NXN at large bids

This is dyestats top 40 boys/girls for the week of November 28:

California:

12 teams in the top 40 for boys, 13 teams in the top 40 for girls

New York:

3 teams in the top 40 for boys, only 1 team in the top 40 for girls

Texas:

1 team in the top 40 for boys, 1 team in the top 40 for girls

California teams are just better, right?

joke wrote:

Caliatlarge wrote:

Davis girls and Dana Hills boys get at larges from California.

hello 18th and 19th place.

If those schools don't come through they have to re-think the love affair with California.

NY boys should have had a 4th and NY girls deserved a 3rd and 4th.

joke wrote:

Caliatlarge wrote:

Davis girls and Dana Hills boys get at larges from California.

hello 18th and 19th place.

I'll take that bet. I'll even specify. Davis girls beat Coe Brown and at least one auto qualifier. Honestly, I'm looking at Davis top 15. Trabuco and Saugus would also have been close to that 15 spot.

Fact doesn't change NY girls should have received two more bids. They would have put 4 in the top 10.

BOYS

Warriors of Liverpool (NY Region)

Portland XC Club (NW Region)

Dana Point XC Club (CA)

The Dale XC Club (MW Region)

GIRLS

Carroll XC Club (SO Region)

Louisville XC Club (SW Region)

New Hampshire XC Club (NE Region)

Davis XC Club (CA)

Read more: NikeCrossNationals.com - Nike Cross Nationals Official Site - NXN - News - 2013 NXN AT-LARGE QUALIFIERS ANNOUNCED

http://www.runnerspace.com/eprofile.php?event_id=13&do=news&news_id=196741#ixzz2mHLx5XsN

5-10 years ago I would have agreed with you. Not this year though. New York has lost the edge. Look at the margin between 2-3 at NXNNY. That's not four top ten teams.

runn wrote:

If those schools don't come through they have to re-think the love affair with California.

NY boys should have had a 4th and NY girls deserved a 3rd and 4th.

I can't speak for NY, but the issue isn't the "love affair" with California, it's the selection process of the California teams. The teams are picked based upon team times at their state meet, but the best teams don't necessarily compete against one another and some races are in the morning while it's cool and others are in the afternoon when it's significantly warmer.

The three teams picked all raced against one another when temperatures were ideal in the early morning. Had they raced in the afternoon it's almost certain only Arcadia of those three teams would be advancing, and possibly only with a wild-card. The selection process in CA is absolutely horrible.

Actual Logician wrote:

5-10 years ago I would have agreed with you. Not this year though. New York has lost the edge. Look at the margin between 2-3 at NXNNY. That's not four top ten teams.

The gap was bigger in 2012... 59 points for 2nd (Saratoga) and 123 points for 3rd (Aurora).

FM finished 1st, Saratoga finished 5th, and Aurora finished 4th that year.

...and FM and Aurora both have teams that match last years squad as well. FM is probably stronger, there is no way a team like Great Oak will even be top 3.

Great Oak will be top three...that is a very very good team

Wrong. The three strongest teams did prevail and were consistently stronger. Only "bias" rankings on certain websites had Div 3 teams over-ranked and extremely OVER-HYPED! You really shouldn't read too much in to those website rankings and editor's views!

#1 Arcadia and #2 Madera South definitely had comfortable separation between any other teams mid way through the season. And proved that at State! In fact, Madera South was overlooked and could not get-a-break in ANY rankings completely ignoring and disrespecting that program and their talents altogether! Dana Hills got noticeably stronger as the post season approached and ran well when it counted. Kudos!

The top Div. 2 & 3 teams got out the gates fast as they ALWAYS do and fizzled at the end. Unfortunately paying the price running each race very hard trying to make a statement each time early in the season.

Unless you were there holding a thermometer out in the pond... you would know temperatures between Div. 1 (9:40am -not exactly "early morning") and Div 3 (12:20p)races were NOT significantly noticeable at race time. Approximately 61 degrees at 9:40 to 67 degrees at 12:20. Either way that's comfortable running weather all the way around, not smoldering hot in the the 80's & 90's like during track season! Anyways, when is 67 degrees not "ideal" weather to run in???

Also, most of these top teams did go "head to head" just weeks earlier on the same course at The Clovis Invitational. Temperatures were much warmer then and the same three teams prevailed 1)Arcadia 2)Madera South 3)Dana Hills with VERY similar team times. Could it be that maybe these teams just run this State Course better then other teams do plain and simple? Well, they just proved it once more!

Asbel Kiprop wrote:

Great Oak will be top three...that is a very very good team

Only CA girls team to crack the top 3 is Saugus. Next best team is Corona Del Mar with 6th place in 06 and 05. No other team has even cracked the top 10, let alone an at-large CA team! California girls at NXN are a joke...

Last year the two auto qualifiers got an inspiring 16th and 20th. Saugus was at-large and got 17th.

running well at nxn and deserving to be there are not mutually exclusive.

if runner A is a season long 3:50 miler, runs 3:50 in a prelims heat to qualify for a final, but always run 4:35 in the final for DFL, doesn't necessarily mean he didn't deserve to be there.

Rob,

It is a mistake to let people know who is on the selection committee. Not good... I am surprised at you.

deserving or not wrote:

running well at nxn and deserving to be there are not mutually exclusive.

if runner A is a season long 3:50 miler, runs 3:50 in a prelims heat to qualify for a final, but always run 4:35 in the final for DFL, doesn't necessarily mean he didn't deserve to be there.

Thought we were talking about cross country, not track... It's a complete different ball game, and the above comparison is so irrelevant as to be asinine.

The California regional has its auto-qualifiers, who, at least on the girls side, have shown a remarkable ability to under perform (due to conditions, peaking, or being over ranked). One would justly expect that any at-large selection would be at most comparable to the auto-qualifiers they lost to. Hence, in the bottom half of the field. But the goal of the at-large process is to select teams that have the greatest chance of performing well at the meet. In years past those teams have been from NY, but it is not exclusive. The Cali at-large girls teams have neither earned their spot, nor shown they deserve to be there over teams from other regions that have historically ran well at NXN, and stand a better chance at the podium. Instead they regularly clog up the bottom half of the field...

Asbel Kiprop wrote:

Rob,

It is a mistake to let people know who is on the selection committee. Not good... I am surprised at you.

The "secret" that I am part of the committee has unfortunately been out for years: it was mentioned on the TrackTalk.net forums that I was part of the selection committee (and another member also admitted he was on it).

Given that it is already public knowledge (regardless of whether or not 10% or 80% of the interested community knew/remembered), it makes sense for me to make it clear that my rankings are not the same thing as the selections I would make, and also clarifying that the rankings play NO role in the selection of teams. None of the information I have ever posted, that was not already released to the public by others before, betrays the confidentiality of the committee.

bluewaters wrote:

But the goal of the at-large process is to select teams that have the greatest chance of performing well at the meet

says who? again, there's a difference between deserving to be there, and performing once you're there.

deserve or not wrote:

bluewaters wrote:

But the goal of the at-large process is to select teams that have the greatest chance of performing well at the meet

says who? again, there's a difference between deserving to be there, and performing once you're there.

Says the Nike Selection Committee, when asked about the criterion for selection... California at-large girls teams have shown they have a very low chance of running well at Portland Meadows, and hence don't deserve to be there, rendering your point moot!

bluewaters wrote:

California at-large girls teams have shown they have a very low chance of running well at Portland Meadows, and hence don't deserve to be there, rendering your point moot!

you still don't get it.

anyways, California boys had shown a low chance of running well at PM before Arcadia finally broke through, and they were an at-large the year before when they finished 20th. Just because they figured out how to do it there while everyone else didn't doesn't diminish what those other teams did do during the actual California season that got them there.

You are either not remembering correctly, or you misunderstood what I said.

Going to "big" meets doesn't play a role in the rankings, because I don't go by head to head results at all before the state meets.

Honestly- this is how I remember it.

We tied a Nationally Ranked team (and lost).

I expected at least an honorable mention.

There were other schools that we beat who were either ranked or HM.

So, I emailed to ask why we weren't considered and I was told it was because we don't go to the big meets (McQuaid, Manhattan, etc).

It was a long time ago and really the only time I had a team worthy of even HM so I remember it.

We DID eventually get an HM.