Would Newbury Park have won D3?

my 2 cents wrote:

As a midpack D3 runner who ran at nationals in 2021 AND 2019, also at Louisville, I can confirm that the course was identical in length both years, and according to my GPS watch, a full 8k both years. I'm guessing you weren't there this year, so you have no grounds to claim it's short.

Granted, the course was covered in mud and standing water in 2019 and consequently did not run fast. This year, the course still wasn't in perfect condition. There were muddy spots - significant parts of the course were blocked off until the day before nationals. The officials did somewhat of a good job filling in especially muddy spots with woodchips and/or leaves. However, this was only for the literal mud pits on the course. More than 90% of the course is on grass (not hard-packed dirt, like the CA courses) and was soft. I used half-inch spikes for the race and I don't think it was overkill. The course was not in perfect condition this year, nor was it short. Times were ridiculously fast compared to historical D3 national meets, but that's likely due to supershoes and an overall increase in the competitiveness of D3.

As other posters have said, I have no reason to think that Newbury Park would finish higher than 3rd at the D3 national meet, and this is the most generous estimate. It is fair to compare NP's 4th to the top true freshman, Grahm Tuohy-Gaydos from Williams. He ran 8:57 last spring, NP's 4th ran 8:56. Let's say NP's 4th places 18th for the sake of argument, just ahead of Tuohy. That's a 24:07. Generous, but still somewhat reasonable.

Give NP's 1-3 some arbitrary places, how about 3, 5, and 12. Among the top 4, that's a score of 38. At CA state, NP's 5th was 27 seconds behind their 4th. Assume this gap stays exactly proportionate to race distance (which is overly generous) and NP's 5th is 43 seconds back at D3 nationals. This is a 24:50, and ~77 points. Which gives NP a total of 115, placing them third behind PP and MIT. This is the best case scenario anyone in the NP camp can hope for, otherwise they're just not willing to accept a logical explanation.

If NP had run D3 nationals, I think they would have been lucky to be in the top 5, and reasonably could have finished outside of the top 10. A 3rd place finish would be best case scenario for them. However, these are a bunch of 16 and 17 year-olds who have never run an 8k before. They're competing against a bunch of 20 year-old men who have been specifically training for this race and this distance for 6 months, if not much longer. Say one or two of the NP top five blows up - a plausible assumption given that this is their first 8k ever. There goes another 100 or 200 points to their score. Say they don't convert well up to 8k. Yeah, yeah, they run 8 x 1k. Well, they've never raced an actual 8k. Pacing a longer race is something you can only learn by experience. Let's look at their shorter distance times for a second. They're clearly geared towards 3k/5k rather than 5k/8k. Their top 4 might all run 8:30 this track season, according to Brosnan (lol), and yet they're only in the 14:25 - 14:45 range for 5k xc. Their 5ks are weaker than their 3200s, and if you extrapolate, they'd probably run 8k worse than 5k.

What else? D3 nationals would not be a time trial like the CA state meet was for them. Watch the race video from D3 nationals, especially the first 2 miles. It was PACKED. I can attest, I was in the middle of it. It was physical, there was pushing and shoving around every single turn, there were erratic speed changes. In the CA state meet, the NP guys could essentially run their own race. That wouldn't be the case for D3 nationals. They likely would have run slower than their Woodbury times indicate. Also, teams at this stage $hit the bed. Look at Wartburg - ranked 1st, finished 9th. If NP was actually in this race, I think they would probably all go out too fast, die, at least one of their top 5 would have an off day, and they could conceivably score like 400 points, putting them in the 12-18 range teamwise. NP lacks depth, and that really goes to hurt you in a championship race where you're not head-and-shoulders better than everyone else, which, in D3 xc, they're not.

NP is still the greatest HS team probably ever, not disputing that. But comparing them to D3 is apples to oranges. NP doesn't train for the 8k race distance or for the race conditions. Frankly, they've never had to deal with the adversity a meet like D3 nationals presents. Would NP win nationals if it were a 5k, or better yet, a track 3200? That's a different story. What is they had a whole season to train for 8k and race it a few times, and proved themselves decent at the distance? Also a different story. But that's not what happened, and that wasn't the original question. Hands down, NP wouldn't have won D3 nationals. Still a great team, and their top 5 clearly has the potential to have successful collegiate careers in any division they choose.

Show me the money wrote:

my 2 cents wrote:

As a midpack D3 runner who ran at nationals in 2021 AND 2019, also at Louisville, I can confirm that the course was identical in length both years, and according to my GPS watch, a full 8k both years. I'm guessing you weren't there this year, so you have no grounds to claim it's short.

Granted, the course was covered in mud and standing water in 2019 and consequently did not run fast. This year, the course still wasn't in perfect condition. There were muddy spots - significant parts of the course were blocked off until the day before nationals. The officials did somewhat of a good job filling in especially muddy spots with woodchips and/or leaves. However, this was only for the literal mud pits on the course. More than 90% of the course is on grass (not hard-packed dirt, like the CA courses) and was soft. I used half-inch spikes for the race and I don't think it was overkill. The course was not in perfect condition this year, nor was it short. Times were ridiculously fast compared to historical D3 national meets, but that's likely due to supershoes and an overall increase in the competitiveness of D3.

As other posters have said, I have no reason to think that Newbury Park would finish higher than 3rd at the D3 national meet, and this is the most generous estimate. It is fair to compare NP's 4th to the top true freshman, Grahm Tuohy-Gaydos from Williams. He ran 8:57 last spring, NP's 4th ran 8:56. Let's say NP's 4th places 18th for the sake of argument, just ahead of Tuohy. That's a 24:07. Generous, but still somewhat reasonable.

Give NP's 1-3 some arbitrary places, how about 3, 5, and 12. Among the top 4, that's a score of 38. At CA state, NP's 5th was 27 seconds behind their 4th. Assume this gap stays exactly proportionate to race distance (which is overly generous) and NP's 5th is 43 seconds back at D3 nationals. This is a 24:50, and ~77 points. Which gives NP a total of 115, placing them third behind PP and MIT. This is the best case scenario anyone in the NP camp can hope for, otherwise they're just not willing to accept a logical explanation.

If NP had run D3 nationals, I think they would have been lucky to be in the top 5, and reasonably could have finished outside of the top 10. A 3rd place finish would be best case scenario for them. However, these are a bunch of 16 and 17 year-olds who have never run an 8k before. They're competing against a bunch of 20 year-old men who have been specifically training for this race and this distance for 6 months, if not much longer. Say one or two of the NP top five blows up - a plausible assumption given that this is their first 8k ever. There goes another 100 or 200 points to their score. Say they don't convert well up to 8k. Yeah, yeah, they run 8 x 1k. Well, they've never raced an actual 8k. Pacing a longer race is something you can only learn by experience. Let's look at their shorter distance times for a second. They're clearly geared towards 3k/5k rather than 5k/8k. Their top 4 might all run 8:30 this track season, according to Brosnan (lol), and yet they're only in the 14:25 - 14:45 range for 5k xc. Their 5ks are weaker than their 3200s, and if you extrapolate, they'd probably run 8k worse than 5k.

What else? D3 nationals would not be a time trial like the CA state meet was for them. Watch the race video from D3 nationals, especially the first 2 miles. It was PACKED. I can attest, I was in the middle of it. It was physical, there was pushing and shoving around every single turn, there were erratic speed changes. In the CA state meet, the NP guys could essentially run their own race. That wouldn't be the case for D3 nationals. They likely would have run slower than their Woodbury times indicate. Also, teams at this stage $hit the bed. Look at Wartburg - ranked 1st, finished 9th. If NP was actually in this race, I think they would probably all go out too fast, die, at least one of their top 5 would have an off day, and they could conceivably score like 400 points, putting them in the 12-18 range teamwise. NP lacks depth, and that really goes to hurt you in a championship race where you're not head-and-shoulders better than everyone else, which, in D3 xc, they're not.

NP is still the greatest HS team probably ever, not disputing that. But comparing them to D3 is apples to oranges. NP doesn't train for the 8k race distance or for the race conditions. Frankly, they've never had to deal with the adversity a meet like D3 nationals presents. Would NP win nationals if it were a 5k, or better yet, a track 3200? That's a different story. What is they had a whole season to train for 8k and race it a few times, and proved themselves decent at the distance? Also a different story. But that's not what happened, and that wasn't the original question. Hands down, NP wouldn't have won D3 nationals. Still a great team, and their top 5 clearly has the potential to have successful collegiate careers in any division they choose.

So you were in the middle of the pack and ran a full 8k? Is that how an NCAA course is supposed to be measured - with a GPS watch and in the middle of the course?

Is your GPS watch always spot on when running a course with lots of turns and lined with trees?

If you ran the correct distance wouldn't someone like Kassie Rosenbum have been able to run a much shorter course than those midpackers like yourself?

Great summary of the event, but faulty logic with how a course is measured.

stats and analysis wrote:

Show me the money wrote:

So you were in the middle of the pack and ran a full 8k? Is that how an NCAA course is supposed to be measured - with a GPS watch and in the middle of the course?

Is your GPS watch always spot on when running a course with lots of turns and lined with trees?

If you ran the correct distance wouldn't someone like Kassie Rosenbum have been able to run a much shorter course than those midpackers like yourself?

Great summary of the event, but faulty logic with how a course is measured.

I wouldn’t say your solution is the best case for NBP.

Firstly, you have them going 3-5-12. Their top 3 has run essentially within 8 seconds of each other all season. So, in a best case scenario, maybe 3, 5,6 would be right for their top 3.

Then the 4th man, placing: NBP’s 4th man did not run 8:56 last year. Aaron Sahlman didn’t run any 3200s. Their 5th man ran 8:56.

If we want to compare track times, Aaron Sahlman beat a guy than ran 8:52 3200 last season by 16 seconds, and a guy that ran 9:02 by 13 seconds.

I think it would be tough to win this year because PP scored 80. But nearly every other year they would probably win. It’s hard to predict because everything comes down how far up you think the top guy is - and how far behind you think their 5th is. If Sahlman is a. 23:35 guy, and the 5th is 55 seconds back that makes for an interesting finish.

The interesting thing is NBP beats PP in a dual meet handily.

You mention them being 14:25 - 14:45 guys. But that’s a on a challenging course. They ran 13:38 - 13:48 first race of the season for 3 miles which is about 14:07-14:18 for 5k.

Again, on a track, I think we are looking 3 dudes sub 14 today. 3 dudes sub 13:50 come spring. 4th man is better on the track so possibly 4 under 14 in the spring.

DC guy wrote:

stats and analysis wrote:

I wouldn’t say your solution is the best case for NBP.

Firstly, you have them going 3-5-12. Their top 3 has run essentially within 8 seconds of each other all season. So, in a best case scenario, maybe 3, 5,6 would be right for their top 3.

Then the 4th man, placing: NBP’s 4th man did not run 8:56 last year. Aaron Sahlman didn’t run any 3200s. Their 5th man ran 8:56.

If we want to compare track times, Aaron Sahlman beat a guy than ran 8:52 3200 last season by 16 seconds, and a guy that ran 9:02 by 13 seconds.

I think it would be tough to win this year because PP scored 80. But nearly every other year they would probably win. It’s hard to predict because everything comes down how far up you think the top guy is - and how far behind you think their 5th is. If Sahlman is a. 23:35 guy, and the 5th is 55 seconds back that makes for an interesting finish.

The interesting thing is NBP beats PP in a dual meet handily.

You mention them being 14:25 - 14:45 guys. But that’s a on a challenging course. They ran 13:38 - 13:48 first race of the season for 3 miles which is about 14:07-14:18 for 5k.

Again, on a track, I think we are looking 3 dudes sub 14 today. 3 dudes sub 13:50 come spring. 4th man is better on the track so possibly 4 under 14 in the spring.

PP scored 80 but 4 of NP's runners would finish ahead of PP's 1st. That alone moves PP's score to 100.

NP would easy have 4 in the top 6. That means if their 5th gets 80th they score UNDER 100 and they WIN.

NP's top 2 would run 23:40. NP's 5th would place higher than 80th.

my 2 cents wrote:

I should have elaborated on the course length thing a bit more I guess. Both years, I wore a watch for pre-meet, ran the tangents, and ended up with something right around 4.97. I never GPS'd the race itself.

But the race, especially this year, I definitely wasn't running tangents since I was in the thick of it the whole time. I probably ran further than 8k. For what it's worth, a guy who finished right behind me in the race registered 4.97 per GPS. Another guy in ~150th GPS'd 4.98. Two guys in the top 25 had 4.97 and 4.96. Second-place finisher Lindgren had 4.94, other guys had 5.01. Seems like a pretty normal distribution around 4.97. Check the data on Strava if you want - the course is the correct distance. Some parts of it are wooded, and trees are notorious for f---ing with GPS. Safe to say the Louisville course is the right length. It's an established championship course, and if we're going to start questioning its validity, how about we do the same for Woodward?

Another comment: my nationals time wasn't a PR. It was a bit slower than what I ran on a fast course with less traffic earlier this season, and right around what I ran at regionals. It wasn't egregiously fast, the field was just stacked this year. People who ran fast just peaked well.

Nescac Dad wrote:

Ghost of Ward Cleaver wrote:

You have guys with 4.96 and 4.94 with GPS - so if you believe your GPS readings you have a short course and GPS often measures long on courses with a lot of turns, correct?

How are you getting that it's short.

4.94 is short - he was the top guy and had the best chance to run the tangents and ran short and I would argue his and most GPS watches measure long on courses with a lot of turns. Simple facts.

My 2 cents says one person had 4.94 and another had 4.96 and others had 4.98 and 5.01. Most had 4.97. Watches are always varied depending on brand, course, and who ran the tangents better.

Yep, watches are varied and many variables come into play which is why GPS watches and people who don't run correct tangents aren't used to certify a cross country course or road race because of these simple facts you mention.

The idea that this course was short is stupid.

Or, the idea that it is perfectly certified with no surveying company listed is as well. Does it say anywhere in the NCAA manual that the course MUST be 8000m? Is the point of college cross country to add up your five fastest times and compare TIMES to everyone else?

This course is very well known and has had 10+ NCAA national championships held at it.

Great! Has each course been layed out EXACTLY the same each of those meets? Have the rules been the same on course measurement every year a meet was hosted there?

They clam 4.97 on their website, and provide Map My Run data as well.

Key word is CLAIM. Is Map My Run an acceptable course certification instrument?

The watch data certainly collaborates that. The idea that its short has never been broached in any lets run threads before and with so many high profile races, you would think someone would have discussed this if it was.

I have heard rumblings of course length there for years.

What benefit would the NCAA have in running a short race.

The NCAA couldn't care less, but everyone likes fast times...

Lets just accept the fact that the group just ran faster this year and the course length is correct.

Again, its CC - courses are rarely the perfect length - why is that so hard to accept?

Running Lane is tomorrow. Last year that race had 32 runners under 15 minutes and like 60 under 15;15. And just about everyone who ran it had insane PR's. Are you going to scrutinize that course as much when the Newbury Park runners post stupid fast marks?

I saw a sub 16 time from a high school girl last year - YES I questioned the length of the course then and will until I get a chance to measure it my self, or hear from someone who is truly knowledgeable about course measurement - someone's gps watch doesn't cut it for me, sorry!