The NCAA cross country cap is 256 runners.
Create 4 super-regions, each with 80 teams (1/4th. the membership). 8 teams and 8
individuals qualify out of each super-region. 32x7+4x8=256.
Because 80 teams is too many to run at once at most courses, cut the field in half by
stipulating that only teams that finish in the top half of their conference
championship
may participate. Individual entries must have finished in the top twenty five of their
conference championship.
I can envision a seeding process that would allow a fair distribution of top teams
across
the 4 regions while keeping 95% of teams in their own region. But that's another post.
Michael Scott wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I am glad that the NCAA has expanded the field, but am I the only one
> >bothered by the fact that if teams want an at-large bid they pretty much
> >HAVE to go to Pre-Nats? They're running a 10K this weekend in Ames and
> >will do exactly the same in just over 5 weeks. As one coach I talked to
> >recently mused, "They're going to run nationals this weekend so they can
> >decide who can go run nationals again in 5 weeks."
> >
> I have to agree with Sideshow here. While I think that it's important to
> the sport to have the top teams racing each other -- when the top teams
> duck each other, it hurts the sport -- it's ridiculous that you have to
> run at either 1 or 2 of the meets (on the women's side, it's pretty much
> Griak and Pre-NCAAs, maybe Iona and Notre Dame might affect a team or
> two; Stanford Inv will have little impact on the women's at large picture
> and I don't know that this year's Wolverine Interregional means a lot
> either) in order to get an at large.
>
> Of course, I'm NOT a fan of the current regional system. Geographical
> regions are not gonna get the best teams to NCAAs -- there's too much
> difference between the regions in talent level in any given year. As
> I've written before, I'd rather see the NCAA XC system mirror the March
> Madness tourney where we seed the top 64 teams (yeah, I know, easier said
> than done), create 4 "super-regionals" and evenly distribute the teams
> across them, then from each region take the first six teams (and 12
> individuals) across the finish line to Nats (leaving you with a nats
> that's about the same size). If cost is an issue, take the best 5 teams
> and 6 individuals.
>
> Plus include that sports fans understand this super regional format.
> They don't understand the convoluted "points" system that results in at
> large berths.
>
> Right now, going to regionals is no big deal -- every team in the country
> can go. This system would make participating at regionals mean
> something.
>
> This would also make qualifying fairer -- there would be no South Central
> regions where Arkansas would be able to get out of by running their B
> team, while Stanford has to run their best 7 in order not to get upset in
> the west.
>
> >Such features as New Englands (this weekend) and IC4A's (2 days before
> >NCAA's) are now pretty much worthless. What a shame.
> >
> Again, I agree. At this Friday's New Englands, only Yale and Providence
> will be running A teams; Boston College, Brown, Boston Univ, and
> Dartmouth will all have their best at Pre-NCAAs. Makes the New England
> title kinda worthless -- the team champ _wont_ necessarily be the best
> team in New England.
>
> Still, there are 46 teams running in the women's championship race at New
> Englands...
>
> miscott
