How is it ok for CU to finish DFL at Pac12s?

CU only brought around 15-17 men and the same for women. They have a very small team (probably due to budget reasons). If a few athletes are redshirting, sick, or injured and you have a very small team things aren't going to go well. Also, contrary to popular belief, CU does spread there scholarships around to other areas some. They have enticed great sprinters/throwers in the past to come to Boulder (usually in-state kids) so they should be able to find someone that can score a bunch of points by giving then a full ride. They will never have a large team though so points will always come from a few studs.

Something like that wrote:

jewbacca wrote:

Case in point: In D2 ranks, Alaska Anchorage's 13:41/28:37 XC national champion ripped his Achilles tendon at his conference meet when his coach stuck him in the steeple to win some extra points. You'll never see Wetmore pull that kind of BS.

Ouch! Just this weekend?

GNAC champs were last weekend (May 9-10).

....have you seen Oregon's facilities? have you seen CU's?

...have you been to Eugene? Have you been to Boulder?

Huh? huh? wrote:

Science Guy wrote:

Gravity will aid the pole vaulters by about a quarter inch in Rio since the ground at the equator is further from the center of the earth. So there's that...

How do you figure that?

They had no chance of winning, and there is no meaningful difference between getting 8th or 12th. Unless you have a ton of money, it's really hard to build a competitive xc and track/field squad at 1 school.

Location plays a huge role as well. Looking at the national poll right now, only 3 of the top 14 schools are not from the south. Wisconsin, BYU, and Nike-funded Oregon. By contrast, xc is typically dominated by schools in the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific northwest. Schools like Oregon and Arkansas are nationally competitive in both, but they're extreme outliers.

CU picks their battles. As a Buffs fan, would you rather win conference and national titles in xc, or finish 6th at conference twice a year? National class sprinters and field athletes are not lining up to attend Colorado.

Imagine if other sports in the PAC12 completely threw in the towel because they had no chance at winning. Every track program must pick their battles, but not even trying is unacceptable. As a Buff fan, I want CU to win XC Nats and at least make a valiant try in track. Why not?

bonkers wrote:

They had no chance of winning, and there is no meaningful difference between getting 8th or 12th. Unless you have a ton of money, it's really hard to build a competitive xc and track/field squad at 1 school.

Location plays a huge role as well. Looking at the national poll right now, only 3 of the top 14 schools are not from the south. Wisconsin, BYU, and Nike-funded Oregon. By contrast, xc is typically dominated by schools in the Northeast, Midwest, and Pacific northwest. Schools like Oregon and Arkansas are nationally competitive in both, but they're extreme outliers.

CU picks their battles. As a Buffs fan, would you rather win conference and national titles in xc, or finish 6th at conference twice a year? National class sprinters and field athletes are not lining up to attend Colorado.

Weren't wrote:

...have you been to Eugene? Have you been to Boulder?

I have. Have enjoyed my time at each, but wouldn't want to live in either place.

Could be training through track season looking to build for another NCAA Cross Country title this fall. His record at CU is incredible. Great coach who understands how to develop runners and approach the edge without tipping over into overuse and injury. He's got the W's to back up his approach to training. CU doesn't focus on track. So what.