NXN at large bids

deserve or not wrote:

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.

Nope, you're not getting it. The actual criterion selection is based on that team's ability to do well at the Portland Meadows course. California teams do not run very well there, with a few exceptions. Hence, they should not be receiving the at-large bids over other teams on most years. What did Arcadia do the year they finished 20th? Not finish in the top 2, but they got an at-large and got 20th at Nationals. Read: Ran not very well, probably didn't deserve the bid. What did they do the next year? Won the state meet and won NXN, while Loyola got an at-large and got 16th. Read: They did deserve it that year, but maybe Loyola didn't.

Not sure what point you are making here, as the two seasons are hardly comparable from a NXN qualification stand point. Unless you mean to emphasize that the only California schools that deserve to go to NXN and usually run well finish in the top 2 at the state meet, as shown by Arcadia. In which case, yes!!

Disclaimer: Doesn't mean Cali should never get at-large bids, but they shouldn't be receiving such a disproportionate amount.

Oh... so that's why Summit got chosen last year...

Captain Hindsight, back again wrote:

Oh... so that's why Summit got chosen last year...

I know what you're implying, but you're wrong.

You know they didn't run well when their top finisher falls at the start, gets kicked in the head and ends up with a minor concussion, yet still picks himself up and finishes in the top 55 overall - yet the two teammates that he was almost inseparable from for the rest of the season (he was their #1/2 most of the year, alongside Travis Neuman, with Eric Alldritt just off pace as their #3) didn't finish in the top 115 or even within 40 seconds of him.

Or, you could just look at what how the other teams and athletes they competed against did, and realize that they (Summit) were the anomaly that day.

But let's not let common sense override bias or the opportunity to take a shot at a team that didn't run well.

watchout, do you vote based on what you think teams can do once they get to NXN or what they do to get there. if the answer is both, how much do you weigh either factor?

also, how do you feel about the lack of transparency of the California "power merge" and it not having a set guideline of how to qualify before hand? isn't it disconcerting that it's such a vague qualifying system and that the results can be manipulated if someone wanted to?

It wouldn't be right for me to answer either question, although I suppose I can mention this for the first: I do take both into consideration, but the line between who is the fourth/fifth/sixth best team and fourth/fifth/sixth most deserving team isn't as great as fans tend to think.

And, I can also say that I think pretty much everyone agrees it would be great if the best teams in California were racing each other rather than being in separate races (classifications).

Each year needs to be taken in isolation. You can't make a blanket statement about past Cali teams not performing well relative to other teams at NXN (which, btw, is undeniably true, as with the exception of Arcadia they are consistently unable to meet expectations). If you judge a program based on what unrelated programs have done in the past, you're introducing an enormously unfair bias. Even if you judge the same program year to year, you have different kids, different personalities, maybe new things in training, etc. You can't just discount those things and say "this is the way it is, Cali can't run real cross country, don't ever give them a chance." And I know that's not exactly what's being implied here, but that's the sentiment that it can easily be interpreted as.

After watching the at larges go 18/19/20/22, is it safe to say nike did a terrible job picking them?

I heart nike wrote:

After watching the at larges go 18/19/20/22, is it safe to say nike did a terrible job picking them?

I noticed that too, surprised me quite a bit.

One extra point was Hinsdale XC Club (#22 at NXN [#1 at IL state meet]) didn't have their #1 runner running and only 6 runners total so he somehow missed the meet, and their #2 at state was #5 today, so they blew up or were affected by injuries/sickness within 2 weeks, something was up either way.

I think a large part of that was that there were hardly any "weak" AQ teams this year.

But beyond that, none of the At-Large teams looked to have particularly good days. I haven't looked deep into the results yet, but just browsing it looks like Dana Hills was the only one with a decently good day - but even that wasn't a great day with their #3 at state finishing way back as their #4.

The teams that finish at the top at NXN usually have good days. The teams that finish at the bottom usually don't. The only exceptions is when one team is WAY better/worse than the rest of the field and just don't live up to (or well exceed) that at the race.

Actual Logician wrote:

joke wrote:

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.

I lobbied hard for a couple New York schools a few years ago so it's not a region thing but I hope a couple of you can shut up about the Cali teams being undeserving now. The above was obviously going to happen and it did. Even Dana Hills guys beat teams from regions that wanted extra bids.

I heart nike wrote:

After watching the at larges go 18/19/20/22, is it safe to say nike did a terrible job picking them?

No, that sounds like they picked them perfectly. The at-large bid is an at-large bid because they aren't as good as the teams that got the automatic berths.

If the argument is to not have an at-large bid, that's different, but if the at-large bid's are all in the top-10 THAT would indicate a real issue with the selection process.

Monarch was 5th

Did you expect an at-large to win? Has an at-large ever even placed in the top 10? I defend Watchout's choice of allowing Summit to go. I think if they hadn't goofed off so much (as most of their interviews before and after the race implies) they could have been a top 15 team. North Spokane finished 3rd that year and West Kennewick 7th.After this year, when runners from the NW finished first in both the girls/boys race and the men's team finishing 1st, 8th and 19th, I believe the NW should get an at-large bid for the next couple of years due to the large potential in the area. Excited to see how next year goes.

I heart nike wrote:

After watching the at larges go 18/19/20/22, is it safe to say nike did a terrible job picking them?

Sorry, but Summit did not deserve to go last year. I have tremendous respect for Watchout's analysis, but he was wrong last year on Summit. They were too weak at the 4-7 spots. They got by in the NW regional, but would have not have been top 4 in a couple of deep regions.

"Goofing off" when other teams were sitting at home and likely just as deserving is disrespectful.

Duhhhhshington wrote:

Did you expect an at-large to win? Has an at-large ever even placed in the top 10?

I defend Watchout's choice of allowing Summit to go. I think if they hadn't goofed off so much (as most of their interviews before and after the race implies) they could have been a top 15 team. North Spokane finished 3rd that year and West Kennewick 7th.

After this year, when runners from the NW finished first in both the girls/boys race and the men's team finishing 1st, 8th and 19th, I believe the NW should get an at-large bid for the next couple of years due to the large potential in the area.

Excited to see how next year goes.

I heart nike wrote:

After watching the at larges go 18/19/20/22, is it safe to say nike did a terrible job picking them?

An at large won in 2005. Saratoga was an at-large after FM and CBA got the two automatic Northeast selections. On this girls side, I'm less sure, but East Aurora was an at-large last year and they finished 3rd.

watchout wrote:

runn wrote:

I hope dyestat's rankings don't have too much influence.

A team I coached about 6 years ago tied (and lost the tie-breaker) to a Nationally ranked team.

The next rankings came out and they were still ranked and we were not.

I emailed and asked why and I was told it was because we don't go to enough "big" meets.

We tied a team ranked, we should have been ranked close to them.

Eventually we got Honorable Mention.

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.

A classic chestnut from Watchout last year. "I don't go by head to head results before the state meets". Apparently also doesn't go by head to head results at regionals either! If the voices in his head tell him it is so, well then it is so, dammit.

deserve or not wrote:

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.

I disagree - California boys certainly did run well before 2010. In 2006 California put 3 in the top 10 - Royal 2nd, Jesuit 4th, Trabuco Hills 7th. In 2008 California #4, Thousand Oaks, placed 10th. California is Good and Deep, and there's no denying that.

Here's my unofficial CA Boys merge:

Ventura 124 77:43

Brea Olinda 166 78:13

Jurupa Hills 180 78:10

Burroughs/burbank 199 78:52

Great Oak 211 78:48

Madera South 211 78:35

Dana Hills 212 78:39

Agoura 220 78:53

Saugus 249 78:55

Canyon/anaheim 253 79:17

I did this by merging all boys times, filtering the top 20 teams, then merging again. I didn't have tenths in the results and let the computer break ties alphabetically. Still this should be right within a few points.

First two teams go automatically, then the next two are eligible to be selected as at-large choices.

And here's the unofficial girls CA merged scores:

Great Oak 56 91:10

Saugus 87 92:15

Palos Verdes 164 93:51

Bella Vista 177 93:50

Campolindo 178 93:31

Clovis North 249 95:09

Redwood 276 95:32

Arcadia 291 96:09

Bishop O'dowd 300 96:13

Claremont 306 96:15

Same methodology as used for boys above.