Which team got screwed the most?

4 Regions: North, South, East, West---

The winners qualify for a 4 team national meet along with the top two indiviuals not on a team from each region.

With 4 teams nobody can hide a weakness.

Right now, it doesn't mean anything to get to the NCAA meet. Some pretty bad teams get to the show....and some dudes are running their best races of the season and coming in over 33 minutes. That's a freakin' joke.

I don't think so.. wrote:

Oregon and Washington did not get screwed. They screwed themselves. Everyone and their mother knows that you have to get to at least two out of region meets per year in order to assure you get in to the nationals. Washington and Oregon sat on their ass all year except Pre-Nats. And don't give me a bullshit story about not having the money.

Look at the at-large teams that got in and the meets they attended.

Oregon and Washington did not get in because they did not beat anyone. Plain and simple. Those coaches are idiots for not playing the game as it is laid out for everyone.

That's funny because to me it looks like the reason they didn't go was because they didn't have the luck of racing Villanova or Georgia at Pre-Nats. That is all the "qualifications" some of the at-large teams had. Oregon also ran without their #1 runner at Regionals due to a non-running related head injury.

It would make the 4 region meets way to big. That would be about 65 teams in a race.

There's also a bit of luck involved. What if Oregon and Washington were just in the other heat at Pre-Nats? Then they most likely would have picked up a point for beating Villanova (and maybe another for beating Georgia). Or how about if Georgetown had only beaten Villanova for the auto spot? Then a bunch of other schools wouldn't have gotten a point for beating Villanova.

You are completely correct that neither Washington or Oregon beat anyone (well, they did both beat Marquette and William and Mary and Oregon also beat Michigan State), but that had more to do with luck than poor running or even not going to the right meet. Other little things like beating William and Mary, but not getting points for that because they were pushed in. Another quirk is that if UCLA had run out of their heads and gotten an auto, then Washington would have probably gotten in even though they would have finished worse at regionals.

It seems to me that instead of using wins over autos as the first criteria (which rewards teams that happen to race an auto that ran poorly at some point during the season or teams that ran unusually well at Pre-Nats), it should start with head-to-head against all the bubble teams. I realize that this would get a bit cumbersome with 9 regions, but it seems like a better way to actually determine the at-larges by directly comparing the possible teams with each other.

Every year and every sport there are people bitching that one school or another does not get invited. Boo hoo...

So Oregon ran without one of their top runners. That is the nature of sports.

So Oregon and Washington were in the other race at Pre-Nats, it too is the nature of sports.

The problem is that they put all their eggs in the Pre-Nats basket which is their own problem. Everyone knows ahead of time that the Pre-Nats is two races and it is luck of the draw. it is not like this is new information for everyone. They should have run somewhere else that would have helped them.

To say making the NCAA's does not mean anything is horseshit. We are talking about two teams that are likely to finish 20-25th in the race. it is not like there is a potential NCAA Championship team not making it.

Look at women's golf last year. Georgia's women were ranked 4th going into the regional and choked and did not even make it to the NCAA's. It is the nature of sports that not everyone makes it.

Oregon and Washington have only themselves to blame. Not the system.

i as i recall cal poly was third in their region last fall and they were top 10 and you really don't think byu will be top ten. come on now

It is silly to be talking about Oregon and Washington getting screwed. There were certainly not a lot better than teams like Michigan State and Marquette and they chose to not play the game the way the NCAA has it currently set up. Many people don't agree with the way the qualifying works right now, but everyone knows that this is how it is. Basically, if you are going to be a bubble team, you need to go the Pre-NCAA's and at least one other quality meet such as Roy Griak, Notre Dame or even the Paul Short Invite. Oregon's only other meet was the Willamette Invite and that was their choice. Yes there is luck involved, especially with what race you get put into at the Pre-NCAA, but there is luck in all sports and that is part of the game. You are not talking about a top 15 team that did not make it to nationals, you are talking about teams that are most likely going to be out of the top 20 at nationals.

No one gets screwed. You're either fast enough or your not. Everyone knows the system. Teams get screwed it all NCAA sports. Just wait till March Madness. Lots of teams getting screwed because they dropped the ball late in the season.

Alan

Hey "I don't think so" , you're a dip-stick. The only reason Oregon & Washington didn't get in is because Vilanova got beat by everyone in their pool at pre-nats. In fact, if Oregon & Washington had been in the same pool as Vilanova, then they would be in the NCAAs for sure. So, I guess that being invited to the NCAAs is just the luck of the draw and not really based on merit. Further, based on the recent results at Nationals intellegent people would tend to believe that the Western teams like Stanford, BYU, Colorado, & AZ State good since they usually dominate over your Eastern teams. Besides, it is a fact that the two best runners for #1 Duke are from California.

I wasn't really saying Oregon got screwed, but the system is somewhat luck of the draw for many of the at-large teams, and I was pointing that out. It isn't like all the at-large teams were some scheduling geniuses unless they knew Oregon could have traveled to an out of state meet and picked up more points. I think their team ended up better than they might have thought when making the schedule and hence didn't schedule many big travel meets. To do as well as they did at regionals without their number one runner is impressive. With the lineup they'll have next year this shouldn't be an issue.

hayward102 wrote:

I wasn't really saying Oregon got screwed, but the system is somewhat luck of the draw for many of the at-large teams, and I was pointing that out. It isn't like all the at-large teams were some scheduling geniuses unless they knew Oregon could have traveled to an out of state meet and picked up more points. I think their team ended up better than they might have thought when making the schedule and hence didn't schedule many big travel meets. To do as well as they did at regionals without their number one runner is impressive. With the lineup they'll have next year this shouldn't be an issue.

Looks like I stopped mid-sentence halfway through the post. I meant to say the other teams weren't scheduling geniuses unless they knew Villanova was going to be in their race, run poorly, and later qualify.

its not like washington was right on the heels of ASU and stanford either. 24 to 4? to 11?....not saying they didn't deserve to go but they aren't a top 10 team

zubrek wrote:

It would make the 4 region meets way to (sic) big. That would be about 65 teams in a race.

No, you didn't read my post correctly. Also, the idea that others state, that qualifying is the way it is and so be it is certainly not original thinking, nor very productive.

Instead, what we presently have is cross country having two national championship meets: one early in the season to qualify for the "bubble" spots and the second for real. Let's face it. The idea of creating more interest in xc by the new qualifying system has failed. The convoluted point system is not clear and causes teams to have to travel all over the country to look for "weak" teams who may qualify for nationals, to compete against.

Why can't distance runners race locally early in the season, running against teams in their own region, so that some fun rivalries develop or go to some invitational meet just to have a good racing experience. Then, when teams are finally at their peak, then the top 32-35 teams at each region (total of 128-140 teams in the country) trying for the national championship. The present system of qualifying only works for the top 10-15 programs in the country, those who don't like to compete very much. It does little for most xc programs that rely on runners steadily developing over their four years of competing at the college level.

Four regions and a national championship will provide legitimate head to head competition at the right time of the season, after local, regional, and conference meets are completed. There would be no need for the infamous "pre-nationals", that only forces many athletes to have to peak twice within a six week period.

I think the Loyola Ramblers got hooked up by the committee big time. Hope the Horizon League can represent on Monday.

The super regional system is the way to go. But why it gets voted down is easy to figure:

1. 100 of the 310 or so NCAA Division I teams don't really run a competitive cross country team. They prefer the easiest season - an easy in this sense means that they don't get "embarassed" by missing the cut to the super regional and then having to find another meet to add to their schedule.

2. 40 or 50 teams in Division I have advantages under the current set up. What are their advantages? They have a good travel budget, they are geographically well suited for multi regional racing, they are in a conference that stradles regions. Also, the current system works in favor of the weakest regions because it guarantees them two spots.

3. Of the 160 or so teams left, the majority of them - say 80% or so - vote in favor of the super regional. But 80% of 160 yields about 125 votes agains the 150 or so nays. .

You are correct I did not read your original post. A very good idea actually. And I agree about the need for early season to be about getting some racing in and re-developing some of the rivalries. I think it has got to the point where the at-large points juggle gets in the way of the build up towards the end of the season, and takes away from just the fun of the regular season racing.

Check my follow-up, chunk.

I agree 100%. If you have 4 regions with 32-35 teams going to a "super regional",then you have the 128-140 teams qualifying for something that the school and many athletes who won't make the NCAA Championships have something to shoot for and feel good about.

And, most importantly, you have a much fairer and cost effective manner of progressing to the NCAA's.

perspective wrote:

I agree 100%. If you have 4 regions with 32-35 teams going to a "super regional",then you have the 128-140 teams qualifying for something that the school and many athletes who won't make the NCAA Championships have something to shoot for and feel good about.

And, most importantly, you have a much fairer and cost effective manner of progressing to the NCAA's.

I think that most people are missing the point of all of this. You have a national meet to find out how the best team is and the best individual is. The system must be fair enough to allow that. Everything else on top of that is not all that important.

In the grand scheme of fairness and competetion and sport, the system is set up so that of the true top 31 teams in the country, usually about 25 are running at the meet. No team in the top 10 is left out. And that is good enough. No trophy team will ever be left at home the way it is. To the point that a potential all-american on a crap team could be left at home, I'll buy that that happens every once in a blue moon. And that sucks for that person.

For the record, I made the meet a couple times, but I was the first person out of the meet one year, and another year my team was the first left at home. So I know both sides. And it didn't matter, because every true contender was running the Monday before Thanksgiving.

The NCAA can't worry about people "having something to shoot for and feel good about." This is a high level of competition, not pee-wee baseball. If you want to "have something to shoot for and feel good about", by all means join a bake club and send some cookies to Simon Bairu and Victoria Mitchell (Next Monday's Champs).