D1 Regionals - Don't let this happen to you

[jussi]

Following is the text of an email I sent to Robert Podkaminer, the NCAA D1 administrator I was informed was responsible for the pole vault qualifiers list for NCAAs. If you are not familiar with the D1 Regionals qualification process, ignore this letter. It’s long and will make no sense to you.

[size=75]Dear Mr. Podkaminer
Let me begin by explaining that I am the father of Ingrid Kantola, the 4th ranked [now 5th ranked] vaulter on the women’s NCAA D1 list, who finished 14th in the West Region. I have never before felt compelled to lodge a protest over the officiating, coaching, or administration of any NCAA event in which my daughter participated. I am doing so today.
As you are no doubt aware, for a top ranked athlete, the experience of not advancing to Championships is among the most devastating in track and field. We knew, however, what the rule stated: Ingrid had to make top 12 to advance. She did not, and we’ve been licking our wounds and making preparations for moving on for the last 4 days.
Now, when the list of admitted athlete’s came out, we see that two women who did not place in the top 12 have been advanced. Both were from the Mideast Region. Both vaulted the same height at Regionals as Ingrid did. One, [name deleted], is higher on the national list than Ingrid with a 4.32 (3rd) versus Ingrid’s 4.31 (4th). She placed 14th in the Mideast Regional. The other, [name deleted], was lower on the list at 4.25 (7th). She placed 13th. [The two women actually tied for 13th.]
If I understand correctly, this is because vaulters in the Mideast Region were allowed to retroactively scratch from the meet. I know that the [college deleted] coaches did not see [their athlets’s] advancing as a possibility, as her failure to advance has been prominently mentioned on their web page and in the [city deleted] media. It appears that this action had been taken in violation of the rules. If it has not, it has been done in accordance with some secret rule, which hasn’t been made known to the NCAA vaulting community. Love the Regionals or hate them, all schools and regions need to play by the same rules.
I am aware that five of the top eight ranked women vaulters did not place in the top 12 at Regionals. I understand that advancing some non-qualifying vaulters will make for a better competition. However, all vaulters in all regions need to be given the same opportunities to advance. My hope is that Ingrid will be advanced along with [name] and [name]. If necessary, we will begin contacting other West Region vaulters who have not advanced to Championships to see if they will “retroactively scratchâ€

[rainbowgirl28]

How frustrating!

[andrej]

Happened to me last year - I ranked second (I think) with 18'2" coming to regionals, couldn't even warm up because of the 40 vaulters qualified to our region, finished 13th. Went back to Europe, jumped 18'4" there and qualified for the Worlds in Osaka. What I think of the qualifying system showed this year - I could have come back to graduate study and use my last year of eligibility, but since I think it's harder for me to qualify for NCAAs than for the Olympics, I just stayed at home and am now competing in Europe. The system is not fair, it's made to the advantage of the lower ranked athletes who get a better opportunity to qualify. This contradicts my theory of NCAAs being the best of the best.

[pvduck]

[Bubba PV]

Very unfortunate situations. The next time we'll be discussing an unfair system will probably be at the Olympic Trials when only the top three on that day will go to the Olympics. Look no further than AR Jeff Hartwig for a victim. After making the 1996 team he would seem to be a certain qualifier each time but has yet to get past the Trials again, even though he was jumping at very high levels.

Until then, I hope Ingrid gets through to NCAAs. In general and to some degree, people do to us what we let them do to us and fortunately Ingrid’s dad jumped right in and pointed out these inequities in a very well thought out manner. If not this year then next, but these types of protests will cause a change. Thanks for your efforts and best of luck!!

Bubba

[bjvando]

There was discussion this year at the coaches convention about a "super 64" qualifying format.

I do not remember the exact 'rules' of it, but it is something similar to the automatic and provisional marks. Conference Champs + _____ to equal 64. Then a longer nationals 'week' that will have preliminaries, semi-finals, finals... Please don't hold me to this. It has been months since I briefly read the proposal.

If there is a coach that knows more about this suggested format, please fill in the details as I obviously do not know for certain.

[CowtownPV]

The way I understand it the vaulter has to been in the top 12 declared for nationals at regionals. Put yourself in a coaches position, you have a girl that placed 9th that has a best of 13' and a girl who placed 13th but has a best over 14'. All you have to do is not declare the 9th place girl and your 14 footer is now in the top 12 declared. The other girl would not have got to nationals with her mark so you are not doing wrong by her by not declaring her. Sounds to me like a smart coach who knows the rules. Maybe the rules need to be looked at, but the coach did what was best for his athletes, with in the rules.

[vballcoach]

As a Parent of one of the above mentioned athletes, let's just say that I prefer the "old" but current NCAA Indoor "Automatic/Provisional" system. I can't even find what year they changed to the Outdoor Regional/Top 5 system.

Not knowing any "details" other than a phone call that "she was in the NCAAs", I believe her teammate was scratched to put my daughter in the Top 12.

Quoted from another website:

"Despite the opposition of most of the country's top coaches, the NCAA scrapped the old qualifying standards in all events except the 10,000 meters, heptathlonheptathlon: see under decathlon.

The country was divided into four sections, and regional meets were held with the top five in each event advancing to the nationals. In addition, six at-large berths were awarded.

The goal was to increase the percentage of track athletes to participate in the nationals. Track has gone from one of the least-represented sports to the second-highest.

However, many coaches don't like the stress the new system puts on athletes, who must compete in their conference meets, regional meets and the nationals. "

Once again, I don't care for the current Outdoor system, nor did or would I have known about the loopholes involved with the Top 12 for each region & the declarations involved. We all hope that there can be a better/fairer way to do this for all the Athletes involved.

[vballcoach]

As far as the "Super 64"

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/asset/ ... dation.pdf

[vtcoach]

Someone not declaring their own athlete who has no chance to get out of the at-large pool to move up another one of their own athletes is a minor issue. I would do that in a heartbeat if the rules allow. The MAJOR issue is having NCAA qualifying degrade into pleas or deals with other coaches. For example, consider these partial west region results:

Code: Select all

                                                 SEED       RESULT
  6 April Kubishta         SR Arizona State      4.32m      4.06m
  7 Patricia Gauthier      SR Hawaii-Manoa       4.00m      4.06m
  8 Melissa Gergel         FR Oregon             4.11m      4.06m
  9 Kristina Dahlgren      SO Idaho              4.06m      3.96m
 10 Jaci Perryman          SO Arizona            3.85m      3.96m
 10 Sonia Grabowska        FR Utah State         4.00m      3.96m
 10 Tori Anthony           FR UCLA               4.21m      3.96m
 13 Stevie Marshalek       SR Washington         3.85m      3.96m 
 14 Krystal Quinn          SR Northridge         4.00m      3.81m
 14 Allison Stokke         FR California         4.11m      3.81m
 14 Ingrid Kantola         SR UCLA               4.31m      3.81m


Should the UCLA coach have called the Arizona coach, the Utah State coach, and the Idaho Coach and said "Hey, your vaulter doesn't have a chance of making it out of the at-large pool. Please don't declare them so my kid can move up to the top 12, I will return the favor in the future." ? Why should any coach be put in this position!? I have talked to coaches who have said they would never make that phone call. There are others that probably would. IS THIS THE PROCESS WE WANT FOR NCAA QUALIFYING!!? Whether you support the regional system or not, Mr. Kantola is correct, there is a loophole here that is easy to fix and that should be fixed.

p.s. I am not saying this is what happened in the mideast. I have no idea what happened and no one should jump to any conclusions. It could have been a couple athletes in the mideast who's coaches just didn't bother to declare them because they knew they had no chance to get out of the pool, bud we really don't want that kind of event deciding who goes and who doesn't either. ALL the vaulters involved are great kids and it is up to us to fix this so they can focus on vaulting.

[newvaulter]

Mr. Kantola, first let me say that I'm sorry that Ingrid didn't qualify from Regionals. I too, a three time All-Am, didn't qualify out of the West region this year. I don't blame the system for that--I had as good an opportunity as anyone on that day to jump 5.31 and make the top five. But I simply must agree that the Regional system is flawed.

I love the indoor system. Jump 5.50 and you're in. 5.20 and you go on the list. Every year a high 5.30ish or 5.40 jump will make it almost certainly, and there's no pressure to perform in a single meet. Many would argue that this is part of being a competitive athlete at the highest level. If you can't perform well when it counts, do you deserve to be at NCAAs anyway? I agree with this sentiment somewhat, but in some events--especially the vault, truly anything can happen. I always remind people of my freshman year regionals at Oregon. A big storm had come in that weekend and the winds were switching around during warmups. We ended up choosing the wrong pit to jump on, and after decent, calm winds for the first bar and a half, we were jumping into a 4 m/s headwind. I no-heighted (but wouldn't have qualified anyway) along with Tommy Skipper, Yoo Kim, and a few other guys capable of jumping 5.20 or 5.30. The qualifiers from the West Region--the NCAAs strongest in the vault--that year jumped 5.21, 5.21, 5.06, 5.06, and 5.06 at regionals. Did the regional system truly send the nation's best athletes to nationals that year? I don't think anyone would say that it did.

And what about the fact that vaulters in the west region must compete in a field close to 30, while other regions can have much more manageable fields, allowing full warmups and smaller wait times?

I say the NCAA should revert back to the indoor qualifying system for outdoors as soon as possible. It's the best way to assure that the NCAAs best are actually competing at NCAAs.

[VTechVaulter]

I say the NCAA should revert back to the indoor qualifying system for outdoors as soon as possible. It's the best way to assure that the NCAAs best are actually competing at NCAAs.

i dont feel this is 100 percent true. if this is to be the case than the indoor marks need to count for outdoors. You guys out west and in texas get beautiful weather all year, while a lot of people in the east (especially northeast) dont get anything above 40 degrees until late may/ early june. Last year virginia tech was a meet in clemson (in south carolina which is one of the warmer places we get to go), and the weather never broke 35 degrees. and this is not atypical for what we have to deal with every year. I think the regional system adds a degree of excitement, but i do agree that some tweaking needs to be done to ensure the best are still there. maybe like the top 10 in the country have automatic bids to go, and then take top 5 from each region.