Good Job Committee wrote:
There is no case for Wheaton,Stout, and Platteville. They failed to beat anybody of significance the entire season, and finished 100 points behind the 5th team. You got to have good wins if you are on the bubble
I respcfully disagree. A team like Wheaton who was ranked in the top 30 going in to the Regional meet and then had a strong showing at Regionals should get in...
DougC wrote:
Good Job Committee wrote:There is no case for Wheaton,Stout, and Platteville. They failed to beat anybody of significance the entire season, and finished 100 points behind the 5th team. You got to have good wins if you are on the bubble
I respcfully disagree. A team like Wheaton who was ranked in the top 30 going in to the Regional meet and then had a strong showing at Regionals should get in...
Bowdoin certainly performed better then Wheaton did at regionals (100 points off first, 35 off 4th as opposed to Wheaton being 100 points off 5th) and had a higher ranking then them going in and they didn't get in (21st in the nation). I don't think Bowdoin really deserved to get in, but neither did Wheaton.
The whole selection process should be revised. There should be no selection committee who will bring their own bias to their selections.
Each region should "earn" or "lose" their spots at the previous years national championships. Each region could then only blame the teams they sent.
I have not given it enough thought to actually come up with the formula, but something like you loose a spot if you have a team finish in the bottom 8 and that spot is given to the region whose last team finished the highest. If three regions had teams in the bottom 8 then the three regions with the best finish place of their last team would each gain a spot for next year. No cap for any region but again each one would get at least two.
I believe DII does something like this.
As a geezer and former coach myself, I sometimes peruse school newspapers (well, only the cross country parts) to see why something went wrong. Some schools are very guarded and others not. This is how I found out what happened to David Stillin.
And here
it says that Drew Padgett was sick, which explains why he wasn't at 100%. He should still finish well.
Furthermore, "a little birdie" (one of my former teammates don't tell anyone!!) told me Chris Leduc has been battling "flu-like" symptoms. Doesn't show in results! But who knows.
I am excited to see how SUNY friends do come Saturday!
you need a non biased formula wrote:
The whole selection process should be revised. There should be no selection committee who will bring their own bias to their selections.
Each region should "earn" or "lose" their spots at the previous years national championships. Each region could then only blame the teams they sent.
I have not given it enough thought to actually come up with the formula, but something like you loose a spot if you have a team finish in the bottom 8 and that spot is given to the region whose last team finished the highest. If three regions had teams in the bottom 8 then the three regions with the best finish place of their last team would each gain a spot for next year. No cap for any region but again each one would get at least two.
I believe DII does something like this.
This is exactly how it was done 7-8 years ago. My understanding is that the NCAA told the coaches committee that historical criteria could no longer be used to make these determinations for any sport. The current solution is their attempt to work around those restrictions.
get real wrote:
Bowdoin certainly performed better then Wheaton did at regionals (100 points off first, 35 off 4th as opposed to Wheaton being 100 points off 5th) and had a higher ranking then them going in and they didn't get in (21st in the nation). I don't think Bowdoin really deserved to get in, but neither did Wheaton.
First off, the depth at the MW Region is much deeper than the NE. Much deeper. The 7th team at the NE Region is not a national caliber team and Bowdoin did not peform better than Wheaton. You cannot compare "points away from 4th" as an accurate indicator, because the NE is so much weaker.
Second, my issue is with Loras, Manchester, Carlton... Why did they get in? The criteria is supposed to be #1: Regional Performance, #2: Head to Head in the last third of the season.
Who did Manchester, Loras, Carlton or Luther beat near the end of the season?
Carlton had a pretty solid showing at their conference meet and at the UW-Lax Invite. I think they're bid is warranted.
The south gets 2 automatics....now that is a question we'll never truly be able to answer.
Why does everyone get so uppity about which teams got shut out from the opportunity to finish in the back half of nationals around this time of year? The interesting stuff is what's going to happen with teams that actually are going to nationals competing for a title, spot on the podium or top 10 finish! How is the race for the individual title shaping up? Who are the picks for top 10? How's the race going to play out?
These are the interesting questions people should be talking about...
Because the people who got left out are the ones posting here. How many people really feel strongly about Bowdoin who don't go there?
https://apps.carleton.edu/athletics/assets/Lewis_Clark_Invitational_Results.pdfhttps://www.luther.edu/sports/men/cross-country/assets/Men_Team_Summary.pdfhttp://www.duhawks.com/stats/2013-14/XC%20Men/NCAA_DIII_mens_prenationals.htmhttp://www.duhawks.com/stats/2013-14/XC%20Men/IIACMENS.XCMeet.htmLook at previous posts too.
DougC wrote:
get real wrote:Bowdoin certainly performed better then Wheaton did at regionals (100 points off first, 35 off 4th as opposed to Wheaton being 100 points off 5th) and had a higher ranking then them going in and they didn't get in (21st in the nation). I don't think Bowdoin really deserved to get in, but neither did Wheaton.
First off, the depth at the MW Region is much deeper than the NE. Much deeper. The 7th team at the NE Region is not a national caliber team and Bowdoin did not peform better than Wheaton. You cannot compare "points away from 4th" as an accurate indicator, because the NE is so much weaker.
Second, my issue is with Loras, Manchester, Carlton... Why did they get in? The criteria is supposed to be #1: Regional Performance, #2: Head to Head in the last third of the season.
Who did Manchester, Loras, Carlton or Luther beat near the end of the season?
Is it though? Pretty funny that you would say the seventh team in NE is not national caliber when they finished 16th in the nation last year and returned their top 6 runners. They certainly performed below their potential this year which hurt them badly, but it is an interesting comment for you to make. Also, NE#5 Bates was just 7 points off MW#3 UW-Oshkosh at Roy Griak (early in the season I know, but I think you see what I am getting at). The midwest certainly has the top tier firepower, but I don't think the depth is as good as you think it is.
Yeah, but Carleton, Loras and Luther are from the Central Region.
Loras would've beaten Bowdoin at Pre-Nat's as the other poster said.
MmmmKChildren wrote:
Yeah, but Carleton, Loras and Luther are from the Central Region.
Loras would've beaten Bowdoin at Pre-Nat's as the other poster said.
Central region was exceptionally weak. I think it's obviously bowdoin should have gotten in, BUT at the end of the day, it doesn't matter unless you're top-10. Get out of the way.
diii picks wrote:
The regional points criterion is specious. Sure Manchester was close to Wabash and Calvin, but those teams aren't very good. Of course Bowdoin scored a ton of points at Regionals because there are so many good teams in that region. It's even worse for Bates women--they put up a high point total because 3 of the top 5 women's team in the country are in their region. Regions with podium-level teams really increase the point totals for the schools in bubble/at-large positions. This should not be a factor in selecting teams.
Ha...you are clueless. Wabash and Calvin both will be near the top 10 at Nationals.
It's great that the cap has been lifted, but unfortunate that there wasn't a transparent process put in place to better sort out this mess. Hopefully things will get better before they get worse, and more of the better teams will be selected in future years.
Ha...you are clueless. Wabash and Calvin both will be near the top 10 at Nationals.[/quote]
If by "near the top 10," you mean somewhere around 14th and 18th, then yes, Wabash and Calvin will be near the top 10.
nationals stream?
Wait is it true Padgett is injured? If so my St. Olaf boys FTW
not sure if SUNY Cortland can win the race but they are prohibitive favorites for any partying awards...
Crain, Over, LeDuc, Wintheiser, Stadler, Sparks, Horton, Cotton, O'Brien, Padgett, and Weston Butler all seem like reasonable candidates for the individual title