What's districts? Homo
What's districts? Homo
Ra Cha Cha wrote:
Rochester runners, you went after it at your own course, congratulations. Everyone is so pumped you "attempted" to run fast mid September to prove a point.. but whats the point? So you moved up in the region 1 spot, nice work! You guys can't even tell me you didn't go for it from the gun cause you were all strung the hell out by mile 2 and had pain face on by the 6k. Geneseo and Cortland ran in large packed groups, most of them talking to each other, and then decided start actually running and still beat most of your top guys. Get over yourselves, Sincerely the teams that workout in September and will actually race when it matters.
Youmadbro?
I can't wait to see who runs a workout at Regionals. Thats what real teams do.
bruce willis wrote:
say what!! wrote:Talk to anyone from Cortland - they had a race plan that included that they not run all out. U of R clearly did run all out - therefore, Cortland did not lose to U of R "fair and square." [Yes, they did!].
What a cop out. Cortland lost to UofR by the rules of cross country. They held a race, scored the race, and UofR won. I don't care if Cortland used the Gallowalk method; they showed up at the park, pinned on numbers, spiked up, and ran a race.
THANK YOU. What is the matter with people? Do you (I'm talking at least as much to coaches as to athletes) *really* think that cross-country runners are somehow capable of only three or four true "race efforts" per season?
The point of a race is *to compete*. If you just want to get a run over a particular course, show up early and get your run while other teams are warming up. But if you participate in a RACE, it's your job to try to beat as many other teams in the race as you can.
You have one of the stronger teams and want to work on a particular team strategy? Here's a thought: have a season's schedule that includes a dual or triangular meet ("What's that?") or two against lesser teams, and try out your strategy there *while still running to win*.
If you think runners (who've had an adequate pre- and early-season preparation) can't be *strengthened* by making full race efforts during the season, you're wrong.
It's a fact of cross-country life that, in the biggest meets, you're going to go out at faster than even pace; and on most championship courses, you're going to *have to* do that if you want to win (or place high). If you think your team is being prepared for that situation by going out easy in its regular-season meets...again, you're wrong.
I'm not a particular UR fan, and I wouldn't be surprised if they finish somewhat worse at Regionals than they did at their own invitational, on their own course. But at least they know what it's like--how it feels--to go out "too fast," and yet still continue to *compete* the rest of the race. In recent years, they've been doing a little better at season's end than most people expect; who knows, maybe running races *like races* earlier in the season has helped make them ready when it counts!
Anybody have a link to the rankings this week?
http://www.ustfccca.org/2012/09/featured/diii-regional-cross-country-rankings-2012-week-2Klassy wrote:
Anybody have a link to the rankings this week?
Geneseo stays in first, NYU stays in third, Rochester and Cortland switch spots (Rochester second, Cortland fourth)
The new rankings are pretty reasonable. Regardless of how they chose to run their races this weekend Cortland and UR seem about equal at this point with Geneseo a step ahead of both. Hard to tell with NYU's results but they'll obviously be in the mix with Cortland and UR. It'll be a great race come Regionals, that's for sure.
Just to try to clear things up. My original post was in reply to GRF, not your post. I was just making a simple observation being present at the course and reviewing the results. I was not trying to be insulting, just predicting possible fast times for Regionals in good conditions. It was a great race for UR and they undoubtedly are a top team in the AR. However, I'm going to place my bets on Geneseo for the favorite team and a slight nod to NYU or Cortland over UR, just my opinion from watching the race. But anything can happen and that's what makes it fun. If you are entirely confident in your team then there is no need to be defensive.
U of R wrote:
alum too wrote:No - you're still an idiot (nice guy but no comprehension). It was obvious that Geneseo was not running all out and UR was. You need to look at the whole picture before you make rash statements. Since you are probably a U of R guy, I understand your enthusiasm - they are a pretty good team.
Geneseo may not have been running all out, but the post said that both Cortland and Geneseo ran the race as a workout, which simply isn't true. Cortland lost to U of R fair and square; it's insulting to other teams to assume that the better ones aren't trying (and without evidence).
H4TERS GONNA H4TE BOIIIIIIIIII
Are any teams like Bates racing in the Atlantic again?
u6 wrote:
bruce willis wrote:What a cop out. Cortland lost to UofR by the rules of cross country. They held a race, scored the race, and UofR won. I don't care if Cortland used the Gallowalk method; they showed up at the park, pinned on numbers, spiked up, and ran a race.
THANK YOU. What is the matter with people? Do you (I'm talking at least as much to coaches as to athletes) *really* think that cross-country runners are somehow capable of only three or four true "race efforts" per season?
The point of a race is *to compete*. If you just want to get a run over a particular course, show up early and get your run while other teams are warming up. But if you participate in a RACE, it's your job to try to beat as many other teams in the race as you can.
You have one of the stronger teams and want to work on a particular team strategy? Here's a thought: have a season's schedule that includes a dual or triangular meet ("What's that?") or two against lesser teams, and try out your strategy there *while still running to win*.
If you think runners (who've had an adequate pre- and early-season preparation) can't be *strengthened* by making full race efforts during the season, you're wrong.
It's a fact of cross-country life that, in the biggest meets, you're going to go out at faster than even pace; and on most championship courses, you're going to *have to* do that if you want to win (or place high). If you think your team is being prepared for that situation by going out easy in its regular-season meets...again, you're wrong.
I'm not a particular UR fan, and I wouldn't be surprised if they finish somewhat worse at Regionals than they did at their own invitational, on their own course. But at least they know what it's like--how it feels--to go out "too fast," and yet still continue to *compete* the rest of the race. In recent years, they've been doing a little better at season's end than most people expect; who knows, maybe running races *like races* earlier in the season has helped make them ready when it counts!
+1
been there done something wrote:
Are any teams like Bates racing in the Atlantic again?
Dickinson came up to run at U of R this weekend. Regionally and nationally ranked, men and women. Both NCAA teams last year. Finished 4th, just behind Rochester and ahead of Cortland in men's race. Their women were 3rd, behind SLU and ahead of Rochester. Good early season comparison between AR and Mideast.
THANK YOU. What is the matter with people? Do you (I'm talking at least as much to coaches as to athletes) *really* think that cross-country runners are somehow capable of only three or four true "race efforts" per season?
The point of a race is *to compete*. If you just want to get a run over a particular course, show up early and get your run while other teams are warming up. But if you participate in a RACE, it's your job to try to beat as many other teams in the race as you can.
You have one of the stronger teams and want to work on a particular team strategy? Here's a thought: have a season's schedule that includes a dual or triangular meet ("What's that?") or two against lesser teams, and try out your strategy there *while still running to win*.
If you think runners (who've had an adequate pre- and early-season preparation) can't be *strengthened* by making full race efforts during the season, you're wrong.
It's a fact of cross-country life that, in the biggest meets, you're going to go out at faster than even pace; and on most championship courses, you're going to *have to* do that if you want to win (or place high). If you think your team is being prepared for that situation by going out easy in its regular-season meets...again, you're wrong.
I'm not a particular UR fan, and I wouldn't be surprised if they finish somewhat worse at Regionals than they did at their own invitational, on their own course. But at least they know what it's like--how it feels--to go out "too fast," and yet still continue to *compete* the rest of the race. In recent years, they've been doing a little better at season's end than most people expect; who knows, maybe running races *like races* earlier in the season has helped make them ready when it counts![/quote]
+1[/quote]
Bryant and Stratton is my pick for d3 nationals this year and possibly next year, theyre a young team and are looking strong, they have 4 freshman and 3 sophmores, they were just tempoing the race at U of R and shouldnt be counted out after all its still early in the season and only mid-september. those teams like geneseo, U of R, Cortland, SLU, and Dickinson should really watch out. it's the underdogs that usually come out of nowhere and win it all.
lapdog wrote:
Bryant and Stratton is my pick for d3 nationals this year and possibly next year, theyre a young team and are looking strong, they have 4 freshman and 3 sophmores, they were just tempoing the race at U of R and shouldnt be counted out after all its still early in the season and only mid-september. those teams like geneseo, U of R, Cortland, SLU, and Dickinson should really watch out. it's the underdogs that usually come out of nowhere and win it all.
+1
Team Mate wrote:
THANK YOU. What is the matter with people? Do you (I'm talking at least as much to coaches as to athletes) *really* think that cross-country runners are somehow capable of only three or four true "race efforts" per season?
The point of a race is *to compete*. If you just want to get a run over a particular course, show up early and get your run while other teams are warming up. But if you participate in a RACE, it's your job to try to beat as many other teams in the race as you can.
You have one of the stronger teams and want to work on a particular team strategy? Here's a thought: have a season's schedule that includes a dual or triangular meet ("What's that?") or two against lesser teams, and try out your strategy there *while still running to win*.
If you think runners (who've had an adequate pre- and early-season preparation) can't be *strengthened* by making full race efforts during the season, you're wrong.
It's a fact of cross-country life that, in the biggest meets, you're going to go out at faster than even pace; and on most championship courses, you're going to *have to* do that if you want to win (or place high). If you think your team is being prepared for that situation by going out easy in its regular-season meets...again, you're wrong.
I'm not a particular UR fan, and I wouldn't be surprised if they finish somewhat worse at Regionals than they did at their own invitational, on their own course. But at least they know what it's like--how it feels--to go out "too fast," and yet still continue to *compete* the rest of the race. In recent years, they've been doing a little better at season's end than most people expect; who knows, maybe running races *like races* earlier in the season has helped make them ready when it counts!
+1[/quote][/quote]
-1
u6 wrote:
THANK YOU. What is the matter with people? Do you (I'm talking at least as much to coaches as to athletes) *really* think that cross-country runners are somehow capable of only three or four true "race efforts" per season?
The point of a race is *to compete*. If you just want to get a run over a particular course, show up early and get your run while other teams are warming up. But if you participate in a RACE, it's your job to try to beat as many other teams in the race as you can.
You have one of the stronger teams and want to work on a particular team strategy? Here's a thought: have a season's schedule that includes a dual or triangular meet ("What's that?") or two against lesser teams, and try out your strategy there *while still running to win*.
If you think runners (who've had an adequate pre- and early-season preparation) can't be *strengthened* by making full race efforts during the season, you're wrong.
It's a fact of cross-country life that, in the biggest meets, you're going to go out at faster than even pace; and on most championship courses, you're going to *have to* do that if you want to win (or place high). If you think your team is being prepared for that situation by going out easy in its regular-season meets...again, you're wrong.
I'm not a particular UR fan, and I wouldn't be surprised if they finish somewhat worse at Regionals than they did at their own invitational, on their own course. But at least they know what it's like--how it feels--to go out "too fast," and yet still continue to *compete* the rest of the race. In recent years, they've been doing a little better at season's end than most people expect; who knows, maybe running races *like races* earlier in the season has helped make them ready when it counts!
no
u6 wrote:
THANK YOU. What is the matter with people? Do you (I'm talking at least as much to coaches as to athletes) *really* think that cross-country runners are somehow capable of only three or four true "race efforts" per season?
The point of a race is *to compete*. If you just want to get a run over a particular course, show up early and get your run while other teams are warming up. But if you participate in a RACE, it's your job to try to beat as many other teams in the race as you can.
You have one of the stronger teams and want to work on a particular team strategy? Here's a thought: have a season's schedule that includes a dual or triangular meet ("What's that?") or two against lesser teams, and try out your strategy there *while still running to win*.
If you think runners (who've had an adequate pre- and early-season preparation) can't be *strengthened* by making full race efforts during the season, you're wrong.
It's a fact of cross-country life that, in the biggest meets, you're going to go out at faster than even pace; and on most championship courses, you're going to *have to* do that if you want to win (or place high). If you think your team is being prepared for that situation by going out easy in its regular-season meets...again, you're wrong.
I'm not a particular UR fan, and I wouldn't be surprised if they finish somewhat worse at Regionals than they did at their own invitational, on their own course. But at least they know what it's like--how it feels--to go out "too fast," and yet still continue to *compete* the rest of the race. In recent years, they've been doing a little better at season's end than most people expect; who knows, maybe running races *like races* earlier in the season has helped make them ready when it counts!
u6, that may have been the most absurd post i have ever read. I don't even know where to start criticizing, so Im not going to. Coach Susan may take me up on that though. Watch out, I hear she is a keeper.
u6 wrote:
bruce willis wrote:What a cop out. Cortland lost to UofR by the rules of cross country. They held a race, scored the race, and UofR won. I don't care if Cortland used the Gallowalk method; they showed up at the park, pinned on numbers, spiked up, and ran a race.
THANK YOU. What is the matter with people? Do you (I'm talking at least as much to coaches as to athletes) *really* think that cross-country runners are somehow capable of only three or four true "race efforts" per season?
The point of a race is *to compete*. If you just want to get a run over a particular course, show up early and get your run while other teams are warming up. But if you participate in a RACE, it's your job to try to beat as many other teams in the race as you can.
You have one of the stronger teams and want to work on a particular team strategy? Here's a thought: have a season's schedule that includes a dual or triangular meet ("What's that?") or two against lesser teams, and try out your strategy there *while still running to win*.
If you think runners (who've had an adequate pre- and early-season preparation) can't be *strengthened* by making full race efforts during the season, you're wrong.
It's a fact of cross-country life that, in the biggest meets, you're going to go out at faster than even pace; and on most championship courses, you're going to *have to* do that if you want to win (or place high). If you think your team is being prepared for that situation by going out easy in its regular-season meets...again, you're wrong.
I'm not a particular UR fan, and I wouldn't be surprised if they finish somewhat worse at Regionals than they did at their own invitational, on their own course. But at least they know what it's like--how it feels--to go out "too fast," and yet still continue to *compete* the rest of the race. In recent years, they've been doing a little better at season's end than most people expect; who knows, maybe running races *like races* earlier in the season has helped make them ready when it counts!
St. Lawrence men make the gold race at Paul Short while Cortland/RPI/TCNJ settle for brown.
How did that happen?
http://www.paulshortxcrun.com/2012CollegeMenAssignments.pdf
St. Lawrence women make gold too, while other regional teams are in brown, not such a surprise.
http://www.paulshortxcrun.com/2012CollegeWomenAssignments.pdf