2015 NESCAC Cross Country

What we learned yesterday is that Williams is really good. In fact just as good as we thought they were. Bijan, by coming in 3rd, taught us he has no balls. Hes clearly faster than Hussein but never had the balls to race him seriously all season. While there were times this was smart, there are other times it might have helped his team.

Amherst is okay but really not all that good. Their 4-5 just cant keep up and Hussein couldn't come through when it mattered most. Its worth it to question his endurance and say that his kick is just massive. A few guys did have a bad day though and I think if you do this race over they come closer to the 5-7 range than the 8-10 range.

Tufts! Luke O' Connor, where were you! This team didn't show up until championship season. They may have been better off racing their guys hard from the beginning rather than not letting their best guys going till the end. A very good team and a force to be reckoned with next year. Calling them now as NESCAC champs next year.

Wesleyan is really good but a poorly coached team. They couldn't put together a good effort when they needed to at NESCACs. Some of their races were really sloppy. They need to race more consistently to truly be good. The race at Nationals was good. You gotta show up on your home course. This is one of the strangest teams in the NCAA.

Hamilton showed us what a strong class can do. Those guys while not at all fast, have moved up a place or 2 every year and surprised everyone with the best race Hamilton may have ever run. They may never be this good again, but it was a nice to have a surprise in the 'Cac this year with a strong team from another region going to Nationals.

Middlebury should burn their 4-5 guy alive.

Predictions for next year:

1) Tufts

2) Williams

3) Colby (Contingent on Chelimo)

4) Wesleyan

5) Amherst

6) Middlebury

7) Hamilton

8) Conn. College

9) Bates ( Weak team very overrated)

10) Bowdoin

11) Trinity (as always)

Williams would have gotten 2nd yesterday if Bijan had dropped out of the race. how can you say tufts will be better than them?

This is grossly pessimistic and ignores so much.

1. Tufts is good, but not nearly consistent or deep enough to be as good as you say they are.

2. Williams is obviously extremely good. I'd say Bijan beating Mo is more of a fault of the Amherst Coach thinking they were good enough to go for the win and pushing them too hard. Mo tried to go with Lamere and blew up as a result. If he had hung in the front pack and ignored Lamere, he probably still could have beaten Bijan and finished 2nd or 3rd. I'd say it was coaching error, not a fitness thing.

3. Colby is definitely better than they showed this year. Silas had a terrible day yesterday, which was unfortunate, but we all know he can and will do better.

4. Wesleyan is super deep. No clue what they will do next year, but it could be surprising.

5. Amherst needs to chill out. If they do, they will finish higher.

6. Middlebury came out of nowhere during the last few weeks. They did indeed put together an impressive last few weeks, but I think it was uncharacteristic.

7. Hamilton is Hamilton. Don't know much about them. Good team, but I can't say more.

8. Conn College is definitely not good enough to go here. Their Coach pushes them way too hard and they aren't consistent or strong enough to run a whole season as a result. Just because it worked for LeDuc does not mean it will work for all of their runners.

9. Bates is better than 9th for sure. They struggled near the end of the season for no real reason, but they showed some of their potential at the Maine state meet. Putting them below Conn is stupid.

10. Bowdoin will be better than this. They lost Jacobson this year, and Bridger will be very good next year. If they can stay healthy they do very well next year.

11. Trinity. Yeah.

Next year:

1. Williams

2. Colby

3. Amherst

4. Tufts

5. Bates

6. Bowdoin

7. Wesleyan

8. Hamilton

9. Middlebury

10. Conn College

11. Trinity.

Hussein went with Lamere for 1k, but not much more than that (according to the splits). I don't think that is what did him in. People have bad races every once in a while.

Having your best race somewhere other than nationals is an Amherst tradition.

I think you need to give Bijan a little more credit. He ran a very good race last weekend. I ran against Bijan in highschool. I never saw him give anything less than 100% in a race. I remember seeing him run all-out in the 2-mile at Reggie every weekend with almost no competition.

My guess is that he was racing hard during the season, but wasn't fully rested until nationals because he was training through. Mo is a phenomenal runner no doubt. He will contend for a national championship the next two years, but I think this year Bijan was better.

It should be exciting to see the NESCAC guys move into track season. Bijan, Colin Cotton, and Mo are going to dominate. Sebastian Matt, Peter Hale, Dan Crowley, Ben Decker, Tim Nichols, Luke O'Connor and Allen Sumrall should all also be contenders for All American. If Chelimo gets healthy, we should see quite a few guys from the NESCAC making noise in track.

Banteram wrote:

Next year:

1. Williams

2. Colby

3. Amherst

4. Tufts

5. Bates

6. Bowdoin

7. Wesleyan

8. Hamilton

9. Middlebury

10. Conn College

11. Trinity.

Hamilton loses their 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7 from nationals to graduation... They've never been relevant before and will never be again, this was a fairytale season for them. Put them down with Conn and Trinity, probably will be last again like usual.

In Summary wrote:

Wesleyan is really good but a poorly coached team. They couldn't put together a good effort when they needed to at NESCACs. Some of their races were really sloppy. They need to race more consistently to truly be good. The race at Nationals was good. You gotta show up on your home course. This is one of the strangest teams in the NCAA.

This is a ridiculous statement. The preseason poll had Wesleyan ranked 9th in the region and they ended up finishing 11th in the nation. They are year in and year out one of the smallest teams in the conference, and this year was no exception. Check the roster sizes:

Wesleyan: 12

Amherst: 24

Williams: 41

Tufts: 29

Wesleyan's 8th man was 110th place out of 129 finishers at conference, meaning they have no room for error as there is no one that can step up if there is an injury. You say that some of their races were sloppy, but I disagree. I would argue that they were perhaps the most consistent team in the region and also peaked perfectly. Let's look at their schedule:

Paul Short: Ran very well

Little 3: Probably the weakest race, least on the line

Nescac: Solid race, matched ranking coming in, only 7 points out of 4th

Regionals: A good race, ranked 6th and finished 4th

Nationals: Best race of the season when it counted most

Their weakest races were Little 3 and Nescac (still a decent outcome), which is to be expected. Nescac lets teams race twelve and at Little 3 there is no limit to the amount of runners allowed. Wesleyan gets no benefit from being able to run extra guys, whereas other teams do. I would also add that there wasn't much to run for at Little 3, as a third place was more or less a foregone conclusion.

They'll probably fade back into obscurity because graduating two from their top five will be backbreaking given their average recruiting class size of three, but credit where credit is due, they killed it this year.

You do realize the decision to have 12 people on the roster is the decision of the coach,right? And a stupid ass decision it is. I could be mistaken but I think Wesleyan has more students than Amherst or Williams. Why don't they have more people on the team? Its a self imposed weakness. On their HOME COURSE, HOME COURSE; Ill say it again HOME COURSE they lost to two teams which they're clearly worse than by 7 points. If thats not poor coaching idk what is. They also lost to Tufts who is about comparable to them. A well coached team beats Tufts at their home meet and gets close to Amherst and Williams ON THEIT HOME COURSE. Additionally, that was at NESCACs. For a team that knows they're going to nationals; thats the 2nd most important meet of the year. I'll give the athletes credit for stepping up big at nationals. Nationals course is pretty simple you just run.... No handle this hill like that, or make sure you don't do this, just run.... and they did that really well, but when they needed any type of guidance their coach wasn't there for them.

Performing poorly at one meet (NESCACs) because every single of the kids gets out like a crippled rabbit and decides not to move up throughout the race isn't necessarily bad coaching. On the other hand, being able to turn that around in two weeks for a more important meet to a season-long bubble team (Regionals) is a sign of good coaching and a good team. And then to peak perfectly for the most important two meets (regionals and nationals) is good coaching. I'd say pretty much every good coach and team would rather perform at regionals and nationals than perform at NESCACs. Sounds like a pretty perfect job of not only peaking a small team but also reading his athletes and adjusting after a suboptimal performance.

What is your obsession with the home course? Amherst got rocked at little 3s on their home course

And Williams got rocked on theirs at PVC