Stanford 70
NC State 115
Arkansas 125
New mexico 160
How do you like them apples!
Stanford 70
NC State 115
Arkansas 125
New mexico 160
How do you like them apples!
All right, I get why Stanford is really good, they picked up a great freshman, a really good transfer and have almost all their Runners back
And pretty much same thing with NC State. Although they have a few more question marks
But I don't care how BYU and New Mexico are possible favorites. Didn't they lose all their top runners? Did they get transfers? What's the dealio?
ContextisKing wrote:
Stanford 70
NC State 115
Arkansas 125
New mexico 160
How do you like them apples!
I like them. Maybe a little high for Arkansas considering their indoor effort. Also thinking Stanford has another big Edge, with not running any indoor, and focusing solely on cross-country. Having all their Runners train only for cross country might give them a good 10-point Edge.
No idea what the scoring will be. But I do know NC state has an incredible amount of naturally blonde distance runners. 5% of the population but half their team.
Good call! Good to see Katelyn Tuohy s Blond wavy locks again... someone tell her to stop straightening her hair so much. Why do girls always straighten their hair? So boring.
MidFootStriker wrote:
All right, I get why Stanford is really good, they picked up a great freshman, a really good transfer and have almost all their Runners back
And pretty much same thing with NC State. Although they have a few more question marks
But I don't care how BYU and New Mexico are possible favorites. Didn't they lose all their top runners? Did they get transfers? What's the dealio?
Stanford's transfer has not been running that well and their 5th runner has been a little weak all year, but Aragon came through in Pac 12 championship. NM did pick up several transfers and has a very tight pack 1-5 of about 30 seconds, though their #1 runner will likely not score particularly low. BYU is assume to have Orton back, and then has a solid if not great next 4. The challenge in having scoring runners that far back is there can be at least 2 runners per second, so a small difference in time can be a huge impact on score. In 2019 Arkansas had 4 in top 20 and still scored 96. BYU had 3 in top 10 and lost. I don't see any team that strong this year.
1996 was 25 years ago. Sounds like a logical point to me. But moving on, NC State will score 200. If they score 150, they will be top 3 because scores will be higher than usual.
Let's Do This! wrote:
Also why 1996? If you want to correct me just give the number don't pick an arbitrary year to try to prove a point which doesn't really exist!
Only four winners have ever scored over 125. So 90% of the winners have been under 125 which people some reason think will be this year's winner
So yeah it was a bit of an exaggeration considering I was just speaking extemporaneously, but not by much about 80% of the teams have been right around a hundred or below
65% of the teams have scored under a hundred. 80% have scored around a hundred or below. And 90% have scored 125 or below...
But I agree the coach pulled a bit of a bonesman by just throwing out 1996 and failing to mention that before 1996 95% of the team scored under 100. And you're right most of the recent teams have been under a hundred...
But I have to say Stanford has a good shot at a strong score considering they didn't run indoor and are all in on Cross Country.
Richer than most wrote:
1996 was 25 years ago. Sounds like a logical point to me. But moving on, NC State will score 200. If they score 150, they will be top 3 because scores will be higher than usual.
what significance is 25 years? Why not 20 or 30 or just the full 40? Maybe he picked it because it was when Bill Clinton became president! Maybe he's a die-hard Clinton fan and loved that Clinton was a runner!
He didn't pick that point cuz it was 25 years he picked it because almost every winning team before that scored below a hundred. And did you notice that he failed to mention that three or four of the team scored right around a hundred 101 100, 106. The basic point was that to say the winning team will have 125 would mean that it's the fifth highest score ever to win, it's certainly possible but the math doesn't make it likely
But his facts were correct whike yours were not. He stays credible while you do not.
Richer than most wrote:
But his facts were correct whike yours were not. He stays credible while you do not.
Not really. He was fact-checking me and doing it in a half a$$ careless, and misleading way!
It was obvious I was just throwing out a number and i wasn't giving a detailed record. I was using 90% meaning the overwhelming majority... I wasn't giving an audited account... I didn't have the exact figure at the top of my head
But yet when he chose to fact-check me instead of just giving an accurate picture he chose to intentionally try to skew it in a careless and biased Way
That is worse!
My basic point was fairly accurate and also honest. It was clear, to any intelligent person, I was giving an approximation,
But the coach chose to fact check this and then to intentionally paint a picture that was misleading
It turns out that about 80% of the winners have scored right around or below a hundred. So my 90% was a bit of an exaggeration but capture the spirit of the point I was making.
While the coach clearly wanting to investigate further, instead of just giving an accurate and meaningful insight, chose the time frame to prove me most wrong instead of spread the most accurate knowledge!
And that is statistical manipulation at its worst!
No. He clearly stated what year he used. His stats were correct. Your initial post misled everyone until he brought it to our attention.
I think this little trip down memory lane is a little irrelevant! It would actually make sense except none of the history has encountered a pandemic that has this meet in March, an Indoor championship two days before the meet, most conferences taking place 3 months before the championships, no regional meets, etc. The data means nothing because of the Pandemic.
However, going with what we know going into this meet about the teams, it pains me to say, but I think Stanford will win easily. It’s to bad that NC State is not going to be at 100%, because they were the only ones that could possibly beat Stanford this year. It sucks because we could have had a battle between the two teams like ARK and BYU last year....epic!
So Stanford will win, but the battle for second will be epic on Monday. I think their are 5 teams that could get second, and it is going to be exciting to watch! But I think the depth and Pack of NC state makes them the favorite to be runner up in a close race for 2nd with 135 points. If Starliper was there to basically cancel Dudek’s low stick and Dominique 100%, The Wolfpack would be winning there first title. Have to wait for next year to see that!☹️ My prediction in this unpredictable women’s race is:
Stanford
NC State
BYU
NAU ( my wildcard and sleeper pick)
Let's Do This! wrote:
Richer than most wrote:
But his facts were correct whike yours were not. He stays credible while you do not.
Not really. He was fact-checking me and doing it in a half a$$ careless, and misleading way!!
I have to say I kind of agree! That's why I said the coach pull the bonesmen on that one. Now obviously the phrase pull the bonesman is not a very common colloquialism. Is someone going to fact-check me and say that I'm making up my own phrases. That I'm delinquent in my diction. Well obviously the common vernacular was censored by the let's run etiquette police. So that's why I had to get creative with my elocution...
Also you got too much baby better on your brain if you think the coach pick that number because it's a nice round number. Like he can only think in quarter-century time frames. Like he's from a different era or something. Anyway let's not play dumb. We can all see the wood for the trees.
Richer than most wrote:
No. He clearly stated what year he used. His stats were correct. Your initial post misled everyone until he brought it to our attention.
Sorry I didn't realize I was talking to an idiot! Give my condolences to your parents. I won't burden you with thought anymore. Continue playing with your lead paint!
First you make false claims. Then you resort to insults and name calling. Why would you call someone an idiot just because they are not as smart as you? Is it our fault how we were born? You already lost credibility. Now you lost dignity also.
Ezrun wrote:
No idea what the scoring will be. But I do know NC state has an incredible amount of naturally blonde distance runners. 5% of the population but half their team.
Are my number is going to be scrutinized to this degree! I just came here to chill out shoot the breeze a little. Let me be the first to say 5% is just a number I've heard and it just seems like a lot of their team is blond.
Richer than most wrote:
First you make false claims. Then you resort to insults and name calling. Why would you call someone an idiot just because they are not as smart as you? Is it our fault how we were born? You already lost credibility. Now you lost dignity also.
Due to your condition it would be literally impossible for you to understand any explanation. Luckily for you futility is a concept you will never be burdened with. Enjoy the Bliss of your Perpetual ignorance!