Women's At-large, Round by Round

A mistake in the 13th round. Washington and Toledo both have 4 wins. You can't count the wins over Ball State for either school because Ball State was pused in.

Toledo's four wins are 3 vs. autos and 1 vs. at large. Washington's wins are 1 vs. auto and 3 vs. at large.

According to the criteria, a win over the auto holds more weight than a win over an at large. Toledo gets in on that criteria.

13th Round:

BC (0), Yale (0)

WVU (1)

VTech (1)

TOL (4)

WASH (4)

CSU (2), WEB (2)

SFL (0), Auburn (1)

Toledo gets in with 3 of the 4 being autos to 1 of the 4 being autos for Washington.

or...Washington will get in by virtue of common opponents (Indiana and UCLA).

It will be one or the other.

So that's 9 GL mens teams and maybe 8 womens? Damn...

good job on the breakdown Kevin. I was going to do it but couldn't figure out all of Mike Scott's abbreviations and it was a Saturday night. Anyways, they don't weigh wins versus auto qualifiers more than wins versus at-large qualifiers. Though that is an interesting thought. The process is 1)points(no weight given), 2)head to head, 3)common opponents, 4)top individuals(I've never heard of a case where its gone this far). So according to your analysis of the points and applying the rules, Washington manages to get the last spot. Hope this helps.

Then the northeast should only have 2 qualifiers this year? wow, that's crazy after last year having something rediculous like 8 teams qualify. That too bad for some individuals who went last year and now just miss it this year.

Does anyone have further information on whether it will be Washington or Toledo?

Basically, I think we wait until Monday. The NCAA committee has to decide how they will interpret the rules in this case -- so we'll know Monday. Without clear, published precedents that describe how the criteria have been applied in the past, it's difficult to predict how they should be applied in this case.

I can think of several reasonable ways to argue either school in using these criteria -- and have my own opinions about which arguement is best. But I don't have a vote, so what I think at this point doesn't matter.

Obviously, both of the schools can't run -- so one will be disappointed and feeling "shafted" unless the decision process is clearly explained. The process should be transparent and clearly predictable (and for the record, I think the process has been pretty predictable in the past).

I am with Mike. We have to wait until Monday on this one. As I stated in an earlier post, that was erased somehow, there is no precedent for this as it has never come down to a tie like this for the last selection. As a matter of fact, I think that 4 wins would be the most number of wins by a team that does not make it.

The ambiguity is in how to determine head to head competition. Do you go by overall record vs. an opponent or do you simply look to see who beat who the last time they raced? Once they determine how the head to head would be applied, they would then have to apply that same criteria to the common opponents.

Had Toledo and Washington raced each other three times, do you select the team that won 2 of the three? Or do you take the one that won the last time they raced. You have to be consistent in your figuring. Same goes with common opponents.

Their determination of this will set precedent for men and women. Either Toledo or Washington will be disappointed in the end, for sure. Both teams have run well enough all year to be at the meet. Neither team would finish last, in my opinion. Just because they are the last at-large selection does not mean we are arguing the "worst" teams at the NCAA's.

Bring on Super Regionals, man. The Great Lakes for both men and women is really doing well.