yes i agree. about rit, was there race actually a 5.2 mile race or was it an 8k? if it was actually a 5.2 mile race maybe the coaches did not think much of it because they thought it was an 8k? or it was an 8k and the ranking is correct? just my $0.02
Rosalita wrote:
Pertaining to Ithaca, times mean something when you compare them year to year on the same course, and Ithaca's times were much worse than last years team, a team that for a time looked to be a contender for top 5. Ithaca will have to run a lot better this year to be top 5. I would almost imagine they are out of the top 10 right now.
Ithaca did look pretty awful, but it should be noted that the course was NOT the same as last year. It ran much, much slower. Just look at some of the other guys up top. The winner from last year ran 26:44 this year, and with better competition from Susquehanna's national qualifier Paul Thistle (and Bell)
I would say the course was 50 seconds slower than last year, at least, IMO
Just compare some of the results from athletes in the meet both years
That said, Ithaca did look pretty weak. You have to wonder if the 3 regional returners from last year who have not even run yet are injured, which would make them a non-factor as a team
the course that RIT raced on, was at SUNY Cobleskill and it is 5.2 miles but they label it as an 8km.
It's 2 4km loops (mostly pavement and one big hill and long gradual downhill that is mostly on pavement around the school and then there is a 300m final section on grass that tends to get real muddy)
Let me restate this, the course is 2 4km loops w/ a 300m-400m final straightaway
It was a road race?!?! Then those times are pretty equal to a real 8k then. pavement is so much faster than grass. Look at the road 8k championships versus xc 8k championships times. Give me a break. RIT doesn't deserve a vote.
i would say the course is 70% pavement and 30% grass
rit definately does not deserve a vote. sorry but the race is just not that immpressive being on pavement. it is much different then running on all grass mostly (like most xc courses). you really can not call that an xc race.
What a shitty course.
What happened to Lowe from RIT anyway. Wasn't he pretty good as a freshman? 4 years later and he just sneaking in under 27.
Some pretty serious health issues, from what I've heard.
Slowe wrote:
What happened to Lowe from RIT anyway. Wasn't he pretty good as a freshman? 4 years later and he just sneaking in under 27.
i'm sure his brother can give us an update...
This post was brought to my attention. As a general rule, I do not post. However, I would like if (for my own privacy) my health issues be kept off the internet for those of you who are in fact aware of what has/is going on.
Thanks and good luck this season,
Nick Lowe
THISISFREDONIA. wrote:
November...very well could be a completely different story knowing Geneseo's past.
What the heck are you smoking Fredonia??? Geneseo's past (last 6 years in a row qualifying for the NCAA Championsips) is better than most of the AR's past. And last year no one picked them to finish in the top 10 - they were 8th. Fredonia would kill to have such a "past."
fail fails wrote:
THISISFREDONIA. wrote:November...very well could be a completely different story knowing Geneseo's past.
What the heck are you smoking Fredonia??? Geneseo's past (last 6 years in a row qualifying for the NCAA Championsips) is better than most of the AR's past. And last year no one picked them to finish in the top 10 - they were 8th. Fredonia would kill to have such a "past."
Because the person trolling under the all caps'd name THISISFREDONIA must obviously come from Fredonia... Right?
Hahahaaaaaaaa.
That dude; he was sooo sneaky! How could we not have seen though his clever guise!?
Plattsburg's times didn't look that impressive this past weekend, besides Heyman. Rochester's and Fredonia's times Pretty much equate similiarly. They should be closer to plattsburg in the rankings than they are. I am surprised Rochester is ranked as low as they are. TCNJ and Ithaca have pretty much shown us crap and the top 4 teams have shown they deserve their rank.
1. Cortland (could have given top spot to geneseo but the spot is still cortland's to lose)
2. Geneseo
3. Nyu
4. St. Law
and in no particuliar order
T5. Plattsburg
T5. Fredonia
T5. Rochester
I would have had Rit in the mix if the course they ran on hadn't been mostly pavement.
I think the TCNJ guys will be in that mix for 5. The course they ran on wasn't fast, was it? Taken for what it was, a 5k in September, I wouldn't count it against them.
They were 6th last year, and really only lost Guerriero, so adding a year of strength on their young legs, I think they can at least make up the difference for around 5-6 again.
We'll see about RIT. The fact that the course was pavement shouldn't count against them, but it is a factor in performance. So we will have to wait and see what they have got.
I guess the reason why we discount TCNJ is because the one race they ran is only data we have on them right now.
These rankings really should be recognized as a "as far as we've seen" type of thing. So while TCNJ might be a powerhouse this year or RIT is actually a team of sub-26 guys, the only people who actually know that, are a part of the team in question. They will get credit once it is due. Until then; they will be judged in the manner that their results afford.
fjekasjfelsa;fjksalfjskaljlfla wrote:
Plattsburg's times didn't look that impressive this past weekend, besides Heyman. Rochester's and Fredonia's times Pretty much equate similiarly. They should be closer to plattsburg in the rankings than they are. I am surprised Rochester is ranked as low as they are. TCNJ and Ithaca have pretty much shown us crap and the top 4 teams have shown they deserve their rank.
1. Cortland (could have given top spot to geneseo but the spot is still cortland's to lose)
2. Geneseo
3. Nyu
4. St. Law
and in no particuliar order
T5. Plattsburg
T5. Fredonia
T5. Rochester
I would have had Rit in the mix if the course they ran on hadn't been mostly pavement.
Plattsburgh is spelled with an H at the end. It would be like spelling Pittsburgh as Pittsburg.
I think it is annoying and stupid to try to correct grammar on a message board, especially when the person doing the correcting doesn't know how to spell grammar...No one cares about good grammar here.
grammer police... wrote: