Official 2015 NCAA XC Regional Live Discussion Thread

Flo says no to UCLA and LR says yes. What's the deal

Here's our men's field:

Explanation here:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/11/2015-mens-ncaa-cross-country-team-qualifiers/

Teams selected:

1 michigan

2 michigan state

3 georgetown

4 penn

5 oklahoma state

6 minnesota

7 colorado

8 utep

9 syracuse

10 iona

11 florida state

12 mississippi

13 arkansas

14 texas

15 louisville

16 virginia

17 washington

18 stanford

19 byu

20 oregon

21 eastern kentucky

22 furman

23 nc state

24 oklahoma

25 tulsa

26 virginia tech

27 washington state

28 boise state

29 california

30 ucla

31 southern utah

Logic:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2015/11/2015-mens-ncaa-cross-country-team-qualifiers/

Flotrack has Cornell in at 30th, Letsrun has them first out.

@Rojo help a former athlete out with some clarification?

Washington State has a point over Texas from Pre Nationals.

Letsrun:

27: washington state is selected, gives no points (pushed in)

28: boise state is selected,

http://results.flotrack.org/2015/10-17-PreNats/Web/Results.php?EN=1&SN=F&ST=Official&D=1

You're missing Air Force on the men's side.

Stick with FLO wrote:

Washington State has a point over Texas from Pre Nationals.

Letsrun:

27: washington state is selected, gives no points (pushed in)

28: boise state is selected,

http://results.flotrack.org/2015/10-17-PreNats/Web/Results.php?EN=1&SN=F&ST=Official&D=1

We have them having two points (Texas at Pre-Nats and Minnesota at Pre-Nats). But Boise State has four, so they push them in (Washington State would not get in on their own under our logic). What is the issue here?

Stick with FLO wrote:

You still have SF having 0 points when they do

We have San Fran and Gonzaga both with a point. The computer has Gonzaga pushing in San Fran even though they both have a point because there are a ton of teams tied. If this is not allowed then let us know as the computer allows this.

Are letsrun or flotrack's projections more accurate?

So it comes down to if you can push on common opponents or just points

Blargh wrote:

Are letsrun or flotrack's projections more accurate?

Yoooooo. Why the discrepancies

Any updates on the at large individuals?

chaserofsteeples wrote:

Flotrack has Cornell in at 30th, Letsrun has them first out.

@Rojo help a former athlete out with some clarification?

We just talked to Zeb the Cornell coach. We told him we've tried to double check everything. This is what we put in the program. Our work product is out there for all to see.

I wouldn't mind being wrong in this case.

Heard from a source that something is wrong in your program, Flotrack has it correct, not sure where the error stems from though.

Kewl wrote:

Any updates on the at large individuals?

I just went through all 9 regionals and looked at the time gaps from the 4th place individuals to the 5th place individuals. The closest 5th place finisher to a 4th place individual was John Mascari from Indiana State. He was 3.1 seconds from the 4th place individual qualifier (Butler kid).

This is only if letsrun.com is right with it's prediction of at large teams.

Realizing Arizona is bad this year but its still a cop out to send 2 guys and not a full team to the regional. Developing a team or just waiting for the next Lalang brother???

West Men's Results are up

Cheserek wins by 11 seconds.

Team Scores-

1. Washington

2. Stanford

3. Oregon

4. Washington State

5. Boise State

marathnr wrote:

Kewl wrote:

Any updates on the at large individuals?

I just went through all 9 regionals and looked at the time gaps from the 4th place individuals to the 5th place individuals. The closest 5th place finisher to a 4th place individual was John Mascari from Indiana State. He was 3.1 seconds from the 4th place individual qualifier (Butler kid).

This is only if letsrun.com is right with it's prediction of at large teams.

How about for the women?

So is William and Mary definitely in??

Flotrack has it wrote:

Heard from a source that something is wrong in your program, Flotrack has it correct, not sure where the error stems from though.

If your source would be able to pinpoint the error that would be great. We're going through all the scenarios trying to figure out if ours is right or not.