Big Ten Results

She did, I was speaking in the hypothetical. Perhaps "didn't" would've been more appropriate.

think about this for a minute wrote:

Dude, they haven't even figured out there are now 12 teams in the league, not 10, and you expect them to tabulate results of a couple hundred runners in a matter of minutes?

Stupid. Of course they know how many teams are in the conference.

I bet they know wrote:

think about this for a minute wrote:

Dude, they haven't even figured out there are now 12 teams in the league, not 10, and you expect them to tabulate results of a couple hundred runners in a matter of minutes?

Stupid. Of course they know how many teams are in the conference.

Its sarcasm killer. He's referring to them calling it the Big 10 with 12 teams. Still think he's the stupid one?

just out of curiosity what was the trash?

midwesta wrote:

I will say, I was pleasantly surprised by the Wisconsin women. If Sisson doesn't transfer, they have another in the top five and would be looking at runner-up in the conference.

I don't know what that means.

I wonder if the lack of a winner in the Minnesota/Michigan tie for 3rd could end impacting the NCAA field, if one of these teams is on the bubble, but misses the possible point from beating the other.

Interesting to think about. If this does happen, I could see the conference changing the rule, so that at least one of two teams gets that advantage.

LasseViren10K wrote:

I wonder if the lack of a winner in the Minnesota/Michigan tie for 3rd could end impacting the NCAA field, if one of these teams is on the bubble, but misses the possible point from beating the other.

Interesting to think about. If this does happen, I could see the conference changing the rule, so that at least one of two teams gets that advantage.

This is exactly the question I was asking (see above); no one has addressed this issue. My default thinking is that they did not beat them so there are no points. Maybe they should get half a point ;>)

superman wrote:

Its sarcasm killer. He's referring to them calling it the Big 10 with 12 teams. Still think he's the stupid one?

I understand the point he is trying to make. The fact remains that despite the name of the conference, those in charge of the conference are certainly aware that there are 12 teams in the Big 10.

All Michigan has to do is get 3rd at regionals and they're in. Notre Dame is only team even close and I can't picture an upset there. Even if they cruise a bit and get 4th, they have plenty of "points" to get at-large.

Minnesota in even better spot due to how well they ran at Wisconsin meet. Get 3rd and maybe even 4th and you're set.

On the post-race video Andy Bayer was talking about the Regional meet and how they and Wisconsin would probably talk and workout how they might run more or less together (rather than trying to kill themselves racing each other), in part because they have a pretty good mutual respect for each other. They did run this way last year, I think. Since Wisconsin has beaten many good teams, they could easily finish fourth and still qualify, especially since they would have beaten most teams that are likely to have a chance of being first or second. However, I still think it likely that they will to push to win Regionals, even if they use some of the 6/7/8/9/10 guys to try and determine who to run 6/7 at NCAAs.

Wisconsin will continue their tradition of under performing at the NCAA meet.

I bet the 6th and 7th spots for nationals are already decided and that Shields and Brice will be running. They were a significant distance up on the 8th and 9th guys yesterday, and have been for the entire season other than Brice's off race at Adidas. It seems counter productive for nationals to make someone try to earn their spot at regionals and risk not being at full strength 9 days later. That being said, last year Brill ran at regionals and then Shields replaced him for nats. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar took place this year.

They will run all 5 of their top 5, sothey can play around.

But they will absolutely auto and probably win as well.

They do every year.

coach d. wrote:

Wisconsin will continue their tradition of under performing at the NCAA meet.

That period (".") after the d is giving you away as a TROLL. No one legit pulls such cheap tricks.

coach d. wrote:

Wisconsin will continue their tradition of under performing at the NCAA meet.

Wisconsin has been the most consistent performer at NCAAs out of the 5 or 6 powerhouse teams in the last 10 years.

Just the facts Jack wrote:

coach d. wrote:

Wisconsin will continue their tradition of under performing at the NCAA meet.

Wisconsin has been the most consistent performer at NCAAs out of the 5 or 6 powerhouse teams in the last 10 years.

Try the last 30 years. The only time they've really blown was the loss to Colorado in 2004 when they had Bairu, Tegenkamp, and Solinsky up front.

And probably 1984 when they were 4th.

break it up wrote:

And probably 1984 when they were 4th.

I thin that 1984 might have been the year that the badly messed up the start, with one side of the start line (with several of the top 2-3 teams) being much further up the course than Wisconsin, who were at the other end of the field and not only did they have to run many meters further but they also got stuck behind a ton of runners and had to work there was through it. Someone like Hacker can probably clarify the specifics.

26mi235 wrote:

I thin that 1984 might have been the year that the badly messed up the start, with one side of the start line (with several of the top 2-3 teams) being much further up the course than Wisconsin,

Several of the top 2-3 teams? Is this the new math?

Not sure if was some or all -- go make up your own description. Clearly I was relating a story that I heard and did not have all of the details (including that it was in George Orwell's year).