curiousguy wrote: Is it the next 5 individual qualifiers or 8 to go?
Neither; it's next 7.
The Atlantic is getting way too much love here, not because I don't like the Atlantic, but because it's just one region, and it's just a region. It's nice to discuss who's going to qualify to nationals, but I'd like to see more discussion of who's going to make the podium.
soul to squeeze wrote:
predictions are for the wimps who sit behind thier computer screens on november 22nd ;-)
I sit in front of my monitor, not behind it. However I ahven't made any predictions so I guess your statement does not apply to me.
Cortland, LAX, Haverford, CMU
bump
Look out for Cortland, especially if Iona loses Mick Byrne. Im telling you, Cortland can possibly add a 14:20 and a 9:02 steepler to that stacked top 5. I'm not going to name names yet until its official.
I'd say the darkhorse team might be Oshkosh. Not a strong showing last year at all, but with Kaul back leading the way that's 1 point at nationals (team wise) not to mention mcguire who was at indoor nats and outdoor in the steeple. Oshkosh has 5 guys who have gone under 15 in the 5K this past track season, thats tough, especially with a top guy in the nation.
Stevens Point is also kind of a darkhorse coming off there track season. They had some injuries during indoor and outdoor but a lot of there guys are healthy now. Baumann, Nechuta, Richert, Towle, Meyer, and I heard they have a new transfer who should be decent, Nick Schaffer (sp?) Should be a good year for them.
WIAC should be a fun conference meet to watch.
bump
Two words: Rutgers Camden.
3 words: What about them?
bump
Oshkosh did not have 5 guys under 15 min.
pleasesir wrote:
Oshkosh did not have 5 guys under 15 min.
How many teams can claim this??
They had 4, Vos ran 14:59 indoor
Ok so 4 not 5 and one of them, barely broke 1520 outdoors, it does not seem like he was going in the right direction. Either way, is # of guys under 15 really that great of a statistic. What about all the 1500/mile guys that could go under 15 but dont cause they never run 5ks or the 5k guys that can not run anything over 5k or that can not run hills etc. Seems about as good a stat as the error in baseball.
post Master General wrote:
Ok so 4 not 5 and one of them, barely broke 1520 outdoors, it does not seem like he was going in the right direction. Either way, is # of guys under 15 really that great of a statistic. What about all the 1500/mile guys that could go under 15 but dont cause they never run 5ks or the 5k guys that can not run anything over 5k or that can not run hills etc. Seems about as good a stat as the error in baseball.
I would say that it's a lot more applicable to this conversation because we are talking about cross country. I'd say most of the guys running the 5k are pretty decent cross runners. Also, there can't be a whole lot of great 1500 meter guys out there that never run the 5k that could be under 15 min. I'd assume most 1500 meter runners go overdistance and run a 5k a couple times a year.
post Master General wrote:
Ok so 4 not 5 and one of them, barely broke 1520 outdoors, it does not seem like he was going in the right direction. Either way, is # of guys under 15 really that great of a statistic. What about all the 1500/mile guys that could go under 15 but dont cause they never run 5ks or the 5k guys that can not run anything over 5k or that can not run hills etc. Seems about as good a stat as the error in baseball.
I would say that it's a lot more applicable to this conversation because we are talking about cross country. I'd say most of the guys running the 5k are pretty decent cross runners. Also, there can't be a whole lot of great 1500 meter guys out there that never run the 5k that could be under 15 min. I'd assume most 1500 meter runners go overdistance and run a 5k a couple times a year.
post Master General wrote:
Ok so 4 not 5 and one of them, barely broke 1520 outdoors, it does not seem like he was going in the right direction. Either way, is # of guys under 15 really that great of a statistic. What about all the 1500/mile guys that could go under 15 but dont cause they never run 5ks or the 5k guys that can not run anything over 5k or that can not run hills etc. Seems about as good a stat as the error in baseball.
I would say that it's a lot more applicable to this conversation because we are talking about cross country. I'd say most of the guys running the 5k are pretty decent cross runners. Also, there can't be a whole lot of great 1500 meter guys out there that never run the 5k that could be under 15 min. I'd assume most 1500 meter runners go overdistance and run a 5k a couple times a year.
post Master General wrote:
Ok so 4 not 5 and one of them, barely broke 1520 outdoors, it does not seem like he was going in the right direction. Either way, is # of guys under 15 really that great of a statistic. What about all the 1500/mile guys that could go under 15 but dont cause they never run 5ks or the 5k guys that can not run anything over 5k or that can not run hills etc. Seems about as good a stat as the error in baseball.
I would say that it's a lot more applicable to this conversation because we are talking about cross country. I'd say most of the guys running the 5k are pretty decent cross runners. Also, there can't be a whole lot of great 1500 meter guys out there that never run the 5k that could be under 15 min. I'd assume most 1500 meter runners go overdistance and run a 5k a couple times a year.
I beg to differ, I was an adequate 1500 meter/mile runner in my day, just a tad off the provo standard and never once raced a 5k on the track. However on the roads I can Solo in the summer off only base mileage mid 15 min 5k's I would have to assume that during the season i could run close to 15 flat maybe under, and therefore there are others like me out there and some that can run under 15 but just dont because they train for the mile/800