OSU: 2,7,17,25,32 := 83
UW : 6,10,15,22,29:= 82
OSU's 2 could be a 1 - in that case both teams score 82.
OSU: 2,7,17,25,32 := 83
UW : 6,10,15,22,29:= 82
OSU's 2 could be a 1 - in that case both teams score 82.
After Pre Nats, you have to add Colorado to the list potential podium teams. Wetmore is a crafty SOB.
Wisco actually develops people, Ok State just recruits.
2nd person police wrote:
Wisconsin is running a lot like Stanford has the last two years...It's hard to say what will happen during the stress and pace at NCAA's...Stanford went from looking unbeatable to atrocious when the real stress hit...We'll see.
The difference is that Stanford had a couple real strong guys and then a gap back to 3/4/5. That gap was not apparent because the 1/2 guys ran with them and helped them through but when there were so many good competitors, those guys could not run together and the weaker guys were lost and ran poorly.
By contrast, there is not a lot of distance between 1-5 for Wisconsin, with their #5 guy (Connor) from last year and supposedly this year, finishing first and tie first for Wisconsin the last two races.
Both teams (OSU and Wisconsin) are very strong, with OSU having a better 6th man probably but it likely will not come to a 6th man). One unknown is how they do going up to 10k from 8k. In the past Wisconsin has had some strong miler types for 4/5/6 but here Connor, who won the 5000 at Big Tens over the likes of his teammates, Mead, the Indiana guys, etc, is probably the 'shortest' in terms of orientation and he looked pretty fresh Friday.
Slight advantage to OSU but since they will be racing each other in the top 15 or so (of the scoring runners; e.g., excluding Lalang and the guy from S. Utah, etc), some of those spots will count double when they change by one place. Normally the intervals are bigger through the top 15 so that a second slower changes at most one place, but now the effect of one place in enlarged.
morespeculation wrote:
OSU: 2,7,17,25,32 := 83
UW : 6,10,15,22,29:= 82
OSU's 2 could be a 1 - in that case both teams score 82.
I'm thinking this is very close to right. But it could go either way. OSU's #1 guy in 2nd could easily be in 3rd or 4th too. You've always got to wonder about the 5th guy falling off just a few places at the end.
If both teams run well it will likely be very close.
To the guy who said we should watch for Colorado. -Yes, for sure they're looking good, they'll be up there. But not likely in the top 3.
My guess is that Wisconsin has 4-5 guys in the top 20, and at most 1 in 20-30 if everything goes right.
OSU could do the same and have more in the top 10. Tough call with OSU getting the edge on the basis of two-straight and the way that they showed up to get them. GF is a question, as he has had some NCAA race problems and might falter on a wet and slippery Indiana State course.
Chad may be decent but everyone on that team is hit or miss. They always peak too soon and have poor performance at the end
I would guess that OSU is downplaying as usual.
Thinking about it, farell was running 13.26 on 5000m in 2011 and 14.12 in 2010 (so improving a lot).
Maybe now around 13.18-13.20 but still not as good as lowe and GF.
So Where does that place lowe and GF ? probably right in contention for a podium.
So three guys scoring about 15 points together + 15 points (4th runner) + 25 points (5th)= 55 points.
sausage mustard wrote:
Thinking about it, farell was running 13.26 on 5000m in 2011 and 14.12 in 2010 (so improving a lot).
Maybe now around 13.18-13.20 but still not as good as lowe and GF.
So both lowe and gf are pushing 13:10 fitness? Or only just 13:15ish? We need to know!
Podium fitness is what you need to know.
Rupp, mc dougal, bairu, chelanga were all close to 13.20.
There is no monopoly as GF, lowe, and farell have been very close to 13.20 during Track.
They always prepare more for XC than for track, they might be fitter than during track season.
sausage mustard wrote:
Podium fitness is what you need to know.
Rupp, mc dougal, bairu, chelanga were all close to 13.20.
There is no monopoly as GF, lowe, and farell have been very close to 13.20 during Track.
They always prepare more for XC than for track, they might be fitter than during track season.
PBs
GF 13:25 (but it's been a long time)
Farrell 13:26
Lowe 13:42
Not sure if these times count as "very close to 13:20" to you. To me 13:42 is very far from 13:20 and even an ancient 13:25 and a current 13:26 don't seem to indicate 13:20 fitness. But I suppose "very close" is a term that can mean what one chooses for it to mean.
Let's Play Monopoly Times!!! wrote:
sausage mustard wrote:Thinking about it, farell was running 13.26 on 5000m in 2011 and 14.12 in 2010 (so improving a lot).
Maybe now around 13.18-13.20 but still not as good as lowe and GF.
So both lowe and gf are pushing 13:10 fitness? Or only just 13:15ish? We need to know!
Pushing 13:10 fitness, really? It is not like that is a particularly mundane level for college athletes. Rupp's PR until late summer was 13:06, and these guys are not on par with Rupp at this point.
If it comes to a choice between two evenly-matched teams, I'll go with whichever one has had more 10k races during the season.
T&FN did a great study, years (decades) ago, that established a surprisingly strong correlation between the number 10k races run during the season (actually 6mi races, then) and how a team would perform at Nationals.
Of course, this was also at a time when teams typically got in 8-10 races before Nationals...
aher wrote:
If it comes to a choice between two evenly-matched teams, I'll go with whichever one has had more 10k races during the season.
T&FN did a great study, years (decades) ago, that established a surprisingly strong correlation between the number 10k races run during the season (actually 6mi races, then) and how a team would perform at Nationals.
Of course, this was also at a time when teams typically got in 8-10 races before Nationals...
Those results make sense to me. People used to race 10k's every week and raced well. I can see racing harder and faster every other week, with more time for preparation between. However, most current college plans are to jog all races during the season, then expect to race fast in the final.
Now that we are taking about track credentials here are some of Wisco's guys:
Mo Ahmed- 13:34 closing in 57ish in a tactical West Regional NCAA qualifying
Maverick Darling- 13:36.65 on an indoor 200m track
Reed Connor- 13:48 closing in 54 mid at West Regionals
Elliot Krause- 28:43.34 10,000m
Ryan Collins- 13:46.41 indoor mark
These guys are no slouches, 4/5 are more 10k guys.
Well that solves it.
13:25 > 13:34
13:26 > 13:36
13:42 > 13:42
28:26 > 28:43
29:08 < 13:48
13:42 > 13:46*
ok st wrote:
Well that solves it [what].
13:25(old, what have you done lately, as in 14 last year?) ? 13:34 (tactical)
13:26 ?> 13:36 Indoors tactical
13:42 ? 13:46* Indoors
29:08 ? 13:48
OSU looks a bit better up top and at #6, but UW tighter, and at 1.5 points/sec at #5 vs 0.5 points/sec at #1 or 2,
That is why the polls are 8 to 4 OSU vs UW
There are 12 xc polls?
webby wrote:
There are 12 xc polls?