2014 HEPS cross country thread

ivyrunner01 wrote:

One person that everyone seems to be forgetting is Pat Gregory of Dartmouth. I mean sure the kid is only a freshman, but with times like 1:49/4:01/8:45 for 800/mile/2mile in high school.

looks like this kid has prs no where close to 1:49/4:01/8:45.

His real prs are 1:52.97/407.81/9:10.45.

Curham wins, anyone know the team score?

They took the weird measure of having an automatic counter at 4700m but still have not release official results. Since Dartmouth was ahead and trending upward, I am guessing they held on.

rainy heps is a good heps wrote:

They took the weird measure of having an automatic counter at 4700m but still have not release official results. Since Dartmouth was ahead and trending upward, I am guessing they held on.

People . I have found a live result site . you can follow it as it happens. No idea wjy ivy office isn't promotinf this.

Wow. Nice job CU!

well that was depressing.

30 points, princeton? wow.

In_ithaca wrote:

Wow. Nice job CU!

Outstanding! Congrats to Penn (sandbagging all season?), and to Princeton on its truly dominant performance, but WAY TO GO BIG RED!

Cornell graduates one man (its #3) from today's twelve. Five of the twelve, including two of the top five, are frosh.

A few thoughts about the men's meet while I take the train back to NYC.

1) The Tiger men put on a show just like two years ago.

Sublette - 2nd at Heps. Are you kidding me? The kid was 150th at Wisconsin and their 5th man. A 14:27 guy is 2nd at Heps. Wow. I asked Vig about him when writing the preview and can't even remember what he said. I'll have to call him back.

The Tigers had 9 guys - 9 - in the top 25. That's impressive. This was a year that was supposed to be wide-open. People were wondering if someone might win with 60 or 65 points and if anyone would put 5 in the top 20 or 25. They put 9.

This was the type of performance that had me heading to early retirement at Cornell. My brother said it best, "When Princeton is on top of their game, no one in the league can touch them."

The Tigers and Harvard were the only teams with a lot of seniors. Princeton's #2, #3 and #4 - Pons, Owens and McDonald - were all seniors. The rest of the league is a bunch of babies - there were only 3 seniors in the top 10.

So Princeton is vulnerable next year right? Not exactly. The Tigers had 4 freshman/sophomores in the top 25 today and that's with 4:01 HSer Garrett O'Toole on the bench (is he not good at xc?).

2) I re-scored the meet without the seniors. Here are the results:

Princeton 48 - 2, 8, 11, 13, 14

Cornell -77 - 3, 6, 16, 19, 33

Dartmouth 108 - 9, 15, 21, 31, 32

Penn - 109 - 1, 20, 26, 28, 34

Yale 120 - 4, 10, 24, 25, 57

Columbia 133 -7, 12, 30, 35, 39

Harvard 141 - 5, 18, 22, 47, 49

Brown 184 - 23, 29, 36, 38, 58

3) And the performance of the day goes to.....

I was going to give the performance of the day to Sublette. But my brother said, "What about the Cornell freshman?"

Dominic Deluca was 4th as a frosh. Truly remarkable. The first-ever sub-9 recruit at Cornell lived up to the billing. Wow. We were trying to figure out the last time a frosh had finished that high. I don't remember one in my tenure at Cornell. Brian Leung was 6th in 2008. Ben True was 10th as frosh (when he didn't run all summer).

Someone figure it out.

He was studly.

But the performance of the day goes to Penn senior Conner Paez who was 15th. In case you don't know, he almost lost his leg in a motorcyle accident. As recently as the spring of 2013, he was running 4:19 for 1500. More on him here:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2013/04/conner-paez-meet-letsrun-coms-inspirationalblue-collar-runner-of-the-week-ii/

4) Cornell and Penn had great meets, particularly relative to where they were a month ago. After Boston and Notre Dame, no one would have predicted 2nd and 3rd for them.

5) What happened to Columbia's vaunted top two of Boyle and Everett? They were expected to come close to last year's top two of 2nd and 4th and instead they were 19th and 34th and were Columbia's #2 and #4.

If Everett, who was 5th last year, had just run halfway decent, Columbia would have been third.

If they'd gone say 3 and 7, I believe Columbia would have been 2nd.

Columbia's Tait Rutherford ran well too. Not the most stunning performance of the meet, but a fine race. Remember him? He's the guy who won the unseeded section of the 3,000 indoors and benefited from the seeded section's dawdling around and looking at each other waiting for the sprint while giving zero attention to the clock, thereby making Rutherford the conference champ when all was said and done. Of course he wasn't reeeaaally the best 3k runner in the league, but today's top 10 performance against everyone in the same race shows that he is one of the better runners in the conference. He got lucky indoors, but today adds a bit of legitimacy to his credentials.

Stanley Beamish v. Carter Nash wrote:

Columbia's Tait Rutherford ran well too. Not the most stunning performance of the meet, but a fine race. Remember him?

Exactly, he was 10th at Heps. At Wisco, he was their 6th guys. So if Boyle and Everett and been ahead of him, they would have done well.

But my math was wrong on the train. They wouldn't have beaten Cornell even if those those 2 do well. When your fifth guy is 39th, there is basically no chance of getting 2nd.

I moved Boyle and Everett up to 3 and 7 and then Columbia would have been

3-7-12 -23 -39 - 84 points. So 3rd.

BRF wrote:

Cornell graduates one man (its #3) from today's twelve. Five of the twelve, including two of the top five, are frosh.

Your point? If this was the old heps, 3 of those 5 would have been in the JV race. Their bottom 3 finished 71st, 81st and 87th.

I think sundell in '01 came in 4th as a freshmen... might be wrong

Take a look at the 3 mile standings. I know the guys jogged for almost 3 miles and the racing had barely started. But a lot of teams seemingly forced it and then just imploded.

I talked to Vig before the race and he said, "we're going to go out slow and work our way up." Boy did they, they are the only team to really just crush the last 2 miles. Many other went backwards.

Team scores at 3 miles:

1. Princeton

3 10 13 16 26 (28) (29) = 68

2. Columbia

5 12 17 19 27 (47) (49) = 80

3. Cornell

6 7 9 31 32 (51) (52) = 85

4. Yale

1 11 22 30 33 (55) (56) = 97

5. Dartmouth

8 21 23 25 35 (36) (37) = 112

6. Penn

4 18 20 34 43 (44) (53) = 119

7. Harvard

2 15 24 39 41 (42) (54) = 121

8. Brown

14 38 40 45 46 (48) (50) = 183

Penn basically stayed the same from mile 3 to the finish but moved up from 6th. They had 119 points at mile 3 and were 6th. At the finish, they had 111 but were 3rd. The other teams went backwards.

111 was the highest 3rd place point total for 3rd since 1994.

1994 Team Scores

1. Dartmouth, 23

2. Princeton, 93

3. Penn, 121

In figuring out that stat, it was interesting to realize that twice since 2000, teams have won with more than 70 points.

2004

Team Scores

1. Columbia, 70

2. Dartmouth, 79

2001

1. Dartmouth, 76

2. Navy, 93

3. Princeton, 97

fun. wrote:

I think Penn in 2014 will max out with 3rd in XC. But in 2015 Awad's senior year they will be a legit threat to win the xc title.

Kudos to fun., who posted this in June!

Jacuzzi guy wrote:

I think sundell in '01 came in 4th as a freshmen... might be wrong

Sundell was 5th as a frosh in 2000. He was 4th, 3rd and 1st in the ensuing years. Not a bad Heps XC career, eh?

After reviewing the splits (http://www.leonetiming.com/2014/XC/IvyLeague/), Princeton's score at 3 miles was artificially high because the timing system didn't pick up Sam Pons (h/t HepsTrack). If you add in Pons where he finished (3rd), Princeton goes down to 45. They still closed well but they were already in front comfortably at 3 miles.

Jonathan Gault wrote:

After reviewing the splits (http://www.leonetiming.com/2014/XC/IvyLeague/), Princeton's score at 3 miles was artificially high because the timing system didn't pick up Sam Pons (h/t HepsTrack). If you add in Pons where he finished (3rd), Princeton goes down to 45. They still closed well but they were already in front comfortably at 3 miles.

So has a protest been filed? Could he have cut the course?

Joking, sort of.

Jonathan Gault wrote:

After reviewing the splits (http://www.leonetiming.com/2014/XC/IvyLeague/), Princeton's score at 3 miles was artificially high because the timing system didn't pick up Sam Pons (h/t HepsTrack). If you add in Pons where he finished (3rd), Princeton goes down to 45. They still closed well but they were already in front comfortably at 3 miles.

I have reviewed back-up data and updated all split scores.

- Thanks

Here is the new 3 mile men's splits....

1. Princeton

3 4 11 14 17 (27) (29) = 49

2. Columbia

6 13 18 20 28 (47) (49) = 85

3. Cornell

7 8 10 31 32 (51) (52) = 88

4. Yale

1 12 23 30 33 (55) (56) = 99

5. Dartmouth

9 22 24 26 35 (36) (37) = 116

6. Penn

5 19 21 34 43 (44) (53) = 122

7. Harvard

2 16 25 39 41 (42) (54) = 123

8. Brown

15 38 40 45 46 (48) (50) = 184

So Princeton got faster but not a whole lot so.

One thing I thought of when looking at the final results. We were looking for a wide open league and didn't get that up front with Princeton dominating. But #3 Penn, #4 Dartmouth #5 Columbia and #6 Yale were basically all the same - separated by just 12 points and 4.8 seconds on 5 man average.