OXYRUNR wrote:
So I was at the meet, And spoke with RC repeatedly. Portland is fine. There re reasons for everything - even if you don't understand them or aren't in the loop on them. The bashing about this is ridiculous - yes , you too Wejo!
reasons like... “oxy”?
There should be rules in place that don't allow coaches to do this during championship season.
I work in an industry that could be a lot of help to running. "Not showing up" for races is a major reason the sport will never enjoy a broader appeal. Not too hard to understand that if an athlete's not giving his/her best effort, it's not really worth watching.
nofacetimber wrote:
"as far as I know, this year's team has no one older than what a redshirt senior be would be coming into college right out of high school."
"Not accurate with regards to age. Every man of their top 7 except Clinger is at LEAST old enough to be a graduating senior. A couple are 23 or 24 already."
Yes accurate, class of 2012 is the equivalent of a redshirt senior, taking a look at the high school classes of their top 5.
Young, Carney, class of 2012
McMillan, Linkletter class of 2013
Clinger class of 2016
To bring the point home, look at the high school classes of Colorado's top 5 at Pac 12's
Peterman, Perrin class of 2012
Forsyth class of 2013,
Klecker class of 2014,
Herrera class of 2015
The age of BYU's top 5 is equivalent to Colorado based on high school classes, yet I don't see anyone complaining about Colorado. Furthermore, Colorado's top group has 5 red shirt years between them that's 5 extra years of development within the program. BYU has 1 red shirt year (McMillan), with 4 mission years which equate to little to no training whatsoever.
You can't spin it, the old mission age advantage narrative has no merit whatsoever this year.
My bad, Linkletter is listed as a junior in cross country so he must have taken a redshirt year. As a freshman, he wasn't on varsity. Just wanted to clear that up. My point still stands, BYU 2 red shirt years compared to Colorado's 5.
Elephantiasis in the room wrote:
I’ve yet to hear any of you say why conference actually matters outside of pride. I don’t know the NCAA system very well so I have to ask sincerely, what bearing does today’s meet have on their post-season?
This raises a few questions:
If you don't really have a season do you really have a "post season"?
and
And why does any meet matter?
This is really silly there are only 3-4 meets a team really has to put out a maximal effort a year, and this is one of them.
nationals > conference wrote:
3 hard races in 3 weeks (conference, regionals, nationals) is why Rob Conner and UP did this.
So many dolts on this thread said this, I had to check the calendar.
They are NOT in three consecutive weeks. Wisconsin put five in front of our 1 when we took second at conference. They took a week off, then jogged regionals to get the second Auto bid.
THREE FREAKING WEEKS between hard efforts is not to much to ask.
If I'm coach, I'm running for place at conference. I'm also trying to get the most individuals all-conference. If second place and two kids all conference was his best, I'm okay with it. Otherwise, you cheated your runner out of an award.
So since somebody asked, pretty out of the xc loop but pay some attention still.
Absolutely do not want to speak for Conner. Know very little about any of the current guys. Wisconsin result was a surprise, cool. Portland is usually a well prepared squad for 10k.
That said, different schools have different circumstances and expectations in the department. Conner has been there decades now and had huge success. Nobody wishes to disrespect the WCC, but it has never been a focus. UP won 30 plus in a row prior to BYU joining. Many years guys rested, UP was not threatened, or even a full team did not run hard. In 1996, I "won" for f-sake and we swept. At the time were were 5th in poll. It was cool trip, got to watch PAC-10 after, go for nice long run Sunday. Regionals and NCAAs were very important. As they are now. Not sure but guessing that UP wont coast through with a bid. Big deal beating Oregon and Stanford if they can. Washington and Wazzu too. Think of recruits...Conner has established record of competing well at NCAA regional and national meets against Stanford and Oregon. Many cases there, not even same recruits. U Dub and Wazzu, no offense to them, are not even quite the Jets compared to Patriots in AFC East. Pilots have dominated both for decades in xc.
Not sure what 93 Portland did at conference, that was their first NCAA bid. I was at Washington then. Portland killed us at Sundodger, put 5 in front of Oregon 1 at Drenth and won regional. Huge deals all.
Since then many top 10years, one podium. Regionals important, WCC is what it is. Different situation to a team in Ivy or PAC-12 or most other spots. Some programs emphasize conference more in track than others. Some programs basically emphasize Penn Relays more than conference or NCAA.
Proud of what program has become. That said, must confess that there have been a few UDub hats, jerseys, shirts in Grote household. UDub football has been a saving grace for us as Jets fans.
Grote
Sara Palin wrote:
nationals > conference wrote:
3 hard races in 3 weeks (conference, regionals, nationals) is why Rob Conner and UP did this.
So many dolts on this thread said this, I had to check the calendar.
They are NOT in three consecutive weeks. Wisconsin put five in front of our 1 when we took second at conference. They took a week off, then jogged regionals to get the second Auto bid.
THREE FREAKING WEEKS between hard efforts is not to much to ask.
If I'm coach, I'm running for place at conference. I'm also trying to get the most individuals all-conference. If second place and two kids all conference was his best, I'm okay with it. Otherwise, you cheated your runner out of an award.
Three freaking weeks between hard efforts is not too much to ask, no. But they aren't taking three freaking weeks in between hard efforts. They run everyday. Sometimes really hard, even if you aren't watching and critiquing every step of their workout.
For the record, I agree there must be a way to fit a race like conference in as a very hard workout at the least. Not fielding the A-Team doesn't make for as enjoyable of an experience through the college years.
I really wish people would stop saying things like, "this sport is never going to be as popular as xyz if we don't slaughter one another all year because that's what the fans want to see." Why do we need to be more popular of a sport? Participation numbers at the high school level exceed all other sports, or close to it. This is primarily a sport you do, not a sport you watch others do. Although, if you're not doing the sport, but instead you're watching others in your conference, then you've got a problem. Now we're back to square one.
Sara Palin wrote:
nationals > conference wrote:
3 hard races in 3 weeks (conference, regionals, nationals) is why Rob Conner and UP did this.
So many dolts on this thread said this, I had to check the calendar.
They are NOT in three consecutive weeks. Wisconsin put five in front of our 1 when we took second at conference. They took a week off, then jogged regionals to get the second Auto bid.
THREE FREAKING WEEKS between hard efforts is not to much to ask.
You say all a school has to do is "JOG" regionals.
There are 300+ Division I schools and only 32 teams qualify for NCAAs. The majority of qualifying teams are in no position to "JOG" regionals.
I agree, maybe it is easy to jog in another region but the west is pretty tough. I think 8-9 different programs have made it out of the west in the last few years, not really a cake walk. Plus check their TFRRS, I don't think another school has raced as much as they have. They compete three full squads around the west coast at different races, probably doing more for the sport than the rest of these schools.
Lizzy wrote:
There should be rules in place that don't allow coaches to do this during championship season.
There is a simple solution: make “A” teams (those that earn at-large qualifying points) dependent on squads at conference meets, not regional meets.
QWerti wrote:
nofacetimber wrote:
What's not to like about this team though, amazing depth, great pack running, multiple guys stepping up to win big races. Dominant team wins, and all with local talent.
Sure you might not be a fan of potential age difference due to missions, but as far as I know, this year's team has no one older than what a redshirt senior be would be coming into college right out of high school. Then consider how many teams recruit top-tier international athletes to boost their programs. And how many of those come into the NCAA older than a typical high school graduate.
From my perspective, there's not much to dislike about this team. If you can get past any distaste resulting from missionary service or the religious affiliation of the institution.
Not accurate with regards to age. Every man of their top 7 except Clinger is at LEAST old enough to be a graduating senior. A couple are 23 or 24 already.
Rory: 21 Jr
Connor: 21 Jr
Casey: 19 Fr
Clayton: 24 Jr
Danny Carney: 23 Jr
Kramer Morton : 21 Fr
Jon harper: 22 Sr
Only two guys that wouldn't have eligibility are Danny and clayton and they would have just finished their elegibilty last track season. Even then there are a ton of D1 athletes who are old for their grade and graduate high at 19.
Idiot wrote:
Rory: 21 Jr
Connor: 21 Jr
Casey: 19 Fr
Clayton: 24 Jr
Danny Carney: 23 Jr
Kramer Morton : 21 Fr
Jon harper: 22 Sr
Only two guys that wouldn't have eligibility are Danny and clayton and they would have just finished their elegibilty last track season. Even then there are a ton of D1 athletes who are old for their grade and graduate high at 19.
What about the rest of their team? I would guess it's advantageous to have older guys for these top 7 to train with, no?
This is what Eyestone was thinking of Conner.... Jump to 6:10
Eyestones inner thoughts wrote:
This is what Eyestone was thinking of Conner.... Jump to 6:10
https://youtu.be/sFcjJezL7lo?t=6m9s
Amazingly good post. I changed the embed code so it links directly to the quote.
Former heps cc ‘02 wrote:
There’s only one meet that matters to good teams and that’s nationals. I always thought conference meets mattered too given how it’s the big meet for most mediocre teams (including the ones I was on!). But the incentives for Portland I guess were better to rest. That team doesn’t value in season racing near crunch time.
I guess it’s no different than popovich resting every player he can until the finals. Except basketball is popular. And popovich does usually play his full team in early round playoff action.
Your first statement isn't true. You don't think Colorado/Oregon, etc take the Pac 12 very seriously? They most certainly do.
Your comparison to the NBA /NFL is incorrect. Occasionally, you seem teams rest players in regular season games when it's clear they are already making the playoffs. That would be like #1 team not running everyone at Notre Dame.
A conference meet is a championship. It would like an undefeated Alabama sitting out players at the SEC championship game . Never in a million years would Alabama lose that game on purpose even if they knew everyone else in the country had 4 losses and they'd automatically make the top 4.
Interested in this wrote:
Idiot wrote:
Rory: 21 Jr
Connor: 21 Jr
Casey: 19 Fr
Clayton: 24 Jr
Danny Carney: 23 Jr
Kramer Morton : 21 Fr
Jon harper: 22 Sr
Only two guys that wouldn't have eligibility are Danny and clayton and they would have just finished their elegibilty last track season. Even then there are a ton of D1 athletes who are old for their grade and graduate high at 19.
What about the rest of their team? I would guess it's advantageous to have older guys for these top 7 to train with, no?
Why? I don't think training with older guys is advantageous, but I'm sure training with faster, more knowledgable, harder working guys is advantageous. Seeing as how many of the BYU guys who are older have taken 2 years off of training and away from the world of running I don't think they'd be more of an advantage to be around than guys 2 years younger, faster, who didn't have to separate themselves from the world of running for a period of time.
Every team in the country has guys who are older and considered captains or role models. I don't think BYU has an advantage here.
rojo wrote:
Amazingly good post. I changed the embed code so it links directly to the quote.
Incredibly stupid post.
What does a meaningless made-for-tv match race between 2 sprinters have to do with a XC team running THREE hard 8k/10k races in 22 days with the goal of a podium finish at NCAAs?
Rojo you were never close to XC NCAAs as an athlete or coach. You have no experience with this. You don't know what you are talking about.
The Gault editorial on this subject was embarrassing to read. You guys really think these runners owe it to you to put on a show for the ages? You’ve lost touch if you think an all-out war between UP and BYU at Conference will make one bit of difference in trying to make the sport of running more popular.
UP has one of the best track records in the entire nation and you’re going to question their coach for getting second at conference to the #1 team in the nation?
I’d rather see an editorial questioning why Wetmore was sending athletes to Dr Brown.
wejo wrote:
At the West Coast men's meet, #2 nationally ranked BYU men got a perfect score, going 1-2-3-4-5. The team that got second was the #3 team in the country according to the coaches' poll, Portland (Portland is #6 in the LetsRun.com Fan Polls).
BYU is very, very good. But the thing I don't think we've ever seen before is not BYU putting up a perfect score, but rather Portland not even trying to beat them by not sending out its best team.
The cross country regular season is totally watered down with teams not trying in many meets, but I don't think I've seen this extended to a conference meet before.
Portland ran its 2 best runners from the Wisconsin meet but sat its #3, #4, #5, and #6 runners from Wisconsin. Now, it's highly unlikely that many guys got injured/sick the week of the race.
Jon Gault directed me to a Flotrack interview after Wisconsin where Portland coach Rob Conner said, "I'm not looking forward to it (winning conference). That's not really on my concern list... I'm not a conference meet guy. I like other meets. I like regionals and nationals... Our challenge will be just to see how many guys we can get in their top 7."
He then added something that was dead on the money, " They (BYU) could score 15 points on us even. [I have] no concern about winning."
Teams can do whatever they want, but I thought conference meets were sacred. Put your best out there and go at it.
What do you guys think of this?
The funny thing is even if Portland ran it's "A" team BYU might have put 5 in front of them because Portland did run its #1 and #2 from Wisconsin. Is it tanking if the result would be the same?
Interview I talked about here:
http://www.flotrack.org/video/1258758-portland-head-coach-rob-conner-tells-flotrack-where-they-should-be-ranked-after-2nd-place-team-finish#.WfOITIGPK3A
PEOPLE!!! Portland ran its best two runners!!!! Do you actually think that their #3-6 guy was going to miraculously pull a performance of a lifetime out of their ass to be Portlands #1 that day??? The answer is simple- if Derek Zoolander can't do it to beat Hanzel in a walk-off, then neither can UP.
/end thread