Unofficial 2019 D3 XC Thread (Official)

The reason why I'm being so tough on you is because I watched the UAA meet in person. With a mile to go, WashU was up by like 10 points. Then they all hit a hill with like a K to go, and for some reason WashU didn't handle it very well and their top guys faded fast. From what I saw, CMU is very lucky that they won that race. Neither WashU or CMU looked anything like national title contenders that day.

I would just like to clarify something real quick because no one seemed to fact check this. It was Sean O’Connor that won Rowan in a time of 25:00 not Grant O’Connor winning in 26:00. This changes the whole argument. Sean was better at grant at cross and though grant had a great 10k time Sean did not have as strong of one. The conditions were bad at Rowan in 2018 which is why SEAN O’Connor( who was a flotrack top 10) ran 25:00. This year conditions were better which is why we saw 24:00 and 24:02 from Watson and Pango. So a 29:20 guy did not run 26 minutes, a different guy ran 25 minutes. It is the same course and It was a full 8k and not short.

rare wrote:

proof? wrote:

Where did you get that info from?

I think that poster is misinformed, another poster made the same mistake yesterday. The Central and Great Lakes regional reps somehow got mixed in a document. The Otterbein coach is not the regional rep for the Central region. I do believe that the central region has not filled its position from the previous regional rep who left though, which doesn’t seem fair.

Yes correct, I read the document wrong, but you are correct that there still was no rep for the central region, which is still completely unfair

Tfrrs surfer wrote:

I would just like to clarify something real quick because no one seemed to fact check this. It was Sean O’Connor that won Rowan in a time of 25:00 not Grant O’Connor winning in 26:00. This changes the whole argument. Sean was better at grant at cross and though grant had a great 10k time Sean did not have as strong of one. The conditions were bad at Rowan in 2018 which is why SEAN O’Connor( who was a flotrack top 10) ran 25:00. This year conditions were better which is why we saw 24:00 and 24:02 from Watson and Pango. So a 29:20 guy did not run 26 minutes, a different guy ran 25 minutes. It is the same course and It was a full 8k and not short.

I can't believe we just took the guy's word for it the whole time. Thanks for checking.

While Sean O'Conner was Flotrack top 10 at the time, he only finished 48th place at nationals that year. Immediately behind him in that race was Sean McAneny, who wound up 24th. If what the other guy said about the conditions was not hyperbole and were actually that bad, that's incredible. It means that two fringe top 25 athletes that year ran 25 flat in god awful conditions in early October. It might not be short, but it's definitely deceptively fast.

Bijan,

Regarding your speed adjustment for different meets, I am seeing a result that is confusing.

You have Williams Invitational with a meet adjustment factor of 115. Next you have the Williams Purple Valley Invite with a meet adjustment factor of 174. The latter is once removed from being the slowest course you created adjustments for.

If you click through to tfrrs you see that the link takes you to the exact same race date for a race held on September 28, 2019 | Mt Greylock High School Williamstown, MA.

Why would you get such dramatically different meet adjustment factors with the same inputs? Could you have potentially pulled in the 5K data?

Perhaps, I am missing something and it's my mistake.

Tfrrs surfer wrote:

I would just like to clarify something real quick because no one seemed to fact check this. It was Sean O’Connor that won Rowan in a time of 25:00 not Grant O’Connor winning in 26:00. This changes the whole argument. Sean was better at grant at cross and though grant had a great 10k time Sean did not have as strong of one. The conditions were bad at Rowan in 2018 which is why SEAN O’Connor( who was a flotrack top 10) ran 25:00. This year conditions were better which is why we saw 24:00 and 24:02 from Watson and Pango. So a 29:20 guy did not run 26 minutes, a different guy ran 25 minutes. It is the same course and It was a full 8k and not short.

Apparently you didn't fact check very well. It was Grant O'Connor who ran 26:00. Look at the 2018 Atlantic Regional results. Only 21 people broke 27:00!

Wow...only 10 women under 23:00.

Shows how much weather can affect a course...pretty extreme when you look at the same exact course this year in October.

I’m talking about the invite at Rowan which was also last year for the 25:00 which also shows off a day where the conditions were terrible.

Tfrrs surfer wrote:

I’m talking about the invite at Rowan which was also last year for the 25:00 which also shows off a day where the conditions were terrible.

Ok, but were you not responding to me when I was referring to the Atlantic Regional meet? It rained at the first meet, but it was not that bad as the course was not at all saturated like it was later in the season.

Dhdj wrote:

Tfrrs surfer wrote:

I’m talking about the invite at Rowan which was also last year for the 25:00 which also shows off a day where the conditions were terrible.

Ok, but were you not responding to me when I was referring to the Atlantic Regional meet? It rained at the first meet, but it was not that bad as the course was not at all saturated like it was later in the season.

I was responding to you thinking you were talking about the invite. My B. Either way I’m arguing for the course not being short and it being the same by saying Sean O’Connor ran a 25 flat in bad conditions. The reason grant ran 26 was because the conditions were bad and they weren’t taking it out fast because it was just a qualifying meet. However bringing up a 2 minute drop from 26 last year to 24 this year makes it sound like the course was short this year. By showing that they also ran a 25 flat in bad conditions further shows the course is the same and the conditions were better this year. Conditions can definatley make a 1 minute difference. In response to the conn college being 27 secs slower than Rowan, that is just ridiculous. Having run on both courses they are very even and I would go as far to say conn college was a little easier due to bad footing at Rowan this year.

No, they did not take it easy at regionals. The course was the worst any course could ever be and it was 35 degrees with 40 mph sustained winds. It was a brutal day on a course that cannot absorb rain. Enough with arguing for these two to win. They can’t sniff Aidan Ryan. This man will win by over 12-15 seconds if he waits until 5k to make his move. If he wants to make a point he will win by 30. Guy will own all the records on the track- mile/3k/5k/1500/5k by the time he’s done.

I’ve heard rumors of regionals and even NCAA’s moving to Rowan in the future and we should all boycott if it does. Not only is it possible for the course to be under water, it is also possible the lead cart will take you the wrong way, and awards will be in a dirt floored barn. Now that I think about it, maybe that’s why the times were so fast...the lead cart went the wrong way. Happens every year at Rowan.

The 25 last year was in pretty decent conditions and they probably changed it just enough this year to chop off some distance. You can also look at Bill Fritz that year, it was on the same course and was in somewhat hot conditions but went slow even for an early season meet. It really seems like something changed with the course between years. It's ok though you can still use it as your 8k PR, no one will "fact check" you

It was the same course as last year...nothing was "chopped off". It was measured to exactly 8k.

You all need to stop behaving like a babbling, bumbling band of baboons! No one cares about the east coast!

The south will rise again!

I don't believe Paul Short or Rowan are short - just close approximations to a grass track when the conditions are good.

I've posted both the old format of results and now the new one with simulating the meet 5,000 times. My feeling is that there is a bit of a bias in the favor of the West men, especially since they haven't run in weather below 70 all season.... I still think the 6 teams I have with good chances of being on the podium seem about right though:

1 Williams 1.20 1-1 102.28 0.83 1.00

2 North Central (Ill.) 2.56 2-3 149.53 0.09 0.95

3 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 3.52 2-5 174.72 0.07 0.75

4 Pomona-Pitzer 4.72 3-6 207.87 0.00 0.53

5 SUNY Geneseo 5.20 4-6 220.73 0.00 0.35

6 Carnegie Mellon 5.69 4-7 231.37 0.00 0.30

1 Williams 90 [1, 16, 20, 25, 28, 30, 44]

2 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 132 [11, 13, 14, 29, 65, 136, 141]

3 North Central (Ill.) 146 [6, 15, 23, 43, 59, 61, 67]

4 SUNY Geneseo 191 [9, 27, 35, 54, 66, 78, 128]

5 Carnegie Mellon 210 [18, 36, 40, 56, 60, 69, 91]

6 Pomona-Pitzer 223 [4, 46, 50, 52, 71, 73, 82]

Let me know if you prefer the average format (old one) or the new one with simulations.

Washed-up Grad Student wrote:

I don't believe Paul Short or Rowan are short - just close approximations to a grass track when the conditions are good.

I've posted both the old format of results and now the new one with simulating the meet 5,000 times. My feeling is that there is a bit of a bias in the favor of the West men, especially since they haven't run in weather below 70 all season.... I still think the 6 teams I have with good chances of being on the podium seem about right though:

1 Williams 1.20 1-1 102.28 0.83 1.00

2 North Central (Ill.) 2.56 2-3 149.53 0.09 0.95

3 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 3.52 2-5 174.72 0.07 0.75

4 Pomona-Pitzer 4.72 3-6 207.87 0.00 0.53

5 SUNY Geneseo 5.20 4-6 220.73 0.00 0.35

6 Carnegie Mellon 5.69 4-7 231.37 0.00 0.30

1 Williams 90 [1, 16, 20, 25, 28, 30, 44]

2 Claremont-Mudd-Scripps 132 [11, 13, 14, 29, 65, 136, 141]

3 North Central (Ill.) 146 [6, 15, 23, 43, 59, 61, 67]

4 SUNY Geneseo 191 [9, 27, 35, 54, 66, 78, 128]

5 Carnegie Mellon 210 [18, 36, 40, 56, 60, 69, 91]

6 Pomona-Pitzer 223 [4, 46, 50, 52, 71, 73, 82]

Let me know if you prefer the average format (old one) or the new one with simulations.

Bijan, which model do you think will be more accurate?

I read it all on the site. I think its great. Love the Einstein quote.

However, I have a hunch that the rankings are skewing against the midwest somehow. Now, I do think Williams will ultimately win, and I would love to see them knock off NCC as much as anyone, but I struggle to see how this season's results cause NCC to wind up that far behind Williams, and even behind CMS in the simulations. If Williams does win, it will probably be very close. And if NCC does finish 3rd or 4th, it will be because the team is tired from racing hard the whole year and ran poorly when it mattered.

But my biggest surprise in on the women's side. Your numbers have Hopkins absolutely dominating the national meet, with no one even coming close. 100% win probability??? 5,000 times out of 5,000??? Seriously? Something has to be off, man.

I am very confident that JH won't run away with it. It is going to be close between Hopkins and WashU (again), and based purely off results, it looks to me like WashU has the slight edge. Their past 3 races, WashU has had a 1-5 split of around 45 seconds, give or take, with the 6th always close behind. That split is off the defending national champ, and she hasn't even been remotely challenged yet this year, except it looks like by an Oshkosh alum. It's tough to compare that to Hopkins because the Blue Jays had like a 10 second split at Rowan, followed by a 45 second or so split at their conference meet, and then sat their top 5 at regionals. But at both Rowan and the Centennial, Hopkins #1 was pretty far behind the race winner. That makes me think she'll be pretty far behind Lawler on Saturday and that WashU can win the same way they did last year: strength up front and just enough support behind them.

That's just my take. Only time will tell whether or not I'm totally wrong.

P.S. Love D'Anieri's middle 50%. 6th-74th LOL. Did he win any simulations? Did he also finish in the 200 club in some?

It seems from some posts on your website that you are concerned with the top 35. Just wondering whether your all american predictions are using the top 35 or the top 40.

Word on the street is that Patel will be coaching at Williams starting in January. Can anyone confirm this? Is Jamie Norton trying to form a super team? I know Patel has been a big Williams fan as of late, but it's still kind of shocking.