I, too, am sick of oregon. Crybabies don't have an indoor track. It doesn't even get cold there. Stanford, Texas, UCLA, Florida, Texas A&M, etc. etc. also don't have indoor tracks. Oregon gets the top recruits, has a huge budget, tons of hype. They should dominate. It was great to see Kansas give oregon a beatdown. Almost every meet is a home meet for oregon, they have huge advantages. There is zero academic pressure at such a low level school, plenty of time for training.
So stop your yapping.
Kids in HS who run watch Pre and Without Limits, and idolize Oregon. Each generation does this, and the next generation continues the trend. Result: Oregon gets more good runners than it would without this fact, and continues to ride this wave of mystique and tradition.
Kind-o-hate wrote:
Hey Dwight and the other "very intelligent 'Historic' Hayward Field fans," there are other awesome runners out there...
Yes, there were incredible performers/performances for other schools. The NCAA fans certainly let them know how much they were appreciated.
disclaimer: I am no lover of the Oregon "hype."
purses wrote:
Florida, Texas A&M, etc. etc. also don't have indoor tracks.
fun fact: both of these school have indoor tracks. aTm even hosted indoor NCAAs. they also just tied for the men's NCAA outdoor championship.
.
running is better wrote:
purses wrote:Florida, Texas A&M, etc. etc. also don't have indoor tracks.
fun fact: both of these school have indoor tracks. aTm even hosted indoor NCAAs. they also just tied for the men's NCAA outdoor championship.
Sorry, I did not know that.
Other schools without an indoor track: USC, Arizona, Cal, ASU
purses wrote:
.
running is better wrote:fun fact: both of these school have indoor tracks. aTm even hosted indoor NCAAs. they also just tied for the men's NCAA outdoor championship.
Sorry, I did not know that.
Other schools without an indoor track: USC, Arizona, Cal, ASU
All also enjoy warmer climates. Not saying you can't succeed in cold rainy weather but saying they don't have an indoor track doesn't really mean much.
Also, what makes you think Oregon has a big budget? Knights wallet isn't part of the budget believe it or not. Sure he helps but you don't just say, hey I want this and it happens. If so, Oregon would have had an indoor facility a long time ago. His money flows much more freely to football these days. And even then there are actual rules you have to follow (one hopes).
U of O should be renamed U of Nike. Phil wants a national championship so bad he will pay just about anything to get it. It's a shame those other teams keep spoiling his party.
Fluke? Not so much. Cruz scored 20 points by winning the 1500 and 800.
Take him out of those races and Dub Myers moves up one spot in the 1500 from 3rd to 2nd. There were no WSU scorers in those events so their score remains the same.
Cruz's net contribution was 20 - 2 = 18.
Oregon beat WSU by 18.5, 113 - 94.5. Arkansas was 3rd with 85. Without Cruz the score is Oregon 95, WSU 94.5, Arkansas 87 (+2 in 1500)
Not saying it would all go down the same way but that is the simple math.
Fluke? Fluke you!
[quote]A Duck wrote:
The last time the men won a team title was 84 -- and that was a fluke because J. Cruz showed up with is own coach and ran for a couple of years.
When you say track and field, I assume you mean distance and cross country and men only.
Oregon has had more success recently than any other program with 800/1500 runners. Wheating, Acosta, Centrowitz, Greer, Fleet, and a whole bunch of other 1500m runners
However, it is pretty obvious their 5k/10k and cross country runners have not ran as well as expected.
I don't think there is much to debate. Oregon is great with mid distance, but their 5k/10k and cross country guys usually underperform. Teams like Wisconsin, Oklahoma St, and Colorado more consistently produce better distance runners.