The Group Chat: Regional Reactions

Give us your tweet-length review of the regional action from this past Friday (280 characters or less).

Brett: NCAA Road Race Regionals Championships.

Garrett: Non-runners getting very confused about why a ton of people are tweeting about koalas on a random Friday afternoon.

Ben: The great shoe debate infects NCAA running and, in unrelated news, Buffalo running stores had a historic weekend of sales.

Logan: Expect the unexpected.

Let’s talk about the Northeast region. Would the results in this region have been any different if it was run on the grass instead of the roads?

Brett: Absolutely. Having the race on the roads is unlike any other meet that teams have to run throughout the season. Sure, workouts, regular runs, and long runs might be done on the roads, but having a race on the roads really changes the game. While it did affect the team scores a decent amount, the decision to race on the roads affected the individual race much more.

Ben: I agree with Brett completely. While Syracuse women may not have qualified either way, it was startling to see the top two teams on the women’s side (Columbia and Syracuse) finish 4th and 5th. While Harvard may have qualified either way (they ran an unbelievable race), the results could have been very different between Cornell, Boston College, and the region’s top two if the race was held on grass. On the men’s side, perhaps Harvard would have lost to Iona and Syracuse, but they ran really well, so it is hard to say if the men’s results would have changed dramatically.

The roads certainly favored runners who were able to go out quick and hang with a fast pace rather than runners who like to grind it out on a tough course. Whether the team results would have been different, we won’t ever know for sure, but the individual results certainly would have changed significantly.

Garrett: I’m torn on this. Part of me says that the results would have been different because teams like the Syracuse men, Iona men, and Columbia women have simply been the better squads throughout the entirety of this season and a road race changes that dynamic.

On the flip side, it’s not like some teams were running on grass and others were running on roads. They all had to run on the same course and for the same distance. At the end, the teams who finished on top were simply better on that day.

If I had to give an answer, I would say that the change to the roads does make a difference, but that shouldn’t take away from the teams who stepped up and had a great qualifying performance.

Logan: Yes, and no. A little bit of luck and strategy played into this race. It’s hard to say how much of an impact it had on the team results, but it definitely played a role. It was a matter of which team could adjust to the roads and finding something to use to their advantage.

As Ben mentioned, the race being run on the roads certainly favored certain athletes, which in return, altered the end results. With that being said, I am not entirely shocked by how the final results played out.

Both Harvard teams and the Cornell women significantly outperformed their projected finish at the Northeast Regional Championships. Both teams were also wearing the controversial Nike Vaporfly’s (along with the 2nd place Syracuse men). How much of a role (if any) did the shoe choice have in their breakout performances?

Brett: I believe that they had an impact. The shoes are on a different level for road racing performances, and for whatever amount energy that they return (especially the newer, Next% model), that still offers some benefit, giving a distinct advantage (of sorts) over the competition. While I don’t think that the shoes were the main factor, I believe that they played a partial role in those breakout performances.

Ben: I think the impact that they made was minimal. If we are to believe that the shoes give a 4% improvement, and there are some who say it gives about a 2% improvement, then the Harvard women still would have won. They may have given Cornell a slight edge over Boston College, and that may have been enough to push them into 2nd, but with Boston College and Columbia still making it to NCAA's, the effect is not nearly as large. The fact that a cross country race was on the roads played a much bigger factor in this race than the shoes did.

On the men’s side, it was Harvard again who ran exceptionally well. Iona and Syracuse still qualified, so no harm, no foul (except to Gonzaga). I do not think the shoes made a difference in this race at all.

Garrett: I think we would by lying to ourselves if we said that the Nike Vaporfly’s didn’t have an impact, because (to some extent) they most certainly did. Obviously, Harvard and Cornell still had to go out and execute their race plan, but these teams (specifically Cornell) were so far out from actually being considered as automatic qualifiers coming into Friday. I find it hard to believe that it was just a coincidence that all four teams who earned automatic qualifiers in this region were wearing Vaporfly’s. They knew what gave them an advantage. That doesn’t necessarily mean it's wrong, but it’s clear that the shoes offer an edge (by how much, I don’t know).

Logan: It’s hard to say no to this question and the results prove it. There’s a difference between racing in flats and trainers. The advantage was clear and these teams took it.

Can you justify the Florida State men and Alabama men qualifying for Nationals, but not the Gonzaga men and/or Princeton men?

Ben: It is hard to see Gonzaga miss out after running against tough competition all year and then running well at the West Regional Championships to finish 6th. The Princeton men, on the other hand, have not run well enough all season to merit an NCAA appearance. Florida State, despite their poor race in the South region, ran well at both Joe Piane and Pre-Nationals and deserve a spot to NCAA's.

The Alabama men, on the other hand, struggled all year, but they put it together when it mattered most. To say that Florida State and Alabama did not earn their place at Nationals would be incorrect, but it seems unjust to see a team like Gonzaga miss out on NCAAs.

Garrett: I completely agree with Ben. Florida State did all of the right things this year and should have qualified. Should Alabama have qualified over Gonzaga? Well, that’s what the calculator says, but it’s hard to say that Gonzaga wasn’t the better overall team this year. That’s no disrespect to the Crimson Tide, they ran well when it mattered the most and deserved their qualifying spot, but the Zags should be an NCAA qualifying team, especially when I compare them to a few other programs who will be going to Terre Haute this year.

Logan: In my opinion, I think Gonzaga should've earned a spot over Alabama. Throughout the year, Alabama did not show that they were capable of qualifying for Nationals. But at the end of day, Alabama had the better performance when it mattered the most. Based on what Gonzaga has done thus far and their overall roster, it seems unjust to say that they didn’t secure a spot at the national meet. I won’t waste much time talking about FSU, as I agree with Ben and Garrett. They performed well at the big meets, hence the reason why they belong on the national stage.

Brett: Hopping with the common trend, Gonzaga is a team that should be running in the national meet. The scenario with Gonzaga, Washington State, and UCLA’s finishes is odd, to say the least, but it’s just how the Kolas system works. For Florida State, agreeing with everyone else, their qualification is justified. Alabama earned their spot, and that can’t be argued; they showed up. The Zags just got on the unlucky side of the Kolas calculator.

Earlier in the season, the NC State men traveled to Wisconsin to race at the Nuttycombe Invite. However, only three runners finished that race while the rest dropped out, leaving the Wolfpack with a DNF result. Should that DNF result have given every team in the Nuttycombe field a Kolas point now that NC State has qualified for Nationals?

Garrett: This is going to upset some people, but I don't think that a team that was a DNF should give out Kolas points. If they did, does this mean that the last place team at Nuttycombe (Cal Poly) is going to get a point for not actually beating anyone? Even when they so clearly didn’t deserve that point? How would that be fair?

Of course, what I think means nothing. NCAA rules indicate that DNF's should be recorded in meet results. However, there is a significant lack of clarity in regards to whether or not those DNF results should actually count towards Kolas calculations. The ambiguity in this situation is what really drives this debate.

And for what it's worth, I don't think NC State wanted to travel all the way from North Carolina to Wisconsin, pay an entry fee, and then drop out after 2000 meters of racing. As long as they qualified for NCAA's, they probably didn't care who the last few at-large bids were going to.

Ben: That is a tricky question because while this scenario seems fair for the rest of the field at Nuttycombe, it would be a tough pill to swallow for the rest of the teams not at Nuttycombe to hear that they are missing out on an extra Kolas point. When Wisconsin tempo'd their best runners at a large national meet a few years ago (and seemingly gave out plenty of Kolas points, which they didn't) everyone was outraged.

While I think that there should be some kind of penalty for teams who drop out when they are not running well in order not to hand out points, giving only the teams who were lucky enough to be in the same race those Kolas points could make the system unfair.

Brett: I’m going to take over Sam’s role of delivering the hot takes today: I think that scenario could be valid. However, I’m not sure if I agree with every single team in the field receiving Kolas points, but I don’t necessarily think NC State shouldn't give up any Kolas points.

At the end of the day, teams do need to earn their Kolas points and NC State did a really good job at the beginning of the season in doing that. Nuttycombe may have been a freak day for the Wolfpack, or it could have been a deliberate call to not hand out Kolas points. We won’t necessarily know the reason for what happened, but in the future, I think that there should be some sort of penalty given for intentionally not completing a team score.

Logan: This is a tough one and I get both sides of the situation.

On one end, we have NC State with four DNF’s and the discussion on if it should be considered towards the Kolas system. On the other end, we have the potential of non-deserving teams securing Kolas points.

Does last place Cal Poly deserve a point? No. But at the same time, they did technically beat NC State. They had a scoring five, while NC State did not. We don’t know NC State's reasoning behind the DNF finish, but it only seems right to say that every team in that Nuttycombe field did in fact beat NC State.

Which non-qualifying women’s team deserved a spot to Nationals more? Virginia Tech, Georgetown, or Butler?

Brett: I have to go with Virginia Tech. They had a solid showing this season, taking 7th at Pre-Nats and 4th at ACC’s, competing with a handful of teams who have earned bids to Nationals. Their 3rd place showing in the Southeast region was decent, only 33 points back of runner-up Furman.

Ben: I have to agree with Brett. Georgetown were a little too inconsistent, and it was hard to get a good read on them. Butler did beat the Hoyas at the BIG East Championships, but lost to the Hokies at Pre-Nationals. For Butler to have to compete in one of the top regions in the country, the Great Lakes, is unlucky, because they had a very solid season. Virginia Tech gets the edge here because of their consistent performances against top teams and their head-to-head victory against Butler.

Garrett: This might end up being unanimous. Of the three teams mentioned above, Virginia Tech was definitely the better squad. The problem is that the teams they faced (and beat) this season simply weren’t good enough to give the Hokies enough Kolas points. The women from Blacksburg never had a bad race. They were consistent and steady throughout the entire season. The problem is that they just never had a race where they upended a strong, top-tier program.

Logan: I’d have to go with Butler. While they did lose to both Georgetown and Virginia Tech earlier in the season, the postseason is what matters the most and Butler overtook both the Hoyas and Villanova Wildcats for the BIG East Championship title. In a regional field with teams like Michigan State, Michigan, and Wisconsin, you can only feel for the Bulldogs.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how shocked are you that the UCLA men didn’t qualify for Nationals?

Brett: 8. If I was told a week ago that UCLA wasn’t going to make Nationals, I wouldn’t have believed it. Robert Brandt’s injury is devastating, and after hearing that news, I wasn’t so sure UCLA would make it. It’s sad to see.

Ben: Like Brett, it was unimaginable for UCLA to miss Nationals, so I will give it a 9. With that said, if you told me that Brandt would be unable to run, then that number would drop all the way down to a 3. So maybe average those two numbers and give me a 6.

Garrett: Give me a 9. This was absolutely stunning. Even when it was announced that Brandt wouldn’t run, I still thought the Bruins would sneak in somehow. A top 10 team, even without their best runner, should still be able to qualify for Nationals (or so we thought).

Logan: Give me a 7. Brandt’s injury was a devastating blow for the Bruins, but even without him I thought the Bruins could squeeze into the national meet.

What is one major takeaway that you pulled from Friday?

Brett: I just can’t get my head wrapped around the Oklahoma State men. Coming in with Isai Rodriguez, Ryan Smeeton, and Ashenafi Hatte, it’s truly shocking to me that none of these guys will be running at Nationals. Smeeton ran an alright race in 15th, Rodriguez taking 66th was one of the more shocking performances of the day, and Hatte ended up as a DNS.

It was a tough day for the OSU men, but the upside is that they return all of their runners from Friday, and had two freshmen in the top 30: Adam Dayani and Alex Maier. This could be a scary-good team next year.

Ben: I know I should not make too much of it because it is a regional race, but the Notre Dame men finally started looking like the team we thought they could be. They finished 2nd in a very tight Great Lakes region and although sophomore star Danny Kilrea is still struggling, the rest of the squad is stepping up. Dylan Jacobs has been fantastic this year while Yared Nuguse has been the consistent top performer we expected him to be. If Andrew Alexander can continue to be a solid #3 option, then the Irish have a chance at flirting with a top 10 finish at NCAA's.

Garrett: Portland loves to play this game where they don’t show you all of their cards until the regional and national meets. I’m not a big fan of gauging a team’s actual fitness at the regional meets, but Portland is an exception. They’re a talented group with a lot of underrated weapons and I think they’re going to flirt with a podium spot at Nationals.

Logan: The Great Lakes region is impressive. The top five teams on the men’s side were separated by 17 points. The biggest takeaway from this race was the stellar performance of the Irish of Notre Dame. The Irish haven’t lived up to the hype so far this season, but they really put it together on Friday.

Do you like the Kolas system? Is it fair?

Garrett: I have been the biggest advocate of the Kolas system for awhile now. I think it perfectly balances clutch postseason performances and strong regular season results. It gives every team a chance and doesn’t leave much room for excuses in terms of what a team should or could have done.

Now, with that said, this year was an exception.

Here’s a fun fact. In the West region, Gonzaga finished 6th, Washington State finished 7th, and UCLA finished 8th. If the Bruins had finished 6th and forced Gonzaga to place one spot lower (7th), then both the UCLA men and Gonzaga men would be going to Nationals.

How does that make sense?

If you went up to a non-running fan and said “Well, if we had placed one spot worse at our regional meet we would actually be going to Nationals” they would probably tell you that it’s a flawed system.

I’m still a big proponent of the Kolas system, but this was the first time where, even though the math worked out, the logic didn’t. There will be some fans upset over NC State not giving away Kolas points from Nuttycombe, but the Kolas logic in this scenario is the real villain.

Ben: I think it is as fair as we can get with the current regional system. There is never going to be a perfect system, and the Kolas system is far from perfect based off of the results of this past weekend, but I think it is the best we can do.

I like that it balances the need for a strong regular season while emphasizing the need to run well in the postseason (which is the whole point of the season). Could there be small adjustments? Sure, but for the most part, the Kolas system gets the job done. Now, is the regional system fair? Probably not, but that is a discussion for another day.

Brett: I’m with Ben and Garrett on this one. The Kolas system has been a good method for encouraging teams to run well during the season, while also having a strong postseason. Regionally, however, I think some adjustments could be made: how is it fair for a team like Gonzaga to have to run worse in order to qualify? That would reinforce the idea of not running the regional meet to one’s full ability, which doesn’t make sense. Minus the regional debacle, the Kolas system keeps national qualification in check.