Is CU still considered a top program?

I don't think they have any money to give in scholarships. CU has funding issues with the state.

2013 - 1. COLORADO........... 149

2014 - 1. COLORADO............. 65

2015 - 2. Colorado.................. 91

2016 - 6. Colorado................ 223

2017 - 8. Colorado................ 294

So, in the last five years they have had two national championships, a second place finish, and two top tens. If that's not awesome I don't know what is.

Ralphie wrote:

2013 - 1. COLORADO........... 149

2014 - 1. COLORADO............. 65

2015 - 2. Colorado.................. 91

2016 - 6. Colorado................ 223

2017 - 8. Colorado................ 294

So, in the last five years they have had two national championships, a second place finish, and two top tens. If that's not awesome I don't know what is.

I think the OP pointed out that the track results do not compare well with the XC results.

CU is doing just fine doing what it does: developing US born distance runners and throwers. The state as a whole does not attract a lot of sprinter and jumper types (partially due to the cold, partially due to the altitude), so they will never really be in the track conversation nationally. If you were to just score the US athletes, CU would be at or near the top year in and year out in cross country. There is ebb and flow, but CU has been in the national conversation in cross country and distance for quite some time and will continue to be in the future. They are starting to get a legitimate in state challenge on the men's side from CSU (CSU likely would have beaten them at nationals this year, had their top runner not died), which will be interesting to keep an eye on in the coming years.

Luv2Run wrote:

Ralphie wrote:

2013 - 1. COLORADO........... 149

2014 - 1. COLORADO............. 65

2015 - 2. Colorado.................. 91

2016 - 6. Colorado................ 223

2017 - 8. Colorado................ 294

So, in the last five years they have had two national championships, a second place finish, and two top tens. If that's not awesome I don't know what is.

I think the OP pointed out that the track results do not compare well with the XC results.

2018 D1 outdoor championship:

5k: Zach Perrin

10k: none

1500: none

800: none

Steeple: none

Luv2Run wrote:

Ralphie wrote:

2013 - 1. COLORADO........... 149

2014 - 1. COLORADO............. 65

2015 - 2. Colorado.................. 91

2016 - 6. Colorado................ 223

2017 - 8. Colorado................ 294

So, in the last five years they have had two national championships, a second place finish, and two top tens. If that's not awesome I don't know what is.

I think the OP pointed out that the track results do not compare well with the XC results.

That is accurate, but no one calls them a top track program.

Tracksters? wrote:

Luv2Run wrote:

I think the OP pointed out that the track results do not compare well with the XC results.

2018 D1 outdoor championship:

5k: Zach Perrin

10k: none

1500: none

800: none

Steeple: none

Rob Conner has 3 guys at Nats.

It should be noted that Portland uses the local high school track because they don't even have a track, indoors or out!

Altitude helps sprinters and jumpers.

CU has awesome indoor and outdoor facilities.

Cliff Branch ran a 10.0 100 meters for CU in the 70s.

With Billy, Jenny, and Emma you would think turning their stable of xc guys towards the steeple would be easy.

Why no relays??

Why no 800 development?

Why no 10k at Nats??

Why no 1500 @ Nats?

Besides Scales and Fendel, where is this domestic recruiting? In state recruiting?

CO best 2018 high-schooler is going go CSU.

It seems CU has not put everything out there or even a little.

Lmfao CU goes 2 years within winning a trophy at Nats and then everyone acts like the program is a failure.

I think the OP is saying that as good as they are in xc, they suck at track (men).

Buffs too wrote:

I think the OP is saying that as good as they are in xc, they suck at track (men).

Even if they've not performed to their high expectations in xc, it's as if they don't see any value at all in even trying at track. They could actually get a $hit Ton more points at track if they just entered some more athletes in a few events. Not like they have to change their distance focus either, just enter and compete some relays, steeples, and 8s. And why doesn't CU dominate 5 and 10k?

Buffs too wrote:

I think the OP is saying that as good as they are in xc, they suck at track (men).

Or maybe it’s that with as bad as they are in track, they are unreal in xc.

Regardless, not a groundbreaking revelation.

Wetmore doesn't give a sh*t about recruiting, so in years when the top guys in the country aren't completely enamored with CU, he isn't going to get great recruits. Kids have to really want to go there.

Tracksters? wrote:

Luv2Run wrote:

I think the OP pointed out that the track results do not compare well with the XC results.

2018 D1 outdoor championship:

5k: Zach Perrin

10k: none

1500: none

800: none

Steeple: none

... while redshirting arguably their two top runners, Klecker and Dressel, both of whom placed in the 5k outdoors and 3k and 5k indoors last year...

I’m sure that injuries have a big impact on this track season on paper. Joe Klecker is either injured or redshirting, John Dressel is just now coming back from an injury, and Eduardo Herrera was 14th in the 5k West Prelim. Saarel is still a bit set back I’m sure by his health issues that came up in the past (along with his killer major, I forget what it is.) And without bringing up another colossal argument, I’m sure Phillip Rocha’s departure from the program doesn’t help either.

Basically, there’s a lot of small problems and bad luck that’ve all happened at roughly the same time. CU is still a top collegiate program and they’ve been doing well as of late (especially in cross country.) This track season for CU is just one of their very few rare occurrences: an off season. It’s visible in the women’s program just how good CU can be when they really hit their stride. I’m sure Wetmore has been poring over all this all season, and I’m sure the Buffs will be back next year in force.

So to answer your question yes they are a top program they’re just having an off year

Look at what NAU's done over that same time in XC and they also at least make an effort in track and get multiple qualifiers to nationals and have had some track national champions. BYU, as well, gives it a pretty good go in track and has built a solid, all-around track team. Colorado doesn't seem to even try in track, which is making that program fall into the has-been category with the likes of Oklahoma State.

2017 - 1. NAU 74

2016 - 1. NAU 125

2015 - DNQ

2014 - 4. NAU 188

2013 - 2. NAU 169

2012 - 4. NAU 191

Pilot Pride wrote:

Tracksters? wrote:

2018 D1 outdoor championship:

5k: Zach Perrin

10k: none

1500: none

800: none

Steeple: none

Rob Conner has 3 guys at Nats.

It should be noted that Portland uses the local high school track because they don't even have a track, indoors or out!

Why should that be noted? The track is still 400 meters in Portland, right? They aren't the first or last school to have success working out on an off-campus track lol

Also, Colorado having "bad years" of getting 6th and 8th (is this on the men's side only? Why are we not talking about women?) is exactly why they ARE a top program. It's the same reason people rip Stanford for underachieving even though they are routinely in the top 5 at NCAAXC.

Colorado underperforms in track?! Next you'll tell me Oregon underperforms in XC and BYU underperforms at national meets.