Scoring NCAAs by region

Just goes to show how unfair it was for the West to be limited to four teams when that Region is so strong. It would have been nice for the fans and fair to the schools, for Oregon and UCLA to have been selected. Both were easily good enough to have been competitive with the field. It seems that schools get punished for being from high achieving areas of the country.

Willfully Here wrote:

Just goes to show how unfair it was for the West to be limited to four teams when that Region is so strong. It would have been nice for the fans and fair to the schools, for Oregon and UCLA to have been selected. Both were easily good enough to have been competitive with the field. It seems that schools get punished for being from high achieving areas of the country.

Oregon and UCLA weren't punished for being in a strong region. They punished themselves for running poorly at regionals.

Wester wrote:

Willfully Here wrote:

Just goes to show how unfair it was for the West to be limited to four teams when that Region is so strong. It would have been nice for the fans and fair to the schools, for Oregon and UCLA to have been selected. Both were easily good enough to have been competitive with the field. It seems that schools get punished for being from high achieving areas of the country.

Oregon and UCLA weren't punished for being in a strong region. They punished themselves for running poorly at regionals.

Please, being in a strong region helps you if anything. Why do you think the Providence women didnt make the meet despite having like 17 points.

Washington State was 21st and Cal Poly was 28th, hardly a strong arguement for the region being "strong" and that 5th and 6th from the region belonged.

1. Reid. Vill

4 infield. Georgetown

5. Mimic villanova

6. Banfich. Princeton

8. Harrison West Virginia

24 points

If the teams scored points based on their place (i.e. Wisconsin scores 1 point for the Great Lakes region and OK state scores 2 points for the Midwest region) 4 teams scored

Midwest 49

Great lakes 51

Mountain 52

West 62

Northeast 73

Not enough teams to score

Mid-Atlantic NA

South NA

South Central NA

Southeast NA[/quote]

Should base this on 3 or 4 teams due to the modest number of teams that can be in a region. (otherwise you have 31 'runners' on nine teams, not exactly a full complement.

However, thanks for the work, this comment is just a minor point.

26mi235 wrote:

Should base this on 3 or 4 teams due to the modest number of teams that can be in a region. (otherwise you have 31 'runners' on nine teams, not exactly a full complement.

As you requested

Mountain 21

Midwest 24

Great lakes 28

West 34

Northeast 46

Mid-Atlantic 49

South 71

South Central NA

Southeast NA

Using only 3 teams makes the mountain region look better. They really got killed by New Mexico's bad day as the 4th team. By any measure the 3 south regions weren't very good this year.

Thanks, not a lot of change using just four but it is among the top three that we see the shift.

Willfully Here wrote:

Just goes to show how unfair it was for the West to be limited to four teams when that Region is so strong. It would have been nice for the fans and fair to the schools, for Oregon and UCLA to have been selected. Both were easily good enough to have been competitive with the field. It seems that schools get punished for being from high achieving areas of the country.

I'm going to argue against the strength of the West teams this year. Clearly, the West had superb individuals. That's why they win both those scores based on individuals above. But when scored by team places, they were 4th, whether scoring 4 teams or 3. That does not look like the absolutely amazing years the West has had in the past (such as 9 teams qualifying out of the west a few years back).

OP, it looks like there was one type of scoring you didn't do: Score the individuals who are ON teams and see which region comes out on top.