NXN At-Large bids? Who get?

Where do you see them on the list? I see Ryan McGorty, but no Sean. However, I do see Chase registered as well.

Another CA Guy wrote:

Bloom's most recent rankings from 11-20 are included in my compilation.

Could you direct me to Bloom's 11/20 rankings?

xc rules wrote:

Another CA Guy wrote:

Bloom's most recent rankings from 11-20 are included in my compilation.

Could you direct me to Bloom's 11/20 rankings?

xc rules wrote:

Could you direct me to Bloom's 11/20 rankings?

There is some wackiness with the new Running Times site, but this link should get you to Bloom's latest rankings:

Anyone know the criteria for selecting the at-large teams?

I found this statement on the NXN website:

Greatest weighting by the committee will be given to third-place clubs from the Championship Division race at each NXN Regional who defeated any eventual NXN Regional Champion in prior weeks.

Beyond this, are the at-large teams evaluated solely on performances at the regional meets or does the committee look at the entire season for the at-large eligible teams?

SW vs Calif wrote:

... the process is, shall we say, fraught with complications.

Doing mostly auto-bids plus a few at-large seems a reasonable compromise. It's just that the at-large are extremely difficult to pick, when the vast majority of the teams have no out-of-state competitions versus the other competing teams.

I agree^. Since selecting teams is an arduous task with little objectivity (the point system favored certain regions over others and had a number of faults in my opinion), I would suggest a system that rewards regions with recent success. A strong region a year ago doesn’t necessarily equate to a deep region this year, but it would be as fair as the current system, which often appears to favor certain areas of the country.

My proposal would reward regions with multiple top 10 finishes the previous year. Using the 2011 results, the NY, MW, and SW regions would each get a third girls teams, leaving the committee with one outstanding at-large bid. For the boys, “auto” at-large bids would go to the SW, MW, and HL. Again, leaving only 1 invite to the selection committee to decide upon. Not perfect by any means, but less arbitrary than the current system in place.

Using a single year as a reflection of continued region strength beyond the top two probably isn't going to be the best way to go about it, but along those lines I think - and I'm sure some if not all of the committee would follow this logic - that at-large spots should be more likely to go to regions that have a history of doing well over the course of multiple seasons and had a close third place team at their regional meet.

National analysis to come, but here is my region specifically.

http://ny.milesplit.com/articles/96533-nike-cross-regionals-ny-ne-meet-previews

There is a high preference for Regional Performance, with histories going back only if there are close calls, from what I can gather from past picks.

Don't take milesplit rankings seriously. They don't even have Saugus, Tesoro or Redondo Union in the honorable mentions, but Serrano is on there.

I think the LaCosta Canyon ladies look to have good chance for bid. Should be very exciting to see how it all works out. Happy Thanksgiving to all!

California bids should be

Great Oak & Buchanan getting the auto bids with Simi Valley getting the at large bid. D1 race will be fastest race of the day because of Baxter and earlier time slot. D2 teams will be left out this year.

You not think La Costa will get one? They always do, right?

Why would Buchanan get one? Both LCC and Saugus are better. Saugus might just get an at large if they win their 7th straight title and LCC is very good as well.

Calif would be lucky to get a bid this year on girls side, after generally underperforming at Nats the last 2 years (highest Calif finish in 2011 was 10th). Great Oak and Simi look strong, but so far there seems to be a gap after that. If one team (Saugus or LCC looking to me like best contenders) closes that gap, they might have a chance.

Meanwhile, the SW teams (and MW) have over-performed at Nats, and have strong at-large contenders. Barring disaster, NY will get one, and could get 2 under certain circumstances. SE and NE both have chance to impress tomorrow - though both were disasters at Nats last couple years (strong #1 for girls and boys teams, but after that....)

Yeah, that's about how I see it as well...

if there is a large gap between #2-3 at CA State and NXN-SE, and between #3-4 at NXN-NY, the at-large picture should be fairly clear for the girls (NY#3, SW#3+4, MW#3)... things could get quite a bit more complicated if that doesn't happen, though.

Boys, I really don't know what is going to happen. Summit has a very strong front trio but questionable #4/5; St. Xavier and Los Alamos have strong #4/5's but are questionable up front, and I doubt there will be four boys teams that stand out this weekend alone (though maybe that will happen, you never know). And maybe we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Heartland teams, given that...

expect East Aurora girls to have a say in the at large bid process.... NY girls deserve and should get two at large bids..... Expect FM, SS, HN and EA to be in PDX

Summit shouldn't go simply because their 4/5 aren't that great. I was at NXN NW and pretty much right at the start of the race they started right in the back.

EA friend wrote:

expect East Aurora girls to have a say in the at large bid process.... NY girls deserve and should get two at large bids..... Expect FM, SS, HN and EA to be in PDX

Why do they deserve two at large bids ahead of some very deserving teams?

Let's let them race first before we award them two spots over teams that have finished in the top ten last year and were very close to the front two teams in recently strong regions this year...