NCAA at-large bids are at stake and the NCAA Cross Country Rules Committee needs to remove Wisco from Louisville results

Name:... wrote:

I get it, though. From a fan's perspective, we're witnessing a sport that is trending towards a month-long season with four, maybe even three relevant efforts by the major teams. As a fan, maybe even for athletes who enjoy racing, that sucks.

THIS

Does anyone else think it is strange the Wisco guys actually listened to Byrne?

I would think this type of strategy is dangerous. If you race, you should race to win, any other mentality could jeopardize their season, especially when they get to nats.

Here are two better strategies (in my opinion):

-Run the first 4k in position to move on the leaders in the second half of the race. Don't dictate the pace or do any extra work. Practice moving up in the field, much like Colorado does year in and year out to beat us.

-Race hard enough to win, but not harder.

It all depends on the exact intent of the "tempo". If they're trying to bring along some younger guys or an injured guys who are coming back, I think running as a team has a pretty positive influence on running strong and building confidence.

The fact is, there's a ton of reasons why doing this is a good reason.

1. Get a good effort in on the national course

2. Bring along some of the younger runners or guys coming off injury

3. Get experience running as a pack in a crowd for the upcoming power meets.

My guess, as is it has already been pointed out, is that Mick has never even thought of the implications, if there really are any serious ones, of how it could affect another teams chances at an at large bid.

Why would they listen to him? I don't know, he's their coach and has had great success at Wisconsin. Why would you bite the hand that feeds you or not trust he's doing whats right for you and the team?

This is an interesting dynamic to a flawed system. I'm not overly convinced any real damage is done, but at the same time, Murphy's law would say it could affect the outcome at some point, albeit, I don't think it would ever affect the race for a championship, just teams who's sole goal is to make the national meet. That's as important as any other teams goal, but at least its still minimizing the effect on the championship.

Brojos- you can't have it both ways. You guys consistently complain about the NCAA system over racing our young athletes, leading to burnout or plateauing.

They went there to scout the course, probably bring some younger guys along and not race all out early in the season.

Also- why would Mick Byrne give a fck if they were DQ'd from this meet? It wouldn't be sending any message to them.

The fact there is no official conference schedule that means anything is why our sport is irrelevant. Football is playing every week. They are in the media with stats and commentary. What media is there in a tempo run?

Races means something. As is our best runners compete 2-3 times. But can "race" workouts weekly?

No hard effort at the beginning of October will prevent a team from winning a national title in November.

If they didn't want to race then don't go. No one would care if they stayed home and raced a time trial or tempo.

rojo wrote:

That story is still to these day the most read story in LetsRun history (maybe Mike Rossi has passed it but I don't think so).

The Rossi thread isn't read by anyone. It's six autistic douche-bags posting the same thing over an over.

The Donger wrote:

The fact there is no official conference schedule that means anything is why our sport is irrelevant. Football is playing every week. They are in the media with stats and commentary. What media is there in a tempo run?

.

That's what's keeping Joe Sixpack from following cross country?

This is an inane argument. No matter how hard Wisconsin competes, no matter how many meets you have, there is not going to be any media coverage beyond what you have today. It's a niche sport.

Tow ways wrote:

Brojos- you can't have it both ways. You guys consistently complain about the NCAA system over racing our young athletes, leading to burnout or plateauing.

They went there to scout the course, probably bring some younger guys along and not race all out early in the season.

Also- why would Mick Byrne give a fck if they were DQ'd from this meet? It wouldn't be sending any message to them.

1. I'ver NEVER ripped the NCAA system. I think it's a great system. Everyone thinks the pro lifestyle is better. I always mock that argument. Tell that to Andrew Wheating. So my view of the NCAA system is just the opposite of what you say it is.

2. Mick Byrne wouldn't care. If I'd written that beating Wisco shouldn't count for points, people wouldn't be upset. But using the word DQ and people get all up in arms. I clearly think what they did violates the rule book. I also think it violates the intent of the at large system. IF you beat a team running 4 of ti's top 7 (thinking they'd run hard), then you get points as you beat a good team. If you beat a team that's not trying, it's the equivalent of facing only a few of their studs and you shouldn't get points.

Not so, Rojo wrote:

rojo wrote:

That story is still to these day the most read story in LetsRun history (maybe Mike Rossi has passed it but I don't think so).

The Rossi thread isn't read by anyone. It's six autistic douche-bags posting the same thing over an over.

Not the thread. The article. It's not actually as popular as i thought. It got over 75,000 views. RYan Hall - approximately 200,000.

rojo wrote:

After some thought, we took out the shame part as we felt it was a little over the top. Wisconsin wasn’t acting in a clear-cut shameful manner. They were acting in their own self-interest but failed to consider the ramifications those actions would have on others.

Why is it Mick's job to care about the ramifications on others?

NFL teams have sat starters late in the season after clinching playoff spots.

We see this in other ways in track/CC - Just clearing 1 bar in the HJ if you're doubling at conference or a clear favorite settling for 3rd place to preserve themselves for day 2. Again, WI's 2011 NCAA team did this at Regionals - cruising to 9th-13th the week before, people mentioned easing up in trials of a 100m, maybe running a "B" 4x1 squad at a Conf meet.

Again, as a fan I don't love this and I also acknowledge the examples listed above lead to unintended consequences, but why is or should that be Mick's concern? His responsibility is to do what he feels is best for his team...not worry about what's best for his competitors.

I think it's normal for 21st Century NCAA XC teams to do training races like this one. I see nothing wrong with the practice. Even if it were a rule that the NCAA wanted to police, how would "honest effort" be determined? I've finished plenty of NCAA XC races with gas in the tank. Should I have been DQ'd?

If Wisconsin's team tempo run is really causing problems for team qualification, the system is messed up. A great start on fix would be to dramatically reduce the number of teams qualifying. 30 plus is ridiculous. 16-24 seems like a reasonable number, with only automatic bids---top 2-3 per region. If you're not top 3 in your region, you're not winning NCAAs as a team.

At-large qualifying teams aren't contenders (and don't need to be there in your opinion ).

Goucher needles wrote:

A great start on fix would be to dramatically reduce the number of teams qualifying. 30 plus is ridiculous. 16-24 seems like a reasonable number, with only automatic bids---top 2-3 per region. If you're not top 3 in your region, you're not winning NCAAs as a team.

I like this idea. Top 3 in regionals would reduce the teams at nats to 27, which is good.

The problem is that the 3rd teams in weak regions are much worse than the 4th teams in strong regions. But, if you're the 4th team in a strong region, you weren't going to win nats anyway.

It would make the process cleaner and would make regionals heroic.

Again, I like it...

The NCAA can NOT reduce the number of teams. A formula for NCAA participation is used for all NCAA sports, and when a study was done by the NCAA in the early 2000's it was found that cc/track had the lowest participation level in the NCAA Championship tournament. Hell, there are 58 or so Ice Hockey teams and 16 of them make the NCAA tournament, while there are 336 cc teams and only 31 make the tournament. So there is no way to reduce the number of teams. There actually is a committee exploring ways to INCREASE the number of teams to maybe 40 or so. Not sure that is a good idea, but NCAA formula's dictate everything that happens.

If Wisconsin doesn't finish on the podium at nats, he's failed.

The way he handled Michael VanVoorhis plus his boorish comments would make me doubt him as a coach.

I liked the one after one of their homemeets, "the seniors held the freshman's hands around the course." I'm pretty sure Joe Hardy et. al don't need their hands held.

I've never been in 23xx 8k shape, but I have been in 25xx shape. If my coach had told me to run 45 seconds slower and not to race, I would finish, just as tired as if I had raced and maybe lost some confidence.

If they were so hell bent on previewing the course, then bring the whole team, let the B/C team race for real, and the whole team warms up/coolsdown on the course. Then we wouldn't have this fiasco.

Really? Who? How many seniors were running with Joe Hardy?

Really? Who? How many seniors were running with Joe Hardy?

Really? Who? How many seniors were running with Joe Hardy? Hmmmmm, not very accurate.

I could support two x twenty team super-regionals with the top eight teams from each going to the championship meet. Also advancing would be the top16 individuals from each region not on a qualifying team.

Bdubs wrote:

The way he handled Michael VanVoorhis plus his boorish comments would make me doubt him as a coach.

How should he have handled VanV?