WOMEN AT LARGE QUALIFIERS

As the process works math major correctly interprets what happened. With two spots remaining there was Wake Forest, North Carolina, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, and Washington all with one point. The next criteria is head to head competition. Wake beat Wash in Oregon while Nebraska had no head to head results. It then goes to common opponents. As soon as Wake was taken it gave North carolina one additional point and put them in. The system did work as it is set up. Of course we can debate the logic of the system, but until the system is changed this is how the game is played. Someone said earlier that the bigger conference's have an advantage. That is true. Most mid-major programs have two chances to earn points, while the bigger conferences can beat other qualified teams in their conference meet. Usually, mid-majors don't have that opportunity.

Good luck.

Wake should not get to go because they beat Duke at Oregon. That was early and they lost to Duke at ACC's and Regionals. When looking at one win teams that should have been considered. If Wake doesn't go UNC doesn't go. Nebraska should have gone, which would give Butler a point and they beat Washington to Butler should have gone too. It's a flawed system when a team can get a point in September then get beat by everyone like Wake and UNC did and still get to go.

What have we learned? Peak for Oregon or Griak when no one else is ready and then train through the rest of the season until regionals.

MW nerd needs to examine the season more closely.

Look at Washington, Butler and Nebraska and their results from the season.

Nebraska-Point from Baylor (Big 12) UNC-Point from BC (ACC) Wake-Point from Duke (Oregon)

These were victories vs. autos. Butler shouldn't even be a part of the conversation (unless they are used as a common opponent) because they had no wins vs point getters.

And if you want to argue for Washington over Wake...look at the results from ND and Pre-Nats...come on...two bad meets (Wash) is better than one bad meet(Wake)? Yes Butler picked up a win versus UNC at pre-nats (their down race of the year), but they never beat auto teams like UNC did, nor were they capable of it.

Nebraska has the best argument to go, but they didn't go to pre-nats to get a head-to-head victory...which in the end decided the final At-Large births...so we will never know for sure if they should go because they didn't go to pre-nats.....why on earth would you not go to pre-nats?

For my money...Nebraska is not that good anyways....look at Griak and Chili Pepper...they MAYBE crack the top 20 in one of the races at pre-nats if they go....which would have given us the same result in the end-NEBRASKA OUT.

They beat Baylor.....who is in a very weak region and had a good race at the beginning of the year (Griak).....a la your discussion above knocking Wake for beating the system.

You all want to have it both ways.

The system worked to perfection.

Wake and UNC would beat all of those other bubble schools on Monday...nobody can honestly say otherwise.

I am not saying that UNC and Wake have really good teams this year....I am saying that those other teams did nothing against good teams all year long.

The fact that UNC was so close to Florida and Georgia at ND, had one off race at Pre-Nats, then beat two national qualifiers at ACCs sold me on their inclusion.

Fortunately, it doesn't come down to my opinion...or yours....we have a system in place.

Do me a favor, next time you are pulled over for going 80 in a 65, ask the trooper to change the law to make the speed limit 85.

I find this discussion quite educating as I have never quite understood just how the system works. Thanks to all.

I think both Fact Check and MW Nerd have a point.

The committee does not have to decide purely from its point system. The NCAA Handbook spells out how the teams are to be selected. It is heavily weighted toward the point system but the committee is given some flexibility when the instructions say “Most recent competition shall be given “greater" consideration when applying criteria”. Criteria being dominated by their point system.

I personally give Pre-Nationals more weight then any other meets. This year 25 out of the top 30 rated teams participated, I know of no other meet that came close in quality of teams. I also wonder if early season meets where the top teams hold out their top runner or two or the meet is anywhere from a 2k to a 5k should be given the same weight as the 6k Pre Nationals. Again the NCAA qualifying instructions gives the committee the flexibility to factor this in.

The following is from the Handbook on instructions for “Determination of Participants”

Determination of Participants

Teams

1. The top two teams at each regional championship meet (seven-person teams) automatically qualify for the championship meet. Thirteen additional at-large teams will be selected by the Division I track and field subcommittee on Sunday, November 12 using the criteria listed below.

2. The selection committee will determine at-large berths by examining the following criteria in order of importance, with (a.) being the most important. Most recent competition shall be given greater consideration when applying the criteria. If an institution enters two teams at two different sites, the “A” team, as designated by the institution, will be the team considered for the at-large selection. Further, if an institution enters a team in an event and designates it as a “B” team, the team will be considered as such as long as three or fewer of the team’s top seven runners compete. The top seven runners will be those individuals who competed at the regional qualifying meet.

a. Regional finish (Note: A fourth-place team in a region may not be selected for an at-large berth ahead of a third-place team from the same region; however, a fourth-place team from a region may be selected ahead of a third-place team from another region). The situation may arise when the next team under consideration from a region (Team X) does not have enough wins (points) to earn an at-large bid, but the team immediately behind Team X (Team Y) does have enough wins (points) to be the next team selected. In this case, both teams X and Y will receive at-large bids. Any additional teams still under consideration for at-large selection will not be awarded wins (points) for having beaten any team (Team X) advancing to the championship finals by virtue of the wins accumulated by the team behind it in the region. This aspect of the at-large selection process can be employed only one time per region and only the first time it is necessary to do so. This process cannot be applied to the final at-large selection.

b. Number of wins (points) against teams qualified for nationals from the last full weekend in September (Friday, Saturday and Sunday, September 22-24) through November 11.

c. Results of head-to-head competition between teams being considered for selection from the last full weekend in September (Friday, Saturday and Sunday, September 22-24) through November 11.

d. Record against common opponents from teams being considered for nationals between the last full weekend in September (Friday, Saturday and Sunday, September 22-24) through November 11.

e. Top individuals (i.e., runners who can score highly at nationals).

I think you're wrong about those two teams beating bubble teams on Monday. Examine that more closely. Wake only had 2 girls in the top 30. Doesn't anyone else think that is bad and not worthy of an NCAA berth? What was their 5th girl? In the 90s?!?!?!?!

The fact that UNC and Wake earned points from there conference rivals who were automatic qualifiers, WF early in the season (from Duke) and UNC from Boston College (who came out of nowhere for an automatic bid) is hardly that impressive. The ACC benefitted from the system this year. Neither of these teams has impressive resumes, I think Nebraska, Columbia and La Salle look like better representatives. If BC did not pull a rabbit out of the hat we would'nt even be discussing these two schools they would be sitting at home next Monday.

Add Butler to that list as well.

My favorite line of all time on Let's Run: "If BC did not pull a rabbit out of a hat". I get it....people stumble onto regional wins.

Next you are going to tell me it was a weak region. Where did Boston U finish again....and who did BC beat? Oh yea, Columbia a team you claim is better than UNC and Wake, and at when it counted, which others have complained is not a criteria. (Not to mention Iona and Providence and your beloved Cornell)

Face it, the ACC is loaded with depth.

Nebraska, Columbia, Butler, LaSalle and Washington would all have been 10th or worse at the ACC conference meet.

The ACC won the NE region. They went 1-6 CONVINCINGLY in the SE. They went 4-5 in a tough Southern region that took four teams that were all in the top 15 during most of the year.

Let’s assume Nebraska, Columbia, Butler, LaSalle and Washington were all in the ACC, go ahead and attempt to place the meet. Maybe we can all get a few laughs….

Hmm. Didn't LaSalle beat WFU at pre-nats and BOTH Columbia and Butler beat UNC in their respective race? Yeah, I guess that makes them laughable. Right...

http://www.indstate.edu/athletic/cross/2006/results/Pre-nat%20WhiteW.pdf

http://www.indstate.edu/athletic/cross/2006/results/Pre-nat%20BlueW.pdf

Nobody said the teams (Neb, Col, But, Las, Wash) were laughable at all. They are good teams and deserve respect. That is not the point of my previous post. This is an exercise in the Board's most common shortcoming.

Go ahead.....place them in order of finish at the ACC Championships...use the final results...and place your teams in there...let's see what you come up with.

Please everyone, I invite you to partake in this laudable (not laughable) endeavor.

I guess I can't read to well, but that is exactly what you said!!!!

"Let’s assume Nebraska, Columbia, Butler, LaSalle and Washington were all in the ACC, go ahead and attempt to place the meet. Maybe we can all get a few laughs…"

I think you are going a little overboard with your defense of ACC teams before the Nationals has even been run. It’s obvious from Pre Nationals a non-hypothetical race where everyone ran on the same course on the same day that most of the teams mentioned outperformed UNC and Wake.

Last year we heard most of the same things about ACC teams. Nobody was suppose to even have a chance to beat Duke. They were the “dominate” conference because they had 3 teams ranked in the top 10 going into Nationals. They were going to “dominate” because they had dominated at the Regionals.

As the Fact Checker maybe you can check out the resulting Facts.

Did Duke Dominate and run unchallenged? No. They finished 3rd.

Did the ACC conference dominate the top ten? No. NCS ranked 7th finished 14th and Boston College ranked 10th finished 18th.

The Big-Ten ended up with 3 teams in the top 10, but I don’t see anyone from the Big-Ten claiming they are the dominate conference “before” the race is even run.

How many ACC Teams have won Nationals in the last 20 years? Zero

I suggest before you talk the talk you make sure the ACC teams walk the walk.

And now you can laugh.

Nope. My apologies if you interpreted that way…..I was attempting to bait a response.

In retrospect, I admit that was a bit rude and over the top on my part.

My true intention is not to demean these other schools nor prop up UNC and Wake.....it is to illustrate the fallacy of impartiality and the fruitlessness of speculation.

Please, I beg you.....rank those teams as if they ran in the ACC final.

I don't expect more than 3 ACC teams in the top 15. You are completely missing the point. I agree that the ACC rarely has a team even in the top 3 at the national meet.

The ACC is deep and this discussion is about at-large bids.

Please rank the teams.....

Here...maybe this will expedite the process....

NC State 59

Duke 88

Virginia 104

Florida State 118

Virginia Tech 123

North Carolina 138

Boston College 150

Wake Forest 166

Ga Tech 194

Maryland 217

Clemson 343

Miami 384

Please rank Nebraska, Columbia, Butler, LaSalle, Ok State or whomever else you believe should be at the national meet in these results.

lets just use a meet where they all competed and do that;

The following is the combined results from Pre-Natl's

2 North Carolina State 233

13 Florida State 505

22 Virginia 694

23 Boston College 714

**25 Butler 765

**26 Columbia 812

**27 La Salle 826

**28 Notre Dame 848

**29 Indiana 850

30 North Carolina 854

XX 39 Wake Forest 994

So Butler and Columbia should have gone....anyone from La Salle or Washington or Nebraska care to offer their opinion?

All I am asking for is 30 seconds of your time.....it isn't that hard......please rank those teams in the ACC meet.....

"There is no doubt that the ACC is far and away the deapest Women's XC conference in the country. 8 teams qualify, and another is 5th in a region taking 4 teams. YIKES."

Um I hope this is somewhat sarcastic. Have you seen the Big Ten this year for women????

Washington was 36th in the combined race, between UNC and Wake