Addie says she's in. Jessica is going to forward an e-mail to you. In earlier comments on your log, GuyO said QOC can't compete directly against West Point, but I don't know why that should be the case. I assume it's because the Flying Pig puts school teams and club teams in different categories, but there's no reason they have to. You run the same courses, you use the same scoring system, and the scores are directly comparable, so regardless of categories, it's pretty simple to tell who won.
TomN, that is correct; WP will compete in School Varsity, whereas this team would compete in Club Varsity.
However, this is not specific to the Flying Pig, but always applies at the US Intercollegiate Champs. Individual team members will all be competing for individual US Champs titles on ICVF and ICVM -- which will also be on the same respective courses as F-20 and M-20.
Ever it may be so, but as far as I can see, the rules don't require it.
Since I have your attention, it's true that ICVFs compete on the F-20 course even if they are over 20, and likewise ICVMs, right? I happen to know someone who treats this as a significant incentive.
Male college varsity runners will all run on the same course as each other, regardless of whether they are running for a school, a club, or as an individual. The same is true for female college varsity runners. So Tom is correct that you can tell who had the higher score. However, as far as awards, school team and club team are given separately, per OUSA rules. Also per OUSA rules, if a team has enough members to make an eligible school team, they cannot compete for club team awards. So a Quantico Club team from mixed schools is not competing with USMA school teams for awards, but it will be possible for bragging rights to determine who had the higher score. Does that clarify?
As to Tom's question, yes ICVF and F-20 will be on the same course; also ICVM and M-20 will share a course.
Tom, I don't really see where you're coming from on the rules. The School categories require all team members to be from the same school.
Plus, Club teams cannot qualify as School teams -- meaning if all members are from the same school, they must compete in the School category. This was not always the case, and WP used to also field Club teams (since their primary club is USMAOC). That is one of the reasons that rule was added last year.
F/M-20 & ICVF/M being on the same respective courses is not required, but is a best practice -- and one that ED Mike Minium strongly agrees with (as do I). All of the IS classes will also be on the same courses as typically corresponding age categories.
@Mike: Thanks for saving me the time to suggest that you jump in... ;-)
Here's where I'm coming from: The rules specify only two IC team classes: IC Varsity team and IC JV team. See Rule A.35.2.2. The rules go on to define what constitutes a team, and yes, they say you can get there as a school or as a club. But there is nothing at all that says differently constituted teams don't compete against each other. Indeed, the rules simply say, if you're on a validly constituted IC Varsity team, you compete in the IC Varsity team class.
Similarly, the scoring rules say how you compute the score for each IC Varsity competitor. Rule A.35.4.1. All IC ompetitors in the same class are computed the same way, whether you're in a school or a club. Then, to compute a team score, you add up all the member's scores. Rule A.35.4.2. That's it, no difference for school or club.
To summarize: there is only one class in which a QOC team and a WP team are eligible to compete: Intercollegiate Varsity Team. They must compete against each other, because they are in the same class.
Tom, Rule A.35.2.2 is intended to define that team classes may exist at IC events and, in general, how they would be formed. It is to be interpreted loosely, giving non-Champs IC events flexibility within that structure.
Rule A.35.5.2. is specific to the IC Championships and specifies an additional Club Varsity class for the Champs that is separate from the School Class.
OK, then! So it shall be.
This discussion thread is closed.