Esche Proposal - NCAA Division One Cross Country

Only a master of evil, dearth.

This proposal fixed a problem that doesn't exist.

Our championship is the fairest of all. Ya, we can debate about the 25th-32nd team, but we can always do that, regardless of qualification.

What this does is limits student athletes experience. Ya, they say they are expanding it by having 72 teams. But what they are really doing is saying bye bye to 200 teams after their conference meet.

CC is not like other sports. We shouldn't emulate them.

The regional championships are great because they mean something to the athletes and to the program. You get to race the same teams every year who are in your area. That means your rivals. That doesn't occur at most conference meets anymore sadly.

If we want to make the regular season count, then the solution is to make every 'win' against a team count, regardless of if it's their top 7 or not. In other sports you don't lose wins if a team sits people out. That will make the early season meets matter because Stanford can't sit out their top 4 and not be afraid of giving away points.

This solution is not to come up with a complicated RPI system to 'predict' where runners will finish. Then select based on that.

We race to qualify. Regionals is the ultimate system that allows racing to qualify.

A big reason why coaches are careful not to over-race their guys the first few months of the season is that at the end of the year they know they'll have to run 2 10k's in back to back weeks.

This could be solved by adding an off week between regionals and nationals, or by dropping the distance for both races down to 8k. Not that crazy of a proposal, considering every other xc race of the season is 8k. Why not just standardize the distance for all the big meets. Plus, it might allow a few more teams to seriously compete for a podium spot, or NC.

get rid of the at-large qualifying points system, so so dumb. Put a selection committee together and do it like college basketball. When 2 teams are close, the committee could favor the team that competed well at some of the tougher regular season meets. A "strength of schedule" thing.

Team sports need win-loss records. Period. Every xc team should have a 5 meet season with a win-loss record against every team in the field. Develop rpi from there.

I had been involved in this process for almost 30 years. Complain all you want, but the system in place now is actually really pretty effing good. The goal of NCAA Championship is to crown a champion and honor Top-4 teams.

Literally name ONE team in last 70 years that was left out that could be top-4 or even Top-8?

This system, for you young coaches, has already vetted out these issues. We sorted through all this stuff for years and years. If you don't know what the "Brown Effect" rule is in all this, you don't understand the history.

I coached teams, many teams, that were the 1st team NOT to make it. I coached multiple teams that made it "at large". Hell I coached a team in the mid-90's that was a legit Top-20 team that missed out.

But this is not summer camp or D3. NCAA Championship is to crown very top teams. Period. The current system takes care of that after many years of adjustments.

I enjoy watching the energy of young coaches. You don't get, however, the old school coached, already hashed out your "cutting edge" plans.

Flame away anonymous 20-somethings.

There's more to it than that. A good system is one that promotes growth, and doesn't just reward the teams that are perennially at the top. My senior year at Cornell last year, we were on the cusp of making it to nationals -- so close, that flotrack had us in for a few hours before it had all been calculated correctly.

We finished third in our region, behind #5 Iona and #1 Syracuse. Being in a region like that, it basically means we were forced to go through the at-large process. Compare this to the South-Central region. How is that fair? Had we made nationals as a team, it would have done a great deal for the program, in terms of recruiting and funding.

Boo-hoo, had we made it we would have finished 20th-25th. So who cares, right? Wrong -- because recruiting at Cornell is incredibly hard. A system like this makes it far more difficult to grow.

I don't think it's an awful system -- the main issue is that the regions are incredibly uneven. If regions could qualify a number of teams based off of historical performance (if the region is relatively stronger, then it gets 3 or 4 auto quals, relatively weaker and it gets zero), I think that would be a good start.

They used to do that. And it didn't work out. So they moved to today's system.

Listen to hadsell.

The at large systems allows teams like Cornell who finished third to have a shot if they performed in the regular season.

The south central is weak. The south is usually weak. But in most years both regions have two teams who are good. Occasionally you get a bad year. But with Arkansas and Texas you have solid teams.

If you are complaining of 1 team out of 32 every few years who doesn't deserve it then I think that's a pretty good ratio.

Common Sensei wrote:

Change 2017 wrote:

We have this elitist mentality only taking 32 teams to nationals when EVERY other sport takes roughly 72 teams.

Every other sport takes 64. I'm not sure why they decided on 72 teams. Nattys is already crowded enough as it is with 31 teams. Not sure there is a course or city that can handle four 36 team races.

My districts course in high school was Paul Short. In the JV race, there were 800+ kids and probably close to 1000 some years, that course can handle it easily. 36x7=252 plus individuals, so that's close to 300 people per race, there's probably 50+ courses in this country that can host 300 person races.

I like what this guy has to say, especially about the cost, we are significantly cutting the budget and providing more revenue at the same time, this is the kind of stuff our sport needs if it has any shot of growing. Plus the talent will grow as crappier teams that have a shot at making it to nationals by winning a weak conference.

Jeex wrote:

They used to do that. And it didn't work out. So they moved to today's system.

Listen to hadsell.

The at large systems allows teams like Cornell who finished third to have a shot if they performed in the regular season.

The south central is weak. The south is usually weak. But in most years both regions have two teams who are good. Occasionally you get a bad year. But with Arkansas and Texas you have solid teams.

If you are complaining of 1 team out of 32 every few years who doesn't deserve it then I think that's a pretty good ratio.

Exactly. Dude. I get you ran on a team that you think should have made it (but not finish in top-15). Join the club. Hard to recruit to Cornell? Try recruiting to a state school in an industrial city that was last or second-to-last in their 12/14 team mid-major conference 18 of 18 year before you arrive.

Then throw the "well you have schlarshps"BS to me and I will show you a team that went to 3 straight championships with no internationals and no HS all-Americans or a single woman under 4:56 in HS.

If you are good..you will make it. Blame it on whatever you want. I'm not buying it. The NCAAs is not an "all-comers" meet. It's to decide the NCAA Champion.

Like i said, we have gone through all these things for years and decades. I don't coach anymore and enjoy my life as an actor. I don't need to be anything but real about it.

This is the absolute most fair system.

"We point towards the end of the year..."

Me response: "no shit". You didn't invent that. Everyone does that. Genius.

~Kevin.

Hey don't you like to have sex with anonymous 20-somethings?

Take it easy. My point is it's more nuanced than "NCAA champion decider" versus "all-comers meet". It's not "bad system" versus "good system". I think it's a good conversation to have.

A of all: coulda predicted that comeback. Did your Mommy help you with that? Please. That's ancient history and I didn't re-invent the wheel. Say what you want, that is not the point of the conversation.

Grow up.

Like I said, in grown-up world, the NCAA championships, like it or not, is not to decide the #27-35 teams. If you are good, you will make it. If not? You won't.

A point of pride when I talked to my AD or donors/alumni: "we didn't make it to NCAAs by winning a conference title. Only the top 31 teams in the nation make it." That's a lot more impressive than any auto qualifier out of a crappy conference.

~Being real.

raineezy wrote:

Take it easy. My point is it's more nuanced than "NCAA champion decider" versus "all-comers meet". It's not "bad system" versus "good system". I think it's a good conversation to have.

I agree with Hadsell that the NCAA meet should be held to determine a team champ. That is why I agree with the other guy that the NCAA meet should be fewer teams.

After the conference meets, all conference champs get byes, and you fill out the remaining regional qualifiers with at-large berths.

Teams are reseeded and put into even regions, NOT based on geography. This is the reason the basketball tournament works.

4 regional meets - 8 teams each

Top 2 from each region advance to final.

If a team gets upset in the region, Great! That's called drama! XChas a lack of drama problem and we need to fix it.

Student Athlete Experience:

You are throwing away the history of a regional championship. You are trying to manufacture something that only will happen with tradition. I can't see any increase in media attention other than another story to add to a school's website which only parents and alumni check in such as my experience regarding NCAA Track's regional championship. If you call the regional championship an all comer meet, then every conference championship is an all comer meet with feel good trophies and ribbons where as a regional championship qualifies you for the NCAA championship. .

Budget

"Reduces the need for institutions to travel and schedule nationally during the regular season"

I see a greater increase in travel in order to meet the at large qualifying standards. If you are a bubble team or individual, you need to get out and compete instead of staying home and racing schools that won't help your RPI. Right now, the bubble teams are aiming to be the top 31 in the nation, not the top 72 in the nation. More bubble teams, more need to travel.

Conference Champions do not deserve the right to advance

Cross Country should not be forced to be like other sports which grant conference champions into a NCAA tournament. This proposal that allows conference champions to compete is no better than the current all comer regional meet. This isn't March Madness. There are not going to be any increase in cinderella team stories with this proposal or million dollar checks cut to the qualifying schools.

"Real Talk" Kevin-

You speaking about the history of the sport like you were some hall of famer is plain embarrassing. Honestly, you should have a lifetime ban of shame for doing what you did (and you don't deny it) to the student athletes you were entrusted with. You used your position of power in a dispicable way and yet you come on these boards flaunting some high position which we should lend respect to? No, you have no such respect from me.

You asked if anyone could name a team (top 10) that should have made it under the current system that didn't? Answer- Providence women. They were ranked 4th in the country and were a legit top 5 team, had a bad day at region and were blocked and didn't go. There are others as well.

You assume incorrectly that only the young 20 somethings are interested in change. Our sport evolves and over time it will not look the way it's looked in the past. That is a reality that I am willing to accept, I have no problem removing my ego from the equation and giving credence to something new, even if it means doing away with something I helped create with many of my old colleagues.

Is this proposal perfect? No. Is it worth tweaking? I think there are enough reasons to explore it yes.

Kevin, I believe D3 uses the same system, unsure about summer camp

Also, Matt Esche is a jabroni. Not sure why he is trying to give himself even less of a chance of having a successful post season.

2012 Duke had a bad day at NCAA tourney vs. Lehigh. Don't see entire basketball world calling for a revamping.

Providence women showed on that day they were not the #4 team in the nation.

Seems to make for a more busy schedule of races.

Perhaps XC should be separated and a scholarship sport unto itself?