Folders |
2022 NXN At-Large Teams + California Teams & Individuals - Individual QualifiersPublished by
(UPDATED 11/27 9:45 PM ET)California Auto-Qualifying Teams & At-Large CandidatesBOYS1) Newbury Park (auto qualifier)
|
 |
hawksTC
Based on the stated criteria, then McCallie should've been selected, as they defeated Farragut (NXR Southeast champs) at the Tennessee state meet. Technically it was a merge, but it should still count. They also were the closest to winning their region (only 10 points separated the top 3 Southeast teams.
|
|---|
|
Running4fun092
Probably because you guys have such slow pr's if Nike wants the fastest 22 teams at their meet they wouldn't bring mcallie(also beating a team head to head is very different from merging)
|
|---|
|
raprunner
The stated criteria reads, "GREATEST WEIGHTING BY THE COMMITTEE WILL BE GIVEN TO THIRD-PLACE CLUBS FROM THE CHAMPIONSHIP RACE AT EACH REGIONAL WHO DEFEATED ANY EVENTUAL NXR CHAMPION IN PRIOR WEEKS." I understand this to mean that 3rd place team finishers must beat NXR champions to be given first consideration vs. merely beating NXR qualifiers. This probably explains why DGN and Mountain View got the nod, but it doesn't explain why those two CA teams received at-large berths because neither beat the California NXR champion (Newbury Park) earlier in the season.
|
|---|
|
xcfan77
as a follower of the the NXN process, I think the committee actually made an oversight that needs to be explained. I give everyone the benefit of the doubt but for the 4 boys at large bids for 2022 NXN it seems that there is no clear logical framework being followed. The website clearly states that the head to head competition is the most important criteria for the at large bids. Following this logic and not even looking at any other factor, Mountain View, Utah (NXR#3) beat Herriman (NXR#2) earlier in the year at the UIAAA invitation. Downers Growth North (NXR #3) beat Hinsdale Central (NXR#1) at the IHSA 3A Sectional. And Granada (NXR #4) and San Clemente (NXR#3) defeated Great Oak (NXR#1) at the Asics Clovis Invitational. Rocky Mountain only had one meet vs Crater (NXR#1) and Jesuit (NXR#2) where Rocky achieved (NXR#3). But Rocky did WIN the BOB FIRMAN INVITATIONAL where they also defeated Great Oak. So if the logic is the head to head only counts in your NXR region then Rocky would not get head to head credit for defeating the eventual California D1 state champion head to head?? This does not make any sense. Because we all know there are so many other factors at play in the course of an entire season. We have five teams with head to head wins vs NXR qualifiers - so clearly you would want to start to look at overall body of work, times, state championships, head to head championships and overall quality of the teams. Rocky Mountain was undefeated this season and only narrowly missed out on auto qualifying by losing to Crater and Jesuit to of the top teams in the entire country. I think there needs to be some clarification and if the answer is that a head to head only counts against a team in your NXR region and excludes all other factors, then that really does not make a lot of sense. Rocky has been one of the top teams in the country in the entire season in every ranking and based on every metric. Denying Rocky without further explanation does not seem to match the spirit of what NXN is trying to accomplish. Rocky met the head to head criteria like these other 4 teams, but on every other metric was superior. Hopefully some clarification is provided. Being in a fantastic region does not seem to be a reason to penalized a team.
|
|---|
|
adamseibert
It's the Rich Gonzalez factor
|
|---|
|
xcfan77
Every Bob Firman Champ has been invited to NXN. Rocky Mountain was Bob Firman Champ - beat Great Oak by 90+ points. Rocky 1st Bob Firman Champ denied NXN.
Okay re: Rich Gonzalez (California politics) - but can someone please make a case of why Downers Grove North was selected over Rocky? |
|---|
|
fastcow
While I understand your logic, Rocky Mountain beat a sick and injured great oak team so to say they deserve a spot just solely based off that is just missing perspective which is not your fault. The california state meet is the only in which great oak had all its pieces together and a fully healthy roster.
|
|---|
|
xcfan77
Hi FastCow â totally appreciate the added insight but my argument is not that solely Rocky beat Great Oak - I was just making the point that these five at large teams all beat a NXR auto qualifier. I am not going to get into a who was sick or injured debate as everyone knows every team faces all kind of circumstances. I would just like to see the case made for Granada and Downersgrowth North, Mountain View and San Clemente over Rocky. The results throughout the year are all publicly available. I respect all of these teams but to say Rocky does not get a win vs Great Oak because of illness if that's what the committee is going on then that's a real stretch. Great Oak fully deserves the slot that they earned no one is questioning that. The question is how Antonine objectively looking at the date excludes Rocky from 4 bids - I see no data to support that.
|
|---|
|
fastcow
None taken, didn't mean to come off as harsh and I thank you for your respectful response. I just wanted to put that bit out there but I fully agree that Rocky Mountain was snubbed and very much deserved that at large spot over Granada (Livermore) It's just like you said there seems to be bias towards California teams when on paper rocky mountain has been performing exceptionally better. My condolences to those hard working boys.
|
|---|
|
xcfan77
FastCow- yes totally believe Great Oak is fully deserving. Just trying to get to the root of the issue. They publicly state that head to head wins over auto qualifiers is top consideration. Since Rocky achieved that just like these other teams the other factors should come into play. These are all hard working and dedicated teams but I just wish someone would provide the logic beyond head to head as all five met that standard. For the Rocky top runners they are missing out on a showcase opportunity for recruiting and it would be fair to provide an explanation. If that explanation is that only head to head wins count against team within your region then Rocky will now be required to travel to Oregon and California each year. But since Rocky participates in a major regional NIKE meet (Bob Firman) each year no has mentioned the requirement to travel. I just don't see the objective data driven non political case for Rocky's exclusion vs all 4 other at large teams. Would be nice if that explanation could be provided.
|
|---|
|
fastcow
Agreed. Unfortunately it seems that those making much of the decisions for the at large selections are playing politics and like you said, are undermining some top talent in some of the less focused on regions of the country. I too hope we get that much needed explanation sometime soon.
|
|---|
|
fastcow
Or at that they at least provide some form of transparency in the decision making process as it's obvious that they are not even following their own âcriteriaâ
|
|---|
|
RockAndRoll
If Rocky Mountain made it, they would have been the first Idaho team to make it. Coeur D'Alene has a shot to be the first to make it if they can find a fifth man
|
|---|
 |
eric13hill
That was a tough call between Rocky Mountain and Granada.
|
|---|
