The Group Chat: Season Reflection (Part Two)

Read up on Part One here

How much did this season tell you about how competitive certain teams are compared to the rest of the NCAA during a normal year?

Ben: I think we learned that Oklahoma State is a podium contender on the men’s side with the emergence of Alex Maier, Victor Shitsama and Ryan Schoppe (in addition to the veteran duo of Isai Rodriguez and Ryan Smeeton). The NC State women, in my mind, were the clear second-best team in the country behind Stanford, but with Dominique Clairmonte’s performances this fall, I think that a fully-loaded Wolfpack lineup has enough talent to beat the Cardinal this winter.

The Charlotte men, Wake Forest men and Southern Utah men all improved their stock and showed that they should be very real contenders at the national meet in the winter.

On the other hand, the performances of the Florida State women makes me nervous going into the winter. I thought this was a top-10 team -- and they still might be after they reset during the offseason and return Lauren Ryan to their lineup. Still, they didn't look great this fall.

Maura: We learned about the newfound strength of the Georgia Tech women. They qualified for NCAA’s in 2018 and much of that roster is back this year. The Yellow Jackets proved that they can challenge nationally-ranked teams and have made a name for themselves heading into the winter season. Although they may not be a top-five team, they could make noise as a potential top-15 team.

For the men, we saw how competitive some of the smaller teams in conferences have become thanks to newcomers and runners on the rise. The Kentucky men, Texas men, Charlotte men and Wake Forest men were strong in their respective conferences. Seeing the way that their freshmen emerged as scorers or varsity contributors should be very promising for them moving forward.

Other teams to watch for as we enter the winter season in the next coming months will be the Middle Tennessee State women and Southern Utah men based on their new depth and regrouping of veterans.

Eric: I think teams like the Oklahoma State men, Arkansas men and Virginia men made improvements in regards to being competitive relative to other top NCAA programs, at least through 8k. I know we didn't get to see anyone run a 10k (as there wasn't any need to), but the 10k at NCAA's is a different animal. It will be interesting to see how these teams would fare with the increase in distance.

As for the women, the major conferences raced a 6k (except for the Sun Belt which raced a 5k) and I would argue that they gave us a better perspective than the men given that they don't have to move up in distance for championship races.

Teams such as the Texas women, North Carolina women and Tennessee women showed significant improvements during this shortened season. Individuals such as Sasha Neglia (UNC) as well as Katie Thronson and Sydney Seymour (both of Tennessee) stood out in big ways and could qualify as individuals if their teams don't make it to the national meet this winter (should there be a season).

Even with a shortened fall season, I think we were able to separate the pretenders from the contenders.

Garrett: For some teams, we learned a lot. But for other teams? Well, not so much.

I think we certainly learned a lot about the Oklahoma State men given that they were actually competitive against NAU and BYU -- two highly-ranked programs. You could also argue that the Wake Forest men, Georgia Tech women, Charlotte men (who I like a lot), Alabama women and Virginia men all showed that they can be more competitive against national-caliber programs than we initially expected.

On the flip side, Arkansas never really faced much competition outside of the SEC, although their women's squad did race Georgia Tech and Florida State once. We figured that both of their men's and women's teams were going to be competitive, but I'm not sure that we can look back at their performances and say, "Oh this showed us something that we didn't expect." (at least not in my opinion).

Other teams either didn't have their best lineups (Oklahoma State women), almost never raced (Notre Dame men) or faced the same competition on a consistent basis (over half of the SEC), leaving us without a lot to compare to.

So while I do think that we learned quite a bit, I'm not sure this season gives us a strong indication about what the hierarchy of the NCAA will look like when every team in the country returns to competition.

At the BIG 12 Championships, the Oklahoma State men beat the Iowa State men on a tie-breaker by having a better comparable top five. Which tie-breaking method do you prefer and why?

Maura: I’m not a big fan of the tie-breaking method that was used at the BIG 12 Championships. There is a reason for having seven men and seven women toe the line as those last two runners are essentially “back-up” if someone has an off day. They can also displace varsity scorers from other teams.

Just as it is used in high school meets, I think that if there is a tie, the sixth runner needs to be looked at for tie-breaking purposes. By doing this, this gives a non-scorer more value in the grand scheme of the final results.

College athletes dream of making the travel squad and even more so the coveted top seven.

Ben: I couldn't agree more with Maura. The beauty of cross country is that every position and every person matters. Even if you are not a top five runner for your team, you can still impact the race. This occurs when sixth or seventh runners displace the other team’s top five athletes.

While this can be important, most of the time, sixth and seventh runners do not have the opportunity to contribute in this way. Using a tie-breaker that only looks at the top five runners further solidifies that only the first five runners matter and deprives the other two varsity runners their ability to impact the race in another way.

Using the sixth runner as a tie-breaker brings the NCAA (and the BIG 12) back to the cross country ethos that says that every runner and every point matters.

Eric: Not much to say here as Maura and Ben have said all that needs to be said. On most occasions, the sixth and seventh runners do not have much of an impact from a scoring perspective (although displacement does play a role). However, in tie-breaking scenarios, they become crucial pieces as they have the ability to lead their teams to victory.

I prefer utilizing all runners as you never know when the sixth runner will prove to be the difference-maker for a conference title.

Garrett: I won't beat a dead horse as my fellow writers pretty much echoed my thoughts. And for the record, this isn't an anti-Oklahoma State thing. Heck, I picked them to win the BIG 12 title! If anything, their tie-breaking win benefitted my prediction contest against Ben on the Blue Oval Podcast. Even so, using the sixth runner for tie-breaking purposes just makes the most sense in my mind.

Would you consider this altered cross country season a success?

Ben: We had races and everyone seemed to stay healthy while at the meets, so I think the season was a smashing success. I was admittedly a bit nervous about some of the bigger meets causing a mini-outbreak, but we have not heard about anything like that. Athletes getting the chance to run even once in the fall is great, and it gives me hope that we will be able to use the same safety precautions to have a more extensive cross country season in the winter.

Maura: Considering the fact that athletes got to race (either in uniform or unattached), I would say it was successful. Although most of the meets required little travel and most team’s were forced to race each other over and over again, these programs pounced on the opportunity to compete.

Safety precautions were always in place and based on social media, one could see athletes donning masks when not running. The fact that people complied shows that it is very possible to host meets. Indoor track might cause more of a headache for athletic departments, but if we see a cross country season this winter, it could go just as smooth as this altered season.

Eric: Although we couldn't see the big meets that require travel such as Nuttycombe, Pre-Nationals or Joe Piane, every conference that competed from the very beginning of the season ended with a conference championship, so that goes down as a win in my book.

Most teams were restricted on where they could travel to and this forced the creation of a lot of smaller meets which offered a new perspective on racing. The masks were plentiful and the athletes cooperated as we didn't hear about any major COVID outbreaks unlike the ones that college football is dealing with.

Overall, it goes down as a successful season and hopefully we can return to a more “normal” racing slate in the near future.

Garrett: It was a total success. Based on my conversations with coaches and athletes, these programs took testing, social distancing and contact tracing very seriously. We got to see some very competitive meets and the fact that teams like Northern Arizona and BYU were still able to compete (despite grim outlooks back in August) was a major win for cross country fans. I thought this season went as well as it could have gone, all things considered.

Gives us a bold prediction for the upcoming winter cross country season (assuming it happens as expected).

Ben: The BYU men will defend their title while the Arkansas women fall out of the top five at the national meet.

Maura: We don’t see any of the top athletes compete during the indoor track season, but rather focus on the winter cross country season.

Eric: An underrated team from the Mountain region or Northeast region will surprise everyone by performing at a high level since they will be used to running in the cold.

Garrett: The Oklahoma State women will add Molly Born back into their lineup and get Taylor Somers back to 100%. As a result, they will have one of the best top-four's in the entire country and secure a top-10 finish at the NCAA Championships.