Which team got screwed the most?

Lots of interesting posts on this subject. In my mind, NCAA cross is about being ready ON THE DAY, that day being Regionals and if all goes well Nationals. The strong teams will get in whether "mini peaking" for Pre Nats, training through, running an additional super region, or what have you. No qualifying system will please everyone, of course, but the current one rewards teams that pull it out when it must be done.

Hah! Great post, Will. You are absolutely 100% correct. Love the cookie comment too.

The team that got screwed the worst was the Minnesota Gophers men's team. They got screwed by Plasencia and his inability to develop talent.

Johnny T wrote:

Hey "I don't think so" , you're a dip-stick. The only reason Oregon & Washington didn't get in is because Vilanova got beat by everyone in their pool at pre-nats. In fact, if Oregon & Washington had been in the same pool as Vilanova, then they would be in the NCAAs for sure. So, I guess that being invited to the NCAAs is just the luck of the draw and not really based on merit. Further, based on the recent results at Nationals intellegent people would tend to believe that the Western teams like Stanford, BYU, Colorado, & AZ State good since they usually dominate over your Eastern teams. Besides, it is a fact that the two best runners for #1 Duke are from California.

Just so you know, Marquette and Michigan State were the last two teams to get in to nationals and neither of them were in the same race as Villanova at the Pre-Nationals. Check your facts before making this kind of claim. The difference was that both Marquette and Michigan State went to at least one other quality meet and earned points at a meet other than pre-nationals.

This entire thread begs the question: what are we trying to accomplish in our sport? Most coaches who know what they are doing prefer a qualifying format in which their team only has to perform well one time prior to nationals in order to qualify. However, from a spectator standpoint, it makes more sense to have a system that favors consistent performances, like basketball has. If we ever want our sport to attract the fan base that basketball has, we would have to develop a different system. However, I don't think that realistically ever going to happen.

As it is right now, the system allows teams to qualify either by A. earning points earlier in the season, or by B. simply running well enough at their regional meet to make an auto spot. I understand that teams that are in tough regions really can't qualify using B, but everyone knows ahead of time if they are in a region with 2 really top teams, in which case they will need to earn points during the season in order to get an at-large slot. So the current system is pretty good. The only way that would be much more fair would be to bring everyone to one site for a national meet before the real national meet in order to determine the qualifiers for the real national meet, which would be ridiculous.

The only thing that I would say is that I do believe there should be more individual qualifiers. Many cross-country runners do not choose their university based on the cross-country program, but based on their academic interests. These student/athletes should have some kind of reasonable chance to qualify for the national meet, even if they aren't one of the top 50 runners in the country.

Sean Nunn has some very good points. All the other sports are based on consistency throughout the season, but many people want cross country to be based solely on one race. I think the season should have some merit in determining who goes to nationals, and this system has that in place. The main problem with the current system is the luck factor. You really do need to divide the pre-nationals into two races, but in doing so you bring in the luck factor since being put in one race over the other may determine who you get to beat, for example on the women's side this year, being in Villanova's race when they weren't running very well. The second luck factor is that you may or may not be in a conference that has some good out of region competition with nationally ranked teams. If you are in one of those conferences, you can use that as one of your meets to try and get at-large points. Some teams obviously don't have that luxury in their conference.

In regards to more individuals at nationals, I don't agree with that, although I know it is a popular opinion to have more. There are some coaches however, that have wanted to get rid of individual qualifiers completely, although I think that would be extreme. The point that people make for having more individuals is that not every top runner wants to go to a national qualifying type of program or they didn't get good until college. Again, I would compare this to other sports. You might be the best quarterback in the country, but you may not ever get to play in a major bowl game, or be a great point guard and never get to the NCAA tournament. I think as a runner you have both cross country, which is more team oriented, and track, which is more individual oriented. The top runners on poor teams will still get to go to nationals in track.

you can argue the system isnt perfect, but loyola didnt "get hooked up" by the committeethey deserved to go under the current system and were an easy choice for the committee to make

here's wtf: wrote:

I think the Loyola Ramblers got hooked up by the committee big time. Hope the Horizon League can represent on Monday.

Any thoughts on the Providence men not getting a NCAA bid. They scored just 67 points in an albeit weak Northeast Region, and they had some good performances by their top 5 runners (all around 31 minutes or under). I guess the point system hurt them quite a bit.

Rather, it was their lack of points (which anyone with any experience in trying to qualify for nationals knows about) that hurt them.