Mr. Obvious wrote:
UW-Green Bay?
LOL GREENBAY!?
Mr. Obvious wrote:
UW-Green Bay?
LOL GREENBAY!?
The Starved Elephant wrote:
1. Wisconsin
2. La Crosse
3. Marquette
4. Eau Claire
5. Stout
6. Parkside
7. Platteville
8. Milwaukee
9. Whitewater
10. Stevens Point
Eh?
I think you need to stop and think: Are you rating overall programs anymore? What elements constitute a successful program? Is it purely results from a single year? Are results the only thing that matters? What about recruiting ability? Lacrosse Had fantastic recruits nearly every year, I think a lot of it is due to the fact they host state track. Plus I don't think you are accounting for female side at all.
XxxTentacleSon wrote:
The Starved Elephant wrote:
1. Wisconsin
2. La Crosse
3. Marquette
4. Eau Claire
5. Stout
6. Parkside
7. Platteville
8. Milwaukee
9. Whitewater
10. Stevens Point
Eh?
I think you need to stop and think: Are you rating overall programs anymore? What elements constitute a successful program? Is it purely results from a single year? Are results the only thing that matters? What about recruiting ability? Lacrosse Had fantastic recruits nearly every year, I think a lot of it is due to the fact they host state track. Plus I don't think you are accounting for female side at all.
1.) No, this is not for overall programs. 2.) The rankings would be different if we took all parts of a successful program into account, which would take a long time. 3.) Yes, these are based purely on how objectively good the teams were this year (DIII Nats could shake things up a little bit). 4.) Results are not the only thing that matters, but that's what these rankings are about. 5.) I know very little about the recruiting at these schools (except Madison). 6.) No, I am not accounting for the female side at all. Generally speaking, I think the above principles apply to most of the discussions that have happened in this thread.
Then why y'all even trying to rank programs? None of you will be satisfied, because none you have the same definition of program success. Even if there is a general direction in how a description is forming I think I would argue it's the wrong one. Mens results for 2017 should not be the only metric to measure a running programs success. I think the answer to how you should lies in, why someone would even want to measure such a thing.
XxxTentacleSon wrote:
Then why y'all even trying to rank programs? None of you will be satisfied, because none you have the same definition of program success. Even if there is a general direction in how a description is forming I think I would argue it's the wrong one. Mens results for 2017 should not be the only metric to measure a running programs success. I think the answer to how you should lies in, why someone would even want to measure such a thing.
What? How is running success arbitrary? Whoever is faster is better that year. Running the stopwatch doesn't lie, so it's whoever appears faster on similar courses. Wisconsin will never be passed, UWL is good year in year out just like River Falls is bad year in year out. Somewhat predictable. Plateville, Oshkosh, Stout usually vary where they are.
XxxTentacleSon wrote:
Mens results for 2017 should not be the only metric to measure a running program's success.
I think they are a great measure of the success the teams had IN 2017. All-time success, runner development, team culture, coaching, etc. are all very important but are entirely different conversations. All I did was a Wisconsin only, cross-division version of the Flotrack or USTFCCCA rankings, or College Football rankings, or what have you.
The Starved Elephant wrote:
XxxTentacleSon wrote:
Mens results for 2017 should not be the only metric to measure a running program's success.
I think they are a great measure of the success the teams had IN 2017.
You're talking passed me now
How would you rank the coaches? Who is good? who is under rated/over rated?
Mick obviously has the best resume, but I don't think it would be outlandish to say a WIAC coach is a better coach based on the lack of improvement of the footlocker athletes Wisconsin gets.
I would say that Lax and Eau Claire get the most recognition, but I think Eamon McKenna has done a very nice job at UW-Oshkosh. Great 800 and Mile results there.
based on recent history, how could anyone rank Madison first, or Mick first?
programs like Marquette make me so f-ing mad. If you are a solid HS runner and actually want to develop and improve there are probably 10 d3 schools in the m/w that you could go to and be better off (NCC, LAX, UWEC, Wash U, St Olaf, Platteville, Whitewater, Point, etc.) but guys who aren't even top d3 talent (4:20s/9:30s) go to mid-major d1s so they can get off on themselves for being "D1." Even second tier d3 schools like Platteville and Stout and Stevens Point do more with less than Marquette does. Yes Marquette might beat them most years, but the are getting completely different talent pools and doing nothing with it. And whoever said many pages back that ISU EIU and Marquette are better than NCC needs to look at some race results cuz its not even close.
If you're a HS student/parent, DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Look at rosters of different schools, look what their kids ran in HS, and look at what they're running now. Its really fricking easy everything is on TFRRS.
The guys at Marquette aren't getting faster because they do not want to. They are doing their homework and figuring out where they can go to just get by.
The reason why Marquette gets so many recruits is because a lot of these kids don't want to get better, they just to be an average Joe.
Can we get this going for the track season? Quite a few meets this weekend with WI schools and some interesting results.
tbh comparing times right now means nothing. It's January 20, let's at least wait til indoor nats.
not worth the time wrote:
tbh comparing times right now means nothing. It's January 20, let's at least wait til indoor nats.
Is that you Mick?
Marquette Alum wrote:
not worth the time wrote:
tbh comparing times right now means nothing. It's January 20, let's at least wait til indoor nats.
Is that you Mick?
It is pretty early in the season, but I think it’s fun to start piecing through some results. If you take a look at the meet that happened at UWM, you would have to feel somewhat excited about those times for a season opener. Alec Miller doing an off event and running 8:37. A pair of Milwaukee guys well under 4:20 to start the year is an unusual sight, maybe something is clicking there.
Again, it’s not like ncaa qualifying marks but it does make them look much more respectable than in recent years.
You heard it here first.
If Milwaukee can land another solid class next year they'll be in the conversation with Marquette and Lacrosse as the #2 team in the state behind the Badgers.
Badgers are doo doo this year. Mick has run the program into the ground
Cotter, Alex SO-2 Wis.-Milwaukee 1:53.31# 2018 Mark Messersmith Invitational Jan 27, 2018
Dueck, Drew JR-3 Wis.-Milwaukee 1:54.10# 2018 Mark Messersmith Invitational Jan 27, 2018
Sippy, Michael FR-1 Wis.-Milwaukee 1:57.55# 2018 Mark Messersmith Invitational Jan 27, 2018
McMillan, Terry JR-3 Wis.-Milwaukee 4:13.09# John Tierney Classic Jan 20, 2018
Tagliapietra, Noah FR-1 Wis.-Milwaukee 4:14.65# John Tierney Classic Jan 20, 2018
Cotter, Alex SO-2 Wis.-Milwaukee 4:20.49# Karl Schlender Invitational Jan 13, 2018
Tagliapietra, Noah FR-1 Wis.-Milwaukee 8:26.29# 2018 Mark Messersmith Invitational Jan 27, 2018
McMillan, Terry JR-3 Wis.-Milwaukee 8:32.38# 2018 Mark Messersmith Invitational Jan 27, 2018
Michalowski, Nick JR-3 Wis.-Milwaukee 8:36.47# John Tierney Classic Jan 20, 2018
None of them are seniors. Certainly not the UWM we have been accustomed to seeing, something is clicking there. Not too bad UWM, not too bad.