waiting for nike shills wrote:
So a team gets an at large bid due to their number one runner not competing but they would likely have made it if he ran. Would be pissed if I was the virginia coach a few years ago whose team was 3rd without McGorty who was apparently healthy and would have raced in the finals (Woodlands kid is not healthy based on Footlocker results)
Any chance it has to do with who runs the Nike South Region meet?
Why don't you think it has something to do with what else they have done this year? Maybe the committee thought their race at regionals was good enough, even without their missing runner, to warrant an invite? Or that their season's results even discounting any contribution their missing runner made was good enough to get in?
Keep in mind, they absolutely THRASHED the other two South qualifiers at the state meet, and would have done so whether their #1 runner was there or not. They had three guys ahead of SLC's #2 at State, and their #5 finished one place behind SLC's #3 with Woodland's #6 only 2 more spots back. They beat SLC by 72 points, and CP by 190! Without their #1, they win by 53 over SLC and are still 171 ahead of CP; Without both their #1 and #2 they STILL win the Texas 6A State title, 33 points ahead of SLC and 151 ahead of CP.
Same story vs. CP at their State Regional: they beat them by 35 as it was, but it would have been by 17 without their #1 and even missing their #2 they would have been close, only losing by 4.
Same story vs. CP at their District meet: they beat them by 21, and would have won by 5 without their #1.
At Nike South, they would have won without Hunsdale; although if they didn't have their #1 finisher on that day (Noah Wells) they would have ONLY won on a tie breaker over CP.
Aside from their race at NXN South, they wouldn't have lost a meet this season even if they held out their #1 from every race.
Also, although I don't know if the committee looks at things like this, but their annual time trial showed they are a pretty good team: 9:00.4, 9:04.1, 9:13.5, 9:23.3, 9:41.2, (9:42.0), (9:42.4) ... Hunsdale ran the 9:04.1. Was Chantilly that fast?
For comparison, Chantilly's track times from later that winter/spring:
(Sean McGorty 8:45.61y, 4:04.47y, 1:53.00)
Logan Miller 9:29.03, 4:16.01
Faris Sakallah 9:29.19, 4:27.32, 2:05.02
Adam Huff 9:40.94, 4:34.85, 2:02.01
Ryan McGorty 9:31.60, 4:28.84, 2:04.10
Joshua Parshall 9:45.06, 4:29.50, 2:01.74
Here is, side-by-side, The Woodlands' 3200m Time Trial marks vs. Chantilly's track PRs from later that year:
8:45.61y, 9:29.03, 9:29.19, 9:31.60, 9:40.94, (9:45.06)
9:00.4h, 9:04.1h, 9:13.5h, 9:23.3h, 9:41.2h, (9:42.4h)
Or, XC times (though course difficulty may vary, but all 4 courses are 5k)
Chantilly vs. The Woodlands, State/NXR
14:47/(DNS) vs. 14:57.7/(DNS)
15:36/15:19.7 vs. 15:11.4/15:48.2
16:05/15:36.9 vs. 15:15.5/15:33.2
16:13/15:58.8 vs. 15:35.1/16:06.1
16:15/15:54.7 vs. 15:51.9/16:53.4
(DNS)/16:17.1 vs. 15:54.0/16:37.5
16:42/(DNS) vs. 15:55.9/16:42.8
16:54/(DNS) vs. (DNS either race)
Chantilly didn't have a race like that to point to a couple of years ago, let alone a season-long history of races against another AQ team that also wouldn't have changed the results without McGorty included. They also didn't look as fast as The Woodlands, whether looking at 3200m times or XC, and still didn't even after track that following spring vs. one time trial.
In short, The Woodlands seems like a completely separate situation from Chantilly: The Woodlands was a better team throughout the year, specifically at the state meet.