Is this true:
someone told me that an error (or at least disputable decision) has been made in the selection of the NCAA XC field.
Princeton, Villanova, UTEP, Eastern Michigan and Missouri should have been in the field if the strict rules from the handbook would have been followed.
Supposedly, when these schools appealed the decision, it was refused, but the handbook will be changed next year, thereby somehow indicating that at least something was wrong!
Anyone more info on this?
princeton fan wrote:
Is this true:
someone told me
someone= a fomer runner from princeton, not me (I can't run for shit).
Do not send useless replies please. I am genuinely interested about the potential issues regarding this subject.
princeton fan wrote:
Anyone more info on this?
I don't have more info but I believe you're correct.
Very true. The current qualifying procedure is already screwed up and they didn't even follow the correct procedure. These 4 schools should be there. Not sure of the schools that are not suppose to be there.
I have been trying to get people to beleive this forever.
They didnt let these teams in. The NCAA basically told these teams "Well your correct but we havnt done it that way for a some years so...F off"
I imagine the rules to be changed next year.
Jimmyboy wrote:
get people to beleive this
"believe"
They didnt let
"didn't"
"Well your correct but
"you're"
we havnt done it
"haven't"
How about the next time you post, you discuss the topic at hand instead of acting as the site's English prof.
Outside Observer wrote:
How about the next time you post, you discuss the topic at hand instead of acting as the site's English prof.
"How about acting as the site's English prof.?"
I believe this is right.
From what I've heard you aren't supposed to be able to go more than 4 teams deep in a regional to get an at large team.
So, all the teams that finished worse than 4th in the west should not have gotten in.
F*** you
correction wrote:
Jimmyboy wrote:get people to beleive this
"believe"
They didnt let
"didn't"
"Well your correct but
"you're"
we havnt done it
"haven't"
correction wrote:
Jimmyboy wrote:get people to beleive this
"believe"
They didnt let
"didn't"
"Well your correct but
"you're"
we havnt done it
"haven't"
Correction,
You are my favorite poster. Over the years I have been carrying the load alone and now feel blessed to have help.
Thank you.
S&G
I'm not sure if you were trying to be ironic, but you spelled grammar wrong. Sad.
spelling and grammAr wrote:
I'm not sure if you were trying to be ironic, but you spelled grammar wrong. Sad.
Spelling and grammer has been posting off and on for a few years. Someone always points this "mistake" out.
what a bunch of crybabies. The interpertation and implementation of the rules have been established over the last 10 years this point system has been in effect!
I'd like to see such a provision, but I don't think it's there.
http://www.ncaa.org/library/handbooks/crossCountry/2006/2006_d1_cross_country_handbook.pdf
Correction,
You are a stain.
The rules are as follows:
1. The top two teams at each regional championship meet (seven-person teams) automatically qualify for the championship meet. Thirteen additional at-large teams will be selected by the Division I track and field subcommittee on Sunday, November 12 using the criteria listed below.
2. The selection committee will determine at-large berths by examining the following criteria in order of importance, with (a.) being the most important.
.
.
a. Regional finish (Note: A fourth-place team in a region may not be selected for an at-large berth ahead of a third-place team from the same region; however, a fourth-place team from a region may be selected ahead of a third-place team from another region). The situation may arise when the next team under consideration from a region (Team X) does not have enough wins (points) to earn an at-large bid, but the team immediately behind Team X (Team Y) does have enough wins (points) to be the next team selected. In this case, both teams X and Y will receive at-large bids. Any additional teams still under consideration for at-large selection will not be awarded wins (points) for having beaten any team (Team X) advancing to the championship finals by virtue of the wins accumulated by the team behind it in the region. This aspect of the at-large selection process can be employed only one time per region and only the first time it is necessary to do so. This process cannot be applied to the final at-large selection.
b. Number of wins (points) against teams qualified for nationals from the last full weekend in September (Friday, Saturday and Sunday, September 22-24) through November 11.
I've left out tie-breakers c) through e) for brevity.
It's clear however that this is not the way it has been done for several years!
Indeed section a) is self-contradictory, if Regional finish is the most important criterion then "The situation may arise when the next team under consideration from a region (Team X) does not have enough wins (points) to earn an at-large bid" can not arise! This makes it clear that 'points' is the most important criterion and finish order gives the well-known 'push'.
I imagine that UTEP protested on these grounds, the rule certainly needs rewriting. The current rule treats 'points' as most important and 'finish' as secondary (hence the push rule).
Correction rocks! Please keep fighting the good fight.
Phil. wrote:
The rules are as follows:
1. The top two teams at each regional championship meet (seven-person teams) automatically qualify for the championship meet. Thirteen additional at-large teams will be selected by the Division I track and field subcommittee on Sunday, November 12 using the criteria listed below.
2. The selection committee will determine at-large berths by examining the following criteria in order of importance, with (a.) being the most important.
.
.
a. Regional finish (Note: A fourth-place team in a region may not be selected for an at-large berth ahead of a third-place team from the same region; however, a fourth-place team from a region may be selected ahead of a third-place team from another region). The situation may arise when the next team under consideration from a region (Team X) does not have enough wins (points) to earn an at-large bid, but the team immediately behind Team X (Team Y) does have enough wins (points) to be the next team selected. In this case, both teams X and Y will receive at-large bids. Any additional teams still under consideration for at-large selection will not be awarded wins (points) for having beaten any team (Team X) advancing to the championship finals by virtue of the wins accumulated by the team behind it in the region. This aspect of the at-large selection process can be employed only one time per region and only the first time it is necessary to do so. This process cannot be applied to the final at-large selection.
b. Number of wins (points) against teams qualified for nationals from the last full weekend in September (Friday, Saturday and Sunday, September 22-24) through November 11.
I've left out tie-breakers c) through e) for brevity.
It's clear however that this is not the way it has been done for several years!
Indeed section a) is self-contradictory, if Regional finish is the most important criterion then "The situation may arise when the next team under consideration from a region (Team X) does not have enough wins (points) to earn an at-large bid" can not arise! This makes it clear that 'points' is the most important criterion and finish order gives the well-known 'push'.
I imagine that UTEP protested on these grounds, the rule certainly needs rewriting. The current rule treats 'points' as most important and 'finish' as secondary (hence the push rule).
I really don't see what your point is. The criteria are very clearly spelled out and that is what they did. Regional finish within the region is the most important criteria. The push rule was added a few years ago and is clearly stated. I think anyone who really understands this realizes the rules were followed. The people who don't understand it, think something wrong was done when in fact the rules were followed exactly.
Is the criteria the correct way to decide the at-large bids? That is up for debate, but it was done correctly. No team was taken before another team within the same region. Teams were pushed in, as the rules clearly state they can be. Sorry.