For a better illustration of OSU peaking at the right time, it would be better to point out results of their regional meets.
For a better illustration of OSU peaking at the right time, it would be better to point out results of their regional meets.
Tell Wisconsin that they are going to get second this year and tell me what they say.
It's true. Indiana only has four scholarships allotted to the distances right now (that means 800 on up).
they should be pleased to finish second, as they will probably be third
JD wrote:
Tell Wisconsin that they are going to get second this year and tell me what they say.
We've gotten away from one of the earlier points made. Why the heck would any coach be doing hill repeats before a meet like Griak? And don't give me this crap about paying dividends later in the season. This is just why cross country coaches have a bad rap by outsiders. As Herman Edwards, coach of the New York Jets said, "We play the game to win". I guess he should have said, "We worked real hard on Friday in the weight room to tear them down so they wouldn't do well on Sunday versus the Denver Bronco's, but we are just preparing for the Super Bowl."
And we wonder why outsiders think we're all losers!
Competing well is what we are supposed to be doing, and blowing off a meet like Griak will not pay dividends when it comes time for at-large points.
Sorry to be so harsh but for Gods sake, lets wake up.
As far as at-large points go, Ohio State beat some good possible points. The only one they may have missed out on was CalPoly and Iowa. So perhaps the thinking is, show up as far away from a peak and yet still beat at-large teams like Minnesota, Providence, ASU, and Kansas. They get another crack at Iowa at Big 10's too. In fact, they got all the at-large points that Michigan did. The thread was about who was going to win Big 10's and Nationals (Wisconsin), who cares what Ohio State is doing?
blackorwhite wrote:
Wisconsin should win NCAAs easily (even with Arkansas far stronger that folks would have guessed). The problem is that Wisco created doubt last year by running soooooooooooo badly at NCAAs. This gives other teams a mental edge at the big race (and puts that lingering doubt in the minds of the Wisco guys). Arkansas and Colorado will run better than they should because they actually both think they have a chance to win.
An athlete from the Wisco men's team with whom I spoke this summer did not sound supremely confident about the upcoming season. I found this shocking given their talent. His biggest concern is that they never really figured out what went wrong last year. In my experience that means they will repeat their mistakes.
The question becomes: Is Wisconsin so much better than everybody else that they can run poorly at NCAAs at still win? I believe they are that good this year, but that they weren't last year (obviously).
Regarding Big 10s: Wisconsin should simply have the group of 7 run together in a controlled fashion over the entire 10k course. They would not have an individual winner, but they'd still win by 100 points. Their tempo run pace is probably the same as the all out race pace of anybody else's #2 runner.
Good points, but I mean if you look at Wisco's performance last year, it was not that bad for the top 3 guys. Just like Ryan Grote mentioned in his own poll at the beginning of the year RE: Matt T. and Solinsky being 9th and 15th or whatever the hell they placed versus Colorado's 4th and 5th from Vaughn and Schoolmeester...that very well could have been flip flopped and had, we wouldn't being talking about how Wisco sucks when it comes to the NCAA meet. The fact of the matter is that Colorado ran perfect for the guys they had, and Wisco's top 3 for the most part ran solid though #2 and #3 were slightly off. More importantly their #4 and #5 were way the hell off...not to mention the rest of their team. With guys like Lockhart, Nelson, Ford, etc...you would think one of those guys could have cracked into the top 20-25 thus sealing the win for Wisco, but they didn't run well and now here we sit saying they won't win the big one, which may happen since Arkansas looks really damn good.
Does anybody think Wisco should run all their guys in one race versus splitting their squad up through out the year? I know a lot of people criticize them for the tempo run at Jim Drews, which I understand, but I think running all their guys in one race would let everyone know how good they really are, versus having us all guess.
"Does anybody think Wisco should run all their guys in one race versus splitting their squad up through out the year? I know a lot of people criticize them for the tempo run at Jim Drews, which I understand, but I think running all their guys in one race would let everyone know how good they really are, versus having us all guess."
thats the point...do you think they care that a bunch of people on this site have to guess at how good they are. don't worry im sure they will have room on their bandwagon for you guys the day after nationals. but for know the true wisco fans will stick by them and not question what they do or don't do.
Si, senores.I am a huge Wisco fan but feel as though they are second-guessing.YES, the top 3 will be there in Bairu,Solinsky and Withrow.BUT the 4-5-6-7 guys.Will they hold for 10 km??Its true that they truly have no clue as to what went wrong but one can analyze that the last km.DESTROYED them.
I was talking about that with someone today. It seems like they lose a little team connectedness by running different squads. I understand the concept of not over-racing, but I think they need to consider the power of chemistry that can develop from a 7-man team being out there together over time...
You know I recommended that Wisco run a tempo run at Big 10s just to win, but I am taking that back. They should either run to win and run their best or stay home.
My college team raced hard every weekend. We were good, always made it to nationals, and always ran poorly at nationals. In looking for a solution to the problem, I thought that taking some meets easy/tempo would have helped, but the best thing to have done would have been to race less.
How many races (an optimal range) are optimal for a team like Wisconsin in getting ready to win NCAAs?
My feeling is that 3 to 5 races including nationals is perfect. The whole team should race together and hard.
The problem with Wisco racing hard is that they have very little competition to challenge them. What are Bairu, Withrow and Solinsky gonna gain by stomping a field by 30 seconds? I mean, it's not like any other team just coasting in the middle of the pack cause they don't want to race hard. I'm not saying this is my argument, but it has to be something Jerry thinks about. There are only a handful of collegiates that can give those three guys a run for their money. I'm not sure of the best way to prepare them, hopefully Jerry figures it out.
As for the Badgers falling apart in the last k of nats last year, I think it has a lot to do with how they raced combined with the mud - it just took everything out of them. They have plenty of guys that are good at 10k - Bairu, Withrow, Nelson, even Lockhart have run lots at that distance.
I believe that the reason that Wisco fell apart for nationals is the exact same reason why many (possible most) collegiate runners fall apart at the big race-----------they lost their aerobic balance due to poor training. Too much intensity, too much of a reduction in mileage, and too much traditional tapering. The whole work hard then rest, reduce mileage and increase intensity taper does not work for most athletes.
Arkansas and Colorado do not use the traditional taper----and they almost always run well at NCAAs.
As somebody who ran at NCAAs and other big meets, I have noticed that 75% of the competition will be running their worst meet of the year (or close to it) at the most important competion of the year. If you're fit and ready to rock, you are only competing against 25% of the field.
This often holds true for World Championship distance events and the Olympics as well.
nope
Wisconsin has Bairu, Solinsky, Withrow, and others training together everyday. They spend considerable time banging hard workouts all year and hanging out in the stretch room. They don't need these extra races to build anything!!!
Then, they shouldn't race at all. Why not just run the regional and nationals?
Back to the point wrote:
As Herman Edwards, coach of the New York Jets said, "We play the game to win". I guess he should have said, "We worked real hard on Friday in the weight room to tear them down so they wouldn't do well on Sunday versus the Denver Bronco's, but we are just preparing for the Super Bowl."
You're an idiot on multiple levels for that post. Please do not attempt to compare a season in the NFL to a season in college cross country. In the NFL, every game is important because it is your record that gets you into the playoffs. So yes, then you would play every game to win. In cross country, that is a stupid idea, because by your logic, every team should run their top tier team at an all out level every single meet. But in cross, you are just peaking for the end of the year meets, so the meets leading up don't mean anything. Griak is a prestigious meet, yes, but who are you more likely to remember: the team that won the Griak or the team that won the NCAA's?
And the Jets suck anyways. They're planning to start Testaverde for crying out loud.