At-Large Appeal

Notre Dame has not done anything impressive this year. They dont deserve to go. They finished 8th in their region. Boo hoo.

sorry, but i hope your appeal fails (and i know it will). they made the decision and it's over, there's no reasoning to critique. like you, i don't see the point: you guys won't get a trophy, everyone who would have gotten all-america (most likely) qualified otherwise. it just sets a bad precedent and will simply clutter the field with more athletes who didn't do enough to ensure they got there.

...or it will help reform the system to make it a little better or go to a strictly head-to-head competition for advancing to the final, or the next round (ie super region).

While I don't think the appeal will succeed (and I'm with chuck D, it shouldn't), your post makes for interesting reading and continues to point out that no system is perfect. For every tweak to the rules, ther are unintended new scenarios that come up.

Super Regionals will only perpetuate crappy teams making the NCAA meet. We don't need that. I think the current system could be helped by adding more auto qualifiers in regions that deserve them (based on previous years results). A while back, didn't some regions have 2 and some 3 auto qualifiers? Why don't we look into that? Then there are less at-large bids and it will become more obvious who deserves to be in and who doesn't.

How so? Take the top 10 teams each from the Great Lakes, Midwest and South Central regions as an example. They form a super region where the top 10 go on to nationals. The majority of the teams going onto nationals will be from the GL.

another race is something we don't need. the whole region crap in track is stupid and making athletes race another mandatory 10K in November is just stupid. every system has it's flaws; the super region system will have its flaws,too. it may partially solve this problem but it will open up many new problems. make the "blocker" rule clearer and leave it at that.

But there already is "another" race, it is called pre-nationals, the regions would take the place of this race (same weekend). Then super regions would be held on the traditional regional weekend.

so you are saying go region - conference - super region? interesting idea.

butler didn't go to any meets, ND had a tough break at regionals. those are the facts and they get left at home. next time, remember that every point counts. it is doubtful that the appeal will work but useful since the committee doesn't fully understand the rules themselves.

Yes, that was the idea, but that was shot down last spring at one of the meetings at the NCAA track meet.

The Region Championships will take place the same weekend as the Pre-NCAA's are currently run. Since everyone, sans two or three schools in the country, runs that weekend, it is not adding any additional meets at all.

There is no way you can successfully argue that a Super Regional is going to still allow weak teams into the NCAA's. I think that it is something like three regions with top-9 automatically making it and three at-large. Since you have a much larger pool of teams to draw from, in terms of wins for the at-large, it will be a much more fair way of determining the participating teams.

Teams from regions that are traditionally weak are against it because they have a clear shot to nationals. In addition, schools that traditionally have incredibly good teams (and would theoretically make it to the meet most years) are also against it. The teams that are for it are the teams in tough, balanced, regions.

The coaches voted to go to the Super Region. It is a few, select coaches that do the best politicing that have stalled or eliminated it from consideration.

Kevin, thanks for the additional info. Head to head competition, and knowing what you have to do. I know that it may seem I am somewhat on the fence about this is, but...

does this not add a budgetary burden to schools hoping to qualify? for example, this year the midwest region was held in Oklahoma. this is quite a hike for Minnesota schools and the low attendance at the Midwest region this year attests to distance being at least a factor. if i were in minnesota i would prefer to stay at home, collect some points at roy griak and save the money for later (maybe for a meet at the NCAA course for that year, another reason many schools attend the Pre-NCAA meet) instead of having to travel a lengthy distance to a meet in order to qualify. having some sort of qualifying meet in early October seems strange as it rewards teams who peak early instead of in mid November. i can see why some teams fought against it: it favors large budget teams and high talent teams.

Kevin,

Yes, Super Regionals will let weaker teams in. Look at the SE, MA and NE regions this year. That is a proposed Super Region with the coaches wanting 10 autos from each Super Region.

NE: Iona, Providence

MA: Villanova, Georgetown

SE: NC State, Kentucky, W&M, Virginia

They are only sending 8 teams to the NCAA's this year and people are questioning that. UVA only ran great at Great American but earned enough points to qualify and push W&M in. The Super Regional proposal would now send two additional teams from these three regions. You find two more teams from these three regions that deserve to go. With Super Regionals two more would advance and take away spots from other schools.

So, yes it will send weaker teams!!!!

Also, to put the Mountain, West and South Central Regions together is nonsense. Last year, that Super Region would have placed 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 at NCAAs. That is not fair. The year before in 2001, they would have placed 1,2,3,4,7. Usually when you have Super Regionals you don't put 5 of the top 7 teams in the nation in the same place. This is the straight truth. Sorry Kevin. The Super Regionals were proposed by the Coaches Board President, Jim Stintzi so that the Great Lakes would be in with the South (which sucks) and the Midwest (which sucks) therefore his teams could qualify easily.

The other teams against it:

Teams that by virtue of travel budget, geographical positioning, and confernece membership having many more opportunities to amass at large points. Plug in a LOT of the players here.

Super strong teams who like the status quo. There are a few teams that roll along year in and year out - Stanford, Arkansas, Wisconsin, Colorado - who don't really give a hoot about changing as the current system works just fine for them, thank you.

Super regionals is a super idea, but I'm afraid it's dead for now.

There is also talk of seeding the Super Regions so that is not all entirely true. In addition, the dynamics of a Super Region are such that you cannot say, definitively, that the top-2 teams from each of the current regions would or would not qualify. There are other teams that are solid that would do a great job at the NCAA's such as Columbia and Brown.

You are also talking about one year. This is something that takes into account a number of years and what happens traditionally, not just in 2003.

There are certainly other ways of dividing the Super Regions (such as conference affiliation as opposed to State, etc. So, in general, a Super Region (should the regions be divided in a fair way (taking into account a number of years and not just a year-to-year knee jerk), you will eliminate the weaker teams.

Also, why would the Great Lakes NOT be in favor or pairing with wekaer regions since it is the deepest region in the country? And, in addition, we are talking about men and women, not just men which is what everyone likes to talk about on this board.

And, if you are going to try and argue a valid point, maybe your name instead of being annonymous would lend a little more credibility to your arguement.

Sprry for the typos by the way...there are more important things to be doing than cruising this website so no time to proof.

Butler...what happened to dunn??? did he get injured, or quit cause of the unethical recruitment of runners your coach pulled this past season?

The system is better than it use to be and certainly good enough. There used to be three at-large teams taken across the entire country. This was the case until the late 90's. Fourth place in any region all but guaranteed you would not be running at NCAA's. Oregon was ranked 3rd nationally in '92 and finished fourth in the region and did not qualify.

As Bill Dellinger once said, "Unless you're in the top two teams in your region you probably shouldn't be running in the NCAA meet." It's a championship meet, not an invitational or all-comers meet.

Arguing whether Washingtion, Notre Dame, etc. should be in the NCAA meet is a joke. THESE ARE AVERAGE TEAMS AT BEST AND, ON A GOOD DAY, WILL FINISH AROUND 15TH... THAT'S NOT VERY GOOD.

hi skoolr