honestlyisms wrote:
DIII is about as competitive as a good 2nd tier DI conference.
They should get an A for talentless effort
honestlyisms wrote:
DIII is about as competitive as a good 2nd tier DI conference.
They should get an A for talentless effort
ghosts wrote:
They should get an A for talentless effort
You, on the other hand, get a D for talentless trolling.
honestlyisms wrote:
DIII is about as competitive as a good 2nd tier DI conference.
ghosts wrote:
They should get an A for talentless effort
There are a lot of people running DI who suck. Lots. The best are the best in the country. But they are not representative of the average or median of all atheletes.
Better athletes follow the money. DIII is not as competitive as DI by design - because they do not have money. Its not a moral failing - it is economics.
If you are not as good as the best, but you still want to run (something we all can understand), then DIII is ideal, and well suited for the vast majority of "student athletes" in the US.
lulz, washu
they barely beat good, not great competition in their own conference (CMU, NYU) and then got lucky on the track because CMU was missing two high-scorers and NYU doesn't care at all about the conference
ncc will roll
some NE teams are returning solid squads
(2013 season bests)
Bates
Grabboys (3:53, 14:47)
Hannan (14:36, 31:20)
Martin (9:06, 14:49)
Stansel (3:57, 15:36)
Black-Ingersoll (25:48 XC)
Reilly, D'Amato (26:15 Frosh XC)
Bowdoin
Boeding (9:14, 15:14)
Horowitz (3:48, 14:27)
Saba (15:32, 25:08 XC)
Seekins (14:28)
Talpey (25:18 XC)
Hoose (25:26 XC)
Middlebury
Schaaf (3:52, 15:33)
Wood (15:23)
Sans (No track, 24:41 XC)
Krathwohl (No track, 25:04 XC)
Matt Sebastian (26:06 FR XC)
Tufts
Cassidy (what happened to this kid?)
McCauley (15:16, 25:05 XC)
McClaughlin (15:23, 25:17 XC)
Norton (3:51, 15:09)
Shapero (14:58, 32:08)
Wallis (9:06, 14:51)
Williams
Ford (15:27, 25:56 XC)
Inde (14:58, 12:25 XC)
Laberge (25:18 XC)
Lee (9:07, 14:46)
Mazaheri (15:00, 31:58)
Not quite the depth that the top midwest teams have, but Bates and Tufts are returning a solid chunk of their 6/7 place teams from last year and could look to improve on that. Bowdoin has a great top 3 just needs to find some depth. Williams is always strong, Midd seems to be falling off the pace a bit.
Can Calvin compete without a Christiansen?
Calvin
Kerk, Sam 14:25
Haagsma, Steven 9:08 (steeple)
Ferguson, Josh 15:11
Spitzer, Phillip 31:26
Keyvenhoven, Jacob 15:19
Gunnink, Gabe 15:27
Gingrich, Jonathan 15:41
Cortland (2013 best times)
Nick Marcantonio (30:52, 26th at XC Nat'ls last yr)
Tom Hopkins (14:43, 30:27)
Pat Fannon (14:38)
Cody Amengual (8:57 steeple, 14:58)
Brian Hotchkiss (15:27)
Jarod Iacovelli (15:27 2012)
Casey Austin (15:16)
Tim Lee (15:15, 31:39)
Really, Manchester runners/alums, please stop. You don't see NCC or Washington U runners posting here - let the running do the talking!
Srx wrote:
Really, Manchester runners/alums, please stop. You don't see NCC or Washington U runners posting here - let the running do the talking!
hahaha
Let Us Run wrote:
Washington U.
Padgett, Andrew 14:25
Sparks, Kevin 30:16
Ellenberger, Michael 30:21
Patrick, Garrett 14:48
Senci, Ryan 14:49
Miller, Evan 15:07
Johnson, Paul 15:29
This also doesn't include their 6 or 7 runners from Regionals, who I believe were injured during track. Cantanese and Peterson.
Never count out LeDuc! Champ status
lulzercoaster wrote:
lulz, washu
they barely beat good, not great competition in their own conference (CMU, NYU) and then got lucky on the track because CMU was missing two high-scorers and NYU doesn't care at all about the conference
ncc will roll
If you could enter 15 guys at nationals, North Central would be basically unstoppable. But with only 7 guys competing for each team, it only takes a few guys having a mediocre race to turn everything upside down.
Srx wrote:
I don't know about two teams in the top five. I also don't know about your order here, isn't 14:53 > 31:29?
Some of these guys are inconsistent, to say the least. Morrison ran very well early in track, poorly at Drake relays, and damn near DFL'd at Nationals. Ditto with Klein, though he raced so much in track I think that was a fluke. Sebhat won't be such a tremendous cross guy, he's a MD runner. Mitch Gilbert is never consistant.
What I'm saying is, yes, NCC has more legit PRs than other teams. But Haverford and Calvin (and maybe Washington U, not so familiar) are very consistent and I expect better things throughout track.
Yeah but usually when those types of things happen, it means that something else is going on like injuries or sickness. I'm sure Morrison didn't suddenly become unfit in the middle of the season. Also, what's your idea of consistent? Running the same time every race? That's never going to happen.
DIIIer wrote:
NCC is going to dominate. This is the list of their returners, and their best national ranking mark this year.
2 Crain, John JR-3 14:12.80
18 Klein, Roger JR-3 30:18.75
23 Morrison, Travis SO-2 30:26.43
34 Janet, David JR-3 9:17.19
34 Sebhat, Aron FR-1 3:52.54
35 Kelleher, Troy FR-1 30:53.10
55 Harvey, Cameron FR-1 9:28.70
57 Gilbert, MitchellJR-3 14:47.37
63 Gaither, Brent SO-2 9:31.03
65 Vazquez, Tim FR-1 31:29.36
78 Muth, Matt SO-2 3:56.56
85 Dickshinski, BenFR-1 14:53.40
They could have 2 teams in the top 5.
This is an incredibly dumb list. These times aren't even relevant. A prime example is Cameron Harvey. Sure he ran 9:28 in the steeple, but he only ran 27:10 last cross country season. How do you expect a guy like that to contribute to a national squad? The 1500m runners are the same way. NCC has 3-4 runners right now and are desperately in need of a 5th. In a national meet like last year, it might work. Any other year, they get beat easily.
Pointing out one outlier does not indicate the list is irrelevant. Track times have some (although fairly limited) predictive power for next season cross performances. That said, cross country nationals times are also only fairly predictive. You can't account for all of the factors that go into one race this upcoming season, things like summer training, illness, overtraining, inury, or any other of the various factors that determine improvement. So track times are obviously not a perfect indicator of anything in cross, but that doesn't make them irrelevant. While track and cross are different sports, track times are the most up-to-date data of running performance available.
I think it will be a battle between NCC and LAX, both return large amounts of talent and LAX is returning 6 of their top 7 from last year and adding in Stillin so basically they are returning more than they had from last year's team. Crain will be tough to beat for the individual title.
Midwest FTW wrote:
I think it will be a battle between NCC and LAX, both return large amounts of talent and LAX is returning 6 of their top 7 from last year and adding in Stillin so basically they are returning more than they had from last year's team. Crain will be tough to beat for the individual title.
Ditto with Washington U as far as returners; I don't remember seeing many UW-Lacrosse runners in the Outdoor Track Championships but that was solely based on me watching the meet from the stands, I have no scoured those results quickly. Verdict: It's going to be a close one!
-Eggs
too early be back around the first week of cross, things might change by then.
I think it's going to be between North Central and La Crosse. Nationals is kind of like the SAT. It doesn't test how smart (fast) you are, but rather how well you take the test (run the race). Nationals, with really good competition and a larger crowd than the rest of most teams' meets combined, is a completely different beast than every other race.
Traditionally, there are some teams that really step up (NCC, Bates last year), and there are some teams that choke (WashU). Finally, there are some teams that run at their talent level (like UWL, Haverford). I think UWL should be the heavy favorite based on talent, but I think NCC will be close due to how they perform at nationals (and Crain has got to be the prohibitive favorite to win, which helps). The lack of a cap means they don't have to really kill themselves at regionals also. Even if everybody has a horrible day, the 6th and 7th teams from their region will still almost definitely make it this year.
For the race for third, it's going to be between Haverford (my pick), WashU, and Bates (and maybe Calvin). For the record, I think Bates could just as easily get 15th as 3rd, but they showed last year that they are extremely talented wildcards. I bet somebody like Wheaton or a young team like Central College could sneak into 5th, or even 4th. No, on second thought, I don't think they're good enough to get 4th.
My extremely premature assessment:
1. NCC (and Johnny Crain wins the damn race)
2. UWL (and they have somebody closing hard to get in the top 5)
3. Haverford (Stadler goes out hard with the leaders but fades to 10th or 15th)
4. Bates (total wildcard, but $20 bucks says several time all-american David Pless isn't even in their top 7)
5. WashU (is Sparks even still running?)
6. Central College (and Horton and Decker are both top 25)
7. UW Something (especially without the cap, last year Midwest region had 10 ranked teams in the last poll)
8. Wheaton (If the Waterman bros have anybody to run with)
9. Calvin (Kerk is going to surprise some people, but I have no idea where he's going to pop up)
10. Bowdoin (carried by Horowitz in the top 5)
Manchester gets 12th at the very best.
pizzaburger wrote:
I think it's going to be between North Central and La Crosse. Nationals is kind of like the SAT. It doesn't test how smart (fast) you are, but rather how well you take the test (run the race). Nationals, with really good competition and a larger crowd than the rest of most teams' meets combined, is a completely different beast than every other race.
Traditionally, there are some teams that really step up (NCC, Bates last year), and there are some teams that choke (WashU).
When does WashU choke? I can't think of any time recently that they've done significantly worse than expected. They were what, 5th last year?
And why do you say Sparks isn't running? He just ran at nationals, so unless you know something I don't he should be back.