Portland is trying to set themselves up for a big finish at Nationals. Good luck to them.
Track and Cross Country aren't like other sports - regular season results don't matter.
It's like March Madness. Once you've made it to the dance, you're 0-0 just like everybody else.
My son was recruited by Portland. Glad he didn't run there for that arrogant coach.
titan wrote:
My son was recruited by Portland. Glad he didn't run there for that arrogant coach.
Where'd he end up instead?
So they run everyone and finish 2nd. They hold some out and finish second.
Same result. Why not rest for regionals?
Personally I think XC teams need a conference schedule and need to race.
wejo wrote:
At the West Coast men's meet, #2 nationally ranked BYU men got a perfect score, going 1-2-3-4-5. The team that got second was the #3 team in the country according to the coaches' poll, Portland (Portland is #6 in the LetsRun.com Fan Polls).
BYU is very, very good. But the thing I don't think we've ever seen before is not BYU putting up a perfect score, but rather Portland not even trying to beat them by not sending out its best team.
The cross country regular season is totally watered down with teams not trying in many meets, but I don't think I've seen this extended to a conference meet before.
Portland ran its 2 best runners from the Wisconsin meet but sat its #3, #4, #5, and #6 runners from Wisconsin. Now, it's highly unlikely that many guys got injured/sick the week of the race.
Jon Gault directed me to a Flotrack interview after Wisconsin where Portland coach Rob Conner said, "I'm not looking forward to it (winning conference). That's not really on my concern list... I'm not a conference meet guy. I like other meets. I like regionals and nationals... Our challenge will be just to see how many guys we can get in their top 7."
He then added something that was dead on the money, " They (BYU) could score 15 points on us even. [I have] no concern about winning."
Teams can do whatever they want, but I thought conference meets were sacred. Put your best out there and go at it.
What do you guys think of this?
The funny thing is even if Portland ran it's "A" team BYU might have put 5 in front of them because Portland did run its #1 and #2 from Wisconsin. Is it tanking if the result would be the same?
Interview I talked about here:
http://www.flotrack.org/video/1258758-portland-head-coach-rob-conner-tells-flotrack-where-they-should-be-ranked-after-2nd-place-team-finish#.WfOITIGPK3A
Resting some runners and still finishing second in a conference meet isn't 'tanking', at least in NCAA XC. As has been pointed out by several on here, conference meets don't matter in relation to the NCAA meet. It's really a two-meet season, and as everyone can run in meet #1 (regionals), that's the meet that matters, as it is the only way to get to Nationals, which is the only meet that really matters. Maybe the Portland coach actually understands that -- it isn't too complicated, is it? Maybe also he knows his athletes and is trying to get them to do their best in the two meets that matter, rather than running them more and harder than is best for them in meets that don't matter. That would make him a good coach.
I'm one of those guys with an old school mentality; every meet should be sacred, especially in xc. Teams typically have no more than 6 or 7 meets on the xc calendar if they get to nats and except for the best runners, these are the only important races from june - january. No reason to tank them. This idea that you can't run two good races two weeks in a row has to stop.
This is why I ignore DI XC until closer to nationals and stick to D3. This crap makes it boring even for the biggest of XC geeks. And sure, XC doesn't make money for the schools the way that football and basketball do, but there should be some consideration for putting on a good performance at conference. It is a championship, after all, and there should be some pride and effort invested.
Unfortunately the only teams that could suffer consequences are ones that are on the cusp of qualifying for nationals.
Sports Data Analyst wrote:
I find it much more accurate to evaluate the Championship period of the season as three races in four weeks. .
It's three races in the span of 5 weeks.
PreNats - 2 weeks off.
Conference - 2 weeks off.
Regional - 1 week then Nationals.
The easier solution would there to be a 2 week gap between regionals and NCAAs.
Hopefully Conner gets back to Gault with his details. I've got less of a problem with it if they ran their top 2 guys.
Sounds like it's possible they knew they were going to get beat and maybe held out a few guys who were a little dinged up. I don't have a huge problem with that. If a kid in the top 5 has an Achilles issure or something, you dont' race him, that's fine as you'll still get 2nd.
But tanking in general? I have a HUGE problem with it. Conference should be very meaningful.
I mean how far down the road do we want to take this? Maybe guys should start skipping NCAAs to get ready for USAs?
[/quote]
Most track and field/xc meets are not popular for the same reason that a pres-season NFL game isn't popular - they are exhibitions. A conference meet isn't an exhibition.
What makes the sport so much fun is when things matter. Your conference meet HAS to matter.[/quote]
this is why I liked when BYU said they saw what NAU did at Wisco and wanted to make a statement at pre-nats the next day
What if qualifying for nationals changed?
What if a win at conference meant automatic qualifying for nationals? Are there any conferences that don't deserve this? That would be 10 automatic qualifiers.
Everyone else would go to regional meet, where the top 2 teams advance to nationals. That would be the next 16 qualifiers.
For the remaining 6 slots would be at large bids, using the same process as is already in place.
The process would be the same for individuals.
Pros: The conference meet suddenly becomes extremely meaningful, especially in a conference where there are multiple top ten teams. Getting a bye before nationals would be huge, and it would be worth it to not sandbag the conference meet.
Cons: some teams would get a bye. Also a champion from a weak conference could make it to nationals. This could potentially take a spot from a more deserving, more qualified team.
rojo wrote:
Sports Data Analyst wrote:
I find it much more accurate to evaluate the Championship period of the season as three races in four weeks. .
It's three races in the span of 5 weeks.
PreNats - 2 weeks off.
Conference - 2 weeks off.
Regional - 1 week then Nationals.
The easier solution would there to be a 2 week gap between regionals and NCAAs.
You list FOUR races, and the issue is the last THREE races in a span of 22 days.
At least conference is 8k. In my day we had to race 10k at conference and that extra 2k makes a big difference. I was never able to string three good races together to end the XC season. It's not a surprise to me when you see good individuals and teams blow up at NCAAs.
Running three races in 22 days not as much an issue for the women since they only do 6k.
lmao at anyone who doesn't think BYU will beat the sh*t out of Portland at nats, Portland will be lucky to get 1-2 guys in their top 7
their 1-2 couldn't hang with the top 5 of BYU over 8k certainly wont over 10K gaps will only get bigger
BYU is the best team in the country right now NAU close second, I should compare how Portland did vs NAU to how they did vs BYU
btw I don't even like BYU, wont be rooting for them, but I'm just going to get our from under to rock some of you people are under and admit they are the best this year
so at Wisco Portland got 3 into NAU's top 5, in fact 3 before NAU's 4th
hmmm.....
Bruce Wayne wrote:
What if qualifying for nationals changed?
What if a win at conference meant automatic qualifying for nationals? Are there any conferences that don't deserve this? That would be 10 automatic qualifiers.....
Some conferences are weaker than others and the top team can basically do a temp run to win it. Other conferences like Pac12 are super competitive.
Another thought is scoring conference results from the regional meet.
vivalarepublica wrote:
rojo wrote:
I'll bet my life that BYU wipes the floor of Portland at NCAAs. But that shouldn't happen under your theory as BYU should be too tired.
If Portland wanted to take it easy, they could chill at regionals.
Do you have life insurance? If so, please add me as a beneficiary.
Idk about him but I do. I’ll need your dumb a$$ to ante up too, though, to make it worth my time to come collect my earnings. Please respond for contact info and have bank account/routing number handy.
Gotta bee wrote:
lmao at anyone who doesn't think BYU will beat the sh*t out of Portland at nats, Portland will be lucky to get 1-2 guys in their top 7
their 1-2 couldn't hang with the top 5 of BYU over 8k certainly wont over 10K gaps will only get bigger
Yeah BYU is good, they can win NCAAs. Portland has a shot at top 4 though.
I need coffee wrote:
Gotta bee wrote:
lmao at anyone who doesn't think BYU will beat the sh*t out of Portland at nats, Portland will be lucky to get 1-2 guys in their top 7
their 1-2 couldn't hang with the top 5 of BYU over 8k certainly wont over 10K gaps will only get bigger
Yeah BYU is good, they can win NCAAs. Portland has a shot at top 4 though.
I agree, I think I have them at 4 right now over Cuse, Sticking with Stanford at 3 especially after yesterday
nationals > conference wrote:
3 hard races in 3 weeks (conference, regionals, nationals) is why Rob Conner and UP did this.
The Pilots have a chance to place high at NCAAs, why f*** it up "going to the well" at a conference meet that doesn't mean much.
The only teams that should focus on conference are teams not going to nationals.
+1
I think coaches probably know their own team and their own runners better than the BroJos. It's not like the West Coast whatever is some prestigious conference either. If it's not a power 5 (or one of those old money WASPy conferences), who cares. Get to the NCAA start line ready to roll!
weatweatw3 wrote:
If you're basically guaranteed 2nd, then who cares? Why not rest a few guys and still take that second place slot. This would be like crapping on the Warriors for resting someone in first round of the playoffs when they know they can cruise through anyway. It's being smart.
Okay, so a few guys are held out so they can rest. Rest from what? Why does one need to rest if they never race?