If Evert runs Pilots crush Bruins wrote:
Portland held out Evert Silva. If he ran, he would have won the race.
Silva is not even listed on the UP roster. Apparently, he went pro.
-
21
-
erA wrote:
If Evert runs Pilots crush Bruins wrote:
Portland held out Evert Silva. If he ran, he would have won the race.
Hard to win a race for a school that you got kicked out of
What happened to Evert?
00 -
Jjkkj wrote:
Jjkkj wrote:
Of course they will not beat Stanford, Oregon and Washington.
NAU is not expected to beat Stanford, so why would you expect UCLA to be competitive with Stanford?
Success for UCLA would be top 4 at Regionals and participation at NCAA.
As someone else pointed out, their top 3 are good (all sub 23:55). Presently however their #4 and #5 are too weak to beat Portland at Regionals. The good news however is that their spread between #4 and #7 was only 18s. Therefore, only 2 of the 4 need to improve significantly in the next couple of months for UCLA to beat Portland (not all the pressure is on current #4 and #5).
Depends if UP runs Strangio at regionals though. He would’ve been their top runner if he hadn’t raced unattached yesterday.
00 -
God complex wrote:
Manbearpig15 wrote:
It's almost like the guy knows how to coach.
Don’t get too excited. Oregon was just cruising and Portland held people out, ran some unattached and didn’t really race. UCLA is a long way behind them.
Also, their girl’s team is really bad and he coaches them too.
UCLA will not be a factor of any kind in the conference and has no chance of qualifying for NCAA’s.
It’s entertaining/disconcerting to see replies like this. Ask yourself why you have so much animosity and hate for someone that you’ve never met.
82 -
Oso orgulloso wrote:
God complex wrote:
Don’t get too excited. Oregon was just cruising and Portland held people out, ran some unattached and didn’t really race. UCLA is a long way behind them.
Also, their girl’s team is really bad and he coaches them too.
UCLA will not be a factor of any kind in the conference and has no chance of qualifying for NCAA’s.
It’s entertaining/disconcerting to see replies like this. Ask yourself why you have so much animosity and hate for someone that you’ve never met.
It’s interesting to see replies like this that used to be prevalent in the NP threads are now going to start appearing in the UCLA threads. Please tell me I need help, that I’m sad and have all kinds of personal issues for giving my opinion that UCLA won’t be very good this year.
it’s not all about you Sean. The team is not good enough to make it NCAA’s this year. Just stating my opinion with zero animosity.
711 -
It was always ridiculous that UCLA didn’t invest in a good XC/distance program. There’s lots of good running routes off campus, good weather, a strong history - it can only be a good thing for the program to finally improve.
51 -
Stop wrote:
It was always ridiculous that UCLA didn’t invest in a good XC/distance program. There’s lots of good running routes off campus, good weather, a strong history - it can only be a good thing for the program to finally improve.
Have they improved?
At Dellinger In 2019 they were 8 points behind Oregon. In 3rd. They beat Portland by 120 points. Their average time among their top 5 was almost 30 seconds per runner faster than this year’s team and they didn’t qualify for NCAA’s.
41 -
God complex wrote:
Stop wrote:
It was always ridiculous that UCLA didn’t invest in a good XC/distance program. There’s lots of good running routes off campus, good weather, a strong history - it can only be a good thing for the program to finally improve.
Have they improved?
At Dellinger In 2019 they were 8 points behind Oregon. In 3rd. They beat Portland by 120 points. Their average time among their top 5 was almost 30 seconds per runner faster than this year’s team and they didn’t qualify for NCAA’s.
In fact, last year, their team time was faster. 3 of this year’s top 5 ran last year and of those 3, 2 of them ran slower this year.
Last year’s team also did not qualify for NCAA’s.
41 -
All the times were faster last year. Maybe course conditions were tougher. But UCLA was a lot better in placing than the 8th from last year. It looks promising to me. This doesn't mean they'll qualify this year but they'll be on the cusp. Next year, they'll make NCAA's probably. He didn't even have time to get recruits in for this season.
41 -
zxcvvcx wrote:
All the times were faster last year. Maybe course conditions were tougher. But UCLA was a lot better in placing than the 8th from last year. It looks promising to me. This doesn't mean they'll qualify this year but they'll be on the cusp. Next year, they'll make NCAA's probably. He didn't even have time to get recruits in for this season.
The times were better because the field was better. The placing was better because the field was 92 runners this year and over 150 last year.
They aren’t better.
12 -
Gonzaga looked better than Washington today
so it’s:
Stanford
Oregon
Gonzaga
Washington
Portland
UCLA would actually have to beat Washington to make top 4. Seems unlikely. Top 5 would still be an achievement.
30 -
Stop wrote:
It was always ridiculous that UCLA didn’t invest in a good XC/distance program. There’s lots of good running routes off campus, good weather, a strong history - it can only be a good thing for the program to finally improve.
UCAL occasionally had good XC teams over the years.
I remember Jon Butler in the early 1980s. UCLA had one of the top distance squads then along with Arizona, Oregon and WSU.
10 -
Tbh Gonzaga is a lot better than Oregon, they held out James Mwaura (27:50 guy) and Evan Bates (13:45 guy) could see those guys running with Guermali their top guy today. And Portland held out 3-4 of their top runners at Dellinger, which means they are a lot better than what we saw in Dellinger. The way I see it as of now (but not set in stone). Such a toss up with 2-5
Stanford
Gonzaga
Washington
Portland
Oregon
UCLA
30 -
UCLA has always invested in XC. Just because you live in some fantasy world where they should give 6 scholies to XC is a you problem. The reality is, the number is 12.6 and the math does not change on that. It is about recruiting and hustling and coaching. The opportunity is there, and it has been proven as such. Brosnan will figure it out soon
16 -
Manbearpig15 wrote:
It's almost like the guy knows how to coach.
he could be the best or worst coach out there - ridiculous to try to evaluate a guy who started in august based on a september meet
there's no secret workout he's introduced to the program in the last few weeks that's turned things around. 95+% of anything that happens even later this season was baked in before he got there
61 -
Stop that wrote:
UCLA has always invested in XC. Just because you live in some fantasy world where they should give 6 scholies to XC is a you problem. The reality is, the number is 12.6 and the math does not change on that. It is about recruiting and hustling and coaching. The opportunity is there, and it has been proven as such. Brosnan will figure it out soon
What a weirdly aggressive response to such a benign post. Me: it’s weird that UCLA hasn’t been better given they have good recruiting conditions and it’s nice to see them doing well and investing in a good coach. You: that’s a YOU problem demanding more scholarships. Huh?
70 -
Tell me without telling me you don't follow Portland Cross Country.
00 -
cramister wrote:
I don't think these UCLA results show much of Brosnan's ability yet.
Give him some time to settle in, recruit, etc. This result was probably off the coattails of the old administration.
Would it be fair to compare UCLA and Cal Poly to determine coaching ability? Both programs hired coaches within a couple of weeks of each other and were pretty close at regionals last year (UCLA 398 - Cal Ply 414).
00 -
Why was Matt Strangio running unattached?
00
1 post was removed from this page.
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.