After the 10,000 any doubts that descending order qualifying is unfair?

Screw conversions and lists, indoors should go to regionals or a similar qualifier meet.

26mi235 wrote:

Thus, Ahmed's 4th place finish (and 0.04 from 3rd) might make him the poster child for not having the descending list 24 for NCAAs.

Hardworking Tyler McCandless, had absolutely no chance at Nationals based on a descending order cut-list. Steadily improving, gets a PR at Big 10 (29:15), qualifies at Regionals, and nails down 12th at Nationals for All-America.

That's the way the sport is supposed to work.

u r illiterate wrote:

honest question wrote:

Don't people race 8k's every week for 6-8 weeks during XC?

Top runners don't. Scrubs do.

Ahh, but even the top runners will do Conference 8K, Regional 10K and National 10K all in a row, and on XC courses to boot, and they will have done at LEAST 1 if not 2 or more 8Ks over the season, as well. The whole '4 10Ks in a season is a bit much' doesn't compare well when you show what these guys do in XC year in and year out.

malmo wrote:

... Have you ever heard of a baseball player being called 'Mr May', or is it 'Mr October'?

...

Man, I made the Hall of Fame, and you don't remember me?

This is my exact thinking, and I agree with you 100% Malmo. To be the best you have to beat the best, it's as simple as that. Someone who sits behind 8 professional athletes and gets pulled along to a 28:30 in April/May doesn't mean squat compared to toeing the line against fellow collegians and flat out fighting your way head-to-head to earn your trip to nationals.

Uh, isn't the qualifying for Regionals based on descending order lists? 'nuff said.

How quickly they forget wrote:

Uh, isn't the qualifying for Regionals based on descending order lists? 'nuff said.

How dumb are you? The list is 48 deep for each Regional, not 24 deep for the entire country.

You are capable of seeing the difference?

run_tjb wrote:

This is my exact thinking, and I agree with you 100% Malmo. To be the best you have to beat the best, it's as simple as that. Someone who sits behind 8 professional athletes and gets pulled along to a 28:30 in April/May doesn't mean squat compared to toeing the line against fellow collegians and flat out fighting your way head-to-head to earn your trip to nationals.

I don't think anyone is vehemently defending the descending order lists as the best system, but just pointing out it isn't accurate to insinuate these top guys at nationals were only the 40th or 50th best guys in the nation going in. They were only ranked that low because they knew it only took 30:00 to make the meet. They trained smart and peaked at the right time. But the rankings are meaningless for anything other than qualifying for the first round. Of the top 8 listed above, 4 of them were top 18 at cross nationals this year. Ahmed was 30th in cross and Riley was 8th in the 10k last year. These guys were all studs. Those times are meaningless, it is a means to an end.

I wouldn't yell too loudly that the regional system proved "fair' in the 10k. If you look at the results, the west had 6 of the top 8, 8 of the top 11, and 11 of the top 17. If Barnicle's shoe didn't come off, they likely would have had at least 9 of the top 12. The east had all of the bottom 6.

One of the major problems with regionals (aside from cost) all along was the lopsidedness of the regions from event to event. This year, the west was far superior in the 10k (both at this meet and on descending order). I'm sure there are other events that are the exact opposite (women's 800m). You can't look at one event to determine the most "fair" system.

billy the exterminator wrote:

I don't think anyone is vehemently defending the descending order lists as the best system, but just pointing out it isn't accurate to insinuate these top guys at nationals were only the 40th or 50th best guys in the nation going in. They were only ranked that low because they knew it only took 30:00 to make the meet. They trained smart and peaked at the right time.

You keep looking at the wrong end of the horse.

What is clear was that none of these guys belonged in Eugene, all of whom ranked in the top 24. The regionals system worked perfectly by dual mechanisms: 1) self selection and 2) self weeding.

6 Scott Smith Santa Barbara

7 Eric Fernandez Arkansas

8 Diego Estrada N. Arizona

9 Jon Grey William & Mary

10 Keith Gerrard New Mexico

11 Solomon Haile Arkansas

12 Jesse Cherry High Point

13 Jonathan Kotter BYU

15 Lane Boyer Arkansas

17 Ben Ashkettle N. Arizona

20 Jake Schmitt Washington

21 Brendan Gregg Stanford

23 Marco Anzures UCLA

24 Brian McKenna Utah State

lol wrote:

None of them tried to run fast because no one had to.

Exactly

True national champion was crowned today. Ran fast and raced well when it counted.

malmo wrote:

You keep looking at the wrong end of the horse.

What is clear was that none of these guys belonged in Eugene, all of whom ranked in the top 24. The regionals system worked perfectly by dual mechanisms: 1) self selection and 2) self weeding.

6 Scott Smith Santa Barbara

7 Eric Fernandez Arkansas

8 Diego Estrada N. Arizona

9 Jon Grey William & Mary

10 Keith Gerrard New Mexico

11 Solomon Haile Arkansas

12 Jesse Cherry High Point

13 Jonathan Kotter BYU

15 Lane Boyer Arkansas

17 Ben Ashkettle N. Arizona

20 Jake Schmitt Washington

21 Brendan Gregg Stanford

23 Marco Anzures UCLA

24 Brian McKenna Utah State

If what he was referring to is really the wrong end of the horse, it's your fault everyone is looking there since that's what you first posted about when you made this thread.

M.C. Confusing wrote:

u r illiterate wrote:

Top runners don't. Scrubs do.

Ahh, but even the top runners will do Conference 8K, Regional 10K and National 10K all in a row, and on XC courses to boot, and they will have done at LEAST 1 if not 2 or more 8Ks over the season, as well. The whole '4 10Ks in a season is a bit much' doesn't compare well when you show what these guys do in XC year in and year out.

Right, and the weather in US states is equally conducive to distance races in November as it is in May. 80 degrees and 80% humidity takes a bit more of a toll than 55 degrees and 40% humidity does.

Yep, needs at-large entries to improve it.

Question for Malmo

For comparison sake, what was the qualifying system in place back when you were competing in the mid 70's? Are you passionate about Regionals because it's a system you've observed to be effective? Or were subjected to a descending order list that forced you to put up times early/mid season?

Some Coach wrote:

Question for Malmo

For comparison sake, what was the qualifying system in place back when you were competing in the mid 70's? Are you passionate about Regionals because it's a system you've observed to be effective? Or were subjected to a descending order list that forced you to put up times early/mid season?

You qualified for Nationals by time -- not descending order and obviously there were no regionals.

For the record, during my senior year, I did not qualify for either NCAA or AAU's in the steeplechase, due to a stress fracture. Running my first steeplechase on May 28th I was still 0.5 short. With a bit of creative rounding off I made it to National AAUs and ran the fastest time in the qualifying round and then again set the AR in the final, making me perhaps the only National Champion to not actually qualify for the meet. Obviously I have a bias towards those who are ready when it counts over those who are ready for time trials.

The regional system isn't perfect, it's just demonstrably better or fairer than the descending order list.

Its chief virtues are that it subjects far more competitors to compete in the same conditions head to head to determine who advances and that it does so in a timely manner, meaning at the back end of the season.

Its saving grace is that a top performer does not need to extend himself in order to progress to the finals, as a 12th place finish is all that is required to advance.

I think the regional system also stimulated interest, as it gave people the chance to see the top guys in action, making their way through rounds, and thereby increased focus/awareness on them.

I give the current regional system high marks. Not perfect - but the fairest and most interesting qualifying procedure I've seen in 30 years of working in college sport.

I'm aware that Oregon and Texas A&M have improved competitive values sans regionals, but I suggest that for the entire NCAA body it worked very well.

The only undeniable negative is that it costs more money. (Unless, of course, you factor in the added costs involved in flying to different parts of the country to chase fast qualifying marks.)