Which team got screwed the most?

they were pretty close to butler at the conference meet, and butler made some highly rated teams look foolish at the gl regional. Don't underestimate the RAMBLERS!

Princeton didn't have the point that Tennessee had. I don't think it got down to that criteria. And also, the Mid-Atlantic is far far weaker than the south region so the 5th and 6th place finishes are somewhat skewed.

Tennessee had a faster team average time at PreNats than Princeton. While that doesn't meet that UT is necessarily better than Princeton since they didn't run in the same race, it's probably the only thing someone can look at when comparing the two teams

The comment that got passed over too quickly was that the NCAA is weighted toward teams not individuals, as it should be.

I disagree.

The system therefor discourages parity because a runner has to go to a top-ranked team to insure a trip to the finals. A good runner is discouraged from going to an unranked team in hopes of improving it.

The rich (talent-wise) get richer.

runnerguy wrote:

Princeton didn't have the point that Tennessee had. I don't think it got down to that criteria. And also, the Mid-Atlantic is far far weaker than the south region so the 5th and 6th place finishes are somewhat skewed.

Princeton had a point from beating ASU so it did go to individuals

It's an extra-curricular activity, and a non-revenue one at that. The rich do get richer, but that would happen regardless. It should be remembered that, since collegiate cross is a team sport in essence, individually qualifying for cross nationals is a consolation, not something to be strived for. Choosing one school over another based on chances for post-season cross country advancement is not something to be encouraged, it goes against the mission of the NCAA and of higher education.

If you took the time to check the break down of the at-large teams you would see that Providence women will have no problem getting a bid.Their schedule has not hurt them in the past[17 years in a row at NCAA's]and will not this year.No great individual should be looking at the qualification of other teams to get herself into the meet.

I think the Wichita State University women deserved to get in.

Clearly the University of Washington women got screwed the worst by the NCAA selection process. With #1 Stanford (ranked #2 overall) and #2 AZ State (ranked #5 overall), one would think that the West regional #3 team should be considered a serious contender at Nationals. But no! They seem to think that there are six teams in the Southeast and another six teams in the Great Lakes that are better than the #3 team in the West. What a joke!

Their point system sucks. Further, there appears to be a clear bias with just the pure number of regions in the Eastern half of the country. Is that fair?

I here ya. There are more regions in the eastern half because there are many more schools in the easter half of the country.Although they may not have earned a seasonal bid, the Oregon men sure did step up in the West race.

Johnny T wrote:

Clearly the University of Washington women got screwed the worst by the NCAA selection process. With #1 Stanford (ranked #2 overall) and #2 AZ State (ranked #5 overall), one would think that the West regional #3 team should be considered a serious contender at Nationals. But no! They seem to think that there are six teams in the Southeast and another six teams in the Great Lakes that are better than the #3 team in the West. What a joke!

Their point system sucks. Further, there appears to be a clear bias with just the pure number of regions in the Eastern half of the country. Is that fair?

Definitely! Washington AND Oregon got screwed BIG TIME!!!!!!!!!! They finished 3rd and 4th to two teams ranked in the top 5 Nationally, and they themselves were ranked! There seems to be a major bias going on here (pro-East????)-- lots of teams overlooked completely. Even looking at the Pre-Nationals, Oregon finished 8th (13 points behind auto-qualifier Princeton, while beating Michigan State) and Washington finished 10th, with both teams beating Marquette and William & Mary. Oregon and Washington had team-time averages of 21:38 and 21:42, which were faster than several teams from the other race who made it to the big dance (Georgia, Villanova, Wisconsin, and Georgetown). Who woulda thought 5th and 6th place teams (William & Mary, North Carolina, Michigan State, Marquette) would get in but not legitimately ranked 3rd and 4th place teams! Shocking!

Last year, eric logsdon, who was a two time returning all american didn't get into nationals. He ran fairly well at the west regional meet, (finishing ninth), but missed out on an at large bid due to some tie breaker that I don't understand. That just wasn't right. having said that, there will always with whatever system be problems and the one we have while being extremely convoluted is pretty fair. There is no subjectivity and thus there can be no "bias" involved as has been suggested. There are specific quantitative rules and they are followed exactly. It really is a pretty good system, but not one without flaws.

Go read the other thread about the At-Large process. ASU didn't beat anyone all year and ONLY got in because they were pushed by Washington so they had no points to offer up. Therefore, Princeton didn't have any points to work with, although they are a good team and should have been considered for the last spot very seriously...

oh i thought the tie-breaker was based on prenats performance, shows how much i know

Oregon and Washington did not get screwed. They screwed themselves. Everyone and their mother knows that you have to get to at least two out of region meets per year in order to assure you get in to the nationals. Washington and Oregon sat on their ass all year except Pre-Nats. And don't give me a bullshit story about not having the money.

Look at the at-large teams that got in and the meets they attended.

Oregon and Washington did not get in because they did not beat anyone. Plain and simple. Those coaches are idiots for not playing the game as it is laid out for everyone.

It still amazes me how most seem to go along with this convoluted system of qualifying for nationals. It was funny when 9 districts were drawn up (disbelief), but it isn't funny anymore as only "distance nuts" can figure out how a team qualifies to nationals after automatic qualifiers. Is it a wonder no one outside of this small group of distance runners cares? Solution? Go to four regions, just like outdoor so there is no confusion over regional makeup. Select top 7 from each of the four regions and then select final 4 teams on at large basis. Qualifying to Regionals is based on conference performance (top 4 teams from each conference and season record for total of 32 teams per region). This makes it much easier to follow, gives teams a chance to build for end of the season, instead of having to peak for pre-nationals, and lets regular folk understand cross country qualifying to nationals. Why make it so complicated and why not question what is being done now?

If we did that, the East would completely get screwed because it is far better at cross country than the West and MidWest, just like track.

The system is the system. Who gives a shit if the avergae dumbass doesn't understand how the game is played. The coaches know it and can either play the game or not play the game.

Same with football and the BCS. Those schedules are made up years in advance. Some years you will have a strong enough schedule to play for the BCS, some years not. It is the luck of the draw.

No system is perfect but this is the system we have and the coaches know way ahead of time what to do.

Oregon and Washington f***ed themselves by not leaving their region more than once. Look at all the other atlarges and you will see that they travelled to these bigger meets and got it done.

I like this idea, very sensible!!!

How about Michigan Women??? Didn't they win their regional and not even get listed as a qualifier? That is disrespectful.