NCAA Selection Sunday for xc is this weekend. Please post who should make it here

I think the committee did a good job with the selection and I'm impressed that they decided not to take Michigan and Oregon based on the coaches poll. "Inside the NCAA Selection Committee with Blake Bolden" on FloTrack is an interesting watch.

Makes sense that Georgetown, Villanova and Duke are in, especially since they chose to bring Syracuse. Tough to leave Duke out of the big dance after beating the Orange at ACC's this past fall.

Syracuse gets in by the skin of their teeth with a mediocre body of work. UMass Lowell dominated their conference and sends two individuals to NCAAs, but gets hurt by a loss to UConn, who Syracuse beat at the FSU Winter Invite. Without that, I think you see UMass Lowell in Stillwater and Syracuse at home.

2019 NCAA Championships

Furman women 9th

Furman men 14th

They haven’t lost to UNC Charlotte, Duke, or Wake Forest at any meet in the last 8 years. Not sure how Furman took Michigan’s spot; lots of other teams much more vulnerable to criticism.

Guy. Michigan blew their chance. It’s tough that they didn’t race at their conference meet and they had a bad day but that unfortunately leaves them at home. Furman took care of business and deserves to go. Watch the explanation on flotrack and tell me how you think Michigan should be in.

This is so stupid.

Unconfirmed source: Virginia hit hard by Covid, may not be able to field a full team... Should another team that just missed out take their place???

Texas, Georgia, and Lowell all come to mind as first teams out over the likes of Oregon, Michigan, and FSU

Tell me how the criteria says Michigan should go.

360NoScope wrote:

Unconfirmed source: Virginia hit hard by Covid, may not be able to field a full team... Should another team that just missed out take their place???

Texas, Georgia, and Lowell all come to mind as first teams out over the likes of Oregon, Michigan, and FSU

Vin thought about not declaring a team, but I guess he decided to go for it. Considering not a single distance athlete ran at ACC’s due to covid, it’s hard to see them running well at nationals.

The answer to your question of how Furman took Michigan's spot is easy: when they got down to the last so many spots they deferred to conference champions. That was clear from listening to Blake Bolden's interview on Flotrack. I said earlier in this thread: the criteria wasn't designed to get the 31 best teams to NCAA. The conference champions preferential treatment combined with no requirement to run during the winter meant someone like a Furman could win their conference (which we can all objectively agree isn't surprising nor particularly impressive) and know: I've done the best thing I can to make NCAA. Remember, Furman ran once - their conference championship. They played the system perfectly and it worked. Being unable to compare them to anyone else clearly was an advantage.

Now look at Michigan. No conference championship - through no fault of their own - found a meet to run to meet the single meet requirement. What hurt them was a bad performance on the day. Now, people also were very harsh on Syracuse during the year because they had been very underwhelming in all of their previous races. All anyone had to do was look at ACC Indoor results to see that Syracuse is better than anyone was giving them credit for. The problem was: the selection committee couldn't look at anything related to indoor track performances. So now you have a Michigan team who had been ranked high most of the season until no Big Ten - and they drop because how do you compare them? Those doing the polls aren't supposed to look at indoor marks either, which again is objectively stupid. Athletics doesn't exist in a vacuum. What happens on the track is obviously related to how someone performs in cross country. Sure, normally you don't have that in real time - here we did. Yet before all of this it was decided that what could actually serve as a useful data point wouldn't be used.

All of these things only serve to prove that the idea wasn't to get the 31 best teams to the meet, rather to be able to justify who you put there. The committee can 100% say: look Furman won their conference, so they had a leg up. Too bad. I actually think the better question to be asking is: how did Georgetown and Villanova get in? They also raced once - at Big East and were easily beaten by Butler (who is a good team). I'm not sure how that warrants getting into the meet, Again, the coaches poll here could have been useful but the committee chose to not use that as guidance.

I'm sure they feel they did the best they could, but I think there are more questions than answers.

So I guess I would answer your question by asking you one: how did Syracuse earn their way in? It's pretty clear that until they beat Michigan they weren't in. So by beating what the committee decided was a good team - they earned a spot. But if Michigan was that good why then would they not get in. That's where most people seem to be viewing this from. There just seems to be a lack of logic in the decision to leave Michigan out. Unless you truly don't think they're one of the best 31 teams in the NCAA.

Now I think the answer is pretty simple: once Syracuse got in they had to then bring in Duke because Duke beat them at ACC and we all know conference championships were SO important.

You can keep pointing to the criteria and stating that Michigan didn't meet it, but - they raced once. That was all that was required. Every other part was out of their control (other than their actual performance which to be honest on that day wasn't very good) and a total subjective call by the committee.

This is the problem with an overly subjective process with very few data points to pull from. Blake Bolden even said that - it was almost impossible to do a lot of head-to-head comparisons because of so few races.

nau should make it

Dude almost nailed it. Swap last one in and first one out.

never mind facts wrote:

2019 NCAA Championships

Furman women 9th

Furman men 14th

They haven’t lost to UNC Charlotte, Duke, or Wake Forest at any meet in the last 8 years. Not sure how Furman took Michigan’s spot; lots of other teams much more vulnerable to criticism.

Past years should never matter in selection for this years championship.

Furmans best win is VMI

They then refused to race at both during the fall or spring season despite obviously being able to if they wanted.

Michigan at least got covid for conference. UNC Charlotte and Duke etc got scalps in the fall.

If you want to make NCAAs you shouldn't have to accomplish literally nothing. It's a joke that they're in this meet

Actually think the committee did as good a job as possible with the limited data points. The one you mention Syracuse "in" and Texas "out" is probably the biggest gripe I think I have with the selections.

throwaway acct wrote:

How does John Tatter (28th at ACC) make it individually. And Ahmed Muhumed, 49th at Florida State Winter Classic...

Why are you so surprised? Tatter is a stud and absolutely deserves to make it.

As for all the people whining about teams like Michigan not getting in you have to get over yourselves and stop acting like Qanon idiots who think Trump lost a "rigged" election. These days people think that results are "rigged" when they don't turn out the way they want them to.

Hey mods, please ban this guy. That language is wildly unacceptable.

Questionable3 wrote:

This entire thing is a farce. You literally have some teams that only ran twice in October. NCAA Cross should have been cancelled like Indoor NCAA and Outdoor NCAA was in 2020.

Having the meet on the Monday after NCAA Indoors.....completely asinine.

Is this true? There are teams that only competed in the fall that made it? Who?

Benevolus wrote:

Now I think the answer is pretty simple: once Syracuse got in they had to then bring in Duke because Duke beat them at ACC and we all know conference championships were SO important. .

I don't get why they had to let Duke in. THey beat Syrcause by like 1 or 2 points and it's clear that Syracuse is WAY better know than then. They had like two 14 flagt guys finish 80th and 50th at conference.

If I'm on the committee, I don't reallhy care who is 5th or 6th at a conference meet, 5 months ago. I'd credit the winner but 5ht or 6th that long ago wouldn't factor in.

Duke beat Syracuse twice. The first time at ACC's in the fall, the second time on Feb. 5th at Florida State - 190 - 202. Yes, Syracuse may be better, but so is Duke.

Regarding Furman -

Some conferences were late to the party in the fall, not deciding to have a conference championships until well into October. My recollection is that the Southern Conference decided very late. Prior to that, I don't think Furman could have raced anywhere per school and conference rules.

Which leaves their only real option the Feb. 5th race at Florida State. Yes, you can argue they ducked that meet, but they were trying to qualify guys for NCAA Indoors. It wasn't like they weren't racing.