NCAA at-large bids are at stake and the NCAA Cross Country Rules Committee needs to remove Wisco from Louisville results

not give an honest effort? They beat most of the teams there. This year's wisco team just isn't as good as other teams like Iona and Michigan.

Let's not forget that any time Let's Run has an opportunity to create a "Scoop", it will not only report on it (as they should), but completely blow it out of proportion in order to generate self buzz.

It's an interesting angle and something that should be addressed, but the conclusions drawn (disrespecting the system, breaking the rules, disrespecting the fans... etc..) are just so Rush Limbaugh. Do more analysis before reporting the "dire straights" that other teams are now in when earning an at large bid.

How well will a team like Eastern Kentucky, Illinois, or Louisville have to do at regionals to give them selves a chance at an at large bid? What is the possibility of that actually happening and who are some teams that will be affected by this? What are some relevant and recent NCAA at large teams where this would have been an issue in the past?

Remember when Let's Run essentially gave credit to Ryan Hall for Meb's Boston Win and wouldn't shut up for 2 weeks about how they "broke it"? This is just another case of finding a story and then making it a way bigger deal for self gratification.

If the story is really about how it affects the teams, then keep it with that by doing analysis, past results, and future fixes... not on a subjective which hunt because you want to rile up people to toot your own horns.

Not sure I get the outrage; what would be the difference between Wisco having their A team tempo the race vs having their B team go all out?

The NCAA doesn't use any B-teams for at large purposes.

rojo wrote:

I guess my only regret is perhaps we should have had a different title. Instead of saying, "Shame On You, Wisconsin - You Disrespected The Sport And Should Be DQed" we should have said "Wiscon jeopardized the at-large process and should be DQd". Get rid of the judgemental title.

We've changed the title of the article.

This article was initially titled: NCAA XC Weekend Recap: Shame On You, Wisconsin – You Disrespected The Sport And Should Be DQed From Louisville + No. 1 Colorado Debuts And The Six-Man XC Team That Beat Everyone At Notre Dame.

After some thought, we took out the shame part as we felt it was a little over the top. Wisconsin wasn’t acting in a clear-cut shameful manner. They were acting in their own self-interest but failed to consider the ramifications those actions would have on others.

The new title is: NCAA XC Weekend Recap: Wisconsin Jeopardized The At-Large Process and Should be DQd From Louisville + No. 1 Colorado Debuts And The Six-Man XC Team That Beat Everyone At Notre Dame

Sorry, I meant to imply "B Team" as that's the best you've got on any given Saturday (for whatever reason). Also, instructing your runners to pack up with the 4 through 7 runners is, in itself, a form of not giving your best effort.

The at large process is flawed. It should not exist. Qualify via regionals or not at all. Coaches should be free to run at whatever effort they like in a meet.

The B team going all out wouldn't impact the at large process. The wins in the at large process only count if a team is running 4 runners that run at regionals.

The facts are I did in fact break that story. The media room was filled with hundreds of reporters. The first Boston since the bombing and no one thought to interview the Americans finishing 12th, 13th etc.

Chris Chavez - now of Sports Illustrated - was also there. He said once I published it he decided not to publish as he didn't want to be accused of stealing the story. I told him that was above and beyond the call of duty but that's what made it a LetsRun.com exclusive.

The title we used in that case was far from sensationalist:

American Strong: The Untold Story of American Teamwork and How Ryan Hall Helped Meb Keflezighi Win Boston

A Year After The Bombings, There Was No Way An American Could Win Boston Alone – He Needed The Support Of Others

Meb had the cajones but the fact that Hall and the other Americans purposely kept the pace slow certainly could have provided the few seconds that ended up being the margin of victory.

That story is still to these day the most read story in LetsRun history (maybe Mike Rossi has passed it but I don't think so).

As noted previously, after a night's rest, I stated that I thought the title for this story was a bit over the top and we have changed it. This was never meant to be a witch hunt. It was meant to protect the bubble teams. I think what Wiconsin did was wrong. They only thought about themsleves and not about how their actions would impact others.

In general, I think we do a good job of not needlessly riling up things. The UVA doping story is a good example of that. If I was in my 20s and had just started LetsRun, I would have published that story 5 minutes after hearing about it. This time, I waited months and tried to get UVA to explain themselves.

We all make mistakes, LetsRun.com, Wisco and posters. It amazes me that people think everyone is going to perfect 100% of the time. There is nothing wrong with occasionally coming up short.

Some unpredictable goofball thing happens at some qualifying meet almost every year to impact the at-large points system.

About five or six years ago the NC State (I think) women ran their weakest possible 'A' team at Griak and several weak teams were handed a free point and then ended up squeaking into the NCAA field as a result.

Three years ago at the Wisconsin meet, Byrne held out Ahmed and Connor because the redshirt decision hadn't been made yet. They finished high-teens with an 'A' team core and a lot of teams ended up with a freebie when Ahmed and Connor did compete later that year.

Two years ago the Villanova women took a flaming dump at Pre-Nats, finishing 16th (!!!) with an 'A' team and then ended up winning their Regional. It had a huge impact on the at-large make-up. I don't remember any outrage.

Pre-Nats

Emily Lipari 7th of 340 20:17.1

Nicky Akande 21st 20:39.6

Stephanie Schappert 123rd 21:38.6

Angel Piccirillo 181st 21:57.1

Julie Williams 225th 22:11.8

Caitlin Bungo 292nd 22:52.0

Sydney Harris 294th 22:54.4

Regionals

Emily Lipari 1st of 207 19:53

Nicky Kande 2nd 19:53

Angel Piccirillo 4th 20:10

Stephanie Schappert 8th 20:17

Sydney Harris 16th 20:35

Julie Williams 27th 20:55

Caitlin Bungo 77th 21:47

This issue is ALWAYS there in some form. This year it's very obvious and happened in the first week. We'll have to wait and see if it matters in the end.

So you would be ok if Wisco had not run their top 3, replaced them with walk on scrubs, and gotten beat by several lesser teams. That would still screw with the at-large process.

You can't claim this is all about the point system. If it was, then logically you'd be including not racing full squads in your rant. You just don't like them blatantly jogging a race because it upsets your idealistic view of the purity of competition, which is fine. I feel the same way.

This is an emotionally based opinion, not a logical one, and I just want you to admit it. Your first title was a more accurate reflection of your true motivation.

I'm with you there. I think it's a disgrace to watch Ches and Jenkins jogging at the back of the pack as well. Qualifying times cause this BS. There is a way around this but don't seem to want to find one.

It seems the outrage is that Wisconsin "gave" at-large points to potential unwarranted teams, as if Wisconsin consciously made this decision.

If anybody should be outraged, wouldn't it be Wisconsin? If it benefitted other schools, schools that are at the same competitive level as WI, do you think they would have raced & finished like they did?

Wisconsin (like every other coach and team) have no control over the schools they compete against and how well their competition performs at any meet at any given time. The only thing the coach can control is their team's training plan and how well they peak for the important races. And yet this is now considered selfish?!?

You can't keep pissin' and moanin' about how at-large bids are selected AND gripe about any particular school who you think was consciously playing the system. Wisconsin had bigger plans and cared less about who beat them; they cared about their process and their long-term goals for the season.

I think it's very logical.

Yes, I will admit that I emotionally don'y like how teams don't run hard more than a few times a year, but this article was based on logic.

Two weeks ago, Wisconsin went to the Iona meet and Iona didn't even run a team. I think that's ridiculous but we didn't write anything about that because it doesn't impact other teams by giving them free points since as a) they didn't race and b) it was before the meets started counting anyways.

Yes trying to get some lucky at large points is how it works every year. It's now different than a football team getting lucky and winning with a deflected pass or something (TCU this year).

But beating a team that has a bad day or holds a few guys out with injury concerns is totally different than beating a team that purposely isn't trying.

I think this story would be a lot less controversial if we'd written just two simple sentences. We wouldn't be having this debate if we simply wrote:

That's not controversial. Get rid of the DQ stuff as it riles people up and makes them worry about when it will apply in other cases.

I have zero problems with most of the stories that your team at Let's Run post. Most I find have good angles and break the mold of classic running journalism. The "Ryan Hall" Boston story was a show of journalistic due diligence and you found a nice addition to an already great story. What bothered me about that article, in particular, is how much stretch was put into the story to make it more important than it really was, WAY more important than it really was. Part of that it is entertainment and to sensationalize for clicks, and some of it is trying hard to prove your journalistic metal because you had something someone else didn't.

Do I think both of these stories deserved to be reported. Yes. Do I think they're the shocking, underground conspiracies you made them out to be... no.

For example, how many media outlets would admit to having to go back and change the titles and subtitles of their articles after they've been posted or printed because they felt bad or in hindsight, felt it was too much? To me, that sounds like you hurried to get something out there, taking a hardliner stance in order to get another "scoop". That should hurt your writing integrity, not strengthen it, and should force you to be more diligent next time, but most likely, neither will happen.

Do I expect you guys to get it right all the time. No. I don't consider you journalists. I think your site is one big editorial on track and field. And that's not a big deal, other than when you post things, like the Wisconsin piece, without any information regarding how it affects other teams now, how it would have in the past, no comment from Bryne, No comment from a team who got points or teams who may lose them. Where there's smoke, there's smoke... you have to prove there's fire.

I guess I like the story because it points out some flaws in the at large system, and in some ways, gets into training and team philosophies and tactics and how those can have consequences to other schools... there is a story there, but it's not as quick and dirty as a headline.

I love Let's Run. It's a guilty pleasure and I think you guys are doing well, I just feel sometimes you turn into a running tabloid instead of covering the sport, in my humble Opinion.

LetsRun.com wrote:

We've changed the title of the article.

This article was initially titled: NCAA XC Weekend Recap: Shame On You, Wisconsin – You Disrespected The Sport And Should Be DQed From Louisville + No. 1 Colorado Debuts And The Six-Man XC Team That Beat Everyone At Notre Dame.

After some thought, we took out the shame part as we felt it was a little over the top. Wisconsin wasn’t acting in a clear-cut shameful manner. They were acting in their own self-interest but failed to consider the ramifications those actions would have on others.

The new title is: NCAA XC Weekend Recap: Wisconsin Jeopardized The At-Large Process and Should be DQd From Louisville + No. 1 Colorado Debuts And The Six-Man XC Team That Beat Everyone At Notre Dame

Rojo wrote:

In general, I think we do a good job of not needlessly riling up things.

That depends on your definition of "in general". Yes you've gotten better, but I'd say it still happens far more than it should if you want to call it journalism. Too many times LRC puts up passionate, emotion filled articles while eventually regressing to a more moderate view after yall have had time to cool off. The above is just one example.

As a former member of the NCAA cross country selection committee I would like to state that something of this nature has happened almost every year for the last 20. It is a unique and somewhat strange occurrence in our sport. But currently there is no protocol for DQ'ing a team for not running hard. There have been teams that have run part of a race on the championship course, and then walked off, not finishing. Yes, Wisconsin doing what they did will have some type of affect on other teams once we get to selection process, but the system is the system, and that is all we have to go by at the present time. During indoor track there are issues also. Texas A&M has a great indoor track facility, and a large percentage of the 200 and 400 NCAA qualifying times come from their track. So what does their head coach do? Restrict who he allows to come to his meets - therefore, denying worthy athletes of the chance to race on his facility and potentially knock one of his athletes out of qualifying. In every sport coaches learn how to "game" the system, and there will always be some type of this occurring. I wish there was a better way to do things but right now I do not see any way the NCAA will actually change.

I'm not talking about two weeks ago at the Iona meet. I'm talking about these two situations: The first, Wisco not running hard. The second is hypothetically not running their top 3 and running scrubs. Both influence the scoring, but LRC gets riled up about one while saying the other is "a whole lot different". Not too logical when your whole argument is solely about the scoring.

Cowl wrote:

STFU about this. It happens all the time and happens exponentially as you get better. As a DI All-American, I didn't go "all-out" early in the season and ran just as good as I needed to continue improving throughout the season.

I remember racing Colorado and them running "as a pack" as a tempo effort, same with Florida State and same with Stanford.

Let's DQ Ed Cheserek because we know he's not giving 100%, he's just going through the motions out there.

rojo wrote:

"The Wisonsin men didn't try at Louisville last week. They tempoed the course and therefore wins over them shouldn't count in the NCAA at large process."

That's not controversial. Get rid of the DQ stuff as it riles people up and makes them worry about when it will apply in other cases.

It is controversial. In fact, it is worse than that. It is just stupid.

Who would decide when a team worked hard enough to count? What if just a couple runners tempo'ed and the rest ran hard? What if the couple who tempo'ed were coming back from injury?

The at-large system may not be the best system possible, but at the very least it has clear rules and procedures, so that people who understand it well enough (not me, I understand it basically, but not all the ins and outs) can replicate the results. Follow the rules, this is the result...