Combined Pre Nats race results

stingray33 wrote:

(McNeil yesterday without the stitch probably takes 100+ points off NAU's score).

Yea, I can see how finishing 61st would equate to taking 100 points off of NAU's score. How did you figure that anyway, him winning this year, plus winning for the next, what, 37 years without losing any eligibility.

amazing.

I think he meant 100 points in the combined scores? What place did McMeill finish in the combined race scores?

stingray33 wrote:

As a runner geek, I took it upon myself to combine the blue and white races. I did it by hand so it might be off a point or two, but I'll double check it in excel tomorrow. I also only went to the 216th finisher, which was enough to get everyone from the top eight teams (except for Portland's fifth man, who finished 253 - that's a rough estimate, I didn't have my calculator).

1 - Stanford 76

2 - Oregon 186

3 - Colorado 212

4 - NAU 259

5 - Bama 267

6 - BYU 275

7 - William & Mary 290

8 - Portland 380

I checked Washington and Iona, and both were over 400. It seems like there should be another team between W & M and Portland, but I don't think there is. I'd welcome any corrections. Looks like Stanford is going to win Nats in a walk away

.

As for the large difference in scoring between W&M and Portland with no teams in there, it is important to remember a number of top 20 teams didn't run pre-nats. If Wisconsin, Georgetown, Virginia, Syracuse, Providence, or Indiana ran, there would be at least 2 or 3 of them in there or higher up

Any chance of getting this done on the women?

from another website

1. Washington - 125

2. Colorado - 171

3. Florida - 192

4. Princeton - 259

5. Florida St. - 265

6. Oregon - 327

7. Georgetown - 389

8. Syracuse - 390

9. Stanford - 412

10. Minnesota - 422

black rainbow in response to: (McNeil yesterday without the stitch probably takes 100+ points off NAU's score).Yea, I can see how finishing 61st would equate to taking 100 points off of NAU's score. How did you figure that anyway, him winning this year, plus winning for the next, what, 37 years without losing any eligibility.amazing.

weirdo is me wrote:

I think he meant 100 points in the combined scores? What place did McMeill finish in the combined race scores?

Now be honest with us black rainbow, on a scale of 1 to 10 how stupid do you feel right now?

black rainbow wrote:

stingray33 wrote:

(McNeil yesterday without the stitch probably takes 100+ points off NAU's score).

Yea, I can see how finishing 61st would equate to taking 100 points off of NAU's score. How did you figure that anyway, him winning this year, plus winning for the next, what, 37 years without losing any eligibility.

amazing.

McNeil placed around 134 in the combined results. In order to take 100 points off he would have had to run around 24:08 to place around 34 overall. That is 20 seconds behind his teammates Chipangama and Estrada who both acknowledge Mcneil as their #1.

Somehow that does not seem so impossible. And somehow the previous post claiming McNeil without the stitch probably takes 100+ points off doesn't seem unreasonable. And somehow your post, Mr Rainbow seems...what word shall we use?

You brain dead types are absolutely the best reason to check out the LR boards. Thanks again (and again and again...)

On a side note:

Iona's new uni's made me throw up in my mouth.

Charming Charlie wrote:

On a side note:

Iona's new uni's made me throw up in my mouth.

I disagree- anything that is different than the cookie cutter uni's adidas and nike give to most of their programs is good.

During the women's race, you couldn't tell the difference between Miami OH, Nebraska, and Louisville, among others (all red Adi unis.) Men's race, same thing with Nike teams Florida State and Alabama, to name two.

Don't get me wrong- it's great that those companies support collegiate xc- it's just boring to see the teams in identical unis with just a few color swaps and a different screen print. You can't tell them apart 100 yards away. I applaud the wild look of the Iona squad.

I completely agree with you as far as the cookie cutter uni's go. I'm sick of seeing the same Adidas, Nike, and Asics uni's on almost every team.

But, I think the Puma ones Iona wore were terrible for a cross country team. They were a cookie cutter of the Jamaican sprinter's uni's. They were too tight looking and needed some shorts with seams.

But yes, props for them for doing something different.

yea. i feel a little crunchy. i'll shut up now.

Alan Arkin wrote:

Don't forget, OSU has to overcome the fact that Dave Smith is their coach...

This post is very valid in the argument against OSU as favorites. I understand there are many perspectives to look at, but Dave Smith himself said something last year along the lines of needing "some luck" in order to win at nattys. Let's see, he had one of the most TALENTED teams in the country, he had 3-4 guys that could interchangeably be #1 for OSU and all should have been top ten, and they have a coach that everyone seems to think is a freakin' genius. Luck? The guy subconsciously admitted he didn't have the answers.

And what did everyone who DID NOT fall down accomplish in November last year? I'm not going to bother looking, but I'm quite certain everyone, including Vail and Kosgei, underperformed when it mattered. I'm not saying one year makes a trend, but the talk sounds the same as it did 12 months ago and look what happened to OSU in Terra Haute.

For what it's worth, I think in terms of who is running and what they are capable of, OSU is the favorite. In terms of what will happen in November, I'm picking Stanford or Oregon. Matty Centro has more to offer...

If you want to claim a prior post is valid (or even "very valid" lol) then you should probably get your facts straight.

1) Last year OSU had a clear #1 (GF), not 3-4 interchangeables.

2) Of their top runners only two really should have been top 10 (GF, JK)

3) Of their top 3 (your imaginary 4th is just that - imaginary) 2 placed about where the would have been expected and the 3rd was injured. If you think JK should have been higher then you are clearly out of your mind. If you think Vail did poorly I'd suggest you compare his time to his time the previous year on the same course when everyone thought he had a great race (or check out his relative position to those returnees who were close to him the previous year) - same answer either way, Vail performed about where he should have.

4) Admitting that there is "some luck" involved is stating the obvious to all but the most dense.

5) Regarding everyone thinking Smith is a "freakin' genius" I don't think I've ever seen that claimed by anyone on these boards. Most seem to think he's OK. A few seem to have an irrational hatred of the guy.

Nice try though.

And just so you'll know, when you post things like "most TALENTED..." all caps, and "who DID NOT fall..." all caps, essentially shouting that which is obvious, you really come across not as a rational being but simply as someone who has emotional problems.

are you serious!? They were the coolest looking outfits out there. You really have no fashion sense!

You have to remember Centro didn't run that well making Oregon have 3 in the top 10 of their race...something that is veyr dangerous considering they won without a great race by his standards

Needing luck means there is only so much a coach can do. The rest is up to who is sick, hurt, gets a stitch, falls,...

Thank you, I APPRECIATE being put in my place, friend.

A few things for YOU to consider.

Nearly everything I stated was opinion, with the addition of my reference to last year that I pointed out I was not going to bother checking. You then rebutt everything I have said with your own opinions...with the possible exception of the 3-4 top guys thing, I apologize for my miscalculations...making you sound like a complete jackass who assumes he is always correct. My emotional problems aside, I was simply pointing out they had talent (that means I give/take no credit for work ethic, training plan, etc) and that German did indeed fall. You think it speaks to my mental state, I was emphasizing a point. You call it obvious, but you obviously assume you are smarter than most others: You make that point clear.

Anyway, the point of my original post was to acknowledge that Dave Smith may in fact hinder OSU's performance at nats and you gave a thought-out, albeit assinine and thereby useless, response. Congrats, mate! Cheers. :)

Way to prove his point. Get help, buddy.

yea wrote:

You have to remember Centro didn't run that well making Oregon have 3 in the top 10 of their race...something that is veyr dangerous considering they won without a great race by his standards

I don't understand why people give Centrowitz credit for being a great cross country runner when has yet to prove as such.