The Huskies are Vulnerable

Well, EXCUUUSE me! It would be nice to find someone on this board who doesn't read selectively. Either you are being defensive or you just want to take portions out of my post, leaving off certain words, but the fact is that it does rain NEARLY every day in Seattle, and when it rains, you have to run in the rain and mud.

Regionals?--Wasn't that the race where Schaaf did well last year too...before she crashed at Nationals, and couldn't come back for many months. Facts are facts. Just sayin'

Schaff did not run regionals last year. Again your facts are off. Just go away.

I merely pointed out that all one has to do is look at that girl and one can see that she has poor nutritional habits. It is your defensiveness and speculation that makes the jump to say that she has "eating disorders".

Villanova had to run their race, under the conditions that day. My point is that 'Nova is loaded with exceptional middle distance phenoms who would kill Washington under good conditions (in my opinion). Mucky conditions in Terra Haute will probably benefit Washington because they have to train in the mud and rain nearly every day. Sure, 'Nova gets rain now and then (usually light showers), but they don't get the consistent training under those conditions that Washington gets. Is 'Nova good enough to overcome this likely disadvantage? Maybe, but it gives them an additional hurdle to overcome.

Excuse me, she crashed after the Pac 10's (not Regionals).

Observe average rainfall trends for Philadelphia and Seattle. Your argument holds no water... pun intended. GO NOVA!

This is hard to believe. You guys are as wet as Seattle! OK my argument is moot. BTW, I noticed that you have a very high "Sunshine Index" there in Pennsylvania. So, when it isn't raining the sun is shining? In Seattle, when it isn't raining here, the clouds are staying zipped.

Philly is wet in the summer, not the fall so much. Also, they get rain in bunches. Seattle gets many more days and many many more hours of rain, so the stuff does not dry up.

Primary track events for UW: Schaaf- distance, Lawrence-3K Steeple, Babcock-1500, Follet-1500, Campbell-1500.

"Middle distance phenoms"? Look no further.

Uhh, Follet's primary track event is probably the 5k... considering she ran it at Nationals and everyone. Lawrence has a very good 5k too.

And let's not forget, Babcock ran some VERY fast xc times in high school...

LOL. And how well did those "middle distance phenoms" do at NCAA outdoors? No doubt, 'Nova is going to kick ass on those skinny girls from Washington.

If you want middle distance phenoms, take a look at the ducks. They have Kosinski, Hasay, Kesselring, Noble, Buckman, and Blood. Now that's what I call a group of phenoms.

Katie has specified in a post-race interview on Flotrack this year that her favorite, and primary event is the 1500.

She was PAC 10 champion in that event in 2008.

Teddy Graham wrote:

Villanova had to run their race, under the conditions that day. My point is that 'Nova is loaded with exceptional middle distance phenoms who would kill Washington under good conditions (in my opinion).

Mucky conditions in Terra Haute will probably benefit Washington because they have to train in the mud and rain nearly every day. Sure, 'Nova gets rain now and then (usually light showers), but they don't get the consistent training under those conditions that Washington gets. Is 'Nova good enough to overcome this likely disadvantage? Maybe, but it gives them an additional hurdle to overcome.

I have no idea what the Villanova girls' times are, would you please post them?

Below are the 1500m PRs of the UW Women top 5.

Schaaf - 4:18.6

Lawrence - 4:19.6

Campbell - 4:18.4 (2:06.5 800m)

Follett - 4:15.7 (2:06.0 800m)

Babcock - 4:16.1 (2:06.5 800m)

Average - 4:17.7

That's a pretty impressive mid-distance resume for a cross team. I would be very interested to see how the Villanova "middle - distance phenoms" stack up to that...

Also, looks like no rain in the forecast for Friday through Monday in Terre Haute. So, no excuses because of weather.

She took second this year after posting a 4:55 first mile. Not smart but hardly crashing. Last year she destroyed the field and set a new record at the Springfield course. Please go away.

Teddy Graham wrote:

I merely pointed out that all one has to do is look at that girl and one can see that she has poor nutritional habits.

Thanks, Dr. Teddy! What are your office hours?

Quit cluttering this thread with data, dammit. Let's stick to judgments based on "impressions" exclusively.

Sickness wrote:

Schaaf - 4:18.6

Lawrence - 4:19.6

Campbell - 4:18.4 (2:06.5 800m)

Follett - 4:15.7 (2:06.0 800m)

Babcock - 4:16.1 (2:06.5 800m)

Average - 4:17.7

I am not sure of the poster's point, but if it is to prove something, then he/she comes up short. I haven't pulled down the 'Nova numbers yet, but from Oregon's website, these are some comparison's to poster's Washington marks:

Schaaf - 4:18.6 Kosinski - 4:18.6

Lawrence - 4:19.6 Kesselring - 4:19.84

Campbell - 4:18.4 Buckman - 4:15.66

Follett - 4:15.7 Blood - 4:14.33

Babcock - 4:16.1 Hasay - 4:14.5

Oregon's overall time is 5.5 seconds faster or 1.4 seconds average per runner faster than the Washington middle distance runners. There isn't much comparison with Oregon's 800 times, which are far superior to Washington's.

Poster is out of touch with relevent middle distance speed.

Teddy Graham wrote:

I am not sure of the poster's point, but if it is to prove something, then he/she comes up short. I haven't pulled down the 'Nova numbers yet, but from Oregon's website, these are some comparison's to poster's Washington marks:

Schaaf - 4:18.6 Kosinski - 4:18.6

Lawrence - 4:19.6 Kesselring - 4:19.84

Campbell - 4:18.4 Buckman - 4:15.66

Follett - 4:15.7 Blood - 4:14.33

Babcock - 4:16.1 Hasay - 4:14.5

Oregon's overall time is 5.5 seconds faster or 1.4 seconds average per runner faster than the Washington middle distance runners. There isn't much comparison with Oregon's 800 times, which are far superior to Washington's.

Poster is out of touch with relevent middle distance speed.

T'was my response to your claim that the "mid-distance phenoms" on the 'Nova XC team would "kill washington under good conditions". I'm just wondering (still wondering) what your factual basis is for that opinion.

Oregon is irrelevant here; I'm not talking about them at all. Washington has spanked them twice this season (not to mention 3 times last season), so there's no need for this comparison. You were comparing UW vs. 'Nova, claiming that Nova's superior mid-distance ability will give them some upper hand at nationals, given good conditions. I'm still interested to hear your basis for this.

Regardless, you cited two Oregon girls that didn't score on their XC team, one that didn't even run at regionals. Even further off the point.

Try again.

awesome job Christine!

Actually it goes right to the point(s)(but in a way that supports your implicit conclusion that Nova's middle distance distance speed does not indicate a problem for UW). The point(s) being that it probably is not the case that 'Nova has better middle distance than Washington and 2) that it probably does not matter if they do -- case in point: Oregon has better middle distance speed than Washington and is inferior to UW.