Qualifying for Nationals: Complete Compilation of Potential At-Large Points Prior to Regionals

Final thoughts...

6 from the Great Lakes...doesn't seem right.

Portland played it smart not giving up any cheap wins to teams.

Florida = Unlucky

UCLA = REALLY UNLUCKY

First of all, this is really good work and a lot of great thought has gone into it. Thanks for putting it out here for the rest of us to enjoy.

I'd like to pick up on the UCLA comment for a moment and make the point that this is based on the current regional rankings. And that's a great place for you to start with your trial run for the NCAAs. However, in my opinion, the latest West rankings on the men's side don't reflect reality. It's true that UCLA (106 points) just lost out to both Cal (104 points) and UW (also 104 points) in the Pac10 meet. Both Cal and UW ran well as teams and mostly everyone performed up to their expected level (maybe Harding on UW could have placed a little higher). That story was mostly true for the Bruins, too, aside from front-runner Laef Barnes who placed about 20 to 30 places below where he was expected. Put him back into the mix even 10 spots below where he normally runs and UCLA is at least 20 points ahead of Cal and UW in 3rd place. There's no guarantee for anyone's performance on any given day, but the Pac10 meet was an aberration for UCLA as compared to the rest of the season.

And how Cal Poly jumped in front of UCLA is beyond my understanding as well. They were well below UCLA at the Bill Dellinger Invite, below them at Pre-Nats, and have not faced them since. Sure, Cal Poly has a history of peaking at Nationals, but nothing yet this year says they should have leapfrogged UCLA at this point.

Does Marc Conover submit the West Region rankings for this poll? :-)

Yeah obviously the regional rankings will not be how nationals play out, and I think UCLA will probably finish in the top 4 in the region. I agree that 3 points at Pac-10 was no good reason to suddenly rank UCLA so low in the region, but then again who cares about the rankings.

The west is going to be very interesting though. It appears that for Oregon, Stanford, Cal, Cal Poly, and UCLA all they need is a top 6 finish and they're pretty much guaranteed to qualify. That's it. For Washington, they probably need at least a top 5 finish, although there are scenarios where 6th place gets them in (or 7th place, for that matter). If Portland finished 6th they would probably be one of the last teams in, as long as they finished ahead of Washington.

In the end I think the West will probably get 6 teams. They could very well get 7, or, with a really strange configuration, 8. It's probably impossible for the West to get any less than 5 teams into nationals, so I think UCLA should be fine.

Now that I think about it, if Washington were 5th, Portland 6th, and UCLA 7th then the west MIGHT only get 4 teams in. Tough to call. Maybe I'm boring you at this point.

So what are the bubble teams? Looking at your list it appears that there are a lot of teams that are almost definitely in, and there are a lot of teams that don't have much of a chance besides an automatic berth. But what are the teams that are right on the cusp?

what happens in the south if

It goes Alabama Auburn Florida Florida state?

or Alabama FSU Auburn Florida

West rankings I read are:

1. Oregon

2. Stanford

3. Portland

4. UCLA

5. Cal

6. Cal Poly

7. Washington

8. Washington State

etc.

You can view them at

www.ustfccca.org

southquestion wrote:

what happens in the south if

It goes Alabama Auburn Florida Florida state?

or Alabama FSU Auburn Florida

In your first situation, Florida State has a huge bounty of at-large points, so they would definitely get in and they would push Florida through in the process, giving the south 4 berths.

In your second situation, Auburn would have plenty of points to be an at-large berth, but Florida likely would not. They would have to wait it out, and they would in all likelihood not make it unless UTEP or Cornell scored an upset and gave them another at-large point. So in that situation, chances are the south would get 3 berths.

which witch wrote:

So what are the bubble teams? Looking at your list it appears that there are a lot of teams that are almost definitely in, and there are a lot of teams that don't have much of a chance besides an automatic berth. But what are the teams that are right on the cusp?

This is a good question without a good answer.

In my opinion the true bubble teams are Washington, Butler, and Penn St/Villanova. There are a lot of teams like UTEP, Syracuse, or Florida as mentioned above who are facing a more black and white situation: chances are, they either beat a team in their region with a good at-large cache, or they stay home.

Teams like Washington, however, face a much more ambiguous situation, because if they finish where they are likely to finish in the region their situation is still unclear; they are at the mercy of the system. For Washington, a 6th or 7th place finish in the West means they would be fighting for one of the last spots, and they will have to hope that Florida, UTEP, or Cornell scores an upset and gives them another point. For Butler you have to remember that they beat Princeton at Notre Dame, which I didn't include on my list. So if Butler was 5th at the Great Lakes and Princeton got an auto spot, they would have a great chance. If Princeton gets third or worse in the Mid-Atlantic, then Butler looks very vulnerable for an at-large. As for Penn St. and Villanova, whoever finishes 3rd in the Mid-Atlantic will likely be one of the first teams left out, although there are a number of ways they could still slip in at the end. Like Butler they would have to wait and hope that a Florida or a Southern Illinois doesn't sneak up and steal one of the open spots.

What about on the womens side?

slip n slide wrote:

What about on the womens side?

Yeah, I'm really sorry but I don't think I'll be able to get a list together for the women. I just don't follow the women's side nearly as closely as the men's, which makes a list of likely points a much longer and more challenging task. It would probably be full of errors anyway, making it more misleading than anything. Maybe somebody else will get that together.

I'll take a look at the women's side tonight when I get home from work.

Look for results at some point after 8pm eastern time.

LetsRunOurMouths wrote:

Tough to call. Maybe I'm boring you at this point.

Yes (tough to call) and No (not boring).

This is all very interesting stuff to follow, particularly if you've seen some of the teams up close and can better appreciate just how tough it is to predict race results.

And you're right...regional rankings are not worth the electrons they're arranged with...or something like that anyway. They're still fun and probably a source of inspiration for some teams, though. And some poor coach has to invest the extra time each week for the benefit of all the rest of us.

And after so many months of trying to handicap the presidential race, it's nice to be able to employ a similar effort on something that's much more enjoyable.

Keep up the good work.

why did virginia not get included in this weeks nationals polls?

Ok here is my take on the women's side. I don't follow it to closely either, and I really don't know what meets all the teams ran their top runners. So this is my breakdown done quickly (35 minutes) using what results I thought would matter and the new regional rankings. If there are any corrections let me know.

Autos

Wisconsin

Michigan State

Texas Tech

New Mexico

Washington

Oregon

Minnesota

Illinois

Princeton

Villanova

Wake Forest

Duke

Stony Brook

Providence

Arkansas

Baylor

FSU

Florida

At-Large

1. Michigan 6

2. West Virginia 4

3. SMU 3

4. Rice 4

5. Georgetown 2

6. Penn State 3

7. Stanford 2

8. Arizona State 4

9. Iowa 2

10. Boston College 2

11. Providence 2

12. Miami (OH) pushed in

13. Notre Dame 1

Notre Dame pushed in Miami (OH) in the 2nd to last and last spots over UNC pushing Virginia in.

Again I'm not really confident with this, but some insight for anyone interested.

Thanks for your work on this!

Thanks for doing the women. The Pac-10 only gets 4 despite dominating at the top. The Big Ten could get 7 - not so dominant but pretty deep.

Last year, the states on the Atlantic (and not on the Gulf), got a lot of teams in and almost all of them 'under-preformed' and they dominated the last ten finishing positions at Nationals. This year there are ten such teams and I am guessing that they will do better. However, if they do not, then the Regional system might need some tweaking, as deserving schools are being left out.

Finally, on a completely irrelevant note, aside from Texas out of the 2008 Red States only two teams make it - Arkansas and West Virginia.

In past the South Central region has been ridiculed for under performing women. This year 4 teams will get out. Is it possible that Texas could get bumped in if they beat Rice or SMU? Texas women quietly got 4th at Big 12.

Women at large qualifier estimate:

You have Providence in twice, once as automatic and once as at large. My at large guesses are as follows:

1 GL3 Michigan 8 StonBr,Fla,Ill,Nmex,TexTech,Ill,Bay,StonBr

2 SC4 Rice 5

Prov,Ill,TexasTech,NMex,New Mex

3 SC3 SMU 5

TexasTech,ILL,NMex,Prov,Rice

4 WE4 Arizona State 4

StoneyBr,Bay, NMex,Duke

5 MA3 West Virginia 3

StoneyBr,Bay,ArizSt

6 MA4 Georgetown 3

StoneyBr,Bay,ArizSt

7 WE3 3. Stanford 3

Rice,NewM,ArizSt

8 MW3 3. Iowa 3

NewM,Prov,PennSt

9 MA5 5. Penn State 3

WakeF,Duke,WakeF

10 NE3 3. Boston College2

WakeF,Duke

11 GL4 4. Miami (OH) 0

(PUSH)

12 GL5 5. Notre Dame 2

TexTech,BostCol

13 MW4 4. Nebraska 1 NotreDame

I’m not sure Miami Oh will beat Notre Dame or Indiana at the Great Lakes Regional so they might not be end up a push team.

As someone who has actually been part of the selection process in the past I think the people on here have done good work. The real problem is when regional results don't reflect regional rankings, which starts a cascade effect. The real hard part of the process is when you start to get teams that are tied with number of wins, have no head to head competition, and their wins against common opponents is something like 3-2 for one team and 4-3 for the other. A decision has to be made which one is better? Then weight can be given for results closer to the regionals (versus early season). The true complication is when you go down through the selection process and everything for teams is tied. Many years ago two teams were tied on everything and the last criteria is having a good front-runner. The teams were tied in that category also. A real subjective decision had to be made for the last at-large team. That is not an easy process. There would seem to be a better qualifying model that could be implemented. Perhaps its time for the sport of cross country to look at some type of re-vamping like the track side is undergoing. Anyway, keep up the great analysis, it is enjoyable to read and hope for all our favorite teams.