The Decline of the Dual Meet

By Bryan Green

I had to choose between two track meets last weekend, Payton Jordan or the UCLA-USC dual meet.  There was a lot I wanted to see at Payton Jordan.  I knewChris Derrick andGerman Fernandez would go for the 5000m AJR (Derrick got it, by holding off Fernandez to run 13:29.98).  I knew thatJenny Barringer would go for the CR for 5000m (she got it, 15:07.64) and that the 10k promised to be as fast as the Brutus Hamilton Invitational, which I had the pleasure to watch in person (Tim Nelson ran 27:36.99, making him the 11th fastest American all-time).  Even better, I live right around the corner from Stanford.  In contrast, UCLA's team was looking a bit wishy-washy and it was a six hour drive to get down to LA.

I chose to go to the dual meet.  It wasn't much of a choice, really, because the UCLA-USC dual meet is my favorite meet of the year, and the weekend has become a de facto reunion.  We run an Alumni 2400 meter race, won this year by Christian Cushing-Murray , an Olympic Trials qualifier at 1500m...in 1992!  (I finished 8th.)  We swap stories about training camps and track meets and in my buddy Reggie's case, the most ridiculous graduation night story ever.  Then we cheer for the Bruins as they battle the Trojans in "The Most Storied Dual Meet in the Country". 

I knew I would miss some amazing performances at Stanford, but that's the thing about time trials: with sites like RunnerSpace and Flotrack covering them, you can get it all by watching the videos.  Not so for the dual meet.  You really have to be there.  No video can capture how much it meant to the crowd that USC's Derek Scott took 2nd in the pole vault (UCLA had 7 of the top 8 performances), or that Judith Onyepenuka took 3rd to give USC the sweep in the 200m.  It was tough to see USC fans celebrating their first ever sweep of the meet, but I wouldn't have missed it.  Win or lose, it is track and field as it was meant to be contested.

Sadly, aside from a few notable exceptions, the dual meet in general is in decline.  Despite being what Bob Larsen, the former head coach at UCLA and current coach ofMeb Keflezighi, calls "the heart and soul of track and field," emphasis has changed from developing well-rounded squads with top athletes in every event to focusing on specific areas (distance, jumps, etc.) in hopes of scoring enough points to steal the conference, region, or national title.  With complete "teams" unnecessary, the meets that showcase them have also become less relevant.

The Four Types of Meets

There are essentially four types of track and field meets: dual meets, championships, invitationals, and relays.  Of those four, only dual meets are truly about the teams.  

Invitationals:  Invitationals are purely about individuals.  They are about athletes running fast, throwing far, and jumping high.  A great invitational--like Payton Jordan--is like competing in a world governed by a different physics, an athletics Neverland.  Steps are springier, weights feel lighter, air is easier to breathe, and your second wind often gives way to a third. 

But it's not pixie dust in the air that makes invitationals so great.  It's that there's no failure.  The only pressure an athlete need feel at an invitational is self-imposed.  Athletes are divided into heats or flights based on their relative ability, stress and strategy are removed from the environment, and athletes can just let loose.  This is what really sets an invitational apart and why so many athletes perform so ably.  The conditions are set up to be artificially cooperative, and place takes a backseat to marks for all but the most competitive.  The hallmark of an invitational is a 15th place finisher in an event who is positively beaming after his performance.

Relays and Championships:  These are deceptive.  They are often talked about as if they are about teams, but they are not.  Relays look like they are about teams because the races involve groups running together, but they are really about teamwork, which is different.  Relays are about having everyone show up on the same day, about the challenge of ordering your athletes correctly, and about doing something magical that you couldn't have done on your own.  There is pressure to perform, because you can certainly cost your relay team if you run poorly.  But on an event to event basis, there's no connection.  Relay teams are simply proxies for individuals.  As such, the hallmark of Relays are athletes on losing teams going home happy because they ran fast splits. 

Team championships are elite individual competitions masquerading as team competitions.  Unlike invitationals, which tend toward being inclusive of different ability levels, championships are the ultimate in exclusivity.  Only the best of the best qualify.  The best of the best then compete for individual titles, with team points a factor for the few teams with a shot at winning the title.  As a result, the meet may be scored by teams, and they may award trophies and titles to teams, but championships are primarily about putting the elites in one place at one time to see who's the best.  The hallmark of a championship is a squad with 5-10 uber-studs who compete in one or two areas and dominate (aka Tennessee winning an NCAA indoor title primarily with middle-distance points). 

Dual Meets:  Dual meets are different.  They really are about a team, in the broadest sense of the word.  You don't have just 5-10 uber-studs, but 50 athletes ranging from elite to overwhelmed.  Elites end up scoring most of the points, but if the two teams are evenly matched, a dual meet can't be won by elites alone.  It also can't be won by dominating any one area.  Teams need to find a way to get their second- and third-tier runners to perform, and they need these performances to come from across the board.  As such, the hallmark of a dual meet is a team with competitors in every event, with stars and scrubs alike actively following every performance at the meet. 

Decline of the Dual Meet

Unfortunately, our current approach to track and field has marginalized the dual meet at the expense of the invitationals and relays.  Championships are not awarded to the most well-rounded team, but rather to the most top-heavy.  It's interesting to note that with one athlete you can potentially win an NCAA championship, but you could never win a good dual meet. 

I don't fault teams for sacrificing well-roundedness to try to win national titles.  Winning is the whole point, after all, and that's the way the game is played these days.  I just find it interesting that unlike other sports, we allow our NCAA championship to be settled by the equivalent of an all-star game.  We take our best athletes from each event and let them compete.  If enough of them happen to come from one team, that team gets in the running for a team title.  (But hey, at least it's not settled by a computer, right football fans?)

If this were football, it would be the equivalent of having separate competitions for throwing for distance, throwing for accuracy, running up the middle, running wide, receiving across the middle, receiving long bombs, run-blocking, pass-blocking, punting, field goal kicking, punt-returning, kick-returning, tackling, pass-rushing and intercepting the ball.  Then we'd tally up the points each individual scored and declare one team the NCAA football champion.  You could win without even having a defense.  Of course we'd never do that with football.  (Thank goodness.)  But that's what we do with track and field.

And because championships are all about the all-stars, the types of meets that teams choose to attend have changed as well.  I looked up a bunch of top squads, and besides the Pac-10 schools and Michigan-Ohio State, I didn't find any dual meets on teams' schedules (though I'm sure I missed a few).  Everyone is attending relays and invitationals.  Teams no longer compete as teams against other teams.

I find that kind of sad, because in my experience at UCLA, the dual meet was what made the team so close.  It gave everyone, from star to scrub, an incentive to know and appreciate their teammates, as there could be no dual meet victory without all of them.  I'm so glad I had the opportunity to compete in this meet years ago.  I'm glad to see that the UCLA-USC dual meet remains a source of pride to the coaches, athletes and fans.  And I'm glad the coaches are committed to the philosophy of the dual meet in their squads, and the corresponding need to recruit a well-rounded squad, with quality depth and breadth.

After all, track and field is a team sport.  There's still something to be said for competing that way.

Bryan ran cross country and track and field for UCLA, as well for Japanese ekiden teams while living in Japan. He now pretends to be a runner (mostly on weekends) and a writer (mostly after running). Check out his popular running blog Optimal Training and his distance running lenses at Buraian's Lensography. He welcomes your feedback via comment or email at buraian@lifeofburaian.com