NCAA XC Regionals are a sham

The system you have would be ok if all the best teams in the nation were scattered evenly across the world, but they just aren't. 15 of the top 30 teams in the nation are from what would be the West region. Is it right for a team that is the 9th best in their region but the 20th best team in the country to stay at home while the 8th best team in another region is the 50th best team in the country and can move along to be dead last by a large margin at nationals? I do agree that the regionals need a cap of teams allowed to participate. It is pitiful to see a D1 program running kids who can't break 35 in the 10k. Wins over the course of the season and Conference performance should be a good measure of if a team is good enough to run at regionals.

regional aligment might be an issue per this thread. How about the fact that the entire season is run at 8k and then the regional and national meet become 10k? Why not just keep the mens distance at 8k?

Sure you can train for 10K and race 8k during the season - i get it.

However, Kolas pts are based off 8k races and not 10k races so you have a situation where NCAA team qualifiers are selected at a distance that isn't run in the championships.

8k is a great distance, exciting and allows for more upper middle distance (talented) runners into the meet.

I disagree. The purpose of the NCAA Championships is NOT to find the 32 best teams and have them all race each other. It is to find out who the fastest team is, and for that you also need the 2nd and 3rd and 4th and maybe the top 8-10 teams to be sure. Anything more is really just for fun . Sure it makes us feel nice and fuzzy if you can also figure out who numbers 11-32 are, but I'm personally not a fan of participation awards.

A model like this would allow for all of the podium teams to qualify and then some. We would have some mix up between some teams who are top 50 making it in and top 20-25 teams being left out, but really, who cares except for individuals associated with those schools?

I ran in the NCAA D1 XC Champs 3 times, my team was a top 10 or better team, we also made it through regionals and we always knew we would. But because it was such a given, I constantly wondered why we had to tire ourselves out for 10k a week away from the big race against other teams who really didn't need to go. Sorry if that is hard to hear for 99% of people but it's how other sports do it and it's how our sport should be thinking too when selecting teams for a championship event.

how about... wrote:

regional aligment might be an issue per this thread. How about the fact that the entire season is run at 8k and then the regional and national meet become 10k? Why not just keep the mens distance at 8k?

Sure you can train for 10K and race 8k during the season - i get it.

However, Kolas pts are based off 8k races and not 10k races so you have a situation where NCAA team qualifiers are selected at a distance that isn't run in the championships.

8k is a great distance, exciting and allows for more upper middle distance (talented) runners into the meet.

Why not run a 10k or two during the season, they used to (when men were men)

We "think" the best teams are from the West because of their great weather and fast times, but the performances at Nationals never proves that out, even at the high school level (i.e., Foot Locker Midwest almost swept last few years Boys/Girls).

I say you make 4 regions and give places by how many teams compete. If there are 80 schools in the West, 60 schools in the South, 80 schools in the East, and 60 in North, then the West and East could still get more schools based on field size. So if we want the Championship to be 24 schools, 8 for West, 4 for North, 8 for East, 4 for South.

Just a concept.

32 teams get to NCAA XC. 64 teams get to go to the NCAA Basketball tournament (and they have actually extended that). It is not a participation award to make the top 32 teams in the country. Those 32 teams are VERY good teams. NCAA Basketball is based on the competition throughout the season also. The Conference champions get a bid, but so too do the teams ranked well based on their season. THEN they go through the bracket. My D1 XC team was not quite as good as what you describe, but we finished 5-8th in the SE Region every year and had a few who made it as individuals to NCAA Championships and were All Americans. By your description, we did not deserve to even run the Regional. This is elitist ignorance. There is no harm in letting everyone run the Regionals. It does not hinder the chances of the top 10 contenders. Running well throughout the season also does not hinder the contenders, it enhances their racing ability.

alshaw wrote:

But because it was such a given, I constantly wondered why we had to tire ourselves out for 10k a week away from the big race against other teams who really didn't need to go. Sorry if that is hard to hear for 99% of people but it's how other sports do it and it's how our sport should be thinking too when selecting teams for a championship event.

Umm, what other sports are you talking about? For someone who is whining about participation trophies you sure seem like a gigantic baby who is afraid of competition.

How is that elitist mentality? I didn't suggest that we slaughter the rest of the teams. I also didn't say they can't run at regionals. I just think 32 teams at nationals is too many- at least too many for us to be concerned about whether or not we really got all of the teams right from 11-32. I personally think 16 would be ideal- not because all 16 of those teams are necessary to find out who the top 4 are, but because the field size would be more manageable.

Your All-American teammates would probably have qualified individually anyway though, am I right? And sure NCAA basketball allows for 64 teams in a TOURNAMENT but we can't do that with XC so instead we run 32 ALL AT ONCE. It's a mad house, which we've come to accept as the norm now, and it's not necessary. If you can present a good reason for why we should run 32 teams at NCAA's other than "give them a chance," "let them run too," "let's be nice and inclusive," then I'm all ears. For now though I think if anything it takes away from the Championship.

no YOURE hilarious wrote:

alshaw wrote:

But because it was such a given, I constantly wondered why we had to tire ourselves out for 10k a week away from the big race against other teams who really didn't need to go. Sorry if that is hard to hear for 99% of people but it's how other sports do it and it's how our sport should be thinking too when selecting teams for a championship event.

Umm, what other sports are you talking about? For someone who is whining about participation trophies you sure seem like a gigantic baby who is afraid of competition.

College football has allowed for a championship bracket with 4 teams. It was suggested that more be added but they haven't done it yet because of how hard it can be on the body. If they ever did though there's no way they would go up to 16. Yeah it's determined off of a tournament trying to include as many as possible, but at the end of the day THE PURPOSE IS TO FIND OUT WHICH TEAM IS BEST. With 4 teams there, they are now able to do just that where in the past a selection of the 2 best (probably) teams may not have done that. What other purpose does a championship have?

As to your comment about me whining about participation trophies and then calling me a baby who's afraid of competition, I'm sorry but I don't see how those two remarks helped you to make a point. I am not a fan of participation awards, even when I'm the one who ends up left out. In my running career I've been more driven to succeed by missing out on a state championship, not making my traveling team, or not being All-whatever on a number of occasions. I prefer it that way rather than being given an extra spot or a feel-good award.

I'm not saying to screw all the non-top whatever# teams in the country at all costs. I'm just saying that a model which allows for better focus on peaking at the NCAA Championship meet for the best teams, which may or may not be at the expense of teams who are not contributing to the essence of the meet anyway doesn't sound like a bad way to go to me. And so far you all have not presented a valid counter argument other than some bitter comments.

Not saying you are wrong, but my 4x8 team in HS finished 5th at the regional meet and didn't qualify to the state meet. The 4 teams that beat us at regional went on to place 1, 2, 4, & 5 at state the following weekend. My team would have finished 6th in the state. So, the way I figure it, we were better than the other 11 teams that qualified to state, yet we sat at home. That's part of life.

+1

See? This is all I'm saying. That sucks. Wish you could have gone. But yes, it's part of life, and in the end, the team that was gonna win the whole thing probably made it there.

Not to beat a dead horse, but taking 8 per region certainly is fair and will not leave a quality team at home unless they bomb at regionals. Some regions are stronger now than others, but that changes from year to year. I just have disliked the way teams qualify now and how one needs to go to one of these pre-national meets, resulting in a complete disconnect with competing within your region. Think in terms of football or basketball just playing teams from weaker conferences and then only have a conference playoff to get the national championships. Solid conference games are the backbone of these major sports, yet have little impact in xc.

If we are just trying to find the fastest team in the nation, why not just have one qualifier per region? If they can't win their region then how can they win nationals? Everyone who doesn't win their region and goes to nationals is just getting a participation trophy because only the best team in the nation matters in the current system. Why even have podium teams, they are just the best of the losers.

If you're the 9th best team in your region, you aren't competing for a national championship anyway, so who cares if you're at the national meet?

Why not this wrote:

If we are just trying to find the fastest team in the nation, why not just have one qualifier per region? If they can't win their region then how can they win nationals? Everyone who doesn't win their region and goes to nationals is just getting a participation trophy because only the best team in the nation matters in the current system. Why even have podium teams, they are just the best of the losers.

Nonsense talk doesn't do justice to looking a something that might be a consideration for change. You are just trolling silly stuff.

My thoughts on the regional setup is based on having seen this present system in action for years and finding it void of making the NCAA XC sport significant in the eyes of athletes, coaches, AD's and fans.

The present setup is only beneficial for the top rung of about 10-12 teams that have the resources and ability to limit their racing competition to the bare minimum. That is not what this sport needs. Inclusion of teams competing head to head within regions, making the Conference meet very important (unlike Portland that took a walk apparently, although they would still qualify for regionals), and making the regional meet a goal rather than just showing up (the case now where any team can compete at regionals).

The cry of leaving some team home that could beat another team is nothing new. Happens all the time from high school sports to all other sports, especially college football and basketball. XC, in fact, is more inclusive than most sports in competing for a national title. 32 teams time 4 regions brings 128 teams out of about 300 to compete for nationals. The final 32 teams competing head to head for the championship is again far better than two teams competing for the championship as is the case in most other sports.

I respectfully disagree with you. The purpose of NCAA is the spirit of TOP competition as well as to determine National Champion as well as the remaining rankings--Like Basketball, there is a big dance everyone wants to be at. I ran in two D-1 Nationals, went individually one year (nobody is talking about individuals qualifying) and with my team the other year. We were proud and energized the year we went as a team (finished in the teens). We were BUMMED out the year we missed out going as a team by 3 points (I went individually that year). I ran my ASS off to get in individually. For many of us Regionals WAS our D1 NCAA Finals because we needed every second from every guy to advance. Getting there any way you can is a HUGE deal for most of the teams attending. It makes or breaks your season. It also helps in recruiting to say to a HS 9:10 2-Miler that if you come here you have a great shot to run at Nationals. You can't lose sight of that.

The year we went as a team, I was top 100 finisher in the finals. Even today, I still ride the excitement of breaking 31:00 a couple times and making top 100. I was voted MVP of our team the year I went individually. That has carried me and does for lots of us "mid-packers" far for a 9:22 Two-2-Mile HS guy. Getting in Nationals and running a PR against the nations best is not just "participation". It's the real deal.

Unless I am reading your remarks wrong, 10-15th ranked teams would not have gone if your proposal was used. I say take the top XX teams in each region and then take a bunch of at large teams. Similar to how it is now but the committee should be able to adjust a team's power rating [if they beat a team that held out guys] by reducing the rating of the beaten watered down team for that particular day. There is no perfect solution but 32 teams need to go and a bunch of deserving individuals need to go with them. So if you get 25th place individually in the finals but the 15-32nd best teams didn't run, it takes a lot away from that. It would also be much harder to assemble the All-America Team.

PS--Regions are 8 days, not 7 before finals.

I would actually be okay with some kind of qualifying system to the regional meets that was based on placement in the conference meets. Such a system would have to be pretty generous with at-large bids since we all know that conferences are far from equal, but in generally I think it's better to see more actual competition for advancement through various rounds as opposed to just "show up once and you're in!" Maybe top two in each conference plus a set number of at-large bids that a committee would select. You don't necessarily have to be strict as far as geography either, since such a system would almost require that everyone in a conference ran in the same regional, which is not currently the case. You would be able to balance the regions out - if you decide there are four "powerhouse" conferences you would make four regions, with one powerhouse in each. If you decide there are six powerhouse conferences, you make six regions, etc. There would need to be individual qualifiers to the regional meet as well, obviously.

By arguing about how many individuals and teams should make nationals even though they have no chance of affecting the outcome, you've convinced me that NCAAs are the ultimate hobby jogger Olympics.

I'm aware the region meet is 8 days, not 7 before finals. I ran it 3 times. Is that really necessary to point out based on my stating that it's a week away? Yeah okay a week and a day, thought it went without saying.

In response to your disagreement with my "proposal," I actually haven't stated a method for qualifying teams to nationals. I do however, disagree that 32 teams are necessary. Yeah I still think individual qualifiers need to be considered and a certain amount taken. I don't know that the way we do All-Americans has to stay the same though. That changed pretty recently too from top 25 US Citizens to top 40 overall. Why not do a 16 team race with 25 first team All-Americans?

I appreciate your story. However, don't you think the same story might be applicable to a lot more teams if we just allowed for a 64 team, or 128 team race? I'm sure some schools would recruit far more and have team captains much more experienced and better equipped to lead and inspire their team.

Anyway, remind me again why 32 is the number? Look I wasn't on the best team, I wasn't All American, but I was pretty good, my team was good, and there may have been a year or two we might not have made it in a different model. I'm just saying inclusion should not be our first consideration when thinking of a national championship.

Before you pick every letter or date or number apart in my comments, hear this:

MY POINT is that a different model for qualifying teams (I'm not suggesting one, just saying that we be open-minded) that would focus on making sure the best teams, the teams that NEED to be there, are there, should be considered. Possibly one with fewer teams, making for more of a race and less of a stampede. There will always be mix up between 'deserving' and 'non-deserving' teams, but if we're gonna have any mistakes it should be toward the bottom of the rankings and not the top.