Last-ditch lifeline to NCAAs for Princeton and Gonzaga ? Remember, NC State failed to record a team score at Nuttycombe

The new NCAA rules that went into place this season state that if five or more runners start a race then that team is considered to have competed even if less than five finish.

Athletes that start the race are required by meet directors to be included as a DNF and the team placed in last. That's why there has been more stringent declaration processes prior to racing.

How that gets interpreted for wins/losses... no idea.

Good luck to Princeton with 4 freshman in their top 7 something to build on in the future.

It will actually be really interesting to see how this shakes out. I'm torn on what should happen - it some ways it seems like Princeton and Gonzaga should get credit for this, but on the other hand they just defaulted to "beating" NC State along with every other team.

After thinking about it for ~2 minutes my opinion is that they shouldn't get in since they didn't truly beat them, but am curious to hear both sides of that argument.

Oh hey, fellow track/xc coaches, maybe we should make this as confusing as possible. The last thing we want is for potential fans to have any clue what's going on.

Let's see, we beat NC State but, wait! They ran 4 of their "real" runners and only 3 of them finished. Looks like they didn't beat them after all! It was just an IlLuSiOn...

In ANY OTHER SPORT if you beat the other team then you beat the other team. NCAA coaches are literally the dumbest people in the world. It's truly a scene to behold.

Now, to address the actual question. A DNF should now count according to the new rule and therefore this should count as a win against NC State. Let's go Tigers and Dawgs.

NCAA should give both arguments the benefit of the doubt, this should not be an arbitrary decision. Best choice is to allow 2 extra teams for the lack of clarity in the new rules.

Go Zags!

It's done. FSU is in. Along with Bama.

https://seminoles.com/mens-cross-country-celebrates-at-large-ncaa-berth/

LetsRun.com wrote:

Now the rule book says "During the at-large selection process, institutions can only accumulate wins against any opponent’s “A” team. An “A” team is considered to have competed if four or more of those individuals who compete at the regional qualifying meet finished the regular-season race. "

Have any of the top teams sat their big guns in the regional qualifying meet?

Are any teams being credited with having been beat, but in reality only 3 or less of their guys who ran regionals were in that race?

Who goes back and checks through this stuff?

It really doesn't matter. It's not like any of the bubble teams are going to be competing for a podium position. There are better teams in the Mountain and Great Lakes regions that are staying home anyhow.

Selection Show:

https://www.ncaa.com/video/cross-country-women/2019-11-16/di-cross-country-2019-selection-show

Please explain this argument?? The last time Alabama was in the meet 2017, where they were the last At-large team in the meet .... yes #31. They finished 14th, beating teams from the Mountain, Great Lakes and West Regions. Who your better teams obviously lost to at regionals and thus didn't make the meet. The system is not perfect but teams that show up on the day and perform should be rewarded, just as much as teams that run fast on Oct 4th. NCAA Championships are in late November and being good on the day is what matters. As Butler (Basketball) Boise State (Football) and countless others have taught us.

Have attached the 2017 results so you can see for yourself.

https://xc.tfrrs.org/results/xc/13423.html

Roll Tide

I’m surprised this thread doesn’t have more traction. Would this fly in any other sport? Take the Alabama-Minnesota basketball game a few years ago when Collin Sexton and Alabama had to play 3 on 5 after losing two players to injury/fouls. Did that win not count for Minnesota?

I am guessing that the difference is that, with basketball, you can continue to score with less than 5 players. In cross country, you are unable to score once you have less than 5. One possible solution, in a case like this, may be to award them the last scoring spots. The problem is that then a partial team beats other schools which would not seem fair since the other schools actually had 5 finishers. If there were 5 runners that started, you score the 3-4 that finished and you award the 247th and 248th places (or whatever they are) to their team score and see where they finish. Otherwise, it is the equivalent of a "forfeit" as opposed to a win-loss-tie. A forfeit would be as if the team never showed up in the first place. They would have scored around 674 or so.

Interesting scenario, however. We talked about situations like this years ago with international (Canadian or Mexican) universities entering the race. If you take them out (since they do not follow the same eligibility standards that we follow), it can flip-flop scored teams and impact the NCAAs.

Anyway, congrats to all that made it. Making it as a team is not easy. This is about the best system there is to make it and it keeps evolving.

~Kevin

RollTide wrote:

Please explain this argument?? The last time Alabama was in the meet 2017, where they were the last At-large team in the meet .... yes #31. They finished 14th, beating teams from the Mountain, Great Lakes and West Regions. Who your better teams obviously lost to at regionals and thus didn't make the meet. The system is not perfect but teams that show up on the day and perform should be rewarded, just as much as teams that run fast on Oct 4th. NCAA Championships are in late November and being good on the day is what matters. As Butler (Basketball) Boise State (Football) and countless others have taught us.

Have attached the 2017 results so you can see for yourself.

https://xc.tfrrs.org/results/xc/13423.html

Roll Tide

Yeah cause they had 3 of the best runners in the nation. No one else on that team outside their top 3 finished higher than 220th. Would rather Bama sends their top 3 to nationals this year as individuals and leave that team spot to a team that actually ran well this year. But this is the system they chose and it rewards the teams in the less competitive regions and punishes teams from the deeper regions

A Team that would lose to Alabama?? Every position matters and yeah Alabama had a super strong top 3 and then a group of hard working athletes behind them that yes placed further back. That doesn't impact how well there team did or if the 7th place team in the Mountain would beat them. You can build a team any way you choose, all 7 guys don't have to be super stars for a great team. 1-3 is just as important to Team Score as 4-7 actually some would say more important.

And Alabama did run well when it mattered, 2nd at SECs beating Automatic qualifier Arkansas and 3rd at South Region beating FSU who had 5-6 points off the teams who qualified. Your argument is flawed.

joedirt wrote:

It really doesn't matter. It's not like any of the bubble teams are going to be competing for a podium position. There are better teams in the Mountain and Great Lakes regions that are staying home anyhow.

True.

Besides, if Princeton wants to make it to Nationals, they need to peak at the end of the season, not the beginning.

They should have nade it based on their talented roster. Their top guys have been going bsckwards since September.

Nutti, Heps and Regionals have been disappointing.

Not going go Nationals serves as good motivation for the track.