The men's course was every bit of the advertised 10.2 k.
The men's course was every bit of the advertised 10.2 k.
Shut up, democrat.
did anyone else notice that unattached runners were included in the points for team scoring?
jenapharm wrote:
Full Open men and womens results
http://www.usatf.org/Events---Calendar/2014/USATF-National-Club-Cross-Country-Championships/Final-Results.aspx
Would have been nice to see a full Bowerman team run on the Men's side, still pretty cool to see Tegenkamp out getting out there though I guess.
I think it would be awesome to see EVERY major distance group field full teams at club xc nats each year. An Oregon Project, Bowerman TC, OTC, Hansons, Zap, etc. competition would be amazing. Barring injuries of course, I don't see why any of these groups wouldn't be able to field full rosters for this meet. It's early enough in the year such that it doesn't compromise track, and no one would be peaking for the race anyways so it would just be a fun way of spicing up everyone's respective base-phases. I guess too many pros are just 'over' xc or something....
Goucher Needles wrote:
The men's course was every bit of the advertised 10.2 k.
My garmin and everyone [5 total different watches] I talked to that ran with a garmin or other GPS watch ended up with 6.17 to 6.21 miles, so perhaps the advertised long course was not in fact the case.
AP is BACK!!! wrote:
Thanks. Any idea how Solinsky did?
according to his twitter, he didn't race because he twisted his ankle.
rgrs wrote:
did anyone else notice that unattached runners were included in the points for team scoring?
jenapharm wrote:Full Open men and womens results
http://www.usatf.org/Events---Calendar/2014/USATF-National-Club-Cross-Country-Championships/Final-Results.aspx
*headdesk*
I see that. Wtf? I'm baffled. CFPI times tons of track meets. So even if they couldn't figure out how to do the masters team scores in Hy-Tek, they certainly know how to make unattached athletes non-scoring.
I was there, it was pretty windy and the leaders separated a little under half way through. I'd imagine that slowed them down. Also the talk of the crowd was that the course was indeed 200 meters long.
Riley really pushed the pace the whole way and seemed like he was trying to drop the lead pack. About 5/6k, Hill was a little off the back and really rallied hard to get back up to the leaders. Last 400 he dropped the hammer first and Fernandez went with him. Riley passed Fernandez and was trying to pull in Hill, but from what I saw it looked like Hill was in control.
Props to Lehigh for putting together a good race course, even if it was slightly long. They had snow earlier in the week and went through a lot of effort to facilitate the spectators (the normal course goes pretty far away from the start/finish/majority of the race). The open race was 600 runners and it went very smooth.
Lehigh wanted none of that 10.2... On-site maps had Sharpie corrections saying the course was "NOT" long, was wheeled 10K. Seriously, how hard is it to make an exact course on such a wide-open field? Not at all.
Team Unattached finished with a score of 159 which placed them 4th overall.
I feel bad for all the teams that got beat by this band of misfits and malcontents.
I believe it was CHRIS DERRICK who tweeted he twisted his ankle. Ryan Hill said after the race that Nike BTC was able to grab a couple Nike employees to fill out their team. Eliot Heath didn't race either (illness). And Hill made no mention of Solinsky..(With his coaching gig, is Solinsky still a Nike sponsored athlete?)Hill - indoor track Teg - cross country Derrick - cross countryNot sure about his response on German
deezy & the nuts wrote:
AP is BACK!!! wrote:Thanks. Any idea how Solinsky did?
according to his twitter, he didn't race because he twisted his ankle.
....still no team scores for masters men or women
something must be gebroken
CFPI did not do the meet. Look at their web site (www.cfpitiming.com) and they do not have any link on their site. I am guessing that their software was used by someone else.
FWIW; My Garmin measured 6.21 miles.It is cross-country, not a road race. As long as it is within .1 or 100m (give or take), it is fine by me. I would certainly get ticked off if a road course measured long or short.Great race, well organized. I would like to see all the master's results already, WTF.
harry the harrier wrote:
Goucher Needles wrote:The men's course was every bit of the advertised 10.2 k.
My garmin and everyone [5 total different watches] I talked to that ran with a garmin or other GPS watch ended up with 6.17 to 6.21 miles, so perhaps the advertised long course was not in fact the case.
They brought it down to 10k from the advertised 10k + 200m by having the guys run both loops diagonally across the field near the 3k/7k mark, rather than just once as on the published course map. Pythagoras rules the day!
wasthere wrote:
Lehigh wanted none of that 10.2... On-site maps had Sharpie corrections saying the course was "NOT" long, was wheeled 10K. Seriously, how hard is it to make an exact course on such a wide-open field? Not at all.
Masters team scores and corrected Open team scores (taking out the unattached displacers) will be up later today. Everyone involved is traveling home, but they are aware of the problem.
Here is my educated guess as to what went wrong with the masters team scores.
I have been the meet director for our local Association Open and Masters cross country meet for the past three years now, and I am the one who dealt with Hy-Tek and the results.
USATF Masters Cross Country has weird rules, and Hy-Tek does not handle it well. And unless someone warns you, you don't know it's not going to handle it well until the meet happens and your team scores are messed up.
The individual results are in 5-year age groups. The team scores are 40+, 50+, 60+, etc. So while you would normally only see 40s on a 40s team, a 50s runner can score for a 40s team, etc.
When you do the entries in Hy-Tek, you can fairly easily declare the correct runners on the correct teams. Everything looks good. But when you actually score the meet, Hy-Tek is still thinking in 5 year age groups, despite how you declared the teams, and the scores come out all wrong.
Locally, we just do the masters team scores by hand.
I don't know how they have made it work for Club Nationals in the past, my speculation is that they create multiple "meets" with different rules, so one for individual results and one for team scores (or possibly one for each age division of team score) and then combine them in to one thing for the results that get posted. I have some local officials that are very well-versed in Hy-Tek, and our version of Hy-Tek has every add on possible, but they have not been able to figure this out, and locally, it's not _that_ hard to just do the team scores by hand.
A lot of Associations don't even do a Masters Association Championship, and of the ones that do, I have no idea if they all follow the same scoring rules as Nationals. So honestly, there are probably not many different timers in the US who have timed a USATF Masters Championship.
A very experienced and competent timer who is well-versed in Hy-Tek, could have easily thought that everything was set up perfectly for this meet, and not realized there was a problem until the race was over.
ja, I suspect this is going to be a pencil and paper affair.
it's very complicated for the reasons you say - 5 yr and 10 yr divisions, with 50 year old guys running for 40s teams, plus the usual unattached people making things hard. Plus internationals can run the masters races but not score. Plus some team might have tried to score two non-USATF division people.
a couple years ago at USATF 5k masters xc nats it was chaos like this, with far fewer people in the results.
Not sure how you head home without having results completed and done. And I guess none of have computers, methods of communications or pencil and paper to figure out stuff while on their way home.
Would be nice if USATF used some of that magical $34 million to figure out to score a meet based on their own rules. I can't think too many other sports where you don't know the results at the end of the event.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Why would USATF not go and hire a competent timing group for one of their National Championships. Those were the worst/slowest results I have ever seen and they are WRONG!!!
CFPI, if you are going to be slow at getting results out, at least make sure they are right! How long will it take for you guys to actually deem the results to be official, BTW?