I have no idea, sometimes I am somewhat amused by what posts attract downvotes. But I would disagree that NC St is staggering other than the trend on the one runner I mentioned. But others trending in a good direction. Whatever the right Tic is, how many had Michalak or Engelhardt placing that high yesterday?
still no PreNats results in TFRRS but LAACTiC has evaluated the Nuttycombe and shows for yesterday Hartman 15:17, Napoleon 15:20, Michalak 15:33, Gapes 15:38, Englehardt 15:49.
A 15:38 for a 19:57, and a 15:49 for a 20:11 seem a wee bit generous, no?
For comparison, Time/TiC:
Nutty 2022…19:57/15:41, 20:11/15:52
Nutty 2024…19:57/15:55, 20:11/16:05
For 2024, conditions were definitely fast for both regular season meets, and not terrible for the Nationals.
I have no idea, sometimes I am somewhat amused by what posts attract downvotes. But I would disagree that NC St is staggering other than the trend on the one runner I mentioned. But others trending in a good direction. Whatever the right Tic is, how many had Michalak or Engelhardt placing that high yesterday?
Michalak earned 2 green arrows up;
Positives:
Napoleon 19greenUp
Englehardt 22greenUp
and Negatives:
Putman 55redDown 👀
Rauber 44redDown 👀
But I cannot (literally) determine a trend on Rauber from just one result. And she has a good history of performing her best at the year end championship meets.
one other possibly meaningless stat. NC St's top 4 times would have been in top 25 at both 2024 PreNats (fast conditions mid Oct) and Nationals (a little slower conditions mid Nov), and Engelhardt's time would have been close to 50 in both races. And NC St does have a pretty good track record of saving their best for Nationals. (As others did last year I believe). I still think the 2 squads at their best are 1) Historically strong teams and 2) Pretty close. And OR, which may remain a mystery, has the potential to be just as good.
This post was edited 40 seconds after it was posted.
Of course I’m referring to your previous #2; that spot might now belong to Napoleon.
and #5 seems to be trending toward Engelhardt. But especially Putman, the trend since the start of the season has been in the wrong direction. Gapes may just have been one bad day - to be seen
I finally watched the race last night. Gapes looked like she was going to pass out after the race. She also looked very uncomfortable throughout the race whenever I saw her on the screen. She doesn't have the most efficient form to begin with but it really looked like something was off. Hopefully that gets sorted out and she may have just not been felling well. It happens.
As mentioned many times, Napoleon looked great. I expect Napoleon, Gapes, and Michalak to have that #2 spot. Michalak, even though she was 9th in a respectable 19:50, also looked a bit rough. Hartman looked like she still had a lot left in the tank. She ran very controlled and looked good. She is such an easy strider and is going a lot faster than she looks.
rbtrackfan & Tuffy, the real Tuffy not the fake one, you both seem like you have a lot of insider knowledge into the program. I've asked a lot of times but will again, where is Templier? She was on the start list but apparently didn't travel to Madison. If she runs it's a whole different dynamic. If you look at how she ran last year in the West regional you can see that she is talented. She has had some other good results as well. Perhaps she will redshirt. Armitage may also.
Good for him. He deserves more time to build. But the men's team hasn't won nationals in 25 years. He wins the SEC, but when Arkansas joined the SEC, that was expected.
They’d finish top 2 or 3 if Peyton Noe was running this year - but her sitting out this XC season is actually going to be great for them, since she can now run 2 years with these 4 outstanding girls that Burns is bringing in.
This was likely a throw-away season, but the future in Fayetteville is bright.
I finally watched the race last night. Gapes looked like she was going to pass out after the race. She also looked very uncomfortable throughout the race whenever I saw her on the screen. She doesn't have the most efficient form to begin with but it really looked like something was off. Hopefully that gets sorted out and she may have just not been felling well. It happens.
As mentioned many times, Napoleon looked great. I expect Napoleon, Gapes, and Michalak to have that #2 spot. Michalak, even though she was 9th in a respectable 19:50, also looked a bit rough. Hartman looked like she still had a lot left in the tank. She ran very controlled and looked good. She is such an easy strider and is going a lot faster than she looks.
rbtrackfan & Tuffy, the real Tuffy not the fake one, you both seem like you have a lot of insider knowledge into the program. I've asked a lot of times but will again, where is Templier? She was on the start list but apparently didn't travel to Madison. If she runs it's a whole different dynamic. If you look at how she ran last year in the West regional you can see that she is talented. She has had some other good results as well. Perhaps she will redshirt. Armitage may also.
she's undefeated this year so far. forced to race the B race at gans creek and dominated - stayed with the leader for ages before she eventually decided to pick it up. This race, she did lose a lot of ground to 2 runners, but she finished so strong and seemed like she still had plenty in the tank.
Pat Shane was BYU’s coach during 1995-2003. But he was also the coach from 2006-2015.
If you want a blueprint of how to completely wreck a program, do what coach Shane did. By the time he was forced out, BYU was known as "the place where state champions go to die".
All you have to do is starve all of your female athletes into chronic, deep calorie deficits and train them into the ground.
Is there more about this? Everything i've read about Pat Shane is either extremely positive or extremely negative.
78 runners ran Nuttycombe today that ran Gans last month and their time averaged 37 seconds slower. Ignoring some obvious blowups put the average at 31. Consistent with last year about 30 seconds slower at Wisconsin. That would put NC St at 19:00, 19:05, 19:20, 19:27, 19:40. Today BYU was 18:42, 19:09, 19:41, 1945, 19:46. Presumably Hutchins would be down around 19:00-19:10. That would still put NC St with 5 before BYU 4th. Somewhat quick and simplistic - but the course to course time is pretty consistent and consistent with comments made by coaches. I am sure there will be downvotes, but provide data to contradict this. but as noted the dropoff to NC St 6 today was large.
Doesn't work that way in XC. Nice try though.
Both are clearly top tier contenders. Only way to know how they stack up is race head to head.
I did some checking and for a given time at Gans Creek Classic and Nuttycombe, LAACTiC rated the Nuttycombe result 25 seconds faster than the Gans Creek result. So a more analytic approach would adjust my 30 to 25 and bump the NC St times above up 5 seconds and tighten things up (assuming a good Hutchins result coming and no improvement in Gapes from Saturday).
But still awaiting how you would project ahead of the head to head race.
I did some checking and for a given time at Gans Creek Classic and Nuttycombe, LAACTiC rated the Nuttycombe result 25 seconds faster than the Gans Creek result. .
I’m not by any means an expert on the LACCTiC algorithm, but it seems the PreNats results (if they were actually available) should have influence on those TiC’s for better ‘accuracy’.
Kirwa 19:44 at Nuttycombe was 15:28 while Jemutai 19:44 at Gans Creek was 15:53
Kipkore 20:05 at Nuttycombe was 15:44 while Vringer at Gans Creek 20:04 was 16:08
but now I see I am stupid - 25 second difference in rating for a given time does mean 30 second difference in time for a given rating!
Thanks for correcting me! Amazing how my simplistic averaging for runners on one course vs the other which I am told "things don't work that way" actually lines up with the more sophisticated computation
I’m not by any means an expert on the LACCTiC algorithm, but it seems the PreNats results (if they were actually available) should have influence on those TiC’s for better ‘accuracy’.
Me either. Just speaking from a regular user experience, the LACCTiC ratings could be nonlinear applications of adjustments (thus logarithm), so faster times should be less impacted by the adjustments. I also suspect early season races fall into buildup phases for most teams (less than full effort), so November race times could be more predictive of the true TiC, if this is the goal. Although for some individual runners, the fatigue and injury factors may start to kick in. This is something beyond simple math.
Okay I am tired of waiting. Just use Gans Creek Classic table, we would get the following results. Basically the biggest positive is Riley Chamberlain, who outperformed her rating by at least 10 seconds. Everyone else including Jane Hedengren ran exactly as they were supposed to. No surprise.