The NCAA News - News & Features

MAPPING Out a new course

Recent change in district alignment attempts to provide a fairer method of selecting teams for Division I cross country championships

BY STEPHEN R. HAGWELL
STAFF WRITER

Geographical equity apparently has become a reality in Division I cross country.

Seemingly every year for at least the past two decades, coaches have debated the question of whether a more equitable district alignment can be devised for selecting teams for the Division I championships.

The answer is yes.

At its August meeting, the NCAA Executive Committee approved a redistricting plan proposed by the NCAA Men's and Women's Track and Field Committee that alters the current district alignment and the formula for men's and women's championships selection. It also provides an equitable balance in terms of sponsorship numbers per district.

"It's about time we balanced the districts. We've been trying to do this since I've been in coaching," said Doug Brown, men's cross country coach at the University of Florida. "We've been talking about this forever. Coaches, especially in the larger districts, have felt that the current system isn't fair, that it doesn't give equal opportunities."

The plan, effective with the 1997 championships, was developed by a redistricting subcommittee of the Men's and Women's Cross Country Coaches Association's combined executive committee. Subcommittee members included Andrew Allden, University of South Carolina, Columbia; Jim Blaisdell, Weber State University; Brown; Shawn Flanagan, University of Texas at San Antonio; Steve Guymon, University of Kansas; Bruce Lehane, Boston University; Karen Lutz, Michigan State University; Dave Murray, University of Arizona; and Pat Van Rossum, College of William and Mary.

Features nine districts

Under the plan, schools will be realigned from the current eight districts into nine districts. Further, each district will be drawn along state lines, eliminating alignment based upon conference affiliation.

The only exception is District 7, which comprises all institutions in seven Rocky Mountain states and all but one school located at an altitude of 3,000 feet or more above sea level. The institutions at more than 3,000 feet outside of the boundaries of District 7 are the University of Nevada (women only), Texas Tech University and the University of Texas at El Paso. Appalachian State University also is above 3,000 feet but will remain in District 3.

In terms of sponsorship numbers, the plan provides for a high of 40 men's and 40 women's teams in District 9 to a low of 17 men's and 18 women's teams in District 7. Seven of the nine districts include between 30 and 40 men's and women's teams.

By comparison, the current district alignment provides for a high of 81 men's and 79 women's teams in District 3 to a low of 17 men's and 18 women's teams in District 7. Three men's and women's districts have 40 or more teams; four districts have fewer than 30 teams.

"What this plan does is bring a degree of parity in numbers in relation to the districts," Flanagan said. "The biggest sticking point with the current situation is that teams in districts with large numbers of teams face a greater hardship in trying to advance to the national championships. This plan alleviates that hardship."

To attain parity in numbers, the subcommittee realigned the boundaries of several districts. Most notably, the current District 3 has been divided into two districts (Districts 3 and 9). Other changes include moving New York from District 2 to District 1; Minnesota and Illinois from District 4 to District 5; Louisiana from District 3 to District 6; and Maryland from District 3 to District 2.

"When we looked at the current alignment, we decided to tinker with the district lines as opposed to redrawing everything," Allden said. "We felt that although we had some problems with the districts, the basic structure was right.

"The plan really came together when we looked at nine districts. That was a really big step."

The plan does not increase championships field sizes from the current 22 teams and 30 individuals, but it provides a common formula for both the men's and women's championships. Each district will receive two automatic berths, and the remaining four berths will be filled by teams selected at large. Currently, the men's and women's championships use different formulas.

Individually, each district will receive three automatic berths. The remaining three individuals will be selected based upon the highest nonqualifying finishes in the nine district meets.

"By equalizing the numbers in each district, we significantly improved the chances of individuals being selected more fairly across the country," Allden said. "The biggest unfairness in the current plan is the individual situation because the formula is the same regardless of size of district. No one can argue that it's not harder to finish higher in a 300-person district than it is in a 100-person district."

Critics say problems shift

Balance aside, some coaches say the plan wasn't generated out of pursuit of fairness, but only to appease larger districts, such as District 3. They are concerned that the plan shifts current problems from one district to another.

Opponents contend that past championships results indicate the current plan attains the district meets' objective of advancing the best teams to the national championships. They also say that awarding equal berths to each district without consideration of history or a district's strength of teams creates an imbalance against stronger districts.

"To me, this plan puts things more out of balance than they are," said Ray Treacy, women's cross country coach at Providence College. "The good teams seem to be losing out. I know in size you're getting it balanced, but in every sport you're going to have pockets of the country where there are better teams."

Treacy contends that while a district may have a larger number of teams, it doesn't translate into more competition at the district meet. He says that one district may have 50 teams sponsoring the sport but only 20 attending the district meet, while another district with only 19 teams may have 100 percent participation at the district meet.

"Just because a district may have more teams doesn't mean that those teams are competing at the district meet or that they deserve to be at the national championship. It's the strength at the top of each district that matters. You don't want to leave a really good team at home just because you want to have equal numbers."

Allden says several factors were considered when developing the plan -- including equal representation, geography, history with regard to district participation and altitude -- but that power was not a factor.

"We looked at the issue of power, which is an issue that always comes up when you're talking about redistricting," Allden said. "But the feeling was very strongly that power changes and power fluctuates. We agreed that we had to disregard power because of the fluctuations. What we had to do was create a fair opportunity for institutions that sponsor the sport."

Brown says that the at-large bids address the issue of power. He contends that the at-large bids ensure that districts with a greater number of strong teams will be represented fairly at the championships.

"There are some districts now that may have three strong teams, but that's why we have the at-large selections," Brown said. "With four at-large selections, we're going to get the best third-place teams. If you're a good third-place team in your district, you'll get there."

Concerns about cost

Treacy acknowledges that the best teams may be awarded the at-large selections, but says such bids will come with a higher price than required by the current system.

"What's happening now is teams are going to have to go out of district," said Treacy, reasoning that a team will need more exposure to attract selection as an at-large team. "Now, you're going to have to go chasing during the season to get out-of-district competition. All of a sudden you're talking about more money, more money in your budget."

Allden disagrees. He says that the growth of conferences, along with factors such as rivalries, already provide for interdistrict competition.

"Everybody complains that in order to have an at-large shot at nationals, they have to travel to meets all across the country," he said. "If you look at the way the lines are drawn, you'll see that a lot of conferences compete in two or three, and in some cases even four, districts. So, two weeks before the district meet, they're running a massive interdistrict competition.

"What that will do is provide the committee with more information when determining at-large bids. Ultimately, it will improve the at-large selection process."

Brown acknowledges that the plan is not perfect. He contends, however, that compared to the current alignment, the new plan provides a more equitable opportunity for all institutions.

"It may not balance power very well right now, but that's going to change," Brown said. "This is a long-range plan. It's not only about fairness today, but for the future."