Unofficial 2018 D3 XC Thread (Official)

In case people were still trying to debate this for any particular reason, the Midwest had 17 All Americans, while New England came in with 6. So I think we can wrap this one up nice and tight.

Schatz wrote:

NCCagain wrote:

1. NCC

2. WUSTL

3. LAX

4. Haverford

5. Wartburg

6. Amherst

No way Haverford's gonna be able to come in 4th. Without Gearinger they are screwed. They do not have a runner past their top 4 that can step up.

Haverford will end up with the 2nd best 1-4 after NCC, but they will have a 5th man in the 200s place. Letting them scrape by to a 10th overall finish.

This aged well.

Clearly you don’t know much about Division III. NWU has always been D3.

Uhhhwhat? wrote:

Clearly you don’t know much about Division III. NWU has always been D3.

(S)he’s right. They haven’t always been D3

Get a clue. The Nebraska Wesleyan women beat Wartburg to win their 3rd consecutive XC conference championship this fall, finished runner up to Carleton at the Central region meet and was 22nd at the ncaa. They also had a guy finish 19th at nationals. The women broke Wartburgs hundred year streak of track championships last spring and they have dominated the 4 d 400 relay for the past several years.

ARCFan wrote:

Get a clue. The Nebraska Wesleyan women beat Wartburg to win their 3rd consecutive XC conference championship this fall, finished runner up to Carleton at the Central region meet and was 22nd at the ncaa. They also had a guy finish 19th at nationals. The women broke Wartburgs hundred year streak of track championships last spring and they have dominated the 4 d 400 relay for the past several years.

Congrats? I guess?

ARCFan wrote:

Get a clue. The Nebraska Wesleyan women beat Wartburg to win their 3rd consecutive XC conference championship this fall, finished runner up to Carleton at the Central region meet and was 22nd at the ncaa. They also had a guy finish 19th at nationals. The women broke Wartburgs hundred year streak of track championships last spring and they have dominated the 4 d 400 relay for the past several years.

I have a bone to pick with NWU. They AREN'T a staple in D3, they've only been D3 since 2016. Meaning some athletes (like Vasquez and their 400m girls) are on athletic scholarship. As their athletes cycle through and nobody is left that has an athletic scholarship, we'll see how they stack up

Midwest: 16

New England: 6

Mideast: 6

Central: 6

Atlantic: 2

Great Lakes: 1

West: 1

South: 1

MW > NE wrote:

In case people were still trying to debate this for any particular reason, the Midwest had 17 All Americans, while New England came in with 6. So I think we can wrap this one up nice and tight.

Your teammates accomplishments don't make you any faster or more impressive.

MW > NE wrote:

In case people were still trying to debate this for any particular reason, the Midwest had 17 All Americans, while New England came in with 6. So I think we can wrap this one up nice and tight.

Yet again your liberal bias shines through. When adjusting for this bias, the Northeast has come out on top in the results at the National Championships this year.

The issue is that your are using middle-school level statistics. Your estimator is extremely biased, so your justification of the Cramer-Rao bound is not supported. Your liberal artist training at some midwestern DIII school does not prepare you for the fast-paced analytics of the business world. I, on the other hand, went to business school and studied Behavioral Economics. (Our president also happened to go to business school.) I learned how to use machine learning and tensorflow. Do you even know what a tensor is?

When I pass the results of this year's meet to tensorflow, the northeast is clearly the most dominant region. It is unquestionably reflected in the data. This is supported by cutting-edge machine learning and AI.

The reason your bias is so large is many-fold. First, the meet was extremely cold, which plays in favor of Midwest teams who train year-round in the cold plains. Northeast teams are not prepared for the sub-20 degree weather. When you account for this in the model, the superior performance of the Northeast is obvious. Second, Oshkosh is a pancake-flat course. Northeast teams are accustomed to true cross country courses with hills, rocks, and uneven terrain. Adjusting one's strategy on-the-fly during the race undoubtedly results in apparent under-performance. Adding this into the model makes the Northeast the undisputed winner this year.

When you apply logic, facts, reason, and science, it is clear that the Northeast always produces superior teams. Until someone can debate me using high-level machine learning, you must accept that I have won.

Does anyone know what happened to Patascil from Wabash? He ran a 24:20 this year and then hasn’t raced since the end of September. I was expecting him to be top 10 this weekend if he raced. Any update?

dude what the heck are you talking about lmaoooo

Dude what are you talking about? NWU has always been D3. Yes, they did just recently join a D3 conference a few years ago, they used to be in an NAIA conference but, still were in D3 and competed at the D3 level at regionals and Nationals.

also what is the northeast region

tefe wrote:

dumbfounded wrote:

dude what the heck are you talking about lmaoooo

also what is the northeast region

Classic liberal ad-hominems. So much for the tolerant left.

Educate yourself wrote:

Dude what are you talking about? NWU has always been D3. Yes, they did just recently join a D3 conference a few years ago, they used to be in an NAIA conference but, still were in D3 and competed at the D3 level at regionals and Nationals.

No. They were not only in an NAIA conference, but they were a member of the NAIA organization. If you look at results, they competed at the NAIA National Championships

oh i didnt scroll far enough down, you right

Goat is Goat wrote:

woah wrote:

anyone else notice Sam Brunette's splits in the results?

2.3k - 21

3k - 227

5k - 17

5.6k - 24

7.1k - 69

finish - 103

That can't be real can it?

Sorry, didn't notice his splits because he finished 103rd.

Logic says the 277 (it's actually 277 in the results) is a mistake. That's almost last, so the device must have missed his chip. The rest, however, must be true. Sometimes great runners just blow up late in races. Happened to Reichsling last year.

The dude won the New England region. He should have been able to hold that pace. Must have had a rough day. Real shame.

Nailedit wrote:

Schatz wrote:

No way Haverford's gonna be able to come in 4th. Without Gearinger they are screwed. They do not have a runner past their top 4 that can step up.

Haverford will end up with the 2nd best 1-4 after NCC, but they will have a 5th man in the 200s place. Letting them scrape by to a 10th overall finish.

This aged well.

The two "mathematical", "analytical" predictions posted on this thread were wildly wrong. The predictions that came from human observation were mostly spot on. Fancy that.