Had Wazzu finished behind Cal Poly they would have pushed them in. Another team that peaked at Pre Nats, steals the points and then bombs. Whats the point of that?
Had Wazzu finished behind Cal Poly they would have pushed them in. Another team that peaked at Pre Nats, steals the points and then bombs. Whats the point of that?
It's deja vu all over again! I was second man on the team in 2000 that got 3rd. We BEAT 3 teams in the top 20, finished behind the 2nd & 6th ranked teams in the country, but ended up only blocking the ones behind us.
I'll say the same thing I said then. Mark gets his team ready to run their best when the true nature of our sport says it should count the most- the end of the season. There's no win-loss column in XC, thus putting more emphasis on the end races. It's amazing how mentally tough and physically ready the Poly guys are at regionals year after year.
But yea, the system has them not getting in, and thats the way it is. Not getting in doesn't take away the fact that CPXC once again rose up and ran great when you're supposed to. Mark understands the system, back in 2000 we didn't, and thats why it hurt so bad.
The tie breaker rule is lame though. May as well say it's who has the top #1 man, or best 5th man. All I know is that Poly had 7 in before ASU's 5th, thats a better TEAM no matter how you look at it.
Good luck to Joe Gatel at Nats, you always have 'em ready Mark! One more thing, how about UCSB sneaking a dude in 4th place at Regionals? Avery must have told him to run like he's a Cardinal! Avery was 6th in the region in 2000, and ran with the Cardinal every step of the way. Nice work Big West Conference...
-Boother
No one "gets screwed" anymore. If you aren't even a top 25 team, you don't belong at nationals.
Conover is a slacker :-)
northern boy wrote:
No one "gets screwed" anymore. If you aren't even a top 25 team, you don't belong at nationals.
they tied the 14th ranked team....
They didn't tie anyone... the tie was BROKEN. Cal Poly lost. And just becuase ASU had an off doesn't mean Cal Poly should get in just by coming close to beating them...
KevinM wrote:
mighty porn stache wrote:Yes, I know 6 and 7 displace runners from other teams driving up those teams' scores
In this regard, 6 and 7 runners are far more important than you're acknowledging. 6 and 7 runners displace other team's athletes in almost every XC race run, but this tie breaking procedure applies only to the regional meet, and only to situations like this, where advancement to the national meet is at stake.
Isn't this the real issue... that the tie-breaking rule is different for Regionals than other meets?
It seems that all other college meets don't use the 6 and 7 men to break ties, either. I saw a number of ties listed in various college conference meets. There was no distinction made between the teams, only #5 147 X State Univ and #5 147 XYZ Univ.
Did individuals from the West also get screwed? The last individual to get in was 15th in the best region in the country. Another Cal Poly, UCSB, and UCR runners were all top 25 in the west but still don't make it... thats tough.
mighty porn stache wrote:
When, exactly, did the 6th and 7th men become irrelevant in college xc. OK, they're not completely irrelevant... But at every other level of the sport in the US, the 6th man is the tie breaker. This 1-5 tie breaker is terrible. They've already scored the top 5. Now they're going to score them again? XC is a TEAM sport. Not just the 5, but all 7 should count. Yes, I know 6 and 7 displace runners from other teams driving up those teams' scores, but it doesn't seem right the way they have these ties and tiebreakers set up.
I too would prefer to see ties broken on the 6th runner to reward the depth of a team. The only reason I can see for tie-breaking on the 5th is that it is possible to get a team score with only 5 runners (6 and 7 may DNF for some reason). Therefore the tie-breaker needs to be set up to consider a situation without a 6 or 7 runner.
herrrro wrote:
They didn't tie anyone... the tie was BROKEN. Cal Poly lost. And just becuase ASU had an off doesn't mean Cal Poly should get in just by coming close to beating them...
are you suggesting the difference between 14th place and breaking the top 25 teams is a tie breaker rule?
omg idk wrote:
Cal Poly did know the system, but a system that forces you to peak for pre-nats doesn't seem quite right. You should not have to hold a peak for that long. Knowing the rules doesn't make it suck any less for a team that ran their heart out a regionals, which is the most important race of the year (Or at least should be) minus nationals.
If you are really a top 20 team do you really have to peak for pre-nats to go and beat just one team from a shitty region who is going to qualify automatically? Did Cal Poly have any points at all?
Cal Poly was REALLY unlucky.
They still tied for that position; the tie breaker applies to the implication of who goes to Nationals. In soccer, a 1-1, shoot-out is actually listed as a tie, but with the winner in the shoot-out getting the right to advance (see Wisconsin's first-round playoff game in soccer this last weekend).
I think that this is the way to break the deadlock - what happens between the two teams, without the direct influence of the other runners (who become irrelevant in the calculus). I think you always get the same result as a five man a side race scored in standard point form.
26mi235 wrote:
I think that this is the way to break the deadlock - what happens between the two teams, without the direct influence of the other runners (who become irrelevant in the calculus). I think you always get the same result as a five man a side race scored in standard point form.
If you took out every other runner in the race besides Cal Poly and ASU runners, the results would be like this:
_________Team__1___2___3___4___5____6___7_
Cal Poly : __28 ___2___3___6___8___9____10__11
___ASU: __29 ___1___4___5___7___12___13__14
I think this shows the team that performed better on the given day, since it is like a dual meet between the two, and the displacers for Cal Poly actually come into effect. Therefore I think the head to head tiebreaker is bogus.
And if you just score five you get
Jefe wrote:
26mi235 wrote:I think that this is the way to break the deadlock - what happens between the two teams, without the direct influence of the other runners (who become irrelevant in the calculus). I think you always get the same result as a five man a side race scored in standard point form.
If you took out every other runner in the race besides the top five Cal Poly and ASU runners, the results would be like this:
_________Team__1___2___3___4___5
Cal Poly : ___28 ___2___3___6___8___9
___ASU: ___27 ___1___4___5___7___10
Who the hell is Mark Conover?
THAT guy wrote:
Who the hell is Mark Conover?
Amen brother! And nice work to whomever scored the two teams as a dual meet. Shows they also put 7 in before ASU's 5. Either way you look at, in true cross country sense, Poly was better then ASU that day. Now before you jerks on the boards go crazy, I know that Poly didn't do the work needed in the regular season to get the at large bid.
But based on regionals, and rational thought- you can't say Poly doesn't deserve to go. Once again, the perils of such a pure sport put into the NCAA context. When a country kicks ass at XC Worlds, that's all you care about...
-Boother