Schweitzer won't be an unknown any more.
Schweitzer won't be an unknown any more.
Wonder if we will even get the Women's team scores before the start of the men's race???????????
Record timing is the best in the business. If a time is within 0.1 it needs to be reviewed by camera.
The fact that colorado may lose is hilarious because I think we all assumed they were almost a lock to win
This is ridiculous. I should have rojo take a pic of the results and send them to us and we can take out the individuals and add them up.
its all trumps fault
lover of saucony wrote:
http://lets.rabb.it/886j/03rJTgyZqyI'm trying to host a rabbit feed of the race. Please hop on, but the quality is not too great due to it being flotrack and my university wifi being horrible.
Is this the real race? I got a video up! This young man is my savior! I love this young guy! Is this it! !!!!!!
Agree but take #1 off any team and they likely will lose
The women's race is too short. There were, what? 50 women who finished within 30 seconds of each other? That's nuts. It comes down to like 10 photo finishes.
The women should be running at least an 8k. Probably 10. They race 10 in track, why not cross?
on LR's twitter:
7000Altitude wrote:
lover of saucony wrote:http://lets.rabb.it/886j/03rJTgyZqyI'm trying to host a rabbit feed of the race. Please hop on, but the quality is not too great due to it being flotrack and my university wifi being horrible.
Is this the real race? I got a video up! This young man is my savior! I love this young guy! Is this it! !!!!!!
Room is full.
I got the video up! Is this it!
Too bad for Colorado, if they just missed out. Clark is a good one, but I think she has been dinged up for awhile, so not a huge surprise there, but it is impressive that they apparently were in the team race, even without her help. I read an article recently that said Oregon had trained through their conference and regional championships in order to peak for nationals. This just indicates superb coaching.
Running in Cement wrote:
I would rather they take the time to make certain BEFORE announcing the winning team. Remember 3-4 years ago when they announced the winner, then announced a different winner, then finally announced the official winner which was the the team they initially announced (Oregon). I doubt anyone wants that scenario to occur again.
We are not handing out popsicle sticks here. The chips have accurate instant results. What you don't have is people that are able to read the data.
Failure are bidding hosts to be able to provide results from the system.
NCAA fails at having host event credible in managing a national event and allowing a poorly managed airing of the event, pure amateurs all the way around.
Pretty sure you can read an entire photo finish in under 10 minutes. And if they're looking at video and not photo finish, it means something failed.
The NCAA results providers are also for-profit, and don't care about fans: http://colindcarroll.com/#/cease_and_desist
Link wrote:
The women's race is too short. There were, what? 50 women who finished within 30 seconds of each other? That's nuts. It comes down to like 10 photo finishes.
The women should be running at least an 8k. Probably 10. They race 10 in track, why not cross?
NCAA, please join the 21st century.
Oregon 125
Michigan 126
Colorado 134
NC State 223
Old fat guy wrote:
Agree but take #1 off any team and they likely will lose
CU's tweet with unofficial scores right after the race also didn't have typical #3 or 4 finisher Morley as one of their scorers.
Oregon by 1 over Michigan! 125-126. Colorado another 8 back off of Michigan
