Good point. I was tossing around the idea of using season's bests or last year's places to flag heat assignments that are extremely unbalanced, but even those might not be good indicators, and adding anything like that to the current system would overcomplicate things. Thinking about it more, I agree that the current system of seeding by regional placement is best (like you said, it appropriately incentivizes people to run well at regionals).
However, to those saying something along the lines of "It's their own fault for not running harder at regionals", that would not have mattered.
It looks like seeding is strictly done on regional placement (not time), but someone please correct me if I am wrong. So I imagine the seeding procedure (effectively) takes the four heat winners from regionals, randomly assigns two to Heat 1 and two to Heat 2, then so on for the 2nd placers down to the time qualifiers. In this specific case, since everybody from the same region (except the final time qualifiers) ended up in the same heat by chance, the order they finished at regionals would not have changed their heat assignment.
You could argue that there should be a safeguard against the (rare) chance of the heats being so region-heavy, but nothing would truly prevent heats from being unbalanced.
I don't think it is random. I think the fastest and slowest winners of the 4 regional heats go to one semi final heat, and the other 2 go to the other semi final heat. Repeat for 2nd place finishers, etc. Since the east had the fastest and slowest regional finishers place by place they all go to the same semi heat and the west go to the other.
Ah, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. I could not find anything from the NCAA that outlines the specific seeding procedure, but looking at the men's and women's 1500 heat assignments you appear to be correct. I redact my previous statements.
This makes it tough to pick somebody with less championship experience like Cook or Sahlman. Both of them have strong arguments for being title contenders, but one tactical slip-up in the prelim and they may not even make the final.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
I don't think it is random. I think the fastest and slowest winners of the 4 regional heats go to one semi final heat, and the other 2 go to the other semi final heat. Repeat for 2nd place finishers, etc. Since the east had the fastest and slowest regional finishers place by place they all go to the same semi heat and the west go to the other.
Ah, makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. I could not find anything from the NCAA that outlines the specific seeding procedure, but looking at the men's and women's 1500 heat assignments you appear to be correct. I redact my previous statements.
This makes it tough to pick somebody with less championship experience like Cook or Sahlman. Both of them have strong arguments for being title contenders, but one tactical slip-up in the prelim and they may not even make the final.
I think the theory is they "balance" the heats by putting the fast and slow in one and the 2 remaining in the other. At one point in time I think they alternated by place so that fast and slow winners went to heat 1 and then fast and slow 2nd place finishers went to heat 2, then fast and slow 3rd place finishers back to heat 1, etc. That might make sense and I can't see how it would hurt things.
When combining the East and West together to form heats, the four heat winners are randomly allocated. This is also done for the four 2nd place finishers, 3rd place, 4th place, 5th place, then time qualifiers.
This means each heat at the final site has two randomly allocated 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and small-q.
This method of randomizing, versus the serpentine that's used to go from heat to semi at the regional meet was adopted a few years ago to stop the duplication of the same heats from round-to-round that was typically happening.
When combining the East and West together to form heats, the four heat winners are randomly allocated. This is also done for the four 2nd place finishers, 3rd place, 4th place, 5th place, then time qualifiers.
This means each heat at the final site has two randomly allocated 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and small-q.
This method of randomizing, versus the serpentine that's used to go from heat to semi at the regional meet was adopted a few years ago to stop the duplication of the same heats from round-to-round that was typically happening.
what are the odds that all the fastest and slowest Qs and also the fastest and slowest qs all go to one heat if it is random as you say?
Just blatantly clear advantage for heat 1. Imagine you basically have to run a final on day 1...
Why are people downvoting this it's kinda right lol. It's related to the point about "they'll be able to see the time from Heat 1, thats a plus"- but from an energy expenditure perspective, if they have to run faster to get 7 through, that sucks...more out of their legs for the final.
I'd rather Q from heat 1 than heat 2 no doubt, way more likely I'm fresher for the final.
When combining the East and West together to form heats, the four heat winners are randomly allocated. This is also done for the four 2nd place finishers, 3rd place, 4th place, 5th place, then time qualifiers.
This means each heat at the final site has two randomly allocated 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and small-q.
This method of randomizing, versus the serpentine that's used to go from heat to semi at the regional meet was adopted a few years ago to stop the duplication of the same heats from round-to-round that was typically happening.
Interesting, do you happen to have a link to where this is mentioned? Looking at the heat assignments this year and last year, it exactly matches what rbtrackfan described and there's a very small chance that all happened randomly.
Random allocation or alternating by place would make sense and prevent the duplication of the previous round's heats that happened here. If either of those were done before, I am curious why it was changed.
The semi-final heats are fine. Totally based on place and time from the quarter-finals.
The end
There is no controversy here. Parvej Kahn, Liam Murphy, Ethan Strand, and Anass Essayi are all VERY capable of winning the NCAA championship. Gary Martin has podium potential as well. Steven Jackson is a wild card, he looked EXTREMELY RELAXED running 3:38 at regionals.
Based on the NCAA times so far this outdoor season, heat 1 is far more stacked than heat 2.
Kahn is capable of winning the NCAA Championship. Now I've heard it all. He has zero chance, ever.
Just blatantly clear advantage for heat 1. Imagine you basically have to run a final on day 1...
Why are people downvoting this it's kinda right lol. It's related to the point about "they'll be able to see the time from Heat 1, thats a plus"- but from an energy expenditure perspective, if they have to run faster to get 7 through, that sucks...more out of their legs for the final.
I'd rather Q from heat 1 than heat 2 no doubt, way more likely I'm fresher for the final.
I can totally see thinking Heat 2 is tougher, but there’s not that much of a disparity. There are multiple podium contenders in Heat 1, too, and none of these guys are pushovers. Part of the perceived disparity could be due to two of the best guys in Heat 1 having seemed leveled up this season and flying comparatively under the radar: Liam Murphy and Ethan Strand are legit, and have been running much better than some guys in Heat 2 with more name recognition. And take Steven Jackson of BU - I don’t expect him to factor in the final, but he did just close a 3:38 in 52.17 at regionals. That’s clearly good enough to make anyone from either heat work if they want to beat him for a Q.
Especially given the typical nature of 1500 prelims, I don’t expect any of the finalists to be at a fatigue-disadvantage 48 hours later(!) based on heat draw; both heats will probably be a couple laps at near vo2 with a final 400 in the ~52 second range. There could be favorites from either heat who don’t advance, but they’ll have been eliminated fair and square.
There is no controversy here. Parvej Kahn, Liam Murphy, Ethan Strand, and Anass Essayi are all VERY capable of winning the NCAA championship. Gary Martin has podium potential as well. Steven Jackson is a wild card, he looked EXTREMELY RELAXED running 3:38 at regionals.
Based on the NCAA times so far this outdoor season, heat 1 is far more stacked than heat 2.
Kahn is capable of winning the NCAA Championship. Now I've heard it all. He has zero chance, ever.
Why not? He has the 2nd fastest 800 in the field behind Sahlman and Kahn ran his in March while Sahlman ran his time in late April. Kahn ran 3:38 in early April.
Why are people downvoting this it's kinda right lol. It's related to the point about "they'll be able to see the time from Heat 1, thats a plus"- but from an energy expenditure perspective, if they have to run faster to get 7 through, that sucks...more out of their legs for the final.
I'd rather Q from heat 1 than heat 2 no doubt, way more likely I'm fresher for the final.
I can totally see thinking Heat 2 is tougher, but there’s not that much of a disparity. There are multiple podium contenders in Heat 1, too, and none of these guys are pushovers. Part of the perceived disparity could be due to two of the best guys in Heat 1 having seemed leveled up this season and flying comparatively under the radar: Liam Murphy and Ethan Strand are legit, and have been running much better than some guys in Heat 2 with more name recognition. And take Steven Jackson of BU - I don’t expect him to factor in the final, but he did just close a 3:38 in 52.17 at regionals. That’s clearly good enough to make anyone from either heat work if they want to beat him for a Q.
Especially given the typical nature of 1500 prelims, I don’t expect any of the finalists to be at a fatigue-disadvantage 48 hours later(!) based on heat draw; both heats will probably be a couple laps at near vo2 with a final 400 in the ~52 second range. There could be favorites from either heat who don’t advance, but they’ll have been eliminated fair and square.
Steven Jackson ran 52.17 to close a 3:38 WHILE MOVING FROM LAST PLACE TO 3RD IN THE SECTION ON THE LAST LAP. He was in lane 2 the whole time, and was looking around w/ 120 meters to go to make sure he could control his energy expenditure. He definitely eased up before the line and celebrated in the last few meters. He was capable in closing in 50.00 that day if he were in lane 1 and if he sprinted the last 100m instead of slowing down.
I don't expect him to win but it was a damn impressive race, and certainly more impressive than anything the UW men have done this outdoor season so far.
When combining the East and West together to form heats, the four heat winners are randomly allocated. This is also done for the four 2nd place finishers, 3rd place, 4th place, 5th place, then time qualifiers.
This means each heat at the final site has two randomly allocated 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and small-q.
This method of randomizing, versus the serpentine that's used to go from heat to semi at the regional meet was adopted a few years ago to stop the duplication of the same heats from round-to-round that was typically happening.
That (stop the duplication) should be done in the rounds too.
1500 Meters (1) Two (2) rounds will be contested, a semi-final round and a final round. The semi-final round will consist of two (2) heats of twelve (12) competitors. Twelve (12), the top five (5) from each heat plus the next best two (2) times from the semi-final round, after tie breaking, will qualify from the semi-final round to the final round. The final round will consist of one (1) section of twelve (12) competitors. (2) Heat assignments for the semi-final round will be determined based on quarter-final round place and time performance marks in accordance with Rule 15-11.2.c.1), c.2), c.3); weigh place first and weigh time second. Heat order will be drawn by lot in the semi-final round. (3) Starting positions in the semi-final round heats will be drawn by lot in accordance with Rule 15-11.3.b.1). (4) Starting positions in the final round will be drawn by lot in accordance with Rule 15- 11.3.b.1).
Rule 15-11 starts on page 154 of the general rules
Principles of forming heats for second and subsequent rounds of competition are as follows: 1) Weigh place first� 2) Weigh time second� Note: For fully automatic timing malfunctions, see Rule 15-12.4. 3) Seed each group of place winners as a unit by their times� Seed winners, then seed second-place runners, etc� Work from left to right, and from right to left and then all qualifiers on time in descending order� 4) Draw heat order by lot�
1500 Meters (1) Two (2) rounds will be contested, a semi-final round and a final round. The semi-final round will consist of two (2) heats of twelve (12) competitors. Twelve (12), the top five (5) from each heat plus the next best two (2) times from the semi-final round, after tie breaking, will qualify from the semi-final round to the final round. The final round will consist of one (1) section of twelve (12) competitors. (2) Heat assignments for the semi-final round will be determined based on quarter-final round place and time performance marks in accordance with Rule 15-11.2.c.1), c.2), c.3); weigh place first and weigh time second. Heat order will be drawn by lot in the semi-final round. (3) Starting positions in the semi-final round heats will be drawn by lot in accordance with Rule 15-11.3.b.1). (4) Starting positions in the final round will be drawn by lot in accordance with Rule 15- 11.3.b.1).
Rule 15-11 starts on page 154 of the general rules
Principles of forming heats for second and subsequent rounds of competition are as follows: 1) Weigh place first� 2) Weigh time second� Note: For fully automatic timing malfunctions, see Rule 15-12.4. 3) Seed each group of place winners as a unit by their times� Seed winners, then seed second-place runners, etc� Work from left to right, and from right to left and then all qualifiers on time in descending order� 4) Draw heat order by lot�
The 2024 NCAA 1500-meter heats have sparked significant controversy due to their unprecedented imbalance. Analysts and athletes alike have noted a stark disparity in the distribution of top-seeded runners across the heats, leading to an uneven playing field. This year's heats have been criticized for placing multiple high-ranked athletes in one heat while others feature fewer competitive runners, raising concerns about fairness and the integrity of the competition. The uneven heats not only affect the chances of individual athletes advancing to the finals but also impact the overall excitement and competitiveness of the event. This situation underscores the importance of a more equitable seeding process to ensure a level playing field and maintain the credibility of NCAA track and field championships.
1500 Meters (1) Two (2) rounds will be contested, a semi-final round and a final round. The semi-final round will consist of two (2) heats of twelve (12) competitors. Twelve (12), the top five (5) from each heat plus the next best two (2) times from the semi-final round, after tie breaking, will qualify from the semi-final round to the final round. The final round will consist of one (1) section of twelve (12) competitors. (2) Heat assignments for the semi-final round will be determined based on quarter-final round place and time performance marks in accordance with Rule 15-11.2.c.1), c.2), c.3); weigh place first and weigh time second. Heat order will be drawn by lot in the semi-final round. (3) Starting positions in the semi-final round heats will be drawn by lot in accordance with Rule 15-11.3.b.1). (4) Starting positions in the final round will be drawn by lot in accordance with Rule 15- 11.3.b.1).
Rule 15-11 starts on page 154 of the general rules
Principles of forming heats for second and subsequent rounds of competition are as follows: 1) Weigh place first� 2) Weigh time second� Note: For fully automatic timing malfunctions, see Rule 15-12.4. 3) Seed each group of place winners as a unit by their times� Seed winners, then seed second-place runners, etc� Work from left to right, and from right to left and then all qualifiers on time in descending order� 4) Draw heat order by lot�
The 2024 NCAA 1500-meter heats have sparked significant controversy due to their unprecedented imbalance. Analysts and athletes alike have noted a stark disparity in the distribution of top-seeded runners across the heats, leading to an uneven playing field. This year's heats have been criticized for placing multiple high-ranked athletes in one heat while others feature fewer competitive runners, raising concerns about fairness and the integrity of the competition. The uneven heats not only affect the chances of individual athletes advancing to the finals but also impact the overall excitement and competitiveness of the event. This situation underscores the importance of a more equitable seeding process to ensure a level playing field and maintain the credibility of NCAA track and field championships.
That is the reaction but I am not sure how valid. Based on the season's qualifying lists, heat 2 has #1, 3, 11, 12, 13, 20, 25, 27, 33, 37, 67, 69 while heat 1 has #4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 22, 23, 34, 43, 73, 94, 128. Pretty even in # in top 10, top 20, top 30, with heat 2 getting several who had a much lower in season ranking. At some point in the season if the top guys are that much better maybe they need to show it. My complaint is the current process seems to leave open what happened which is everyone from east going to 1 heat and everyone from west going to the other. But it is the runners who choose how to run the regional heats.
The 2024 NCAA 1500-meter heats have sparked significant controversy due to their unprecedented imbalance. Analysts and athletes alike have noted a stark disparity in the distribution of top-seeded runners across the heats, leading to an uneven playing field. This year's heats have been criticized for placing multiple high-ranked athletes in one heat while others feature fewer competitive runners, raising concerns about fairness and the integrity of the competition. The uneven heats not only affect the chances of individual athletes advancing to the finals but also impact the overall excitement and competitiveness of the event. This situation underscores the importance of a more equitable seeding process to ensure a level playing field and maintain the credibility of NCAA track and field championships.
That is the reaction but I am not sure how valid. Based on the season's qualifying lists, heat 2 has #1, 3, 11, 12, 13, 20, 25, 27, 33, 37, 67, 69 while heat 1 has #4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 22, 23, 34, 43, 73, 94, 128. Pretty even in # in top 10, top 20, top 30, with heat 2 getting several who had a much lower in season ranking. At some point in the season if the top guys are that much better maybe they need to show it. My complaint is the current process seems to leave open what happened which is everyone from east going to 1 heat and everyone from west going to the other. But it is the runners who choose how to run the regional heats.
Excellent analysis. If you put all those season time rankings into a virtual race and scored it like a XC meet, Heat 2 would win by 1 point (1+2+7+8+9=27) over Heat 1 (3+4+5+6+10=28).
The 2024 NCAA 1500-meter heats have sparked significant controversy due to their unprecedented imbalance. Analysts and athletes alike have noted a stark disparity in the distribution of top-seeded runners across the heats, leading to an uneven playing field. This year's heats have been criticized for placing multiple high-ranked athletes in one heat while others feature fewer competitive runners, raising concerns about fairness and the integrity of the competition. The uneven heats not only affect the chances of individual athletes advancing to the finals but also impact the overall excitement and competitiveness of the event. This situation underscores the importance of a more equitable seeding process to ensure a level playing field and maintain the credibility of NCAA track and field championships.
This is a purely emotional, and not logical based argument. Everything that the runner has accomplished before the Regional meet does not and should not play into the seeding or selection at the National Finals. Otherwise, lets just pick the field based on what they have done during the regular racing season.
It's flawed reasoning, but not as flawed as thinking that just because someone popped a fast time at some point, they get all the considerations of seeding for the meet. The race happens on a set day, at a set point in time. In Championship racing, the results can't be 100% predicted based on previous times, that is what makes it exciting.
1st heat does look easier, but that’s a good thing because it maximizes the chances we see one of the best kickers in the final-Damian Hackett. IT’S DAME TIME!
It seemed to work out ok. For the final, Murphy, Sahlman, Cook, Strand need to get right with whoever the first WA guy is (usually Houser) and then let the fastest guy for the last 300 win. The WA guys seem to get the tactics right while too many others are not positioned good enough. No good to run fastest last lap if you start 15 m back, like Khan!