I know Oneonta and Fredonia are, I don't know any other positives though.
I know Oneonta and Fredonia are, I don't know any other positives though.
P.S.- Jack Daniels is going to be there also.
Jack will not be there tomorrow, he will be at SUNYACs.
The NYU Violets took third (among 13 teams) in both the men's and women's races at the Metropolitan Championships, held on Van Cortlandt Park's revamped courses today.
http://www.eliteracingsystems.com/2009_xc_results/2009_metxc.html#men_results
[Pretty sure those women's times are for 5k, not the 6k that they're labeled...]
Hard to assess the times, because the courses (as I understand it) have no history; all the other teams in the conference are DI (so I'd be surprised if this race had any effect on NYU's National/Regional rankings); and some of those ran depleted or jv squads. Anyway, Columbia won both races, with Rutgers second in both; Fordham and Iona were behind NYU.
Zach Maher returned to action for the men and was the Violets' #1, with Jack Fitzhenry their second runner. Team spread (1-5) was just under a minute.
http://www.gonyuathletics.com/news/2009/10/9/MXC_1009095517.aspx
For the women, potential all-American Joan Kanarkiewicz was closely followed by frosh teammate Kirsten Keller. NYU's top five were all frosh/soph; the 1-5 spread was 83 seconds, with 6-7 close, improving some on their previous result at Williams.
http://www.gonyuathletics.com/news/2009/10/9/WXC_09_Met.aspx
no way thats 6k that would be ridiculous no dang way i don't believe i just don't it can't be its not probable simply not probable.
vcp's course is also different this year i ran it earlier in this season. its supposed to be significantly slower. you go right from backhills to cemetery its like god dangit man god dangit i'm tired and now i'm going to be more tired. those sons of bitches ya know those sons a bitches.
i'm pretty sure the coaching is just the same as it was when tcnj was 8th at ncaas. maybe instead it has something more to do with tradition. maybe some of the older guys didn't really pass on that tradition of winning. maybe they were negative nancies that always complained about what they were doing. and now they passed on a "tradition" of doubting their coach. it doesn't matter how talented the kids are, if they don't believe in what they're doing, they're not going to do well.
Come on, potential all american Joan whatever, how pompous. The girl is nowhere near all american status right now.not even too 100 status. Sure she had a hell of a track season but it hasn't carried over. 1706 should be equalling faster times by a lot.
Liberty League Results are up...results are pretty much as expected. Chas Mitchell of RPI? Good running. Dan Ramsey turns in his 3rd good race in a row...what say you Whoa Nelly?
Men:
http://www.stlawu.edu/athletics/sites/stlawu.edu.athletics/files/results/pdf/09LLmen.pdf
Top 3 are who you'd expect, but not in the order you would predict.
Women:
http://www.stlawu.edu/athletics/sites/stlawu.edu.athletics/files/results/pdf/09LLwomen.pdf
Cortland Meet
Murdock (syracuse)
O'Brien
Novara
Guarino
Pampena
don't remember
Top Cortland guys didn't run and a bunch of their guys dropped out at 4 miles. Fredonia guys looked to be holding back for the first half.
I want to say fredonia won, but I'm not positive.
Course was flat as a pancake but didn't look like it ran all that fast strangely enough.
Old Fashioned Glass wrote:
Cortland Meet
Murdock (syracuse)
O'Brien
Novara
Guarino
Pampena
don't remember
Top Cortland guys didn't run and a bunch of their guys dropped out at 4 miles. Fredonia guys looked to be holding back for the first half.
I want to say fredonia won, but I'm not positive.
Course was flat as a pancake but didn't look like it ran all that fast strangely enough.
Yes course was a bit slow. Fredonia did win.
mikejones999 wrote:
Top 3 are who you'd expect, but not in the order you would predict.
Women:
I don't think you should read too much into the order of those top 3.
Hamilton Invite results are up at http://www.runnercard.com/runner/data/13582/2229/Result/2009%20Hamilton%20XC%20Invite%20Results.pdf
What happened to IC? Tempo run? I didn't think they would get crushed by Hamilton.
If that's not statement by Hamilton, then I don't know what it is.
smelly armpits wrote:
If that's not statement by Hamilton, then I don't know what it is.
They've really been putting it together on the men's side in the past few races. Keep it up guys, that 4 man scoring opportunity looks like it's nearly ready to be taken.
The More You Know wrote:
smelly armpits wrote:If that's not statement by Hamilton, then I don't know what it is.
They've really been putting it together on the men's side in the past few races. Keep it up guys, that 4 man scoring opportunity looks like it's nearly ready to be taken.
It shouldn't come as that much of a surprise. Hamilton's course is hard and always soft and sloppy and they always seem to run well at home. Combine a nice home course advantage with the improvement they've made as a team, and it isn't that shocking. Combine that further with a slightly off (but only VERY slightly) race by an Ithaca team that seems to have struggled with injuries (two of top 5 returners STILL haven't raced)...and Hamilton is not a shock to beat them.
Hamilton is definitely a top 10 caliber team in the region this year.
Am I missing something with these results? Look at the Ithaca and Rochester team scores. Shouldn't UofR won? I could've sworn cross country went to the sixth man (or woman, in this case) first, which means UofR should've been second. Not a big deal, but strange all the same.
The NCAA uses tie breakers for NCAA qualifying purposes only.
omni wearer wrote:
http://bombers.ithaca.edu/sports/2009/10/10/WXC_1010093310.aspx?id=2435Am I missing something with these results? Look at the Ithaca and Rochester team scores. Shouldn't UofR won? I could've sworn cross country went to the sixth man (or woman, in this case) first, which means UofR should've been second. Not a big deal, but strange all the same.
[quote]XCRocks34 wrote:
The NCAA uses tie breakers for NCAA qualifying purposes only.[quote]
Right. I was coaching when they put that rule in, IIRC, and the NCAA rules committee's reasoning was that the sixth runner has *already* had a chance to affect the scoring; why should s/he get a second chance?
The sport is scored through five runners, and I like that the NCAA rules don't force a tiebreaker (unless it's needed for qualifying).
tky wrote:
[quote]XCRocks34 wrote:
The NCAA uses tie breakers for NCAA qualifying purposes only.[quote]
Right. I was coaching when they put that rule in, IIRC, and the NCAA rules committee's reasoning was that the sixth runner has *already* had a chance to affect the scoring; why should s/he get a second chance?
The sport is scored through five runners, and I like that the NCAA rules don't force a tiebreaker (unless it's needed for qualifying).
Right, and when the tie breaker is used, it's still not the 6th runner. It's scored as a head to head match up with the top 5 from each team. 1 v 1, 2 v 2, 3 v 3, 4 v 4 and 5 v 5 and whichever team wins 3 is the winner.