Time to Overhaul NCAA XC regions

You want someone to rank all the way down to the 50th best individual (on a non-competitive team) within each region? Think about just how many people that is that need ranking. Think about just how far down that would take you in terms of a runner’s “actual” ranking within the region after you disregard the top 15 or however many teams. This is a ridiculous ask.

poopy poopy pants wrote:

How does the NCAA qualifying system in Swimming work? Seems like the closest sport to track/xc. I wonder if they hate their system as much as we hate ours.

Not an expert on NCAA swimming, but I believe it is based purely on time. This is consistent with swimming qualifying culture in general, which is almost purely based on time and not on head-to-head competition.

Track also have very little similarity to XC. Entire teams don't have to qualify to yield a team score.

The easiest fix would be to leave the regions alone but only take the winner. Then take the next best 25 teams based on the current system. The system for individuals wouldn't change.

Predictor wrote:

The easiest fix would be to leave the regions alone but only take the winner. Then take the next best 25 teams based on the current system. The system for individuals wouldn't change.

I don't see a problem with this system. More at-large spots over autos make for a better, more competitive national meet. Nobody seems to be complaining about the individual qualifying system, so this leaves that more or less intact.

Competition is what has created the quality on the left coast. There's no reason to make changes that could hurt those programs. Right coasters need to step it up.

The qualifying system is fine. It forces teams to race against good competition during the season and gives credit to those that actually beat quality teams. It also gives a fall back if those that actually raced during the season have an off day and rewards teams that raced well when it counted.

Seriously, the only teams that gripe are "good" teams that didn't race any legitimate competition or sh!t the bed when it counted. It's clear what teams have to do to qualify and they have no one else to blame when they don't. When has a truly deserving team unjustly NOT made nationals? Also it's hard to feel bad for or worry about bubble teams (ones that are seeking the 29-31 spots) as it's difficult to call a team truly "deserving" when there's doubt they should be in or not and couldn't prove during the season they should be in with any distinguishing or noteworthy performances.

I think the comments about awarding xc-only scholarships are insightful observations. I do think that would change things a bit.

However, even mid-majors like NAU put a decent amount of cash into their non-distance events and are a literal dynasty in xc. At a mid-major! Not all about money distribution.

They put 10 scholarships into distance. That's more than almost anyone other than Bradley or Furman. A few of those other mid-majors should be better than they are by buying the best talent.

I doubt that regions will be overhauled by next week. Who are the terrible teams that we are worried about qualifying or which top 30 teams will be excluded? Harvard will probably qualify but Indiana may be eliminated. What if something strange happens? Iowa State only had 5 finishers last week. Some team could get the flu.

Maybe so, I've been a pompous a$$ most of my life only to find out I'm wrong a lot more than I'm willing to admit.

Predictor wrote:

I doubt that regions will be overhauled by next week. Who are the terrible teams that we are worried about qualifying or which top 30 teams will be excluded? Harvard will probably qualify but Indiana may be eliminated. What if something strange happens? Iowa State only had 5 finishers last week. Some team could get the flu.

I think the odds are low that Harvard will qualify as a team, even though they have been ranked #2 in the NE for the last two USTFCCCA publications. Harvard SHOULD get at least two individuals to NCAAs - Tuntivate and Milner - but they have a large gap between their top 3 and their final two scorers. Some other pundits have Army and Iona ranked higher than Harvard, and USTFCCCA's new CCRI rankings have Dartmouth ranked higher than Harvard, even though Harvard beat Dartmouth at the Heps conference meet...

But hey, anything can happen at Regionals (NE will be at Buffalo, and it was miserably cold conditions there last year) so that's why we run the race.

Tennessee and Texas may qualify while dozens of teams ranked ahead of them will be eliminated.

"You want someone to rank all the way down to the 50th best individual (on a non-competitive team) within each region? Think about just how many people that is that need ranking. Think about just how far down that would take you in terms of a runner’s “actual” ranking within the region after you disregard the top 15 or however many teams. This is a ridiculous ask."

__________________________________________________________________________________

Maybe the Stud on a lousy team's Coach should submit an application to the NCAA to run individually, based on:

1) Time/Course, 2) Placing in big meets, etc..

This would eliminate the idea of having to "rank the top 50 individuals,etc". You would not get too many individuals and you would have to convince a small NCAA panel.

I qualified as an individual in the late 70's [I finished in the mid-teens in my region], because my region had Five Qualifying teams, not 2 or three like other regions. This allowed for a couple more "not top 10" individuals to qualify and because I ran [my ass off in] the Regional as if it was my NC's. Our team missed going by three points that year.

The next year 5 teams went also and we qualified as a team. Our region was not real strong and should not have had 5 teams going.

The idea of individuals going along with the qualifying teams must thrive and survive.

If only 1 or 2 teams go out of a region, then perhaps, a couple more individuals should go....likewise, if 5 or 6 teams from a region qualify [go to NC Finals], should the same amount of individuals go from that region? Should there be a few at large individuals?

We probably only need 7 or 8 regions (with 2 auto qualify)....that would provide the flexibility to admit the proper amount of at large teams and change the Final perhaps to 32 teams. That would add weight to AT Large selections. Weak regions like the Mid-Atlantic would be stronger [with a couple better teams], thus reducing the chances that the Region winner would get DFL in the Final like last year.

ok so we're just not acknowledging the existence of the female gender that'scool

Seems like most of the posters here don’t remember the old regional system and that only 22 teams used to go to NCAAs with only 2(?) of those being at-large teams.

Some other points to consider - the northeast and mid Atlantic have far more schools than most regions. The number of schools in a region needs to be factor.

And that the good teams nationally have shifted to the west coast. 25 years ago the east was much stronger. So maybe this will correct itself. Or not.

Most people also don’t remember that Arkansas was in such a weak region that they could routinely run their B team at regionals and then keep 4-5 of their best runners fresh for nationals while other great teams in tough regions had to fight tooth and nail to just get in.

My wife will vote this year. Remembering that there was time when women couldn’t vote makes her want to have the best system possible. The NCAA should always be examining the process to make it better rather than thinking it is good enough because it is better than what it was. 1 auto and 25 kolas qualifiers makes sense. Your comment about Arkansas is true this year. Texas is not good and the next team is terrible. They can run their B team if they choose to.

Whatever format make it so that High Point Trump University makes it? More for the rich.

This thread is annoying. It's already been mentioned, but we can't just change the regionals because some schools chose not to focus on XC. Again, the teams in those regionals aren't weak because they don't have the same opportunity as other teams, they're weak because they choose to focus on track. That is their choice. Let the schools who want to be good at XC earn their national berths.

The problem isn't regional alignment, the "problem" is the regional coaches.

You’re making the point for relooking the process. Weak teams are being rewarded for being in a weak region and not focusing on XC. A team like Texas could choose to load up on sprinters but still sneak into nationals in XC because they only have to get second in a terrible region.

Take the top team from each regon and 25 Kolas/at large/ranjed or any process that is decided upon.