NCAA Cross Qualifying Changes?

True. But there will be much excitement for the 4 individual qualifiers. Those schools will do a huge write-up and the AD will be happy.

I think you are overestimating how much people will care from the schools that this will actually affect. The most likely outcome is that they will post a brief article saying "So and so qualified for the first round of NCAAs by finishing 8th in the conference. Good luck"

People continue to think that everyone is all of the sudden going to start caring because of some change like this. The best way to grow interest in the sport is by having a good product and making that product more accessible such as a better quality and free livestream and interest based on the current region model or creating a selection Sunday type event from that.

go go run wrote:

Other than Power 5 schools, most D1 programs survive with a few scholarshios to no scholarships. Many Power 5 schools put no scholarships to 1 or 2 of their 12.6 scholarships into XC. Imagine what woukd happen if the SEC and schools like USC and Ohio State and Iowa started putting 3 or 4 scholarships into XC. A hundred schools would drop XC because their ADS woukd not tolerate being completely embarrassed when the 7th runner from a rich school crushes the top runner from an underfunded school.

The final result you see for making all schools have an equal number of scholarships is the same result I see for implementing the change in qualifying for regionals without all schools having an equal number of scholarships... ADs will not tolerate being completely embarrassed by the inability of the XC program to ever qualify for NCAAs so programs will be dropped. Admittedly neither of us can know exactly which direction it would go.

The problem is that they (the NCAA) says they want to elevate XC to the same level as other D1 sports so if that is what they want to do then giving XC their own set of scholarships is the first step towards that. (Additionally, your scenario already exists, most P5 schools and some other D1 programs put more money into distance... the result being the underfunded schools have no chance and are completely embarrassed, as you put it. Clearly it's about someones perspective here... if you are at a mid-major who puts 80% of their track scholarships into distance you like the current set up.)

Agreed

Almost nobody wants what you are proposing. NAU will hate it because they will lose dominance. The SEC will hate it because they don't like XC and the will lose track dominance. Iowa and Ohio State will hate it because they will lose sprint dominance. Furman and Bradley won't like it because they lose their competitiveness in XC. All of the underfunded schools will hate it because they weren't that far behind the 1/2 of P5 schools who weren't funding XC. They now will be 3-4 scholarshios behind.. The only people who like your proposal are distance runners and their parents because it probably creates a few more distance scholarships. But if coaches and ADs don't like it and the NCAA doesn't want it, it is dead.

lazy me wrote:

One question, would this approach kill off the sport because weaker teams might drop the sport?

Absolutely.

red and sad wrote:

Almost nobody wants what you are proposing. NAU will hate it because they will lose dominance. The SEC will hate it because they don't like XC and the will lose track dominance. Iowa and Ohio State will hate it because they will lose sprint dominance. Furman and Bradley won't like it because they lose their competitiveness in XC. All of the underfunded schools will hate it because they weren't that far behind the 1/2 of P5 schools who weren't funding XC. They now will be 3-4 scholarshios behind.. The only people who like your proposal are distance runners and their parents because it probably creates a few more distance scholarships. But if coaches and ADs don't like it and the NCAA doesn't want it, it is dead.

I disagree with your opinion but that's fine. You and I seem to be at opposite ends of this. It's okay though because they are both just opinions.

I do think that some schools will not like it but I think others will... it equalizes both sports XC and track. Everyone will start with an equal set of scholarships, there are plenty of ADs & coaches who will think this is a good idea (in my opinion). Those who don't like it will be the ones that already have an advantage, that's totally understandable but it doesn't mean that the proposal isn't a viable option.

Can someone explain who on earth decided a change was so drastically necessary that a proposal this extreme had to be made (and likely adopted without the support of literally anyone in the sport).

Then tell me why.

Which school will like it?

Has anyone brought up fact that almost all conference championships are 8k/ 5mile for men while Regionals are 10k?

Using an 8 k race to qualify for a 10k event doesn’t make sense. On the flip side, expecting young athletes to race 10k three times in three weeks is too much.

Like others, I would just leave current system alone. The best teams and individuals get through, the almost made it teams get to say they finished 4th out of 25 teams at Regionals, and the bad teams get to do whatever it is that they do. Also, the large fields at regionals make for good spectating. Reducing the Regional fields from 200 plus ( 30 x7) to 140 (16x7) + (7x4) is not a good thing. In my entire college xc career, regardless of where I finished, did I ever feel that a race was too crowded. The potential for teams that “don’t belong” to show up at current Regionals format is both self-evident and self-regulating .

XC should view its uniqueness- ability for large amount of teams to compete in one event- as a positive rather than a negative.

red and sad wrote:

Which school will like it?

In my mind the schools which will like it are those who believe in equity and those who are at competitive disadvantages.

Apparently you do not think any of those exist so for me to write some sort of list of schools that I think would like the proposal is pointless. I do not feel the need to change your mind. It is perfectly fine for you and I to have differing opinions.

Right or wrong, my feeling is if they make this change to regionals without a move to make things more equitable it will be bad for the sport. Those with the advantage will only further solidify their advantage.

I wouldn't be mentioning scholarships if they weren't talking about making this change.

I am now being more than redundant and will stop posting within this thread. Whatever happens with this will happen.

not broke don't fix wrote:

Why would a school keep a program that never makes it out of their conference and how are you going to attract runners if they view it the same way. In this system at least you have a case of seeing how you stack up at the region and making tangible progress to getting closer.

A couple people have parroted this argument as if ADs will just cut XC because they don't make the first round cut...but I don't think this is true as this is not an issue in any other sports, including individual non revenue sports like golf and tennis.

If anything I think more ADs will begin to treat our sport like other programs. A fully funded P5 coach who goes 3+ years without a first round bid will find themselves on a hot seat (like most P5 coaches in other sports) but the program won't go away.

I also think the open entry regional concept contributes to some ADs feeling the sport is a recreational activity; simultaneously the 8% national qualifying leads other administrators in small conferences to be indifferent as they view they don't have a realistic chance at making it

Nobody is worried about the P5 programs getting cut. Mid majors and smaller schools, however, are in serious danger.

An open regional is the opposite of recreational because everyone has a chance to qualify for the Championship. Every year there are runners or teams that come out of nowhere on that day and qualify. The stakes are huge for everyone.

What team that wasn't ranked in the top 60 has qualified? Those teams will all be at the regional.

No they won't because the AD will be supportive of putting most of the funding toward the track team. As long as one is successful, hard to have the other be.

fast dad wrote:

What team that wasn't ranked in the top 60 has qualified? Those teams will all be at the regional.

Just in 2019 the Cornell women were ranked #11 in the Northeast region (a relatively weak region) and qualified to the championships. They were 6th (out of 8) at Heps.

There were 9 regions and if you assume they are balanced, being #11 puts them around 91-100. Since the northeast is weak they would likely have been ranked worse than 100.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

fast dad wrote:

What team that wasn't ranked in the top 60 has qualified? Those teams will all be at the regional.

Just in 2019 the Cornell women were ranked #11 in the Northeast region (a relatively weak region) and qualified to the championships. They were 6th (out of 8) at Heps.

There were 9 regions and if you assume they are balanced, being #11 puts them around 91-100. Since the northeast is weak they would likely have been ranked worse than 100.

Cornell women would have earned an at-large bid in 2019 under the proposal that I sent out.

Haven't looked to see if anyone commented but this would turn qualifying out of the West region for ridiculous to preposterous. With this alignment last year 6 of the top 10 men's team and 9 of the top 17 women's teams would have come from that region

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.