Best Ivy League School

the best heps distance runner of the past 10 years, dartmouth's mcardle, never broke 9:30 in hs. 3 years later he ran 13:37 and 28:18. he placed 16th and 8th at ncaa cross. 6 time all-american. thought i would throw that out there considering everyone seems to be citing random facts

Is he still alive?

it might be a better and more civilized debate to say which is the best ivy league school for different events. because atleast for 800 runners, penn is the best, and even other ivy league coaches would agree..

ivy! wrote:

talent doesnt matter , winning does. sounds like you got dominated by some no talent kids from cornell.

no, beating them is not too hard for me.

he's in korea teaching english

if you're talking ivies,

then no question,

stanford

Naah, let's talk about our 800/mile guys some more.

You must have the eyesight of Mr. Magoo if you can't see we've got the best middle distance squad by a whopping margin. And our improvement from high school in mid-d is the best in the country, bar none. UCLA, Cal-Poly, American, UCSB and Missouri are the closest in overall improvement of their traveling squads, but no cigar. We're the best at getting the most out of our guys. BYU is also up there, but some of those guys never ran at low altitude in high school, so you can't really compare improvements. And they have a couple of guys who are two years older than everyone else after their Mormon missions.

Our 9:33.32 DMR was composed of guys whose high school PRs were 4:15.03 (Tassinari), 48.30 (Seabrook), 1:53.09 (Wyner), 4:00.44 1,500 (Hyde). Assuming Tassinari would have run roughly 3:03 for 1,200 in high school, and Hyde about 4:18 for 1,600, our guys would have run about 10:02 for the DMR on paper with HS times. I'll wager any amount that no other team in the country could get a 9:33 out of that caliber of recruits. In fact, several other current Ivy teams have 4 or more runners that were better than our guys in high school and they haven't put up a 9:33 or a 7:26 or a 16:29. Those are the results we were looking for and we got them, as well as outscoring the rest of league in 800 and up both indoors and outdoors. Like I said, other teams in the league right now have better HS recruits on their rosters, including Yale with Yelsey (4:14), Boshart (1:52), Keteyian (1:53), Dantzer (4:15) and Napper (4:16). Sure, Lucas Meyer did great, with 2 All-America awards in the past year after only a 9:26 in HS, so he's Hyde-esque in terms of improvement. Yelsey did well, too, with a conference win in the 1,500. But where the hell are your and the other teams's 9:37s indoors and 9:33s and 16:29s outdoors? Where are their 1-2 finishes in both the 1,000 and the mile indoors? Why don't they have 3 sub-3:47 guys in the 1,500 and 3 sub-9:00 steeplers on their teams? Why don't they have a 1:48 freshman? Your guys were as good or better than ours in HS. You'll say our guys were all "diamonds in the rough," but isn't it funny how we seem to have more of those than the rest of the league combined? In 2005, we had 5 of the top 12 times in the league in the 800 with nobody that broke 1:53 in HS and only 2 under 1:55. Of the other 7 in the top 12 in the league, only Kaijala of Penn did not break 1:53 in HS. We had 6 of the top 18 in the 1,500 (including 3 of the top 5). The rest of the league far outnumbers us in terms of guys who ran 1:53-1:57 for 800 and 4:11-4:20 for 1,600 in HS, so it ain't numbers, pal. It's training, plain and simple.

If you want to talk about teams that get the real talent, Michigan's DMR squad would have run roughly 9:29 as high schoolers if they ran PR races. And Michigan could have fielded a second squad of four entirely different guys that could have run 9:38 on paper in high school. Sure, they killed us, and yes, they've improved, and improvements are harder to come by at that level, but that shows how important recruiting is when it comes to winning in college. It's tough to compete against people that are already that fast, and when you look at how good a program appears to be, you have to take into account that some teams have ready-made studs that could make up a national-class college relay team while still in high school. But we came a shitload farther since high school than any other team in the Championship of America field.

Get this - Michigan's 4 x mile team could have run 16:11 with high school mile or converted 1,500 PRs. Texas had a team that ran 4:03 (as a junior), 4:06 (as a junior) and 4:09 for 1,600 PRs and a 1:52 800 (Ponsonby). Our guys had high school PRs of 4:15 (and at Penn, he handed off tied for the lead in 4:04.5 along with Perkins of Arkansas, a 4:07 high school miler), 4:11, 4:00 (1,500) and 4:28! Converting to miles, we add up to about 17:18 for the 4 x mile as high schoolers. Yet we ran 16:29.21 and we were slightly disappointed with that. We're actually ambitious enough that we felt Indiana and Texas had no business running with us. Come to think of it, our 4:11 recruit (Wyner) is about 0.3 seconds slower than Arkansas's average recruit ran for the 1,500, 1,600 or mile. He's the only guy even close to a blue chipper that we've had here in the last several years, and he ran 1:48.64 (3rd fastest true frosh in the country) and 3:46.46 this year.

Here are some other improvements from our guys in the last couple of years - Gordon Hall (1:55.15 open, 1:54.8 relay in HS, improved to 1:50.71 open and 1:49.9 relay), Mike Smayda (1:57.45 to 1:52.58 as a frosh), Brian Mongeon (1:55.60 to 1:51.28 as a soph), Ross McGowan (1:58.0 to 1:52.97), Brad Baird (4:27.65/9:28.99 to 8:57.75 steeple as a soph), Emory Mort '05 (4:28.0/9:55.1 to 3:51.96, 4:11.2 relay mile, 8:52.09 steeple), Oliver Tassinari '05 (4:15.03 to 3:46.28, 4:04.5 relay leadoff and Heps mile champion), Sam Mackenzie '05 (4:22.2 mile to 3:50.20, 4:10.61 and Heps 1,000 champion), Aldo Gonzalez '04 (1:55.62 to 1:49.37 and regional finalist). And of course, Bruce Hyde ran 4:00.44 and 8:51.91 for 1,500 and 3,000 in HS and improved to 3:42.44 and 8:03.31, Heps and NE regional XC champion and All-American. Our 4 x 800 ran 7:26.74 indoors and 7:26.22 outdoors with a team whose open high school PRs added up to 7:41.29. By comparison, Penn (well known for producing top 800 guys) had a team that ran 7:26.88 outdoors after HS times that added up to 7:31.58 (Sebens, Schmiett, Jaworski, Kaijala), with Jaworski a real blue chipper at 1:50.50. Who's made more out of their guys? Columbia and Princeton also have 4 800 guys who were roughly 2 seconds faster on average than our top 4 as high schoolers. With inferior HS times, we're equal to Penn in the 4 x 800 and we're kicking the snot out of the whole league and beating national powers at the longer relays. Don't kid yourself and don't try to bullshit anybody else. We're by far the best at getting people to improve.

Well, you've got us there, for now. Most of the guys on the cross country team were freshmen two years ago and haven't done much in the last couple of fall seasons. It can't be any fun getting 7th and 8th and they won't have any excuses this year if they don't do a lot better, since they're mostly juniors now. But the way I understand it, if you're doing things smart, it should take longer for young guys to get better in the long distances. The improvements will show up in the middle distances first, then in longer distances as the runners mature. That's the way it's been for me and for most of the others on the team. Besides, we have a strong overall track team and we want to win both indoors and outdoors, so our middle distance guys are counted on heavily, especially indoors. That's one reason we concentrate on mid-d - to help out in track, where lots of mid-d points are available. Another big focus for us in 2005 was the Penn Relays, which we wanted to be our national coming-out party, and we accomplished that, beating Stanford, Georgetown, Indiana, Florida, Villanova, Providence and of course all the Ivy teams to get 3rd in the DMR and getting 5th in the 4 x mile. We already have the fastest indoor DMR in Ivy league history (admittedly it was on an oversized track), and in 2006 we want to get the all-time outdoor Ivy 4 x 800 best (and maybe the indoor record if we're sharp enough by then) and contend for the win at Penn. If we're healthy and get good weather and we don't run faster than 7:18, we'll consider ourselves to have F'ed up. Within a few years, we'll also have the all-time Ivy 4 x mile (or 4 x 1,500) records, erasing times run by Lananna's Dartmouth teams. Count on it. We do know what we're doing here, our expectations are a shitload higher than yours because we have the training program to get there, and you can make as many excuses as you want, but the only hope you will ever have of beating us in the middle distances and long relays is to recruit people that are already at least a second per lap faster than our recruits.

another cu mid-d guy wrote:

You must have the eyesight of Mr. Magoo if you can't see we've got the best middle distance squad by a whopping margin. And our improvement from high school in mid-d is the best in the country, bar none. UCLA, Cal-Poly, American, UCSB and Missouri are the closest in overall improvement of their traveling squads, but no cigar. We're the best at getting the most out of our guys. BYU is also up there, but some of those guys never ran at low altitude in high school, so you can't really compare improvements. And they have a couple of guys who are two years older than everyone else after their Mormon missions.

wow. you guys must be learning well. someone runs their mouths about how rojo's training can be beat, and you claim to be the class of the ivy's, yet have nothing, and i really mean nothing, to show for it in xc.

then you go on to say that you "dominate" the ivy's on the track in distance. when it is shown that you didn't really dominate - save for the 2005 indoor performances, the debate turns to "we do more with less than anyone else."

when conto comes on here and shows that columbia has certainly done equal - if not more (as in, they have the hardware from xc to prove it), and that yale takes a 9:25 3200 guy who was at best 4th in the state of connecticut in xc (and we all know conn isn't california) and makes him a multi-time all-america, and he places 7th @ USATF in the steeple - the debate changes once again: now you claim to be the best MIDDLE distance program in the country.

when someone brings up penn for middle distances, noting their successes with robin martin, sam burley (what where his h.s. pr's again?), and others, the debate switches a final time to: we're the best middle distance program with the people we get.

under the tutelage of rojo the program has produced exactly 1 all-america (bruce hyde in xc) in the distances.

i don't think that in any way, shape, or form, qualifies as the class of anything.

i guess the CU boys benefit from juicin'. look at some of their blown up sprinters (eremita, goggins, nanasko, etc.). they're hurt all the time and then fast at random times just like some of the distance guys.

ivy leagues suck at running

That was a nice laundry list of Yale athletes who didnt live up to the hype. I don't need to get into the outdoor 1500m because that speaks for itself, but you have no idea what you are talking about with the rest. Dantzer and Napper are first and foremost distance runners, not milers. Don't group them in with those guys. They do have respective college PRs of 411 and 410 for a full mile if it matters. Dantzer ran 142? last year and score at heps and was all District XC last year. That beat every Cornell distance runner but Hyde, and he beat all the Cornell guys at the Heps 5k, although a bunch of them did drop out. Napper ran 25:12 on Vandy as frosh (top 12), definitely faster than any Cornell guy (granted he was 9:0? in HS). He is coming off an injured year but is still badass.

Next the two 800 guys you targeted. Both are probably two of the toughest, most badass guys at the school. Boshart was a 152 runner who had to miss most of last year for treatments for a certain "C" disease I won't get into. He is back in shape this year. Keteyian has been healthy for about 6 months of school, and had his toe operated on two years ago. He still managed to make the 800 final in his FIRST heps in college. These guys have more drive and class than anyone on the CU team and are just as talented, they've just had some bad luck. Anyone who has ever run competetively in College knows what I'm talking about. Finally their non-"blue chip recuit" O'Callahan from Ireland came in at 1:57 and was splitting 1:51r last year. Expect things from him this year at 1500. That is all.

[quote]another cu mid-d guy wrote:

Like I said, other teams in the league right now have better HS recruits on their rosters, including Yale with Yelsey (4:14), Boshart (1:52), Keteyian (1:53), Dantzer (4:15) and Napper (4:16). Sure, Lucas Meyer did great, with 2 All-America awards in the past year after only a 9:26 in HS, so he's Hyde-esque in terms of improvement. Yelsey did well, too, with a conference win in the 1,500. But where the hell are your and the other teams's 9:37s indoors and 9:33s and 16:29s outdoors?

Have you forgotten the original question? "If you had to choose an ivy league school based on both academics and the running program, which would it be?"

Given the choice of any Ivy League school, I seriously doubt that anyone here would choose Cornell, regardless of how much some of its runners have improved since high school.

Stop the hissing and hating and start the racing! High school pr's, injuries, and improvements dont matter during the 3 seasons. Suck it all up and let the races speak for themselves since every1 loves talking about their team so damn much.

Nobody can deal with Cornell's victories!

Jobs wrote:

Nobody can deal with Cornell's victories!

except in cross country!

Clearly cornell can't be producing that great of students if one has to use the word "shitload" to compare his team's quantifiable improvement.

Point well taken and expressed in my early post. ALL the coaches in the Ivy League are good people, professional and dedicated. ALL the Ivy schools are very strong academic schools without a doubt. It is probably unlikely that one of the eight schools is overall better than any of the other remaining schools in all areas. In my many years of being associated with Ivy athletics, the quality of each school is obvious. So, in deciding which school is most appropriate for a senior high schooler to consider within the Ivy League makeup, the key would be to make a list of priorities that are most important to him or her and then examine each of the schools to see if there is a fit. There is enough diversity between the eight schools in terms of academic programs, location and coaching strengths to pick and choose. Visiting at least three of the schools, meeting regular students and taking some classes will all be a great benefit in learning about each of the schools.My mention of Duke University is that for as long as I can remember, Duke has had the nickname of "Ivy League of the South". Its academics is on par with the Ivy schools and its program is solid under Norm Ogilvie's leadership. Just remember, Duke competes in the ACC and doesn't have the luxury of athletic scholarships as is the case with many of the other ACC schools. As is the case with the Ivy schools, Duke relies on "need based aid" and thus, competes for the same student-athletes as do the Ivy's. If there is one area of weakness within the Ivy League structure it is that ALL of the programs are geared up to "do or die for alma mater" when it comes to the Heps. Some very good runners end up not performing well after the Heps due to doubling and tripling for the good of the team. Great for team spirit, not so good for an individual trying to move on to the national scene if he or she is a borderline contender.

oldguy wrote:

Have you forgotten the original question? "If you had to choose an ivy league school based on both academics and the running program, which would it be?"

Hmm...based on the CU posts, it seems CU feels threatened by Yale. It's funny b/c mighty national-caliber CU shouldn't feel the need to bash a mere Ivy team like Yale. Perhaps b/c they know Yale's tiny team has more talent and style than CU guys, who are often DQ'ed or booed for dirty tactics (i.e. Penn Relays 4X4-Eremita, Heps 4X4). I found it fitting that the CU team reenacted the Cobra Kai dojo scene from Karate Kid at Heps. Like Cobra Kai, CU are dirty competitors and use questionable tactics.

When was the last time that either Yale or Cornell beat Columbia at XC Heps? I could only find results through 1997- at least eight years ago.