and the winner is......MY DICK wrote:
I apologize, I didn't realize that having depth at such a high level meant so little.
Their DMR ran 9:33 (2:55, 48, 1:48, 4:00) losing only to mich and arkanssas, beating stanford, georgetown and indiana
4xMile ran 16:29 (4:04, 4:07, 4:06, 4:11)
They had 8 guys sub 1:53.
They had 5 gusy sub 3:53.
These guys dominated heps in mid distance events both indoors and outdoors and if you fail to recognize a quality program like this by comparing their relay results to Kerron Clement's world record, then that truly is sad.
Maybe in your mind the true judge of caliber is sending one person to nationals in track, but in my mind, the strength of a program lies in its numbers, not in the results of just one man.
After you go to community college and learn how to spell, you can learn how to make a coherent argument. Maybe then you will see my point. I'll simplify it for you.
1) The "depth" you claim is a lot of OK athletes. With the possibly exceptions of Hyde and Wyner, who are good, those guys would not make a ripple on the national scene.
2) I don't find fault in Cornell's XC team. They have a good team in context of the Ivy League due to good coaching and runners. I have a problem with their major inferiority complex. It seems Cornell is compelled to inflate their achievements and think they are on a different level than the other Ivies. The fact is talent wise, they equal to most of the other Ivies.
I'm not trying to bash the Cornell team, but it angers me when ignorant illiterates try to make silly points. To the other guy, I got into Harvard, Yale, Penn, Stanford, and Cornell. Let's be honest. Who would chose Cornell over these schools?