What does everyone think the new format?

[TreyDECA]

I still like the regional system, but i just think it sucks that in the west its gonna take 17'6"-17'8" to make the show for the guys. The line up in the west this year and now for the next 2-3 years is absolutely ridicuolous.

but it's not that bad in other events.... looking at the whole picture it evens out. look at the mid-east and east sprints.... and the mid-east deca's... even though we didn't have to go through regionals.

[rainbowgirl28]

I am glad that they have a qualifying round at Nationals now!

If you want to see an example of people making it to nationals who never would have otherwise, look at the girls who qualifed from the East region.

If you want to see an example of why I am glad they have the at-large qualifiers, look at my teammate Fanni. Fanni jumped 4.20 at indoor NCAAs, and I think she placed about 6th. Outdoors she was not having a very good year. She jumped 4.07 at UCLA, no heighted a couple times, and jumped 3.95 for second at SECs. She no heighted at Regionals and was not looking good to make it to Nationals. But she got the lowest at-large bid, and qualified.

At nationals she made it through the qualifying round to finals. In the finals she jumped 4.20 and placed 3rd.

So yeah, I think the fields at nationals are somewhat diluted, but I like that they still take at-large bids and added a qualifying round.

[Cpvault]

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.

I love getting you guys stirred up!!! But, to answer your question: 5.50 is my PR, which I've done on multiple occasions. Next, I didn't NH at Nationals in 1999, but a lot of people did. And yes, every Elite vaulter did have a PR of 16-5 to 17-1 at one time or another; but, it doesn't mean they belong at Nationals.
I wish everybody would take a close look at my premise: NCAA's in my opinion should be for Elite Vaulters only, based on the top 10-12 (maybe 15) on the list at the end of the year, solely based on height (this is because track and field, especially pole vault is very much mark oriented). Therefore, if you did not jump high enough to make that 10-15 you don't jump at NCAA's. People like Achtungpv (or whatever his handle is; that you Devereaux?) keep bringing up the fact that the elite people get in anyway. Yes, I know, that's not my contention. Where people are missing my point is, I don't think that vaulters who couldn't make the top 10-15 should be able to get into the meet.
Oh, to answer VtechVaulter: Track and Field is much different than Football, Baseball, Basketball and other team sports (c'mon you know that). As I mentioned earlier, everyone should agree that this is a "mark" oriented sport. (I think many people on these message boards would love to jump 18 feet and get last; than jump 15 feet and get first). You can not judge other sports based on Individual marks alone, that's why track is different.
Is there anyone out there that agrees with me?

[Skyin' Brian]

i aggree with you that track is mark oriented, but sometimes it isnt much that separates a 540 jumper and a 541 jumper. yes, their pr is a cm higher, but are they automatically considered superior. this is why it is a championship meet. if a group of vaulters is tightly packed from number 10 to number 20, then where is the line drawn for the elite group. it comes down to centimeters. also, everyone's marks were set under different conditions at different meets at different times of the year. the regionals system keeps people honest. they have to show up and prove that they belong in order to go to natinoals. it gives everyone in possibly packed group at the top a chance to go.

of course i should mention that i do not have to deal with reginoals as i am in division 3. and there is nothing better than hitting auto early in the season but we all dealt with regionals in high school(i think) and it wasnt so bad

[achtungpv]

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.

I love getting you guys stirred up!!! But, to answer your question: 5.50 is my PR, which I've done on multiple occasions. Next, I didn't NH at Nationals in 1999, but a lot of people did. And yes, every Elite vaulter did have a PR of 16-5 to 17-1 at one time or another; but, it doesn't mean they belong at Nationals.
I wish everybody would take a close look at my premise: NCAA's in my opinion should be for Elite Vaulters only, based on the top 10-12 (maybe 15) on the list at the end of the year, solely based on height (this is because track and field, especially pole vault is very much mark oriented). Therefore, if you did not jump high enough to make that 10-15 you don't jump at NCAA's. People like Achtungpv (or whatever his handle is; that you Devereaux?) keep bringing up the fact that the elite people get in anyway. Yes, I know, that's not my contention. Where people are missing my point is, I don't think that vaulters who couldn't make the top 10-15 should be able to get into the meet.
Oh, to answer VtechVaulter: Track and Field is much different than Football, Baseball, Basketball and other team sports (c'mon you know that). As I mentioned earlier, everyone should agree that this is a "mark" oriented sport. (I think many people on these message boards would love to jump 18 feet and get last; than jump 15 feet and get first). You can not judge other sports based on Individual marks alone, that's why track is different.
Is there anyone out there that agrees with me?

Yeah it's me.

I don't think there is a perfect way to qualify for nationals. Every scenario has its drawbacks. Regionals lets in some darkhorses, but at least 3 of the guys and 2 of the gals that made all-american last year weren't ranked in the top 10 going in. Going by a qualifying mark has problems also, since someone could jump 5.40 a half dozen times and miss out because a 5.20 vaulter puts up a single 5.41 at a last chance meet...

I dunno what a better method would be...maybe qualifying marks based on the average of your top 3 performances with one of those marks being your conference championship performance (that way you have to perform when it counts)?...probably would be a nightmare to keep track of though.

[vaultin chris]

cpvault-

thats ur opinion, my opinion is Nationals is for those who perfom and ompete well especially when it counts. USATF are for elite vaulter of all sorts. ur classification differ from mine, whihc is the main problem. i see it as beginers (includes any one, any age who's learning the technique of pole vaulting-example me in the 9th-11th grade with 13 foot pr) then advanced usually hs vaulters (good tecnigue between 13-16ft me in the 12th grade with 15'7'' pr), college vaulters (vaulters in college, they vault for a university and are traditional college age- me right now with a pr of 17-1), elite vaulters (vaulters who can vault on the elite/club/world level in Hartwig, Miles, or even Wlaker, even tho hes in college, or Skipper last year, even tho he was still in HS).

so NCAA's are for the best college vaulters (which used to be the best 18, mow its the best 30) and elite athletes have the USATF Nationals, Olympic Trials, World, PanAm, Goodwill ect.

The new system just includes mor people in a bad year u can argue it hurt it but in a good year the competition could get stiff and u could have some not qualify to the finals. To all the posters out there, do u satnd with me or the side of evil?

[Cpvault]

Thank you Devereaux!!! Finally, somebody who actually offers an alternate method of qualification (I guess all of this arguing spurred someone to think). That's refreshing!! Even though my alternate method, as I stated in an earlier post, would be to cut the fields down to 10-15. And yes, I do see some of the benefits of a regional system, although, I don't think it works better than the previous system. Better yet, I don't think the regional system accomplishes what the NCAA's status demands of it. Then again, maybe the NCAA meet is trying to be something different than it used to?

[OUvaulterUSAF]

I'm not too fond of the regional system, the athletes shouldn't have nationals handed to them.

It's probably b/c I'm just jealous.

[PVJunkie]

"HANDED TO THEM".......................

I guess mach madness and the b-ball champ gets it handed to them, the NFL champ is handed those rings, the stanley cup is just handed to the champ...........so on and so on.

The qualifying process is the most reliable and realistic way to esablish a championship. Its the way you get to the US champs (qual round), the oly team (qual through the US champs), the oly games (qual round) to be the oly champ. Why do we make this such an issue at the college level. Do we really expect that much less of our college athletes. Not to mention there are meets out there run far less "reliably" than others. By having a qualifying site (given there are several) at least they are run by cert officials with legal equip. The current system is a NOT a qualifying system. It ends up w/ the same field (due to the auto standard) with more athletes. The only wrench in the system from the past is the qualifying round (JUST LIKE THE US CHAMPS AND OLY GAMES) that the athletes have to go through to get to the finals..................hhhmmmm I dont see the problem with that. In fact it should benefit our emerging elite to get used to the process.

[Erica]

Right on, Brian!!! I have been thinking the same thoughts for a couple days, I just got tired of being in an 'argument'. I think the way we elect our olympic team is right on, although at times having one guaranteed spot in some events may benefit the US in the olympics. (Jeff Hartwig in 2000) The college system is actually still much more lenient since they have wildcards.

[Skyin' Brian]

yeah, ive been at meets where a qualifying height wasnt even measured. and i competed at many meets last year where they still had the old longer pegs on the standards. one of those meets was a large division 1 last chance meet.

[Cpvault]

You still have to make a qualifying standard (considered elite anywhere in the world) to make the US nationals or Olympic games. Again, you can't compare track and field to other sports with regard to a playoff system. Like it or not, track (especially pole vault) is about the marks. The regional qualifying marks are so low that the potential is there to have people get into the NCAA's who jump 16'5". Does anyone see a problem with that? Or, have you guys not been around the pole vault long enough to realize that 16'5" in Divsion 1 is an average mark? When did the NCAA's become an average meet.
I agree with you Erica, the argument is tiring. It seems many of you pro-regional people are so blinded by the notion that just about any vaulter in Divison 1 track deserves to go to NCAA's.