not a defender wrote:It's a hard pill to swallow, but the NCAA is not primarily interested in who is the "best" team or athlete in the country.
I understand what you're saying -- but I would just point out that the "best" teams and athletes are still qualifying. It's the sixth-best teams in the strong regions that don't make it, which isn't the same as the best. Having to come top-five in a regional meet is not an unreasonable demand for anyone expecting to contend for the title.
Of course, even potential champions can have bad days, and miss their chance to advance. That's exactly what happens with heats, quarter-finals and semi finals at the NCAA meet itself -- you have one bad race, and you're gone. Doesn't matter if, nine times out of ten, you would have won the final.
I definitely agree that there should be efforts to balance the numbers from each region. But no matter what you do, there will always be a "first guy out" who feels screwed because another region was slower. That's the nature of the sport, and that's what makes races fun to watch: because the outcome (even at regionals) really matters.