Bur PP and NP would both be top 10.
Bur PP and NP would both be top 10.
Lenny Leonard wrote:
UVA had in 2021 outdoor:
3 guys sub-14:00
7 guys 14:24 or faster
6 guys under 30:00
Not close to making XC Nationals
I would say that Virginia either performed poorly at regionals, or maybe 5k track times don't correlate to 10k XC performance, but based on your analysis, here are the number of runners under 14:00 for each team in front of them at that race.
Wake- 4
Furman- 1
North Carolina- 5
NC State- 4
Charlotte- 1
Duke- 0
Virginia- 3
The first 3 teams did qualify for nationals this year. And yes, North Carolina is a much better team than VA, but I don't know if your argument is all that valid. 5 Guys under 14:10 is still pretty solid for most D1 teams. Maybe not the top 30, but Furman did qualify and they rarely have had a guy break 14:00 over the last 5 years. Its not always about having some serious low sticks. Pomona does well because they have so many consistent, similar talent runners that their pack wins national level races for them.
I'm not even going to try to argue that they would place top 10, top 30 or even top 50 at nationals. We will never know. If they can have 5 runners under 14:10 in a single season (and that is a HUGE if) that is a pretty amazing feat for a Div 3 school, and all but the best D1 schools.
I would also add that all of the runners at Pomona have at least a 1500+ SAT, were probably Valedictorian at their high-school, and didn't receive a dime in athletic scholarship money to attend the school when they obviously could have gotten money at some D1 school. And they are performing well even with a very rigorous academic workload being at one of the top institutions in the country.
I'm certainly not a Pomona fan, but let's put the OP in perspective. To have 5 runners sub 14:10 at a school that cannot really recruit in the manner that a top D1 school can is beyond amazing.
Now wether they can actually do what they say is another thing entirely!
That is not true.
This was posted earlier in the thread. So you are calling this one of the best teams in D1? They didn't have 5 guys on the roster at sub 14:10 but 7:59 3k is certainly faster and 14:12 and 14:18 are pretty darn close. Add a 3:43 and a few more 8:20ish guys and you get about the worst team in a P5 conference.
7:58/13:54
8:06/13:55/28:48
7:59
3:43
3:47/8:21
3:50/8:15/14:12
3:51/8:12/14:18
3:49/8:20
3:58/8:26
3:59/8:29
4:00/8:35
8:30
Nescac Dad wrote:
I would also add that all of the runners at Pomona have at least a 1500+ SAT, were probably Valedictorian at their high-school, and didn't receive a dime in athletic scholarship money to attend the school when they obviously could have gotten money at some D1 school. And they are performing well even with a very rigorous academic workload being at one of the top institutions in the country.
I'm certainly not a Pomona fan, but let's put the OP in perspective. To have 5 runners sub 14:10 at a school that cannot really recruit in the manner that a top D1 school can is beyond amazing.
Now wether they can actually do what they say is another thing entirely!
I’ve messaged with you before, I’m the SCIAC dad. My daughter is on the PP team. She often sees the men practice and she tells me the PP men are amazing at the moment, super talented. She doesn’t provide me with any of their workout details, and she probably doesn’t know the exact details because the men and women don’t practice together, but still she’s a pretty sophisticated observer from afar. What’s being suggested here sounds very plausible. Certainly as a distance squad, cross team PP would stack up favorably against many decent D1 schools. As we mentioned previously, if they were in the Ivy League, they would have easily beaten every team other than Harvard and Princeton this year.
Nescac Dad wrote:
I would also add that all of the runners at Pomona have at least a 1500+ SAT, were probably Valedictorian at their high-school, and didn't receive a dime in athletic scholarship money to attend the school when they obviously could have gotten money at some D1 school. And they are performing well even with a very rigorous academic workload being at one of the top institutions in the country.
I'm certainly not a Pomona fan, but let's put the OP in perspective. To have 5 runners sub 14:10 at a school that cannot really recruit in the manner that a top D1 school can is beyond amazing.
Now wether they can actually do what they say is another thing entirely!
I would also add that Pomona-Pitzer is a joint athletics programs for two schools. Some go to Pomona, some go to Pitzer. Pomona is a strong school, Pitzer much weaker. It's a distinct advantage because it's two schools combined.
They have the same exact recruiting as Harvard and Princeton, both of which would sweep PP 15-50 in a dual meet. Actually, PP can do more in recruiting than Harvard and Princeton because D3 NCAA recruiting rules are less restrictive. For example there are no recruiting dead periods in D3.
Harvard and Princeton are next level, but PP would have been 3rd in the heptagonal xc this year. BTW, the team is 90% from Pomona including all of their top runners.
versy tile wrote:
That is not true.
This was posted earlier in the thread. So you are calling this one of the best teams in D1? They didn't have 5 guys on the roster at sub 14:10 but 7:59 3k is certainly faster and 14:12 and 14:18 are pretty darn close. Add a 3:43 and a few more 8:20ish guys and you get about the worst team in a P5 conference.
7:58/13:54
8:06/13:55/28:48
7:59
3:43
3:47/8:21
3:50/8:15/14:12
3:51/8:12/14:18
3:49/8:20
3:58/8:26
3:59/8:29
4:00/8:35
8:30
I'm not sure exactly what you believe isn't true, but I guess this depends on what your definition of "best is". I would arbitrarily say the top 10-15% would be considered the best teams in any comparison. You might disagree with that, but assuming those numbers and 360 D1 colleges, that means 40-50 schools would fall into that category.
Now wether or not Virginia is one of the top 50 schools in the country is your call. I was simply saying that they should have performed better at regionals based on having so many sub 14 runners on their squad. The fact that they came in 7th might imply that basing XC performance solely on 5k or even 3k times is not the best method. After all, Furman came in second and went to nationals and literally has had only 3 total runners break 14 minutes on any (indoor or outdoor) track in the last 8 years.
BTW- The P5 conferences are comprised of 65 schools. Even if you are the worst in these conferences, that still means you are probably better than most of the overall D1 schools.
I believe that 1/3 of the teams at nationals were not P5 teams. Using that ratio, there would be about 1/2 as many teams equivalent to P5 teams which puts the number right at 100. The time listed above were nearly dead last in a P5 conference and they look better than Pomona-Pitzer. That puts PP out of the top 100 D1 schools.
You are correct that Pomona and Pitzer are combined and Pitzer is not as academically challenging as Pomona, but as another poster stated, the vast majority of the team does indeed attend Pomona. And as a father of someone who was recruited by Pomona, Several Ivies, the Nescac's, and others, I can assure you that Pomona and other top D3's are at a significant disadvantage to the Ivies with regards to their ability to recruit. Yes, they do not have the same black out periods, but that is a very small advantage in the game. My child breezed through the pre reads at the Ivies and received several likely letters. And in spite of receiving a 1500+ on their SAT, I distinctly remember the Pomona coach asking if they could take it again to squeeze out another 30-40 points to assure a spot. On the other hand, the Ivies were thrilled with the score as they only needed a 1300+ for admission. I also know of several Ivy and Stanford recruits over the last few years that had significantly lower SAT and GPA's than my child and had absolutely no problem getting accepted.
That is not to discount your comment about Harvard and Princeton. They recruit top notch talent without scholarships and are consistent participants at nationals. There is no doubt their athletes have similar work loads to the Pomona students and they would most likely win a dual meet 15-50, but those two schools have the very distinct advantage of being "Harvard and Princeton" and the name recognition alone gives them a leg up in getting top notch talent. The rest of the ivies are not nearly as strong in their abilities and I would agree with Wise old man that Pomona would most likely beat Cornell, Dartmouth, Columbia, Yale, etc.
versy tile wrote:
I believe that 1/3 of the teams at nationals were not P5 teams. Using that ratio, there would be about 1/2 as many teams equivalent to P5 teams which puts the number right at 100. The time listed above were nearly dead last in a P5 conference and they look better than Pomona-Pitzer. That puts PP out of the top 100 D1 schools.
You are correct. I was simplifying my argument just to make point. But I will also add that you are only looking at one data set to try to drive home some point that PP wouldn't be in the top 100 in D1. I'm not here to attack your manhood, and I could care less about where they rank. . As I posted earlier, Furman has 5 runners ranging from 13:57-14:09, and yet they were 31st at nationals. Michigan had 4 runners ranging from 13:50-14:10 and yet they came in 25th. And Minnesota had only 3 runners in that range and came in top 20.
The point is, that using 5k times alone to try to determine how good a team will perform at nationals is not the best method. And as I stated above, having 5 runners in one season being able to run under 14:10 would be considered impressive. Even at some of the top D1 schools I listed above.
Distance program yes...but as an overall track program no so much.
The Pomona Pitzer men's program used to dominate the throws (the hammer in particular) and the jumps (Best men's triple jump school in D3 history). While they've battered the PP top ten lists in the distances over the last few years, they haven't had a legit field event program since Dr. Mulcahy (Will Leer's coach) retired around 15 years ago. It is like they really don't care or know what to do. Sprints and hurdles have had the odd kid here and there but nothing consistent. Get me a 50+' triple jumper or a 200+' hammer thrower and I'll start listening a bit closer.
Hey Old Man, glad to chat with you again. As usual, I agree with you, and I also begrudgingly allow that it is possible that PP can put 5 under 14:10 (God that hurts to say). My only challenge is the ability to actually make it happen. There is no doubt that all 5 of these runners have the ability to go that time. But injuries, number of meets, their interest in focusing on other distances, etc. sometimes makes it hard to have the ability for everyone to run at peak performance on the right day, at the right time in order to hit it. In order to achieve this, they would really need a perfect storm. I certainly think they will have 3, even 4, but 5 seems a stretch to me. However, it is entirely possible, and I will be rooting for them to do it. As I have stated many times, I believe the more that top HS runners see they can get great competition at the D3 level, the more they will consider it as an alternative to going the D1 route. I truly think we will see a sub 13:40 this year, and certainly several runners under 13:50. I believe Williams will even get 3 runners under 14:00 which was unheard of a few years ago. And if anyone doubts the quality of D3 runners, they only need to look at Aidan Ryan's 7:55 3000k last weekend. That would have been a D3 record (had it been on a 200M track) by 4 seconds, and would have been 3rd all time in division 2. It would even be a top 5 time in D1 this year.
+1
There is no doubt that in distance running D3 quality continues to improve and that the very best programs are comparable with many D1 programs outside the top 25-30. It’s too tedious to document this to the naysayers, and who really cares if they believe it or not. My daughters have grown up running in a very competitive high school conference and section, my older daughter being the leader of a 4-time CA state xc podium and 2x championship team. Many of the top runners from the section could have run D1 (no not necessarily NAU or NC state) but elected for D3, including my daughter. My qualitative impression is that this is happening more and more frequently. I don’t have real detailed insights into what the PP men might achieve this season, or if they are better than Williams, and all of your points are valid, but what the OP has posted seems doable and my daughter confirmed this in general terms. That’s the point of the OP, don’t sleep on the top D3 distance programs!
versy tile wrote:
I believe that 1/3 of the teams at nationals were not P5 teams. Using that ratio, there would be about 1/2 as many teams equivalent to P5 teams which puts the number right at 100. The time listed above were nearly dead last in a P5 conference and they look better than Pomona-Pitzer. That puts PP out of the top 100 D1 schools.
Any team that has 5 sub 14:10 runners is one of the top 40 NCAA schools in cross country. There is no doubt.
Someone said it is an advantage because they are two schools.
The combined enrollment is 2,900. That is not a large school. It is not an advantage.
No doubt? You are incorrect. Maybe if you try to single out just the 5k without considering that some XC runners do the 800, some do the 1500, some do the steeple, etc. Lagat for Iowa State finished 44th. He has no 5k but he has run 1:45 and 3:39. So if you are saying that a team with five "14:10" type guys is top 40, you are incorrect.
This is obviously way better than a team of five 14:10 guys. The 10th guy is 8:29. These guys could obviously have more than 5 under 14:10 if they all ran 5k but the team is barely top 75.
7:58/13:54
8:06/13:55/28:48
7:59
3:43
3:47/8:21
3:50/8:15/14:12
3:51/8:12/14:18
3:49/8:20
3:58/8:26
3:59/8:29
4:00/8:35
8:30
Wartburg was ranked 1st all year. They have 1600 students. NCC has been the dominant team for the past 50 years. They have 2500 students. Of course adding another school is an advantage.
Not in Oz wrote:
No doubt? You are incorrect. Maybe if you try to single out just the 5k without considering that some XC runners do the 800, some do the 1500, some do the steeple, etc. Lagat for Iowa State finished 44th. He has no 5k but he has run 1:45 and 3:39. So if you are saying that a team with five "14:10" type guys is top 40, you are incorrect.
This is obviously way better than a team of five 14:10 guys. The 10th guy is 8:29. These guys could obviously have more than 5 under 14:10 if they all ran 5k but the team is barely top 75.
7:58/13:54
8:06/13:55/28:48
7:59
3:43
3:47/8:21
3:50/8:15/14:12
3:51/8:12/14:18
3:49/8:20
3:58/8:26
3:59/8:29
4:00/8:35
8:30
I said no doubt and I am correct. Keep in mind that means they have 5 runners who can run 14:09 or faster. That is a very good team. When you have that kind of depth it is huge. Of course it helps to have strong depth beyond the top 5 for obvious reasons.
How many would say there are here? 7:59 is probably equivalent to 13:50. 3:43 is equivalent to 14:00. That's 4. And then there is a 14:12 and 14:18. You don't call that 5 who can run 14:09? Betting Pomona Pitzer does not equal these marks and keep in mins this is of a 75th type team in D1.