Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: At Large Qualifiers D 1 & 2 at Prelims

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012

    At Large Qualifiers D 1 & 2 at Prelims

    Why not add at large qualifiers for D 1 & 2 at prelims based on team time. Its unfortunate that there are deserving teams that didn't move on that had a faster team time than the slowest auto qualifier from another heat. Why not have 12 auto qualifiers and 4 advance that had the fastest team times that weren't auto qualifiers? As good as the seeding is year in and year out, this would help rectify any "human error" in seeding such as what happened with a D 2 women's team and a men's team (not sure which division) last Saturday. I'm sure this isn't the only year this has happened.

  2. #2
    Using team-time as an advancing mechanism when team scores are what determine the winners and the official places is a bad move.

    Any team that features a sensational individual frontrunner gains an unfair advantage under that scenario. As example, if a girl runs 17:45 and wins the race, she scores one point for her team. If that same girl instead ran 16:55, she still scores that same one point but her team gets a 50-second edge under a team-time scenario. Several better-scoring teams (and scores determine the places) could be left home in favor of this weaker team with one fast girl.

    One thing that people very easily forget (but it's understandable, if they are not fully familiar with the process) is that seeding balance (if done correctly, of course) is only as good as when teams actually run as well as they've been running in prior weeks. If a team blows up and runs way off (as was the case in a few divisions), that allows a less-competitive team to make it. When that less-competitive team advances (as a result of a strong team performing subpar), it gives the appearance there was a weak heat.

    One seeded team had a key girl run close to 90 seconds slower than than her previous outing on the same course, with another team in their heat able to advance in their place.

    In another division, a seeded team had its top runner instead place seventh for them (as a result of apparent dehydration) in the team order, again allowing an unseeded (slower) team in their heat to make it in their place.

    A third seeded team had two runners perform well off in relation to their performances on the same course a few weeks earlier, also allowing an unseeded (slower) team in their heat to advance in their place.

    When that happens, it instantly gives the appearance there was an imbalance.

    If teams have bad days, you're going to see that. But closer investigation shows that a favored team had a setback. When that happens, you don't reward it by "adjusting" the outcomes to let other teams in. In basketball, if a better team suffers a key injury in the game and loses to a 'lesser' team, all the other teams in the playoff bracket that are better than that lesser team do not get to advance.

    "Cross-country is an individual sport. Succeeding in cross-country is a team sport!"

  3. #3
    well stated, Rich
    Head Coach
    Chadwick Cross Country

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts