DIII Cross Country: 2011

One of the problems for MIT was that the their 3-5 runners on Sept 17 were freshmen (Baranov, Leung, Wenck), and they have faded throughout the season. Leung finished 70th at the regional meet, way off his early season best.

Teams which rely heavily on freshmen have a hard time later in the season. Some teams have done well, but more often than not, they fall apart.

DIII New England Runner wrote:

One of the problems for MIT was that the their 3-5 runners on Sept 17 were freshmen (Baranov, Leung, Wenck), and they have faded throughout the season. Leung finished 70th at the regional meet, way off his early season best.

Teams which rely heavily on freshmen have a hard time later in the season. Some teams have done well, but more often than not, they fall apart.

Wenck never raced again after that. don't know if he was injured or what, but he was the Colorado state XC champ last year and top 10 at NXN! definitely would have helped to have him in there. They really stunk it up at regionals, compared to last year when they came out of nowhere to win.

Anyone know what the course record on the course is (individual and team?) Will it go down? Doing a little digging the fastest times seemed to come from 2007. Based on those times sub 24 should be possible in 2011.

Individual Results

Place Name Year School Time Pace

===== ================== ==== ===================== ======== =====

1 Brian Butzler Sr. University of Wiscons 24:01.71 4:51

2 Ryan Williams Sr. NYU 24:10.04 4:52

3 Ian Ramsey-North Sr. Haverford College 24:12.29 4:53

4 Donald Letts Sr. Haverford College 24:15.34 4:53

5 Jesse Schneider Jr. NYU 24:16.48 4:53

6 Hany Abdallah Sr. NYU 24:20.63 4:54

7 Chris Guerriero Jr. The College of New Je 24:33.32 4:57

8 Brandon Mull Jr. Wheaton College 24:35.40 4:57

9 Paul Brown 24:35.91 4:57

10 Ryan Carrigan So. North Central College 24:36.26 4:57

What about the team times:

1. 68 New York Univ. ( 24:38 2:03:06)

2. 71 Haverford College ( 24:41 2:03:25)

Can any OshKosh people confirm these are the fastest individual and team times?

Course Records??? wrote:

Anyone know what the course record on the course is (individual and team?) Will it go down? Doing a little digging the fastest times seemed to come from 2007. Based on those times sub 24 should be possible in 2011.

Individual Results

Place Name Year School Time Pace

===== ================== ==== ===================== ======== =====

1 Brian Butzler Sr. University of Wiscons 24:01.71 4:51

2 Ryan Williams Sr. NYU 24:10.04 4:52

3 Ian Ramsey-North Sr. Haverford College 24:12.29 4:53

4 Donald Letts Sr. Haverford College 24:15.34 4:53

5 Jesse Schneider Jr. NYU 24:16.48 4:53

6 Hany Abdallah Sr. NYU 24:20.63 4:54

7 Chris Guerriero Jr. The College of New Je 24:33.32 4:57

8 Brandon Mull Jr. Wheaton College 24:35.40 4:57

9 Paul Brown 24:35.91 4:57

10 Ryan Carrigan So. North Central College 24:36.26 4:57

What about the team times:

1. 68 New York Univ. ( 24:38 2:03:06)

2. 71 Haverford College ( 24:41 2:03:25)

Can any OshKosh people confirm these are the fastest individual and team times?

Those probably were some of the fastest individual times, I know they had nationals there in 1999 or 2000 but I think the course is slightly different. This is probably the fastest team times.

1. 22 North Central College ( 24:32 2:02:37)

====================================

1 2 Michael Spain 24:25

2 3 Nathaniel Hird 24:26

3 4 Kyle Brady 24:29

4 6 Ryan Carrigan 24:37

5 7 Sean Carlson 24:40

6 ( 9) Neal Klein 24:41

7 ( 10) Alex Knobloch 24:41

Equinox2100 wrote:

Cal doesn't hold a candle to MIT.

They definitely are working 15 hour days, EASILY. It's clear you've never been nor know anyone who goes.

Back to running, here's something to keep in mind -

Oshkosh is a grass track. The 'tough' XC guys are kind of SOL on this course. Those who will fare the best are the true 5k/10k track guys IMO.

Take a look at the performance lists from last season, and you'll see tons of those names filling up the All American spots.

IMO, 5 guys break 24, 24:25 gets you All-American.

Yeah alright man I don't know why MIT even bothers fielding a team then, since they're all literally slaving away in salt mines 24/7.

Back to running, if the course is soft Oshkosh can be deceptively tough. It still runs fairly fast, but going out hard when the ground is soft there can wear you out.

Yeah, times were pretty fast in 1999.

http://www.pe.pomona.edu/sports/wxc/HistoriansReport/Results/1999Men.htm

1 1 Dave Davis, Sr 23:42.3 Puget Sound

2 2 Colin Young, Sr 23:51.9 North Central College

3 3 Tim McCoskey, Jr 23:53.3 North Central College

4 4 Thor Esbensen, Jr 23:57.8 Nebraska Wesleyan

5 5 Scott Jensen, Sr 23:58.7 Keene State College

6 6 Dan Peso, Sr 24:00.9 Wisconsin-La Crosse

7 Samson Yohannes, Sr 24:01.7 Brandeis University

8 7 Jesse Drake, Jr 24:02.2 Wisconsin-Stevens Pt

9 8 Michael Danahy, Sr 24:02.7 Bates College

10 Tim Julien, Sr 24:05.5 Washington University

The course is slightly different than when it was run back then. It has made a difference, but it is still pretty fast.

poor MIT guys. i probably did 2 hours of work a day, was injured most of college, and have come out of it...wait a minute, still hoping things work out. good for those guys though, i just could never do sustained work like that.

xcrunna12 wrote:

Men-

Nelson? (just cruised to Q at regionals)

Perez?

Berube?

Sathre? (second place last year)

Schmidt?

Arnold?

Horowitz?

Kerr?

Rand?

Burnstein?

Brainerd? (seems to be peaking better this year)

I'll go with Sathre, Brainerd and Perez for my top 3

Lol, I don't think Kerr belongs on that list. Have you ever seen him race? That kid is huge. He totally fell apart in the 10k last spring, I don't know if he really belongs in the mix of All-Americans. Lake Region is one of the easiest regions around, that's why Calvin wins it every year, despite falling apart at nationals in recent years.

The Great Lakes Regional Course is short. I wheeled it at 4.5 miles.

If you knew Kerr's story you would only be amazed and inspired. He and VanderRoest have been running like AA's all year, its the rest of Calvin's team that needs to step up if they are going to have any chance of living up to their ranking.

scratchthat wrote:

xcrunna12 wrote:

Men-

Nelson? (just cruised to Q at regionals)

Perez?

Berube?

Sathre? (second place last year)

Schmidt?

Arnold?

Horowitz?

Kerr?

Rand?

Burnstein?

Brainerd? (seems to be peaking better this year)

I'll go with Sathre, Brainerd and Perez for my top 3

Lol, I don't think Kerr belongs on that list. Have you ever seen him race? That kid is huge. He totally fell apart in the 10k last spring, I don't know if he really belongs in the mix of All-Americans. Lake Region is one of the easiest regions around, that's why Calvin wins it every year, despite falling apart at nationals in recent years.

waaaaah wrote:

Cowboy Bebop wrote:

Don't be surprised if Eric Reichert (Elizabethtown) is in the mix at the finish -- sure, he was 21st in the region this year, but he's a 2x all american who came in 16th at regionals and moved up to 11th in the nation last year. The kid can always pull a great race out of his ass when he needs to.

I still don't know how Etown even got in. So what if they were ranked 23rd going into regionals? They stunk it up when it really mattered. That should have counted against them when it came to getting selected for nationals.

You don't know why because you're a dumb college kid who loves to pop off without knowing what you're talking about. Which makes you a perfect customer for this site. They beat cortland and Rochester, that's how they got in. They also came within 50points of 2nd in the largest region. Those are actual selection criteria. That's what they looked at, not the rankings. It is actually predictable who will get in based on the published criteria. If you're pissed that your team didn't make it, you should ne bitching about Rochester getting a bid.

Who should have gotten in instead of Rochester? Again, look at the criteria. They were 59 points off the winner in the 2nd largest Region. And Atlantic is historically strong each year - last year they put 3 teams in the top 10 and the last team out of that Region (Rochester) was 17th.The only team with any argument that they were "left out" would be Willamette.Quit bitching about the team that did and didn't get in... if you read the criteria published by the NCAA, you would see that the committee picked EXACTLY the field that they should have, based on Regional results.

fjffff wrote:

waaaaah wrote:

I still don't know how Etown even got in. So what if they were ranked 23rd going into regionals? They stunk it up when it really mattered. That should have counted against them when it came to getting selected for nationals.

You don't know why because you're a dumb college kid who loves to pop off without knowing what you're talking about. Which makes you a perfect customer for this site. They beat cortland and Rochester, that's how they got in. They also came within 50points of 2nd in the largest region. Those are actual selection criteria. That's what they looked at, not the rankings. It is actually predictable who will get in based on the published criteria. If you're pissed that your team didn't make it, you should ne bitching about Rochester getting a bid.

the academic excuse for MIT is not valid. It didn't stop them from winning the region last year did it? They just fell apart this year, no need to make excuses.

We're hoping to launch the DIII prediction contest later today but we're not sure if we have a list of all the top individuals.

Others have been helping us out on this spreadsheet but I'm just going to solicit your help one more time.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ag7wlrNme-uIdEFvV28zenZTUHR6U3I5dENubGFkOEE#gid=0

If the list is complete enough (you can always select other) let me know and we'll go live.

Running Times just posted an article about Liz Phillips from WashU -

http://runningtimes.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=24490&cm_mmc=Twitter-_-RT-_-Content-College-_-LizPhillips

That's what D3 is/should be all about

Explain? wrote:

Who should have gotten in instead of Rochester? Again, look at the criteria. They were 59 points off the winner in the 2nd largest Region. And Atlantic is historically strong each year - last year they put 3 teams in the top 10 and the last team out of that Region (Rochester) was 17th.

What are you talking about "2nd largest region"?? the Mideast and New England are neck and neck as the two biggest both in terms of teams and runners, with the Atlantic and Midwest significantly back in 3rd and 4th ( ~50-60 less runners). do your research before you claim to know what you're talking about.

That being said, I do think the committee got it exactly right this year, which they haven't done the past few years.

[quote]huge wrote:

If you knew Kerr's story you would only be amazed and inspired. He and VanderRoest have been running like AA's all year, its the rest of Calvin's team that needs to step up if they are going to have any chance of living up to their ranking.[quote]

Huge, I'm just going off of history here. Recently, Calvin always gets talked up and fizzles, individually and as a team. Kerr might be a great guy, but I don't think anyone at Calvin, except Kramer, can run with the big boys.

you missed the point...based on the selection rules, etown was always gonna get in ahead of cortland and rochester. so the guy whining about etown getting in was barking up the wrong tree. i don't think anyone is complaining about rochester getting in?