example: Brian Hunter. He would jump between 18 and 18'6" a few times during the season, then No Height in the next 60% of his meets. You can't tell me that he doesn't belong in the NCAA meet. Bottom line, the 18 foot guy is an 18 foot guy. The 16'10" guy, is a 16'10" guy ( but, I'm sure glad that he's really consistent).

ok, you said that this rarely happens and then went on to provide an example of when it did happen. if your 16-10 vaulter jumps 16-10 and the inconsistant 18'er nh's guess who lost. so a great vaulter has to compete in regionals. if you are number 1 on the list and mess up, you still will get a wild card bid. and if you then screw up in the qualifying round then you definately did not deserve to be an all american anyway. maybe a couple of vaulters make it through to the final that otherwise wouldnt have there is still a competition to be won and if you have proven yourself through the regional and preliminaries, then why shouldnt you be there instead of a vaulter who happens to have a higher pr than you? i think we have all been humbled by lesser vaulters than ourselves at one time or another.

[Cpvault]

First of all, I provided the example of the "rare instance" to prove even when it does happen (hence the term rare--meaning occasionally happens) the 18 foot vaulter has done something most others in collegiate track and field have not, and because this is a "mark" oriented event this guy should be considered one of the elite college vaulters (anyone who know Brian Hunter through college, would consider him just that). Where do the elite college vaulters compete? At the NCAA's. Now, my point was and is, that by allowing vaulters with PR's of between 16'5" and 17'2" ish (roughly) the opportunity to qualify for NCAA's, the caliber of the meet and it's field is DILUTED in it's quality (assuming this meet is for the most elite-- which I contend should be the top 12 or so). There is no way you can tell me that someone that is number 38 on the nations list of collegiate vaulters is elite. No, they are a good college vaulter.

[Erica]

Notice that 7th place last year with regionals jumped a higher height than 7th place in 1999. I don't see to much diluting there. Just because the winner didn't jump as high doesn't mean it is a lower caliber meet.

[VTechVaulter]

Hunters problem wasn't that he wasn't a consistent vaulter. It was that he was overly confidnet. My coach/ his coach has some great stories about him. But the bottem line is, about 2 out of every 5 meets, Hunter would try to come in above his PR. In fact his first ever 18 foot vault was cleared opening at 5:50, with a pr around 5.45. He was just an amazing enough competitor to get away with it at times. Although hes also the reason the field house manager hates us, but thats another set of fun stories.

i think the regional system is getting a bad rep merely because last year was just a rebuilding year for the vault in general. the two best guys were out with injuries for a large portion of it. Its gonna fluxiate year to year weather we use the regional system or not, so why not give it some time before everyone declares it worthless. just my 2 cents

[vaultin chris]

There is no way you can tell me that someone that is number 38 on the nations list of collegiate vaulters is elite. No, they are a good college vaulter.

R U SERIOUS? What happens the year when when 38th is a 17'7'' jumper/ The regionals system wont let more people in. Its the same as before. This year u have to go 5m to get in reionals that means that was the 100th best mark last year, which furhter means about 25 guys in a region will have jumped 5m to get into their respective region. 1/5 will make it to nationals plus at large? How is adding more people diluting the field when its contributing to competition?

[Cpvault]

To Erica (whoever you are),

Don't compare last year and 1999 NCAA's. I jumped in Boise that year, please notice the number of NH's. The weather was very bad ( really bad cross/head wind, rain earlier in the day, pretty cold). That had to be one of the worst years for NCAA's by far. The only reason Jacob Davis jumped 18/whatever (different story) is because he waited until everyone was out of the competition, and the wind just happened to die down.
To everyone else, we could go around and around debating points. I love doing it, but I have a sneaking suspicion I'm fighting a losing battle. The last thing I will say is this: To be considered an elite vaulter in college, I feel you should be ranked in the top 10-15 on the national list at the end of the year. Now, there are probably hundreds of college vaulters registered and contributing to these message boards-- the majority of which will never be considered for that elite company I just mentioned. Please, before people readily try and shred my points, (which has yet to be successfully done) recognize why you are Pro- regionals. If you are a college vaulter you most likely do not fit into that 10-15 people, so the regional system gives you hope that you'll one day compete at the NCAA's. That's fine, I hope you make it-- trust me it's a great experience. But, logically see my point: The NCAA meet in MY OPINION should be a meeting of the elite. If you think 16'5" to 17'2" is elite, then fine, you win.
By the way, be realistic 38th on the list will NEVER be 17'7". You must be joking.

[vaultin chris]

ur right it gives us hope and makes us look foward to making nationls, it gives a reason to work harder and jump better. i'm one of those vaulters who jumps in between 16-5 and 17-1, i dont consider myself an elite college vaulter, i qualified for regionals and i didnt make it to nationals. But since u wanna call us 16-5 to 17-1 people out, whats ur PR, why'd u no height at nationals? I plan on being in "elite" company before i graduate. so are u saying i dont belong at nationals because of my current pr? im not saying that 16-5 to 17-1 is elite, but every elite vaulter at one time jumped 16-5 to 17-1 at one time, before the were elite.

[achtungpv]

The elite vaulters are making it to nationals...there still is an auto-qualifer, 5.55 last year I believe.

Regionals puts the provisional places up for grabs. I don't think someone jumping 5.20 at regionals when it counts is any less deserving than someone who waits until a last chance meet to sneak a qualifer in there but otherwise had a mediocre season.

[VTechVaulter]

so, if only the elite should be in a championship, we should have no baseball, basketball, or football playoffs. We should just take the one and two teams, and have one game to decide. Actually why bother, lets just say the number 1 team at the end of the regular season is the champion. Then theres no need to even waste time with playoffs. The best team wins every time.

I believe the whole point of sport is to be a competition, these guys that you consider non elite, are still making there mark felt at the NCAA Finals. Its the cinderella story of track and field.