No regional mark wrote:
Not a contender at ncaas because he doesn’t have a regional qualifying mark.
He falls outside the top 48 in both the 1500 and 5000
"Regionals" were eliminated years ago and replaced by "preliminary" meets.
No regional mark wrote:
Not a contender at ncaas because he doesn’t have a regional qualifying mark.
He falls outside the top 48 in both the 1500 and 5000
"Regionals" were eliminated years ago and replaced by "preliminary" meets.
running commenter wrote:
East Coast Guy wrote:
On Ben Saarel - just a good solid dude - he has some crazy hard major like Physics / Physics Engineering where he has a 3.9 GPA and he just won the PAC 12 Scholar Athlete award.
Everyone makes a big deal out of Saarel having a hard major like he's the first college athlete to care about school. Hasn't Grant Fisher won back to back NCAA Scholar Athlete awards? I might have the title of the award wrong, but jesus just because Ben Saarel needs to study a lot for school doesn't make him any more of a special case than anyone else.
You really blew this out of proportion. A hard major coupled with his illness took a toll on his running and it’s impressive that he’s still able to be one of the best in the NCAA.
PrZ wrote:
running commenter wrote:
Everyone makes a big deal out of Saarel having a hard major like he's the first college athlete to care about school. Hasn't Grant Fisher won back to back NCAA Scholar Athlete awards? I might have the title of the award wrong, but jesus just because Ben Saarel needs to study a lot for school doesn't make him any more of a special case than anyone else.
You really blew this out of proportion. A hard major coupled with his illness took a toll on his running and it’s impressive that he’s still able to be one of the best in the NCAA.
You're right, but Grant Fisher does it better I guess.
Generally those NCAA scholar athlete people have powder puff majors. Engineering is hard in the very tangible sense that you have to take more classes than everyone else and they are all difficult to do well in. I was a hard science major, but at least I could round out my schedule with some easy stats or lit classes.
Yeah, they're both engineers I think
Engineering majors on average study about three or four hours per week more than the majors with the lowest average, including business. That's not that significant. And it's not as if being a STEM major means that you're necessarily smarter than other majors. I have plenty of STEM majors in my classes who are bad at my subject, as well as humanities majors that are very good at it. Intelligence is more specific than you think.
running commenter wrote:
Yeah, they're both engineers I think
Fisher is Electrical Engineering
Saarel has a double major: Engineering Psychics and Computer Sci
Both are hard. Saarel's is harder, but Fisher goes to a harder school. I'd still say Saarel has to study more than Fisher. He'll have some pretty heavy duty math which Fisher will just scratch the surface of.
Engineering Psychics are a truly rare breed able to do more than just scratch the surface of what Fisher is thinking.
xcvxcvvc wrote:
Engineering majors on average study about three or four hours per week more than the majors with the lowest average, including business. That's not that significant. And it's not as if being a STEM major means that you're necessarily smarter than other majors. I have plenty of STEM majors in my classes who are bad at my subject, as well as humanities majors that are very good at it. Intelligence is more specific than you think.
Intelligence is different than the rigor of a subject.
I've heard that Saarel only sleeps about 4-5 hours per night during the semester because he studies so much. Whether he's a perfectionist that can't abide not doing everything as best as he can, or his major really is that hard, I don't know, but that's the rumor. Fisher also has stagnated a bit this year--perhaps for a similar reason?
...and while Fisher and Saarel have been stagnating, Trouard has been improving by leaps and bounds.
FU FXFCtctc wrote:
...and while Fisher and Saarel have been stagnating, Trouard has been improving by leaps and bounds.
Trouard goes to NAU... nuff said on any form of comparison.
thisguy wrote:
Generally those NCAA scholar athlete people have powder puff majors. Engineering is hard in the very tangible sense that you have to take more classes than everyone else and they are all difficult to do well in. I was a hard science major, but at least I could round out my schedule with some easy stats or lit classes.
Fisher, three time NCAA scholar athlete of the year (1xtrack, 2xXC), taking Electrical Engineering at Stanford, minor in Economics or computer science and will be doing his masters there... so I heard.
FU FXFCtctc wrote:
...and while Fisher and Saarel have been stagnating, Trouard has been improving by leaps and bounds.
This is not directed at you or anyone really...but there is more to life than running. Even a PRO runs 5-10 years, then it's all over.
You have to do something with the rest of your life. It looks like Saarel knows what he wants to do with that time, and it's going to require a lot of hard work/study to get there. It appears he's sacrificing he running to achieve it.
Many of us would not (did not) sacrifice our running for our broader future.
I retrospect, I'd do the same thing. Even though I did not do it at the time, and I was far from the talent of a Saarel or Fisher (or, say a Thom Hunt, Jeff Nelson, or Alberto Salazar from my generation).
The rest of my life turned out fine, though, but probably could have had/have a more satisfying career life if I had not.
REI wrote:
FU FXFCtctc wrote:
...and while Fisher and Saarel have been stagnating, Trouard has been improving by leaps and bounds.
Trouard goes to NAU... nuff said on any form of comparison.
Is CU that much better than NAU? Yes, a little bit, but it's not that big of a difference.
CU is no MIT
You can do both. Be a baller as a runner then be super successful in another area and make lots of money. Jim Ryun, Ray Flynn, Ovett etc etc
not mutually exclusive wrote:
You can do both. Be a baller as a runner then be super successful in another area and make lots of money. Jim Ryun, Ray Flynn, Ovett etc etc
Bannister
Ggsgsg wrote:
REI wrote:
Trouard goes to NAU... nuff said on any form of comparison.
Is CU that much better than NAU? Yes, a little bit, but it's not that big of a difference.
CU is no MIT
You are delusional. CU is a significantly better learning institution when compared to NAU.
Stanford to CU = academically no comparison.
CU to NAU = academically no comparison.
Oregon... the least academically incline university in the PAC to NAU = academically no comparison.
The PAC 12 schools... Stanford, Cal, UCLA, UW, USC, CU, ASU, UA, WSU, OSU, UT, UO are head and shoulders better academically then NAU and it’s Big Sky conference schools. Absolutely no academic comparison with NAU in this discussion.
Apart from the Ivy League (which is the strongest academically), the only other conference that is close to the PAC academically is the Big 10 (Nothwestern, MI, WI, MSU, Penn State, U of IL, Purdue, Ohio State, IN, MN, Rutgers.