NCAA XC Committee

I disagree... the point of this race is to give everyone a shot. Once the national championships come around, then they should cut down the size of the field (like they do). Pre-Nats seems, to me, to be more about giving the Bubble Teams a chance to get some points and the smaller-name teams to have a chance to make a name for themselves. Maybe some of these teams don't have any votes because no one knows about them. I say, put them up against the top teams in their region and see how they do, let them sink or swim.

The only team that is ranked in the top 10 in their region, who was left out of the top 2 races, is UCSB. Was that their choice? I think the XC committee filled in with unranked regional teams to reach the 35 team limit based on conference rankings. That's what it looks like to me. I think 35 is a manageable number that includes all possible contenders AND gives some smaller programs a chance.

West Virginia in ranked 9th in the Mid-Atlantic and is not in a seeded race, yet unranked Penn is. I don't get it.

I think you are mistaken.

Mid Atlantic Rankings

http://www.usccca.org/

Ranking Week 5

1 Villanova

2 Georgetown

3 Princeton

4 La Salle

5 NAVY

6 American

7 Penn

8 Bucknell

9 St Josephs

10 Penn State

OOPS. I pulled up the 2001 rankings by mistake. I stand corrected.

one must check the rankings before making bold statements son. as you can see WV is not #9, st. josephs is. so with that said WV belongs where they were put

The Regional Rankings are compiled by ONE coach. For example: Wisconin isn't ranked number 1 in the Great Lakes. Come on. They are by far the best squad in that region. The rankings are nice to have but not always correct.

Some teams haven't run their team at full-strength or with all of their top runners. So that makes it look like some teams don't deserve to be in a seeded. I would argue after the races; if teams don't perform.

The regional rankings are voted upon by many coaches in the region. One coach is the representative and puts these votes together and then comes up with the rankings. Regional rankings are not all based upon the thoughts of one coach.

Also the regional rankings must follow the National Rankings. That may explain why Wisconsin is not number 1 in the Great Lakes Region.

Heres an example from the South Central notice the coaches voting part at the bottom.

NCAA Division I South Central Region Poll

October 15

Men

1. Arkansas 130

2. Texas 114

3. SMU 97

4. Texas A&M 90

5. Baylor 81

6. Stephen F. Austin 58

7. UALR 48

8. Sam Houston 45

9. Houston 24

10.Rice 8

10.LA Tech 8

Others receiving votes: UNT 5, LSU 5, McNeese 2.

Women

1. Arkansas 140

2. Texas A&M 125

3. Texas 103

4. Baylor 87

5. TAMU-CC 85

6. Rice 76

7. SMU 61

8. Houston 44

9. UALR 22

10.TCU 18

Others receiving votes: UTA 4, LSU 3, SFA 1, Nicholls St. 1.

Coaches voting: Theresa Fuqua (Houston), Alex Gibby (SFA), Ron Davis (UNO), Joan Hansen (UNT), Derek Koonts (TCU), Shawn Flanagan (TAMU-CC), Kirk Elias (UALR), Doug Molnar (UTPA), Todd Harbour (Baylor), Greg Hinze (Sam Houston), Dave Hartman (Texas A&M).

Men Only: Jason Vigalante (Texas), Jon Warren (Rice).

Women Only: Jim Bevan (Rice), John Hayes (Texas), Lance Harter (Arkansas).

There are two different sets of polls. One is used by the NCAA committee, the other is not.

The poll shown by Cookercc is a regional poll voted on by coaches in that region to promote the sport to the local newspapers. It is not the poll used to compile the national rankings or to seed PreNats.

That second poll I refer to is done by the regional rep. It is the vote of only one person. It is a ranking that all the other regional reps must use to create the weekly national poll. This second poll is also the ranking that was used to seed PreNats.

Hope that clarifies a somewhat muddy situation.

UCSB is in the Blue Race:

http://www.indstate.edu/athletics/cross/menseedings.htm

the original seeding was an error, as for the number of teams in each race it is right in line with the number of participants for Nationals (255) Following the original intent of this meet as a test for the course and host capablity to handle the number of participants for Nationals. Of course now the meet is the main way for teams to acheive at large points, and in so doing has outgrown the ability to have all the top teams in one race, thus two heats in whinch some teams can gain a "random" advantage

Bring on super regionals for next year, this is the answer

You are wrong about the region rankings. The South Central Region is the only region that votes on their top-10. The other regions are done by one person. Get your facts straight.

The mountain votes... and Coach Eyestone just compiles the votes.

Looks like the south central region is not the only one that votes on their top ten. Get your facts straight

A few things.

As a new coach, I've learned a lot about how this all works. As for the number of teams, I was told they put in a ton - even more than go to nationals? is that right? - as they are trying to recreate nationals as best as they possible can. Thus you need more teams than you have at nationals as you have to remember nationals also includes the individual qualifiers.

So that's me defending them a little.

As for the region rankings, i've barely paid any attention to them primarily because who cares what you are ranked. Isn't the point to run well at the end of the season?

The few times I have looked at them the best I can tell they make little to no sense and are a joke. Take a look at the Northeast. They dropped Cornell behind new hampshire who we beat by 88 points at Iona. They make little sense.

They seem to generally be about 1 weeks behind the times and totally arbitrary but i don't know how they affect pre-nats. i thought they pretty much divided up the nationall ranked team and then tried to even out the conferences/regions.

Who cares? it will all sort itself out in november.

Some regions vote for their rankings MOST don't. It is up to the individual region rep.

I agree with rojo that the rankings should mean very little. Unfortunately, they are used in the seeding process for the Pre-NCAA meet.

One big blunder I did notice on the women's side was that Central Michigan was not in a seeded race. AT Notre Dame they beat Illinois, Illinois State, and Belmont. All of whom are in the seeded races. And what about Ohio University and Youngstown State's women in the seeded races. They are nowhere near as good as CMU yet they are in the seeded races.

Rojo is correct in theory. Unfortunately, the ranking could have some (albeit minor) impact. Pre-Nats are split based on these rankings........and a "false" low ranking potentially can keep a team out of one of the major races, hence reducing their chances for "at-large" wins.

Naturally, if a team is good enough to finish in the top 2 at the District Meet, it's a moot point. But most of the talk and controversy is about what happens beyond the 18 autos. If I'm in that 19-40 group, I'm concerned about my ranking and I make a few trips to race DIX teams during the regualr season!

I would agree that Ohio does not belong in the seeded races. However, I would not really say that Central Michigan should be in the race. They are only about the 13th best team in the region with no prayer of making it to nationals. What is the point?

It gets to the point for some of these teams that it does not even matter what race they are in. They can be deep in either of the seeded races or mid pack in the open. What is the point. CMU women have run so-so all season, last week they where beat by D2 Grand Valley (not taking anything away from GV, they are doing an excellent job along with their coach), and they have no D1 front runner type. More teams should honestly evaluate their talent and performance and decide if going to pre nats is really worth it. Hopefully the NCAA will implement the Super District plan and eliminate this non-logic based method of at larges qualifying for NCAA. Ok, that is my little rant for the day :)