NCAA Womens XC National Championships!!! Predictions, Discussion, Analysis!!!

Let's Do This! wrote:

Richer than most wrote:

First you make false claims. Then you resort to insults and name calling. Why would you call someone an idiot just because they are not as smart as you? Is it our fault how we were born? You already lost credibility. Now you lost dignity also.

Due to your condition it would be literally impossible for you to understand any explanation. Luckily for you futility is a concept you will never be burdened with. Enjoy the Bliss of your Perpetual ignorance!

I have to say I kind of agree! Being an idiot is not an insult. Yes we are burdened by having to make up for your lack of intelligence and ability to contribute. But you get to enjoy the pleasure of simple destructive acts and bodily functions that have been culturally conditioned to be inaccessible to the rest of us... those soiled overalls you're probably wearing reek of The Simple Pleasures you bask in, while the rest of us have to use our brains and keep the society going.

And the fact that you can get a whiff of being insulted means you're not that bad off and won't have to be institutionalized. Talk about you're double lottery winners. You my friend have hit the jackpot!

Funny stuff! Makes me think of my childhood.

We will sort this out tomorrow when we see who does the best with their predictions. The scores will be higher than we are used to seeing.

Gina be here wrote:

We will sort this out tomorrow when we see who does the best with their predictions. The scores will be higher than we are used to seeing.

Agree!! I see field on paper is pretty deep in quality individuals. For point of reference I have Stanford with a 40 second spread 1-5 and their 5th being around 70th. Tough to score less than 100 if that is the scenario.

I know everyone probably knows this but just to say it. Everyone realizes that individual Runners not running for a team don't count towards the team score right?

In other words the team score is only tallied up against the other team runners and any individual Runners are taken out of the equation

So even if you finished 70th overall that might be 50th in team scoring

Can someone explain to me why they think it's going to be a high-scoring year? If anything it should be an average or lower than average scoring year because the better teams on the women's side have just gotten better and a few of them are going to have a big advantage of having fresh legs. All the big-name teams are winning their conferences with incredibly low scores.

I agree. Again don't kill me over the number is but in team scoring I could see Stanford going something like 3 6 15-30 40

And the fact that Stanford only trained cross-country when 90% of the teams have had an indoor season. It's just icing on the cake for them.

MidFootStriker wrote:

I know everyone probably knows this but just to say it. Everyone realizes that individual Runners not running for a team don't count towards the team score right?

In other words the team score is only tallied up against the other team runners and any individual Runners are taken out of the equation

So even if you finished 70th overall that might be 50th in team scoring

Can someone explain to me why they think it's going to be a high-scoring year? If anything it should be an average or lower than average scoring year because the better teams on the women's side have just gotten better and a few of them are going to have a big advantage of having fresh legs. All the big-name teams are winning their conferences with incredibly low scores.

The individuals I reference are all on teams. No doubt some will falter, but then again some of Stanford's, or any other team for that matter could falter.

At Battle Born, NM, NAU, WA, CO and Boise St all had their 5th in before Stanfords 5th. NM won handily. AL has three strong runners, NC State has several. Etc. Since then, Aragon has appeared. But still, this points at the depth I see

FastTuohy wrote:

At Battle Born, NM, NAU, WA, CO and Boise St all had their 5th in before Stanfords 5th. NM won handily. AL has three strong runners, NC State has several. Etc. Since then, Aragon has appeared. But still, this points at the depth I see

At Pac 12, CO still had 4 in before Aragon.

25 years does seem arbitrary, but the field was expanded to 31 teams starting in 1998. It was 22 teams 1989-1997 & 16 or fewer teams for 1981-1988. Bigger fields should lead to higher team scores, so that 25 year sample is a better representation of what to expect this year than looking at the full meet history. With that said, the proximity to indoors this year should dilute the field somewhat & Stanford has plenty of talent to score under 100. But they haven’t looked good enough to do that this season. I’d expect them to win with around 115. And the other podium teams should be 140-220 points. Also, Arkansas isn’t going to double everyone back from the indoor meet, so they will probably be out of the running for top 5, maybe even outside of the top 10.

Thanks, good info, explains why the early scoring was better

Anyway with that said still five out of the last six years the winner has been under a hundred. I've got no crystal ball and don't know for sure but it certainly seems like a good year for it to happen again

And it wasn't arbitrary, he looked at the previous winners and started counting from when he saw a couple teams going over a hundred. The first years successive winning teams going over 100 started in 96. Maximum trolling effect.

Let's Do This! wrote:

Thanks, good info, explains why the early scoring was better

Anyway with that said still five out of the last six years the winner has been under a hundred. I've got no crystal ball and don't know for sure but it certainly seems like a good year for it to happen again

And it wasn't arbitrary, he looked at the previous winners and started counting from when he saw a couple teams going over a hundred. The first years successive winning teams going over 100 started in 96. Maximum trolling effect.

You realize he just blew your use of the pre 1996 data out of the park?

FastTuohy wrote:

FastTuohy wrote:

At Battle Born, NM, NAU, WA, CO and Boise St all had their 5th in before Stanfords 5th. NM won handily. AL has three strong runners, NC State has several. Etc. Since then, Aragon has appeared. But still, this points at the depth I see

At Pac 12, CO still had 4 in before Aragon.

Colorado is a top-10 team. Even if 10 teams put in their top four before Aragon she could still score a 41. Still gives them plenty of room if they're big sticks come through

FastTuohy wrote:

Let's Do This! wrote:

Thanks, good info, explains why the early scoring was better

Anyway with that said still five out of the last six years the winner has been under a hundred. I've got no crystal ball and don't know for sure but it certainly seems like a good year for it to happen again

And it wasn't arbitrary, he looked at the previous winners and started counting from when he saw a couple teams going over a hundred. The first years successive winning teams going over 100 started in 96. Maximum trolling effect.

You realize he just blew your use of the pre 1996 data out of the park?

Damn man I thought you were reasonable guy!

I explained why he did it. He look at the winners and picked the first years where successive teams went over a hundred

Starting in 1996 1997-1998 you had the winners winning with scores barely breaking a hundred. 100, 101, 108. He just looked at the results and pick the years where he started seeing that

It had nothing to do with him knowing the field expanded in 98 or him saying that. He should have started from 98 and explain that then

He did it for maximum trolling effects. Did he mention that five of the last six years the winner has been under a hundred?

What about the other 20 teams? They aren't putting any runners up front? This isn't 2 divisions.

Let it go man. Whether he knew or not, the use of scores from the early years is not relevant. You are an anonymous poster on a message board. Nobody knows if you are real and you have no identity so once you logoff, you can be a different anonymous poster tomorrow. Nobody cares because we don't know you.

Let's Do This! wrote:

FastTuohy wrote:

You realize he just blew your use of the pre 1996 data out of the park?

Damn man I thought you were reasonable guy!

I explained why he did it. He look at the winners and picked the first years where successive teams went over a hundred

Starting in 1996 1997-1998 you had the winners winning with scores barely breaking a hundred. 100, 101, 108. He just looked at the results and pick the years where he started seeing that

It had nothing to do with him knowing the field expanded in 98 or him saying that. He should have started from 98 and explain that then

He did it for maximum trolling effects. Did he mention that five of the last six years the winner has been under a hundred?

I think (ie my opinion) is that you think (ie your opinion) that is what he did. There is a valid basis to do what he did. But you state your opinion as a fact.

Gina be here wrote:

What about the other 20 teams? They aren't putting any runners up front? This isn't 2 divisions.

That is the point. If the other 20 put in one first we are up to 60 already