DII National XC Qualifying system is broken

Actually there is the potential for up to 5 runners to get into the national meet. If they are All American material they should be able to get top 5 with the exception of being in a rather tough region team wise. In that case that runner should still have a good shot of being one of the top 2 non qualifying teams.

I think your idea for teams getting into the national meet might be something worth looking into though. All systems are flawed though. Division I is a joke as well. Not too sure on what Div III is like.

The current qualifying formula for D2 was simultaneously proposed along with the request for expansion (17 teams to the current 24). The NCAA II philosophy for Championships (good or bad) was regional representation weighed heavier than an attempt to have the best teams there (i.e., look at the team sport advancements: You could hypothetically have the top 2 teams in the country in the same region - and they'd end up playing off to advance to the next round). Doesn't make sense to most of us - but that is the philosophy of the D2 Championships Committee (made up of administrators and ADs).

Molding a proposal to fit the NCAA philosophy had the best chance to be approved in an attempt to expand the championship field size. 2 new regions were added creating 8 regional qualifying opportunities. A real concern was the Championships Committee might only approve a proposal eliminating the 8 performance births, replacing them with a flat 3-per-region (8 regions x 3 = 24 teams). Thankfully, the advancement in place does reward the deserving regions. Also, as stated above, any individual finishing among the top 5 is guaranteed national entry.

It seems most of the flaws with ANY qualification system are limited to the last teams selected (i.e., at-large picks). Facts are - it's rare a top 15 team doesn't make it to the Championship.

That's what happened.

I would agree that the system screws regions with teams strong 9-20, such as the great lakes region. Not having a dominant team in the past few years only gives the 2 automatic. atleast 1 or 2 top 20 teams are screwed out of going.

I still think the great lakes region stinks and they go into nationals every year and stink it up. They are overated and they stink when the time to run comes. So if you want my opinion I am glad they don't get more than 2.

You are correct, the rule that was put into place last year was that if you finished in the top 5 in your region outright then you would also go to nationals even if you were not one of the top two individuals. However this really makes no difference in certain regions like the South Central and North Central with Abilene, Western and Adams. Over the past 3 seasons since the regional realignment the NC and SC regions have averaged 2/3rds of the the top 50 finishers in the NCAA II Championships on the men's side.

I don't know Mark, I always thought that the DII system was the best of the three and I've coached at all three. The DII philosophy is of regional representation at the NCAA meet and this system comes the closest to that while rewarding the strength of the North Central and Great Lakes regions.

gv was 9 w/o their 1 and their 2 laying an egg. hillsdale was 11. exactly what i said. 3-4 teams 9-20. 2 go.

i think the system at d-2 is very good as it is except for the number of individuals that qualify. the 17 team nationals was a bit unfair sometimes limiting regions to one team and two individuals if your region's qualifying team had a poor or mediocre performance at nationals in the previous year. i was part of a second place regional team one year and felt disappointment, but the bottom line was we had an opportunity to get there if we won the meet. every region gets at least two teams now. do what's expected of you and you'll go. if the 18th best team in the country gets stuck at home, so be it. nationals has already been expanded to include some not so very deserving teams. if you know who you have to beat, raise your level and find a way to beat them.

Compare the DIII system, they have more individuals and there are usually no teams at their nationals that aren't good, ie. undeserving bids to weaker regions.

I coach in DIII now and don't like the system here one bit, but it does have it's value.

You wouldn't be Mark Misch would you?

Originally my post was in reference to another thread comparing the DII regions and who should qualify and who shouldn't.

Obviously year to year, different teams will be better and will alter the strength of certain regions. My main point is that in a field of 184 runners at a national championship there should be more then 16 individuals qualify. That's currently less then 10% of the entire field. Generally in a given year "about" 35 folks make All-Amercian depending upon how many foreigners there are in the top 25.

DI has a bit of hard system to work through too with the ratings, points, etc. which I'm not a big fan of, but they do get more people to the national meet and more individuals per field size which is what DIII does as well.

Again I'm just saying that I am in favor of rewarding the teams that have already been mentioned in other posts that fall somewhere in that 10-20 range on a consistent basis, but due to the previous years regional team results at NCAA's they just fall on tough luck with their regional bids.

Obviously there is no perfect system, but I do think we can keep working towards refining it to make it better and having a few more individuals who are good enough to be there is not a bad thing to argue for. I'm sure every athlete or coach can name people who have fallen under that catagory at some time or another.

Just my 2 cents.

While we've got a lot of D2 attention on this thread, I will pose a question about the rankings that were realesed this morning:

What the hell is the point in ranking 8 teams from the North Central Regional in the top 25, when only 5 will go to nationals? This seems like it will only make people more unhappy with the D2 system. If the people doing the rankings want to do the system a favor they wouldnt rank UCCS, NDSU and Duluth in the top 25 becuase that will only spark more controversy at the end of the year when they dont qualify for nats.

Yah! We always are looked over for an invite to the dance.

What up with that ?

The purpose of the rankings is to rank the top teams not the teams that could go to the NCAA meet. Of course it exposes the flaws in the system

The post about any runner with All-American potential being able to make the top five at regionals is laughable. At the North Central region it is often easir to make All-American(top 25 Americans at nationals) than to be All-Region (top 15 at the regional)...There have been many runners who do not make nationals as individuals who have beaten runners who later run as All-Americans at nationals.

The team qualifying is based totally (well stated in another post)on the NCAA concept of regionalization and representation. Once you get past the top 8 teams in the nation the NCAA does not care if top teams qualify---they want representation from all areas of the country. The teams from the North Central region (including those teams that were in the South Central prior to the change in regions) dominated the top ten placings at nationals since 1991...over 40 percent of the top ten placings in these years came from these teams (men and women), yet there are 8 regions and regions which have NEVER placed a team in the top 8 and rarely in the top 12 still get two auto berths. Deserving teams are left out year in and year out. A team that runs 6th at the North Central (this year) will not go to nationals, but would almost certainly qualify as an automatic team from other regions.

Good point about some runners not making All-Region that made All-American. I know last fall Fort Hays had two guys that did that from the North Central region (Dexter 28th and Parker 22nd) and there might have been others. I think Matt Helbig from Truman was 13th at the South Central region and ended up about 26th at NCAA's. I'm sure there are more examples of this point.

I'm certain the NC region is the exception. It's just unfortunate to not make all-region if you're an all-american. as far as the top 5 in each region (exception of SE) being possible all-americans is atleast a good safety for a guy who gets 4th behind 2 individuals and is left out.

The DII system may not be ideal, but it's better than that of DI, which has basically ruined the regular season. Actually, there's no regular season anymore. There's nationals, pre-nationals, and pre-pre-nationals (griak). Smaller meets and regional rivalries are dying. DI should adopt a DII system. Sure, it wouldn't be fair to everyone, but what's important is getting, say, the top 12 teams to nationals. The rest is window dressing.

If I were a coach or athlete from a 15-32 team, I'd be pisssed too if we didn't make the big dance, but we have to look at the bigger picture. The NCAA b-ball tournament doesn't guarantee that the top 65 teams qualify.

If they are All American material they should be able to get top 5 with the exception of being in a rather tough region team wise. In that case that runner should still have a good shot of being one of the top 2 non qualifying teams.

That is what I posted earlier and is what I think you tried to respond to. As you can see I mentioned that if you are in a tough region teamwise than you would probably still make it out as an individual. It is not laughable, it is a fact. Some runners run well at different points of the season, that is what falling apart and peaking are about. It is a fair system. If the runner cannot finish in the top 15 - 20 at the north central region than he is not going to All American. For gods sake.