This rule was intended to address what is perceived by some to be a problem in seeding. Even if there is a significant issue in seeding (many dispute this), the new rule creates more problems than it solves. The goal of seeding should be for meet directors to use all available, relevant information to set up fair, appropriately matched sections / heats / flights.Some of the direct consequences of this rule prevent meet directors from using available, relevant information and common sense in setting up their meets and directly disadvantage student athletes:

  • Student-athletes get no credit in seeding for performances run outside of an NCAA season.
  • Student-athletes get no credit in seeding for high school performances
  • Student-athletes get no credit in seeding for indoor performancesduring the outdoor season and no credit in seeding for outdoor performances during the indoor season.
  • Student-athletes get no credit in seeding based on performances in similar events.
  • Student-athletes get no credit in seeding for performances in cross country.
  • Student-athletes cannot be “down seeded” to lower level heats or flights even if a coach and an athlete have information that would merit such “down seeding” (coming back from injury or illness, lack of fitness or preparedness, etc.).

As a pertinent example, consider Katie Rainsberger of Oregon. She is one of the fastest middle distance runners in US high school history. She is proficient from the 800m – 6000m. Her high school time of 4:12.62 in the 1500m run in June of 2016, ranks her as the second fastest ‘returner’ in the NCAA for the 2017 season. She just finished 4th at the NCAA championships in cross country as a true freshman. Yet, at every race distance she competes this indoor season she would be entered as a ‘No Mark’ and seeded below ALL entries with any kind of TFRRS mark. She would have to race early and often just to establish qualifying marks in her various race distances for later season preferred seeding into races where she will attempt to qualify for the NCAA championships. And then, even if she were to win an NCAA title at the indoor championships, she would need to start all over again outdoors, being entered as ‘No Mark’ into every race distance she contested.

The list of unintended consequences and ripple effects that would result from the implementation of this rule are even more problematic:

Student athlete welfare: Coaches and student-athletes will be highly incentivized to over-race in order to earn seed marks in future races. Many athletes are currently racing a lot with cross country, indoor and outdoor seasons that run into each other and then into summer competitions. Forcing athletes to add a significant number of competitions in the early season to accommodate seeding in later season races is exploitative and unnecessary for fair seeding practices.

Uncertainty in entries:Several meet directors have been advised by NCAA representativesthat in order to ensure that their own athletes are seeded into appropriate sections / heats / flights at their home competitions, they can selectively deny entry to any individuals or institutions that might disrupt preferred seeding.At least one meet director from an institution that hosts several competitions with very large numbers of participating institutions and individuals each year has already distributed a letteralerting all coachesfrom potentially participating institutions that no entries can be guaranteed. Entry decisions will not be made until the weeks of the competitions. Several other meet directors have indicated that if this rule is enforced they will take a similar tack. This rule also incentivizes meet directors to significantly reduce the number of heats / sections / flights at their competitions in order to ensure their “no mark” student-athletes get into a desired heat / section or flight rather than being forced into a less desirable one. This effects:

  • Sport sponsorship: It is very difficult to plan in which meets an institution will compete fourteen student-athletes if many of the meet directors and host institution cannot guarantee entries. For those without indoor tracks, especially in the West and Southwest where indoor tracks are few and far between, the potential for not being able to meet scheduling requirements under this rule is very real.
  • Title IX opportunities: Many institutions have large women’s rosters that often include young or developmental student athletes.Opportunities for these student athletes will be the first to be eliminated. If meet directors begin eliminating sections / heats/ flights, even more accomplished athletes will have their competitive opportunities reduced. It will be very difficult for any institution to maintain large rosters if student-athletes are not afforded the opportunity to compete.
  • Travel Budgets: Hotels, plane tickets, buses, etc., for track teams require significant lead time and usually require nonrefundable deposits or payment in full well in advance of travel. If entries are being selectively denied advanced planning is impossible. Travel with less lead time costs a lot more money if it is even available.
  • Development opportunities. Much like Title IX concerns, I think many opportunities for young or developmental opportunities for student-athletes of both genders will be severely curtailed.
  • Access to championships. Especially indoors there is a limited number of tracks and competitions. This is a bigger problem in some regions than others. In the past, this was alleviated by meet directors adding numerous heats in the same event to accommodate as many student athletes as possible. However, with the already developing trend to selectively deny entry and eliminate additional heats a huge disparity in access to the championships could arise.