NCAA SUPER REGIONALS

I agree that this proposal is stupid.

Ah,

I must admit now that I'm coaching at Cornell I don't have a lot of time to come to the message boards much anymore. But when I do get here, it's amazing how often your posts stand out as the dumbest things on this board.

The Super Regionals are a great idea. They put an emphasis on 1) RUNNING WELL WHEN IT COUNTS. Right now qualifying rewards you for being a) great early and in the middle of the season and/or b) having enough money to go to large meets with lots of teams from lots of regions or c) scheduling meets with weak teams from the South.

It's such a bad system that it makes me literally want to throw up.

You also seem to think the NCAAs only exist to celebrate the top 5 or 10 schools. Not true.

Moreover, you're biggest gripe agains the superregionals seems to be that it will kill fan interest in the sport (as if there was any in the first place) because the top teams will be able to rest their guns. So wrong. If anything, the superregionals will create more interest.

First of all, the top teams can rest their guns right now as they are sure to get in the top 2 or get in on points based on earlier season competition. I anything, a super regionals will build fan interest as every school at the meet is going to go thinking they at least have a shot.

If you want to see the top guys compete, then I suggest you buy a ticket to NCAAs. It's the greatest race in the world in my opinion.

Ah,

Then do something about it proactively instead of bitching about it on a message board.

I think this falls under the "Peter and the Wolf" scenario. Ah puts so much bullcrap all the time, that we can't really take him seriously. Of course, Rojo made some good points... but we all weren't going to listen to Ah anyway.

Morover wrote:

Ah,

Then do something about it proactively instead of bitching about it on a message board.

That's the dumbest comment I've heard. Message boards were designed to express your opinion and then hear the opinions of others. That's how you develop ideas for the betterment of all.

Rojo,

First of all, I agree completely that the current system stinks but I don't think that having Super-regionals is the answer. While I understand how some coaches view it important to want the absolute best 31 teams in the field, I don't think it warrants an extra meet to do so. It would be far less expensive and simpler just to seed the teams prior to regionals and attempt to balance each of the 8 regionals and take the top 4 teams. The Super-regional proposal is nothing more than a complicated solution that will probably cause more problems than it solves in an attempt to solve a simple problem.

The sport would be much better off if they kept it simple but I agree that in this sport at-large qualifying should not be based on regular season accomplishments.

Ah,

The problem with seeding teams before the regional is coming up with the criteria upon which you will seed with(subjectivity again becomes the problem), i.e. how do you put those teams in say, an East, West, Midwest, and Southeast regional if you eliminate regular season records as has been suggested. It is totally unfair to base any seeding on tradition, i.e. the past record of a team-even if they return all 7 from a national champion team. The right to be at nationals should be EARNED, not given as the current system does for the at large bids. Earning your way to nationals by fighting and scratching is what the nature of sport is all about. Having said that, the team I coach is in the Mountain Region, and the new system would place Arkansas, Colorado, and Stanford, along with Oregon, BYU, and many other powerhouses in the same Super Region-at best if the three at large bids in the new system all went to this Super Region that would be 13 teams. The problem is that this Super Region for sure has more than 13 teams with programs deserving to go the the national meet. So a change IS needed, is the currently proposed plan the one that will work? It doesn't matter because just like the regionals in track that were voted down more than 5 consecutive times, the NCAA rules commitee does what it wants. The coaches on a whole didn't really want regionals in track, and the votes showed this. You can imagine everyone's surprise when the news was given last year. Just wanted to fill you in on this peice of information. Good Night.

The first thing the NCAA should do is cut the field in half. 31 is way too many teams in my opinion. I think the meet would be great if it were 16 teams. People argue and bitch about who should be the 31st team to make it, but who really cares?? I'm not trying to sound harsh but lets face it, the teams in the 20-31 range don't have much business being their.

Take more individuals, less teams. I have no idea what system to use, maybe 5 regionals with some at large considerations.

16 is way too small, not just because of competitiveness, but because there just wouldn't be enough runners in the race. Get real dude, the NCAA is supposed to be a big race where you are going toe to toe with the best and are going to get shoved around, possibly knocked down, and guys will be streaming through the finish line every second. You think 16 teams would make for an exciting race??? Also, what about all those teams that aren't in top 16 range until the NCAA's, and those teams that are and then shit the bed once they get there. Take the Southeast region as an example this year. If it was only a 16 team meet it is likely that NC State would have made the dance and William and Mary would have been sitting at home with their hands one their cocks (except for Moran). Then look what happened at NCAA's....NC State finished 23rd, and W&M finished 14th (also ahead of Georgetown and BYU who would have probably made your sacred top 16). Clearly the system would be flawed because NC State couldn't get it done, but W&M, the team that would be left at home under your system, could. (Mind you I don't give a damn about either of these teams, I just picked a region that would serve as a good example of a team that did what they needed to do to get there and then performed and one that performed to be respected when they got there and then sucked.)

Most importantly, 31 teams is a hell of a lot more exciting than 16 teams would be. Right now the NCAA cross country meet is the single most exciting collegiate sporting event. Why mess around with it because some jackass (from D2 I will remind you) thinks that half the teams at the meet don't belong there. (unless you go to Western State, you wouldn't have a prayer of being there yourself moron.)

16 teams would cut down interest in the sport. I like 32 teams. 8 regionals, 4 teams per regional qualify. Balance the regionals out so that an equal # of teams participate. I also think that if you can finish in the top 15 at your regional then you should also advance. I hate the fact that individual qualifiers are based upon which teams qualified. Now that's just flat out wrong.

So what if any system drops a #25 team out of the field of 31. There should always be regional representation anyway. No matter what system you employ some team is going to think the system screwed them over. Even the NCAA basketball selection committee can't make their selections without controversy. And because of the automatic bids there's no way that the tournament absolutely draws the top 65 teams.

The classic, "from D2 jackass" argument from some insecure 15:45 5K DI "stud". I'm sorry if cutting the field means your team wouldn't qualify.

I don't think having a ton of runners makes it "more exciting". All it really means is that you have more slow runners in the race, not faster runners. The fast ones qualify anyways.

Yes, some teams on the bubble wouldn't make it. Doesn't this happen in other sports as well? Look at the NCAA basketball tourney. Small conference schools qualify only to get bounced in the first round every year while some big school sits at home when they had a legitimate shot at winning a few games. The point, who really cares if a team who "might" finish 13th or 14th doesn't qualify? I'm sure life will go on.

If you want more runners have more individuals qualify instead of sending the whole team. I just think the NCAA is trying too hard to make sure a bunch of teams make it. Kind of like there are way too many bowl games. It's not a big deal if your team makes it. I think the Cross meet should be the same way. It should be a big deal to qualify. Cutting the number of teams means it would be harder to qualify.

I hate to say it but thank you for being constructive "Ah" and not resorting to juvenile name calling. It's nice to have a discussion of ideas instead of a third grade conversation.

"Ah" spoke about all the money it was going to cost the colleges to attend the extra round. Well, I guarantee you, unless you are in the upper tier and feel that you are a sure top two Regional team, you are probably spending a good deal of money to go to at least a couple of big meets (including the Pre-NCAA meet) anyway. I think that the Super Regionals will save colleges money because you can attend local meets - or not even race - early on and save money to attend the Super Regionals.

Right now, if you think you might be a "bubble" team, you have to schedule Griak or Great American and Pre-NCAA's ahead of time and if you happen to have an injury or two and end up with no chance at NCAA's anyway, THEN you have really wasted money. The Super Regionals should save college money and everyone can plan their schedule the way they want without being tied to winning "points".

running well at regionals and qualifying as a real (top 2) team rewards running well when it counts. (sure the south and south central regions should just be picked up by another region which doesn't suck as bad). the idea to have 8 more equal regions with 4 qualifiers is much better than the dumbass superregions. the only thing superregions have going for them is that it isn't as stupid as track regionals, which encourages slower runners into the national meet on the values of a sit and kick. the detriment this will be to the US is almost absurd. (interestingly enough, the track regionals are set up only in relation to geographic representation, rather than number of institutions. The west has roughly 40 men's track programs, the mountain or mid-west has 38-40, the mid east has 80 programs, and the east has 160. this is a mockery. this descrepency is unacceptable, and unreprestentative.)

that is all for now.

oh yeah, this is the first thing that ah, has had to say that was worthwhile, and Rojo, the Ivy league is not the deepest conference. although there are some great athletes.