Hey Bud wrote:
Shock factor wrote:Portland didn't go as well as I thought, never would have predicted Wisconsin 17th, will they go unranked next polls, any other shocks?
ACC Men's Teams and UVA Women, Come On!!!!
Agreed. Bad meet for the ACC. Wonder what the deal is.
NC State Men, ranked 11th earlier this year, finished 34.
Virginia Women, ranked 18th earlier this year, finished 40.
Those are very bad results for two programs that had very high expectations.
Yes, I heard Emily Sisson was injured and will most likely redshirt this season. Too bad.
Orange Rocks wrote:
2. 189 Texas ( 23:45 1:59:54 0:40)
=================================================================
1 1 Craig Lutz SO 22:57
2 6 Rory Tunningley SR 23:16
3 35 Ryan Dohner JR 23:57
4 93 Kyle Merber SR 24:15
5 107 Patrick McGregor JR 24:18
6 (132) Trevor Van Ackeren SR 24:26
7 (172) Mark Pinales SO 24:35
Same 335 kyle merber?
yep same 3:35 Kyle Merber
according to texas's website a couple of the guys fell early in the race
Word has it that D'Agostino is hurt and that is why she didn't race.
TweetTweet wrote:
Hey Bud wrote:ACC Men's Teams and UVA Women, Come On!!!!
Agreed. Bad meet for the ACC. Wonder what the deal is.
NC State Men, ranked 11th earlier this year, finished 34.
Virginia Women, ranked 18th earlier this year, finished 40.
Those are very bad results for two programs that had very high expectations.
After Eastern Kentucky, the 2nd place spot in the SE Region is wide open. Make fun of Georgia, but they just beat UVA,UNC, and NC State pretty bad. William and Mary will have to run all their guys to beat George Mason this year at their conference meet, Va. Tech has a bunch of veterans but limited history at making NCAA's (1987 was the last time I believe(4th place that year). There could be a case for Liberty if their 5th man improves.
RB3 wrote:
The depth in the NCAA blows my f*cking mind. You gotta run 25 flat just to get into the top 200. Crazy stuff.
Agreed.
Hmm. Yep, pretty sure I said Texas 4th and Arkansas 5th. Thought Oklahoma would win, great run from Stanford now THAT was unexpected.
asdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdfsdf wrote:
Anyone else find Arizona's depth hilarious? They are basically scoring three and still wind up with a whopping 600 points.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure they're going to go 1-2 at NCAAs without qualifying a team.
What happened to Erik Olsen (again) of Stanford? Anyone know of any possible injuries, health problems, or setbacks?
Just got home from up and back flight to meet to check boards but, as you know, electronic haywire erupted and skewed meet results for hours. Not Mick's fault. Teams such as UVA and Wisco held out several runners. Others , such as Texas and Dartmouth had bad luck falls and dropouts. Lots of squads had bad days on a beautiful autumn day. Coaching is a painful self-flagellating job at times and many had a long flight home. But folks will rebound and live to race another day.
This is why Americans are such twats - pages and pages of posting about a non event that only they give a crap about and thinking it's really important. Anyone posted the North East Maryland U11 girls division 28 (district 15) preliminary heats of the egg and spoon hurdles race, yet?
Who gives a cr&p wrote:
This is why Americans are such twats - pages and pages of posting about a non event that only they give a crap about and thinking it's really important. Anyone posted the North East Maryland U11 girls division 28 (district 15) preliminary heats of the egg and spoon hurdles race, yet?
Other countries have nothing like the NCAA. Other countries would love to have the programs that the US does for fostering athletic talent across many sports, revenue generating or not. This is why the US does so well at the Olympics.
Here is a fun experiment, try and find the athletic page of any American college or university. Then, try to do the same of any European institution. That is the difference.
Yeah... I had a hard time believing Lawi ran a 5:17 last 2k.
But his 7th km was very fast (it is down hill) and he continued to open ground. He was about 30 seconds faster over the last 3km- than he was last year, and much of it came in the last couple kms.
Van wrote:
Teams such as UVA and Wisco held out several runners. Others, such as Texas and Dartmouth, had bad luck falls and dropouts. Lots of squads had bad days on a beautiful autumn day.
I'm seriously wondering whether so many teams will/should attend next year. The course is mostly wide open, but there were certainly (at least on the video) some bottlenecks, and just too much congestion in the early going.
Several teams that hoped for a boost in the polls and/or improved chances of qualifying for the NCAA meet ended up hurting their chances, instead. Fields were maybe just too big for all the teams (realistically) to show what they were capable of. Either Mick will start limiting the field a bit, or the various participants this year will have to take a hard look at whether the meet seems to be a net "plus" on their schedule. There *are* other "big" meets available on the same weekend...
Mick was talking (see video) about cutting the field back to about 30 teams.
kibitzer wrote:
Van wrote:Teams such as UVA and Wisco held out several runners. Others, such as Texas and Dartmouth, had bad luck falls and dropouts. Lots of squads had bad days on a beautiful autumn day.
I'm seriously wondering whether so many teams will/should attend next year. The course is mostly wide open, but there were certainly (at least on the video) some bottlenecks, and just too much congestion in the early going.
Several teams that hoped for a boost in the polls and/or improved chances of qualifying for the NCAA meet ended up hurting their chances, instead. Fields were maybe just too big for all the teams (realistically) to show what they were capable of. Either Mick will start limiting the field a bit, or the various participants this year will have to take a hard look at whether the meet seems to be a net "plus" on their schedule. There *are* other "big" meets available on the same weekend...
There is no question that many teams will not consider Wisconsin in the future because of the ridiculous congestion. This course should be host to no more than 20 teams at a time. The number of athletes falling and the slower than expected times for anyone other than the front 20 - 30 guys is unacceptable. Did I forget to mention the operations staff who couldn't capture finishing times because the chip system failed?
What the ... wrote:
There is no question that many teams will not consider Wisconsin in the future because of the ridiculous congestion. This course should be host to no more than 20 teams at a time. The number of athletes falling and the slower than expected times for anyone other than the front 20 - 30 guys is unacceptable. Did I forget to mention the operations staff who couldn't capture finishing times because the chip system failed?
Exaggerate much?
The Women had no problems with 48 teams, but that race got out pretty fast. 45 teams was too many for the Men when the race goes out in 9:05. Everybody now realizes that. Last year with 39 teams Lalang went out in 8:43 and the chase pack went through in 8:52 and the race was spread out. No problems.
The 20 teams maximum comment is stupid beyond belief. And in future years Wisconsin will again be turning teams away just like they had to do this year.