NCAA Cross Qualifying Changes?

fast dad wrote:

That means they weren't ranked 100. I stand by point that having the top 60 or so make the regionals, there is no issue.

I'm talking about regional rankings and national rankings according to the coach's association (because those are the only rankings we currently have), and 11th in the region is pretty bad.

And it's extremely unclear if they would have made the regional under the current format (which hasn't announced how they'd determine qualifiers). In that region, there are 7 conferences which means only 9 at large bids.

The #2,3,4,5 teams at Heps would have had wins over them. There were 4 teams in the ACC that placed ahead of them at Nationals and another 3 teams from the ACC that had wins over them in the regular season. NC State would have an auto, that leaves 6 ACC teams and 4 teams from Heps that could make it in ahead of them for at-large spots in their NCAA proposed region.

Hadsell's idea is not being considered and would be by far the most expensive option. Whatever outcomes he comes up with are 100% irrelevant.

We’ll see...

Update: skip to the end of page 2 for details of the working group's newest concept.

https://ncaaorg.s3.amazonaws.com/championships/sports/crosstrack/d1/common/Jun2020D1XTF_AnnualReport.pdf

Once again Hadsell was wrong about everything. The NCAA did in fact listen to the coaches feedback, and they even mention this updated proposal is not better than the current 9 region model. The NCAA is not considering anything that Hadsell suggested. He has lost all credibility.

I said, nearly a dozen times, that it doesn’t matter to me if they choose my proposal. It doesn’t affect me. I also said that, if the coaches don’t put together a workable plan, that the NCAA is just going to figure one out on their own. I even went as far as to say that, if they make a plan on their own, it is likely going to be modeled after golf (which has a Committee, a .500 winning percentage and a 2/3 finish rule). I mentioned multiple times that you don’t want to sit around and wait for that to happen because you don’t want a Committee and you don’t want the 50% winning percentage issue (you can go back and read what I said if you are so inclined.).

Not to mention, I suggested seeding the regions and, in doing so, only a few teams would have to leave their current region. Now, you have 3 of the current regions which every-single-school from those three regions will now be competing outside their current geographical region.

I don’t really care what an anonymous guy with some sort of hardon for me thinks. What I do care about is the sport and this is actually spot on as to what I predicted would happen if the coaches don’t come together and form a plan to give the NCAA. I said, multiple times, that I would certainly make sure you voice your concerns but to not put all the eggs in the basket of them changing their minds and keeping the current format.

Now, you have exactly what I said would happen if there was no plan. And, as far as schools saving money, when you seeded the teams from my proposal, you only had about 12 schools leaving their region. Now, as I mentioned above, you will have 3 entire regions heading out of their current geographical region to complete in a region selected by a Committee and a process modeled after golf.

So. That’s where it is.

It’s also important to point out that this, that we are looking at right now, is only for 2020 due to the COVID-19. This is not necessarily what’s going to be in place moving forward. Just pointing that out as well.

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

It’s also important to point out that this, that we are looking at right now, is only for 2020 due to the COVID-19. This is not necessarily what’s going to be in place moving forward. Just pointing that out as well.

No, its not. Whats possibly being implemented for the 2020 season is modeled after their new qualifying concept for the future, which is published above.

Kevin Hadsell wrote:

It’s also important to point out that this, that we are looking at right now, is only for 2020 due to the COVID-19. This is not necessarily what’s going to be in place moving forward. Just pointing that out as well.

Wrong again. There is a COVID 19 proposal and a proposal for the future in normal years. The one posted here is the long term proposal.

You really are out of your element, Kev.

You’re right. I misread that. My mistake. This is their potential restructuring plan. To which I responded above to your previous posts.

Hopefully the coaches will refocus their attention on formulating a plan that works within their desire to change to 6 regions and AQs. As I mentioned many times, with no plan, they will just form their own plan and it looks like it is going to be using golf as their model. Again, I don’t care if they use mine. However, they are now talking about a selection committee and combining regions (as well as the .500 winning percentage and a 2/3 finish in your conference to even be considered).

All the attention from the coaches has seemingly focused on trying to convince the NCAA to keep the current format. I have been saying all along that if they don’t give the NCAA a plan, the NCAA will make their own plan. That’s what is happening so hopefully this will be a catalyst for discussion on how to keep the integrity of the Kolas Calculator system within their desire to move to 5 or 6 regions and limited field sizes and AQs out of the conferences.

So, yes, you’re right. I definitely misread about the 2020 contingency plan. However, I do know coaches received a follow-up email implying that this could potentially be put into place for 2020 due to the virus.

Wear your masks! If I were a betting man, and I am, I would say the chances of a season this fall continue to fall with each day that everyone ignores the science.

needing to finish top 2/3 in the conference is idiotic especially for smaller conferences like the ivy league.

just as an example, Dartmouth men this year had a tough day at heps, finishing 8th, and then went on to finish 6th at northeast regionals.

tabors wrote:

needing to finish top 2/3 in the conference is idiotic especially for smaller conferences like the ivy league.

just as an example, Dartmouth men this year had a tough day at heps, finishing 8th, and then went on to finish 6th at northeast regionals.

Without a doubt. Also, when I put my concept to the test, using 2019 results, it had a few teams that would have made the field of 80 but not if there is the 2/3 rule. That rule and the .500 rule are from other sports (golf for the .500 and I assume for the 2/3).

Now you have to balance the need for head to head (although they aren’t using the Kolas) to impress the selection committee and monitor your overall record. Golf can do it but they have the benefit of a computer ranking system.

So what?Bad regional you don't go to nationals. The conference meets will serve as a first round.

tabors wrote:

needing to finish top 2/3 in the conference is idiotic especially for smaller conferences like the ivy league.

just as an example, Dartmouth men this year had a tough day at heps, finishing 8th, and then went on to finish 6th at northeast regionals.

As another mentioned earlier, the Cornell women were 6th out of 8 at Heps then finished 2nd in the region and qualified for nationals.

The .500 record requirement is dumb too, you will get penalized for facing tougher competition and trying to earn at large points.

I hate to disagree with you again but the coaches are doing exactly what they should be doing if they care about the sport of XC and distance running. They are resisting a change which doesn't make sense from any stand point. Who really gains from this change? The best method for determining the best teams is to let them all race. That is unrealistic for nationals but certainly very reasonable for the regional meets.

The coaches are trying to find out what/who are driving the call for this change. Because we all know once this forced change happens, whomever it is who is so driven to make this happen will go back to ignoring XC and distance running and the distance coaches and distance runners will be left to deal with it.

Limiting regional participation is a bad idea. and without hearing a good reason to make the change there is no reason to agree to it. And it's even worse to do it now, this year, while coaches & schools have budget and covid issues to deal with. I'd expect much smaller participation in regional meets this year anyway.

I realize you think the change is coming no matter what but just saying 'well, it's inevitable we might as well make the best of it' sounds to me like giving up. Stopping the change is the way to avoid the use of a subjective method for selection. If I were a coach I would want to fight for what's best for the sport - not agree to something because it's going to happen anyway.

Just my take. I have no say anyway so it's simply an opinion.

The newest proposal sounds good to me.

We are not in complete disagreement. If you look back to my previous posts, I said, multiple times, that I like the old system. I qualified multiple teams and multiple individuals, over the years, under the old system. I also said that if the coaches do not want it to change, that they should fight it. I never suggested they should just roll over and take it. "Where would Tina Turner be today if she just rolled over and said, 'Hit me again Ike,'...She'd be 'Rollin down the River..."

I also said, however, in my opinion, I would not put all of my eggs into one basket and I would have a plan in place to give them if they are dead set on changing. If they want to change, they are going to do it and in the absence of a sound qualifying procedure, they will come up with their own. If they come up with their own, as I said numerous times, it is going to be within the context of how they do other sports and have a selection committee and they will model it after golf.

As to your suggestion that “all” of the coaches are doing what is best for the sport: I beg to differ. First of all, I have dozens of emails and inboxes from coaches at all levels of coaching that are to the contrary. I am not a coach and simply a fan at this point and these emails indicate there are a lot of coaches that support the move away from the all-comers set-up (from P5, G5 and smaller schools). In addition, I coached at this level for many, many years and I can tell you with 100% accuracy, that MANY of the coaches currently pulling the strings have their own self-interest cemented in their sanctimony.

IF the NCAA wants to limit the number of schools, have automatic qualifiers for all conferences, and have a set number of schools invited to each region meet…it is IMPOSSIBLE to do that without moving schools from one region to another. Too many conferences are inter-regional conferences and it does not work in neither practice, nor theory. The ONLY way that can happen is that you would have to skip over schools in the inter-regional conferences.

Regardless, I am not arguing that the NCAA should change. I really don’t care if they change. It does not have any impact on my life at all as I am just a fan of the sport now. What I am saying is that, IF they change, the coaches need to have a qualifying procedure to give them in hopes they accept it as opposed to their own system. Whatever that system is, in my opinion, it should include the Kolas Calculator. It should not be left to a committee. It should not completely mimic golf (with their .500 winning percentage and 2/3 finish). It is possible to use the current system (with one tweak) to fill the field. If the NCAA is already talking about having multiple regions on the same site (in addition to combining regions), it is possible to move schools from one race to the other to fill the field without skipping over teams.

To the Cornell women situation: under the proposal I had finished from 2010, the Cornell women would have been in the Field of 80. As a matter of fact, the entire women’s IVY League would have qualified if you applied the Kolas to the 2019 season. Do not put much weight into the Regional Rankings. I assume it is common knowledge that the Regional Rankings are done by one person (that Region’s Rep). That person is also a coach in that Region, so it is hardly a concrete piece of this puzzle.

I think I worded my post a little incorrectly. What I meant was the coaches who are flat out objecting are doing what's best for the sport of XC in the long term. Other coaches who like this idea are thinking short term this will help their situations. - whether that be impressing their AD because they qualified for NCAAs or whatever. (Which is the same reason track was switched to having regional qualifying - I'm not sure that worked out the way those who were behind it felt it would.)

I continue to wonder what is gained from this change and why whomever is behind it thinks it's a great idea. I see it hurting far more programs than helping which in turn is bad for XC/distance running as a sport.

As far as having a back up plan in place, I can't say it's a bad idea to have a back up plan. I just think it really doesn't matter the plan because whatever plan is selected will have some element of subjectivity involved. And to carry your thought that it's happening whether the coaches want it or not a bit further, the person or person's driving this change probably already have an idea in their minds of how they see this happening so that will be the direction anyway. This is evidenced by the committee's proposal for 2020 regionals.

But then I'm just a fan, like you, so this is just an opinion.

To say that the coaches that would like to see change do not care about the future of the sport is certainly an opinion you are entitled to. However, you form that opinion only within the context of your feeling that changing the qualifying will somehow negatively impact the sport. These coaches, and some are very good, believe that changing the sport to be aligned with other NCAA sports will also be good for the future of the sport. They have a different opinion than you, and traditionalist coaches. It doesn’t mean either opinion is any more wrong or right.

As to your statement that, “…I just think it really doesn't matter the plan because whatever plan is selected will have some element of subjectivity involved. And to carry your thought that it's happening whether the coaches want it or not a bit further, the person or person's driving this change probably already have an idea in their minds of how they see this happening so that will be the direction anyway." What you are really saying is that you only care about the qualifying process if it remains the same and if it isn’t what we have now, that you don’t care.

As to who is pushing for this, I have zero idea. What I do know is that the NCAA is a multi-billion dollar organization. The people that run this organization are not coaches or former coaches. What they do want, like any large business, is for all branches of that business to operate within the context of their rules and bylaws and structure. We were notified, as the Executive Committee, over 10 years ago that the NCAA Championships Committee wanted to know why cross country is the only sport in the NCAA that does not qualify to the NCAA Regional Qualifying round.

If you think about it, cross country would be the ONLY sport in the NCAA where there are member conferences that have NEVER been represented at the NCAA Championships. With the NCAA Regional being an all-comers meet, the NCAA didn’t consider making the Regional the same as making the NCAA Regional in all other sports. If I was the NCAA, I could understand their point of view (whether I agree with it or not).

Also, name another sport in the NCAA where you can literally have ZERO level of expectation. No other sport, because of the all-comers nature, can a coach say to their Athletic Director that, “we really don’t try at cross country and put all our focus on track.”

I don’t pretend to know what the NCAA Administration thinks. However, I can imagine I am not too far off the mark. Not to mention, I have heard multiple coaches and fans say, “…They never cared about us before and I don’t appreciate them all of a sudden telling us how to run our sport…” Really? Looking at this from the outside now offers a great perspective. So these coaches are literally justifying keeping things the way they are because, “We have been so overlooked/unimportant and inconsequential in the eyes of the NCAA for years and now all of a sudden they care enough to try and force us to work like other sports.”??? That’s so defeatist that I cannot wrap my head around it.

I would keep things the way they are. However, this may be an opportunity for the sport to come out of the shadows of other sports. Some coaches do not want there to be a sudden level of expectation in cross country because the conference finish and NCAA bids are now open and available to all conferences and schools.

And, to the point of people arguing that “our sport is different…” in the eyes of the people that run the NCAA, they don’t look at this argument as being “different” but, more like, “difficult”.

Lastly, it IS possible to use the Kolas Calculator (with one tweak) to determine the Regional Championships qualifiers and remove any subjectivity from the process. So, it is important what the backup plan is.

Like you said, we are just fans and can only speculate. It is an interesting topic.

We currently have 100% conference representation at the regional championships. Even better, we have 100% school representation. Only a moron would argue that a 70-80 team weekend is more "inclusive" than a 350+ team weekend.

Some athletic directors actually want their teams to focus on track more than on cross country. Look at the entire SEC. Your argument that having a qualifying system for regionals will make teams invest more into the sport has NO FACTUAL BASIS. The opposite is probably true - AD's will see the team won't be successful without a significant investment so they will just cut the sport. Two successful schools just cut cross country - Akron and Uconn.

After hearing about your issues at Toledo, I never had a lot of respect for you Kevin. After reading your posts here, I have even less.