At-Large Appeal

perhaps the course was different?

same course

Quotes from two earlier posts

This move is typical of Franklin at Butler. People on the inside know this all too well. Joe, quit crying and go out and buy a better team...>First, I believe Dunn is out of eligibility and is coaching at his former high school. Second, what is so unethical about Franklin's recruiting??? So, some of his runners are only eligible to run for 1 year because they ran 3 overseas. Big deal!! How is that different than Arkansas using a JUCO african who only has 2 years left??? Joe does what he can to get the best runners to Butler for as long as possible, and he doesn't break any rules in the process. Believe me, Butler's compliance officers over the past few years run it by the book!!And as far as the "buy a better team comment", isn't that what all coaches do, buy a better team? Some schools have better funding and therefore can afford to give more scholarships and essentially "buy a better team".

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! GO BUTLER!

top 7 = 5 aliens 2 domestics

I have never liked the current qualifying system. I had been a proponent of the super regional idea, but I still don't like the idea of a two step qualifying process (which is essentially what we have now). Instead, here is my proposal.

Combine the current regions into four super-regions (NE/MA, SE/S/SC, GL/MW, M/W) and hold a single super-regional meet the same weekend as the current regional. Each super-region gets seven auto qualifiers with four at-large teams nationally. At-large teams would be selected by a committee of representatives from each region. There would be guidelines for at-large selections, but they would allow for some judgment (defintely not a hard-and-fast points system).

Looking at this year's men's results, you'd get all of the top 28 teams in the meet (Butler & ND are still out, as are Minn. & UVA probably), plus 4 unranked teams - 3 from the NE/MA and 1 from the SE/S/SC (assuming teams finish in the order they're ranked). All the at-large teams would come from the M/W region.

For the women it works out much better, with the top 32 ranked teams in the meet.

It may sound confusing, but it would be a lot cleaner and fairer than the current system.

Super Regional without a qualifying procedure would make for huge, unrealistic meets that are nothing like what a team would face in a 31 team national. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a two-round qualifying procedure if designed correctly.

Limit the super-regional field to 30-32 teams and run a non-championship race for the remaining teams. It's not rocket science. It was done for years when the Dist. 1&2 meets were combined as the IC4A/ECAC meet.

Yes, it is brain surgery, because everyone with an all-conference runner on their team thinks that they have a shot.

Sarcasm wrote:

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A! GO BUTLER!

top 7 = 5 aliens 2 domestics

Your point is???

I like the super region type idea myself. Some of the arguements here are weak. Take travel. One could almost argue travel would be less with the super region idea. If you are a team serious about going to NCAAs and need at-large points, like a typical upper level men's MAC team, you are going to travel twice before your conference meet, griak/great american and then pre-nats. With you super region, you could limit your travel to just the regional, which you have to do now. There is no early peak. Right now when you go pre-nats, you go to race and score at-large points against other teams. The regional you go to be in the top 10. Both cases you have to have solid races. Weak teams getting through/strong teams getting screwed. I just don't see that happening. Take a previous example someone gave of the men's West,Mountain, and South Central. This year a hand full from the West, a hand full from the Mountain and two from the south central. If these are combined for a super region, the result is going to close to the same, hand full from the west, hand full from the mountain and Arkansas from the South Central. The current system is not bad, it gets the top teams to the dance which is the goal. I just think that when you leave a meet, you should now if you have advanced to the next round based on the days performance. Pretty simple I think.

Butler Fan:

To put the record straight. Dunn redshirted this year. It was a choice that he and Coach Franklin made.

To everyone bashing Butler and Coach Franklin:

Also, Coach Franklin is not optimistic about the appeal. He is doing it for TWO reasons. One is to maybe get into nationals. What's the harm in trying? The second reason is to hopefully work out the inconsistencies in the system.

My next point is to defend Coach Franklin's recruiting. He does go after American runners, but it is almost impossible to get them to come to Butler do to the number of scholarships available to him and the high costs of attending Butler. Another factor is that the admissions council does not let just anyone into Butler. The admissions council and compliance offices follow the rulels without concern to an athlete's ability. Year in and year out, Franklin recruits Americans but to no avail minus some Midwestern runners. As to "buying a better team," Coach Franklin does what is best for his team (as does every coach). Since he cannot get the American kids, he goes after the next best option. This would be bringing in foreigners that he feels can contribute to the team. The foreigner are runners who he can develop, not guys who have already run unbelievable times and instantly make an impact on the national level.

Yet, another point to defend Coach Franklin is his dedication to the runners who walk on to the program. He will not cut anyone from his program. This includes male runners that cannot break 5:00 for the mile. He coaches them just like he coaches the top runners on the team. This is a rarity among college coaches.

Please do not bash a coach who you know nothing about. Coach Franklin is a good coach and a great person.

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

I am done arguing with annonymous people. If anyone out there wants to share their point of view and not be afraid of leaving their real name, I would be happy to continue. Obviously you guys are coaches so why not lend some credibility to your opinion? If you feel as passionate about this as your posts sound, then leave your name so we can give your opinion some serious consideration!

Yeah, that's exactly what I want to do. Get into a debate with the coach at TOLEDO. If you haven't made the nationals in.....let's see.....FOREVER, then why should we value YOUR opinion about how we should qualify to the nationals.

Just keep quiet and go coach your sucky team.

After skimming the topic qucikly I haven't seen anyone suggest that the regions be realigned when forming superregions. That is, border states be moved around to balance the regions.

My Proposal: 4 SuperRegions based on geography and not necessarily current Region affiliation. Allow 7 automatic teams from each Superregoin with 4 at-large teams. That's a total of 32 teams(a much better number than 31).

This would obviously create a huge field if all teams ran one race. So, limit the field of the "A" race to teams currently ranked in the top 25(?) of the regions, teams that finished in the top 20 at the regional the year before, and teams that won conference team titles. Further, any individuals who finish in the top 5(?) at their conference could run individually in the "A" race(though this would then hurt their team in the "B" race). Then hold a "B" race for the remaining teams. I wonder if it wouldn't be better for teams finishing 20th at the current regions to be in a race with teams more their calibre and be in contention to win the "B" team race.

Proposed Regions: I started with the current track regionals and moved some border states around to create more balanced cross country regions.

The Proposed Regions:

=====================

Region 1- New England, New York, Pennsylvania, NJ, WV, Maryland, Delaware, Wash DC, Virginia, NC, SC, Georgia, Florida.

Region 2- Miss, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Louisiana.

Region 3- Colorado, NM, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, N. Dakota, S. Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, Arkansas, Missouri.

Region 4- Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii.

Check for Balance: I took a look at teams that are traditionally good, good now, or have been good in the last few years. Obviously this isn't comprehensive, but the teams that come to mind. It appears fairly balanced.

The "Traditionally" Good/ "Potentially" Good Teams:

====================================================

Region 1- Providence, Iona, Villanova, Georgetown, NC State, W&M, Georgia, FSU, Brown, Princeton, Virginia, Columbia, Wake, Duke, Dartmouth.

Region 2- Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Central Michigan, Miami, Indiana, Butler, Eastern Mich, Kentucky, Michigan St, Alabama, Tennessee.

Region 3- Colorado, Arkansas, Air Force, Col St, Minnesota, Texas A&M, Texas, OK St, Kansas, Iowa.

Region 4- Washington, Oregon, Portland, Stanford, Cal Poly, BYU, Arizona, Arizona St, NAU, Wash St, Utah St, SUU.

If you go by the results of this years the Superregion results would probably look something like this:

This Years Results:

====================

Region 1- 1)Iona 2)Villanova 3)Georgetown 4)NC State 5)Providnece 6) Georgia 7)FSU 8)Will & Mary 9) UVA 10)Princeton

Region 2- 1)Wisconsin 2)Michigan 3)Ohio St 4)Central Michigan 5)IU 6)Kentucky 7)Miami 8)Butler 9)Notre Dame 10)Eastern Michigan

Region 3- 1)Colorado 2) Arkansas 3)Air Force 4)Col. St 5)OK St. 6)Texas A&M 7) Minnesota 8)Iowa 9)Kansas

Region 4- 1)Stanford 2)NAU 3)Cal Poly 4)BYU 5)Arizona 6)Washington 7)Oregon 8)Portland 9)Arizona St.

This Years Auto-Qualifiers Would Be:

====================================

28 autos= top 7 in each region.

The Determination of At-Large Qualifiers:

==========================================

If there is NOT a push rule the following would take place:

AL 1: Portland in w/ 3 pts

AL 2: Arizona St in w/ 5 pts

AL 3: Iowa in over Butler/W&M (H2H) w/ 1pt

AL 4: W&M in over Butler (H2H) w/ 1 pt

Left Out: Butler, ND, Virginia, Princeton, EMU

If there IS a push rule the following would take place:

AL 1 & 2: ND pushes Butler. ND(3pts) beats Portland on Comm. Opp.

AL 3: Portland in w/ 3 pts

AL 4: Arizona St w/ 5 pts

Left Out: Iowa, Kansas, EMU, W&M, UVA, Princeton.

Still have to see how this would play out on the women's side.

Maybe my opinion, since I have a "sucky" team (great vocabulary, by the way), I can be much more unbiased in my opinions than someone who feels that their team's easy shot to nationals would be challenged. The people who are railroading one opinion or the other are people with the most to lose. Since I have nothing to either gain or lose, I can look at things a lot more objectively than someone who needs to hide behind an annonymous name.

If you want to find someone to discuss the BCS problems are you going to talk to those in the "have" or are you going to talk to someone who has nothing to gain either way to lend an objective position?

Typical of someone who has nothing credible to say...personally attack the person backing you into a corner with such great logic, like, "sucky".

Its not that i can't break 5 minutes for the mile, i'm more of an 800/400 guy. And I was injured for outdoor track last year. Mark my words "in the 4s in '04"

In 2002, the GL sent 7 women's teams to NCAA's, placing 6 in the top 19 and another 27th. Toledo was 8th at the region. They did send 2 individuals, placing 24 and 56 at NCAA's.

In 2003, the GL will send 6 women's teams to NCAA's. Toledo was 7th. They will send 1 individual.

In 2002, Briana Shook was the US National steeple champ. Toledo had the 17th place finisher(not Shook) in the NCAA steeple and the 9th placer in the 5k.

I wouldn't say those are sucky performances. They are on the cusp of being a national qualifier. Not bad, considering Toledo isn't exactly a marquee school(or city).

I would add that in 2001 they were 4th at the GL and three teams went. Toledo also sent an individual to that one as well.

Go K-Dogg

Awesome! "Kip Keino" tells Kevin Hadsell to "keep and quiet and go coach your sucky team" because his team hasn't qualified for nationals. Mr. Keino, by your logic shouldn't you present the credentials that you possess that permits you to command others to shut up? (Gold medals in the 1968 Olympic 1500m and the 1972 Olympic steeplechase don't count!) Regardless of whether you agree with him, Kevin has thought about the subject, communicated with other coaches (both for and against super regionals), and shared his insight and rationale for his position in a constructive way.

I have been reading in a lot of places that the NCAA committee used a different interpretation of the rules in 2002/2003.

This seems to be people's biggest problem with the selections that were made this year.

The rule states:

"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 selected. 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."

The rule does not mention anything about the "Team X" blocking "Team Y". It only states that "Team X" does not have enough

points to qualify. This could be interpreted as meaning "they will not qualify at any stage". But remember, the committee

goes round by round in an iterative procedure. So it can also be interpreted as "Team X will not qualify during this step

unless they are pushed in by team Y in this step". Clearly the second interpretation is what was used in 2003.

Here is are the calculations for the 2002 at-large bids, assuming the second interpretation.

Autos:

Wisc (WebSt BYU CMU@Griak)

EMU (CMU@MAC)

Vill (ColSt Ind But Nebr@Ind St)

GTown (WebSt BYU@PreNCAA)

NCSU (BYU Ind But@PreNCAA, But ColSt@GAXC)

Will/Mary (CMU WebSt Mich MSU OSU MontSt LaSalle@PreNCAA)

Tenn (Fla@SEC, ColSt Ind But Nebr@Ind St)

Alabama (ColSt Ind But Nebr@Ind St)

Iowa (OSU Mich Ind Minn MSU@Big10, CMU WebSt Mich MSU OSU Mont St@PreNCAA, WebSt BYU CMU ArizSt Texas@Griak)

Minn (OSU Mich Ind@Big10, WebSt BYU@Griak)

Stanford

Oregon

Arkansas

SMU (Mich NotreD UtahSt Wash@NotreD)

NAU (MontSt@BigSky)

Colorado

Iona

Providence (WebSt BYU@Griak)

Round 1

CMU(5)&Ind(6)

Princeton(0)&LaSalle(1)

Duke(0)&Virginia(0)

Fla(1)&FSU(0)

Ill(0)&Nebr(3)

CalPoly(0)&Portland(0)

TexasA/M(0)&Texas(1)

BYU(6)&WebSt(7)

Dartmouth(0)&Columbia(0)

->WebSt has the most points, but BYU has the 2nd most (HTH over Indiana)

so BYU (WebSt@Griak) goes on its own, then WebSt(CMU@PreNCAA) is the next selection

Round 3

CMU(6)&Ind(6)

Princeton(0)&LaSalle(1)

Duke(0)&Virginia(0)

Fla(1)&FSU(0)

Ill(0)&Nebr(3)

CalPoly(0)&Portland(0)

TexasA/M(0)&Texas(1)

MontSt(3)&ColSt(4)

Dartmouth(0)&Columbia(0)

->CMU (no losses) is the next selection, followed by Ind (OSU Mich@Big10, ColSt@Ind St)

Round 5

OSU(5)&Mich(6)

Princeton(0)&LaSalle(1)

Duke(0)&Virginia(0)

Fla(1)&FSU(0)

Ill(0)&Nebr(3)

CalPoly(0)&Portland(0)

TexasA/M(0)&Texas(1)

MontSt(3)&ColSt(5)

Dartmouth(0)&Columbia(0)

->Mich has the most points,OSU has the second most points(beat ColSt on common opp(But))

so OSU (Mich MSU@PreNCAA, Ariz Texas@Griak) is in on their own, and Mich (no losses) is next

Round 7

Butler(5)&MSU(4)

Princeton(0)&LaSalle(1)

Duke(0)&Virginia(0)

Fla(1)&FSU(0)

Ill(0)&Nebr(3)

CalPoly(0)&Portland(0)

TexasA/M(0)&Texas(2)

MontSt(3)&ColSt(5)

Dartmouth(0)&Columbia(0)

->Butler (no losses) is in on HTH over ColSt

Round 8

MSU(4)&NotreD(1)

Princeton(0)&LaSalle(1)

Duke(0)&Virginia(0)

Fla(1)&FSU(0)

Ill(0)&Nebr(3)

CalPoly(0)&Portland(0)

TexasA/M(0)&Texas(2)

MontSt(3)&ColSt(5)

Dartmouth(0)&Columbia(0)

->ColSt (no losses) is in since MontSt would not be the next team to go, this pushes in MontSt (no losses awarded)

Round 10

MSU(4)&NotreD(1)

Princeton(0)&LaSalle(1)

Duke(0)&Virginia(0)

Fla(1)&FSU(0)

Ill(0)&Nebr(3)

CalPoly(0)&Portland(0)

TexasA/M(0)&Texas(2)

NewMex(0),-

Dartmouth(0)&Columbia(0)

->MSU (ArizSt Texas Miami@Griak) is in

Round 11

NotreD(1)&Purdue(0)

Princeton(0)&LaSalle(1)

Duke(0)&Virginia(0)

Fla(1)&FSU(0)

Ill(0)&Nebr(3)

CalPoly(0)&Portland(0)

TexasA/M(0)&Texas(3)

NewMex(0),-

Dartmouth(0)&Columbia(0)

->Texas wins HTH over Nebraska and since TexasA&M would not be the next team to go, they push in Texas A&M

Texas has only a loss to ArizSt, and A&M's losses do not count

Round 13 (final round)

NotreD(1)&-

Princeton(0)&-

Duke(0)&-

Fla(1)&-

Ill(0)&-

CalPoly(0)&-

TexasA/M(0)&-

NewMex(0),-

Dartmouth(0)&-

->NotreD has common opponent over Fla (Purdue)

This gives us the same field that was actually chosen for the 2002 Championship. So from this there is no evidence to show that the interpretation/precedent was changed between the 2002 and 2003 selections. (Perhaps the women's calculations show something else-I haven't checked, or maybe someone here is actually on the committee. But all the logic that I have seen presented on this board is based on someone's remembering how they thought the 2002 selections were made.)