#1 NAU is stunned at Big Sky XC Champs - Southern Utah 35, NAU 38!

I mean yeah NAU sat some of their top guys but what what does SUU’s performance mean for them?

tuccone wrote:

naw nau wrote:

They lost. It was stupid and arrogant on their part. I now hope they don't win nationals.

I agree. Like do you really think you’re THAT good that you can just basically forfeit conference and not take crap for it. BYU balled out at conference and for the first time ever I’ll probably be rooting for them.

You got it. You lose your conference meet. I don't root for you in that given year.

It drives me nuts when an SEC track team will get like 4th at conference but win the NCAA title.

Plus with everyone in the NCAA getting extra years of eligibility due to Covid, everyone in the NCAA will be 26 soon anyway so no need to hate on BYU. ;)

In the year 2021, I'd accept if if they were going to ball out at conference indoors. But someone said they aren't doing that?

Maybe NAU sit Grijalva and Young at NCAAs so they can get ready for the Trials?

My guesses for plausible reasons are:

1. They want to rest their top guys/not overrace them, and since their team has so much depth, they have that option.

2. They wanted to give more of their runners a chance to prove they can be in the top 7, in case someone who hadn't raced well had a breakout race this time around, they could cycle him in in the future.

3. They want their top guys to race in the Trials, and this is tied into that somehow.

4. They wanted to give some of their slower runners another race for experience/ a final race if they were a senior.

5. A mix of any or all of the above

It's not often that a team can sit out their top guys at conference and still almost win, I'd bet they're confident they can win NCAAs and want Grijalva and Young to be prepared to race for the win.

I was not aware that they weren’t having regionals this year. How are they picking teams to qualify, all on rankings?

With less meets this year. Why not give ur mid pack guys a chance to prove their worth? Also questionable performance by All American Bosley.

Why not do it nationals then also? Same silly logic.

A committee chooses the teams. Conference championship holds the most weight. Top individual finisher from each conference meet not on a qualifying team automatically qualifies.

They’re busy preparing for a 10k

Anyways Big Sky sounds more like a ski resort than a legit conference

Maybe the committee is comprised of a bunch of people who were looking for a reason not to include them in the meet. They now have it. The conference champ just took a spot from another deserving team if they also take NAU.

Rocket Mann wrote:

rojo wrote:

I agree. Like do you really think you’re THAT good that you can just basically forfeit conference and not take crap for it. BYU balled out at conference and for the first time ever I’ll probably be rooting for them.

4. They wanted to give some of their slower runners another race for experience/ a final race if they were a senior.

NAU #5 and #6 were seniors, this seems likely

Would it surprise anyone that they sat four ncaa runners not three? Hasty and Bosley were both beaten by another runner twice this season.

John McDonnell would never have done that. Every championship was important. That's why he had 35 conference XC titles in a row. Think about that for a minute.

Big Sky is no joke wrote:

I mean yeah NAU sat some of their top guys but what what does SUU’s performance mean for them?

They’ve been consistently average throughout the year and will most likely not finish top 20 at nationals.

No way they planned to lose. If I looked at those lineups before the race, I would have assumed NAU scores 20 and 2nd place scores 60. That was obviously their plan. But it ended up being a bit too much arrogance that cost them. I now put them about even with BYU.

stepped away wrote:

I was not aware that they weren’t having regionals this year. How are they picking teams to qualify, all on rankings?

Yes. Which means now SUU will be ranked top 20 after doing virtually nothing except beating a NAU team that essentially threw the conference meet.

tuccone wrote:

stepped away wrote:

I was not aware that they weren’t having regionals this year. How are they picking teams to qualify, all on rankings?

Yes. Which means now SUU will be ranked top 20 after doing virtually nothing except beating a NAU team that essentially threw the conference meet.

Someone’s salty

run of the mill HSer wrote:

Rocket Mann wrote:

4. They wanted to give some of their slower runners another race for experience/ a final race if they were a senior.

NAU #5 and #6 were seniors, this seems likely

NOT stupid and arrogant of NAU! They have 1 primary goal this XC season - to win NCAAs. Last year they had 2 goals: to keep a 3-year unbeaten streak alive AND win NCAAs, which in retrospect was probably asking too much. Maybe they would have won NCAAs last year if they moderated the workload of some guys at conference and regionals.

Also, are any of the guys that rested also running indoor NCAA's? If so, then the decision makes even more sense.

Go Jacks!

It is amusing how people come here with strong opinions without knowing the facts. NAU hasn't qualified anyone for track so how could they run at nationals?

naw nau wrote:

It is amusing how people come here with strong opinions without knowing the facts. NAU hasn't qualified anyone for track so how could they run at nationals?

Obviously, I didn't know about indoors, which is why I posed it as a question. Thanks.