BRF wrote:
But several potential Princeton scorers don't seem to have competed *at all* this season...are they really likely to debut at Heps?
Can you even do that? Educate a relative newcomer to the Heps Track scene: can you enter the meet without a mark?
Yes, you may enter as NT (No Time). Callahan did this in the 800 last year at Cornell.
Crushing it wrote:
BRF wrote:But several potential Princeton scorers don't seem to have competed *at all* this season...are they really likely to debut at Heps?
Can you even do that? Educate a relative newcomer to the Heps Track scene: can you enter the meet without a mark?
They do that a lot in the longer distance events (3k, 5k). 5k is typically one heat, so it isn't a problem for seeding purposes. I know that for some years, they have split the 3k into slot/fast heats but I don't know how they dealt with NT going into them. The heat sheets get updated with the results once the event is complete.
The only restrictions are total squad size (33 indoors, 36 outdoors), and no more than five (IIRC) entrants per event. A lot of people are figuring that Abbey D'Ag will run the 5,000m--she has no time for that event this season.
When you have two sections of the 3,000, you can very readily have the best athlete in the event running in the slow section--if s/he doesn't have a time for the distance that season.
BRF wrote:
When you have two sections of the 3,000, you can very readily have the best athlete in the event running in the slow section--if s/he doesn't have a time for the distance that season.
In 1991, there were even two heats of the 5K. Princeton's Bill Burke was entered with a NT, so he was in the slow heat, which went first. After he solo'd a 14:11 (back then this was a reasonably big deal), everyone in the fast heat looked at each other and realized that they would be running for second place.
LOL. Nice story, Pretty Brook. It is amazing on how the performances have changed in the last 10 to 20 years.
Tigerfan wrote:
TK1451 wrote:Looking at the performance list on TFRRS, it looks like Hep scores are being converted DOWN from a flat track, as though they would have scored lower on a banked track. Can anyone explain? e.g. Soerens (Pr) scored 5220 at home, showing up as 5116 after the conversion.
You're mistaken, the score before conversion was 5094, hand timing already allowed for.
Might want to inform the folks over at TFRRS that their lists are wrong, then
http://i.imgur.com/xaKWaSY.jpgPretty Brook wrote:
In 1991, there were even two heats of the 5K. Princeton's Bill Burke was entered with a NT, so he was in the slow heat, which went first. After he solo'd a 14:11 (back then this was a reasonably big deal), everyone in the fast heat looked at each other and realized that they would be running for second place.
Wasn't there a similar occurrence with Dave Nightingale a few (I suppose 6-7 isn't a few... getting old!) years back?
TK1451 wrote:
Tigerfan wrote:You're mistaken, the score before conversion was 5094, hand timing already allowed for.
Might want to inform the folks over at TFRRS that their lists are wrong, then
http://i.imgur.com/xaKWaSY.jpg
No their list is correct Soerens scored 5094 without the conversion, adjustment by TFRRS added 22 points for the 1000m. The original score was calculated using the handtiming tables.
Here's a photo of the scoreboard at the meet (blurred).
Sorry here it is: https://twitter.com/PrincetonTrack/status/297078501507493889/photo/1
Dartmouth Women ranked 18th in the Country. I am sure this is all due to Abbey D.
Sheila! wrote:
Dartmouth Women ranked 18th in the Country. I am sure this is all due to Abbey D.
http://www.flotrack.org/coverage/250049-2013-Indoor-Track-and-Field-on-Flotrack/article/18516-LSU-Women-No-1-in-DI-with-Oregon-Charging-Arkansas-Men-Remain-on-Top
Well, not *all* due to her--they've got several good athletes on that team...
But *largely* due to her--yeah, I'll give you that.
Dartmouth has been ranked as high as 15th, and yes, it is solely due to Abbey's #1 marks in the mile (formerly now) and 3k. Check out the PDF of the rankings by team - it will list all of the performances that make of their ranking.
I personally am not taking these rankings too seriously, as they previously included marks of athletes who hadn't competed yet this season, using their best marks from 2012.
C/M Runner wrote:
Dartmouth has been ranked as high as 15th, and yes, it is solely due to Abbey's #1 marks in the mile (formerly now) and 3k. Check out the PDF of the rankings by team - it will list all of the performances that make of their ranking.
http://www.ustfccca.org/assets/rankings/div1/2013-itf/NCAAD1_2013_indWk5_TF_NationalRankingsByTeam.pdfI personally am not taking these rankings too seriously, as they previously included marks of athletes who hadn't competed yet this season, using their best marks from 2012.
That's what I thought. It's based on points that a team can score in the NCAA championships and I don't think the Dartmouth Women have anyone else besides Abbey that could score points at a national level. In last years outdoor NCAA championship they placed quite high ahead of several big track program schools based only on Abbey's 1st in the 5K and Alexi P's 3rd in the Steeple.
Well, it is possible to place high at Nationals with minimal people if they all place high, mainly due to the sheer number of other people/teams present... can't really get away with that at Heps though. I don't think the National rankings should include "teams" if the "team"'s only scoring performances just come from one person. Then again, this is just my personal opinion.
HepsTrack will begin doing their Heps previews today.
The previews have started at Hepstrack.com.
C/M Runner wrote:
The previews have started at Hepstrack.com.
And LetsRun.com
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2013/02/2013-ivy-league-heptagonal-indoor-track-and-field-championships-mens-mid-d-distance-preview/Tigerfan wrote:
No their list is correct Soerens scored 5094 without the conversion, adjustment by TFRRS added 22 points for the 1000m. The original score was calculated using the handtiming tables.
Here's a photo of the scoreboard at the meet (blurred).
So where does the 5229 come from?
Mary, thanks to you all for the HTC previews. They do add to the anticipation/enjoyment of the meet!
It seems like the really big question is: Whom will Princeton put on the track? (I don't think they'd be likely to have a field eventer's season debut be at Heps, but I could certainly be wrong.)
Based on the info that "fun." has provided (which must have taken a *long* time to put together--thanks, man!), it seems pretty clear that, talent-wise, the meet is Princeton's to lose. We just don't know what the situation for those guys who've competed little--or not at all--is, and Princeton isn't telling. (Of course, why should they?)
To my mind, the Princeton men go into the meet as a slight but clear team favorite: there's just too much talent there. Unless they've had a *raft* of illness and injury, they stack up well against the rest of the League in almost every area except the throws.
In fact, even with just the guys we *know* have competed for Princeton, another Ivy title seems more likely than not.
Just my $.02.
TK1451 wrote:
Tigerfan wrote:No their list is correct Soerens scored 5094 without the conversion, adjustment by TFRRS added 22 points for the 1000m. The original score was calculated using the handtiming tables.
Here's a photo of the scoreboard at the meet (blurred).
So where does the 5229 come from?
I have no idea, I've never seen it anywhere but in your post.
