Pomona -Pitzer will have 5 guys sub 14:10, 2 guys sub 29:30, and a guy sub 1:48/3:44

versy tile wrote:

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.

No it is not. That is not “75th type team.” You know there is more to the story so please stop with the deception.

What would that be? Pick another team outside of the top 40 and pull up each guy's PR on the roster. You won't find one who is worse than Pomona Pitzer. I realize that most of you guys are former D3 guys who don't dig into anything.

versy tile wrote:

What would that be? Pick another team outside of the top 40 and pull up each guy's PR on the roster. You won't find one who is worse than Pomona Pitzer. I realize that most of you guys are former D3 guys who don't dig into anything.

I not defending Pomona. I don’t care about them. I am telling you that if you have 5 guys in 14:09 or faster shape you have a top 40 NCAA cross country team. Forget about their personal bests. Of course you cannot have a 14:09 guy who is in 14:45 shape.

Some of you seem opposed to facts. The facts do not support your opinion. Watch how fast guys run at BU after XC. Most XC guys are probably in the 5k shape of their lives at the end of the season. To pretend that their track times are somehow faster than what they would have run in Xc is just ignorant. I randomly grabbed the 1st 9th place team at a regional that I am most familiar with thinking that would be about the 75th bet team in the country and I assumed I would see a 14 minute guy and a 3:5 guy and a few 14:25 guys. Not close. That looks like about 9 guys who can run 14:13 or faster.

13:49

14:09

14:10

3:45

3:45

8:11

8:16

14:12

14:13

14:20

Law of the Land wrote:

Some of you seem opposed to facts. The facts do not support your opinion. Watch how fast guys run at BU after XC. Most XC guys are probably in the 5k shape of their lives at the end of the season. To pretend that their track times are somehow faster than what they would have run in Xc is just ignorant. I randomly grabbed the 1st 9th place team at a regional that I am most familiar with thinking that would be about the 75th bet team in the country and I assumed I would see a 14 minute guy and a 3:5 guy and a few 14:25 guys. Not close. That looks like about 9 guys who can run 14:13 or faster.

13:49

14:09

14:10

3:45

3:45

8:11

8:16

14:12

14:13

14:20

Whats with all the subterfuge. Just tell us who this mysterious 9th place team is. Not that I doubt you, its just, why the secrecy? And what I see is a 13:49/14:09/14:10/14:12/14:13/14:20. The 3:45's while very good, are not an accurate depiction of a good 5k time. I know a lot of sub 4 milers who were not great 5k runners let alone 8k/10k on grass. Way too many variables to make an accurate assessment on that one. I'll give you the 8:11 is probably in the sub 14:10 range, but the 8:16 actually would most likely not. Then you are left with 14:12-14:20. All very good times, but the reality is that this team would probably have technically 3, maybe 4, sub 14:10 guys. So yes, if PP had 5 runners under 14:10 and let's assume that not every one of them ran a 14:09, they would most likely beat this mysterious team.

I'm still not arguing they are a top 40, 50 or 60 team. I'm simply saying that 5 guys in that range would be impressive. And honestly, who cares? The OP was not that PP was capable of beating a good D1 program. It was simply that it could potentially have 5 runners under 14:10 in one season which would make it the most successful track program in D3 history.

Furman 31st last fall in NCAA Cross Country

Daniel Bernal 14:00

Dylan Schubert 14:04

Noah Dolhare 14:16

Aaron Wier 8:08

Cameron Ponder 7:54

These were their top 5 and those are their personal bests. Of course I am correct.

You are not correct. You said that 5 guys sub sub 14:10 gets you top 40. Two teams of that caliber gave been listed who were around 75th. I guess you meant that thise times could get a team top 40 but most teams with thise track times would not he top 40. You really don't seem to like facts.

Dude, really? You pick some random mysterious school and then criticize someone else when they provide you with proof that your assumption isn't 100% correct. It is possible that both of you can find data to prove your point. Furman is a top 30 school, and they don't technically have 5 sub 14:10 guys, nor conversion times that would equal that. If you need another, look at Minnesota. They were top 20 this year and had 13:56/13:57/14:00 and then 2 3:45's.

The point is that there are some teams that have great track times that didn't perform well at regionals for whatever reason. And there are others that did. It could be that their best runners don't participate in track, or they don't have great coaching. Who cares. It easy to find some random school's times and try to drive home your argument. Stop trying to prove something that can't be proved.

Instead, I have another option for you. Take the post at its word. 5 sub 14:10 5k's in a single season. Now, go try to find another team that isn't one of the absolute best in the country that will do that this season. I'm not saying equivalent times, or coulda, woulda, shoulda. I'm saying a team that actually has 5 sub 14:10 times. You won't find many. That doesn't mean that a lot of these teams can't do it, but for a wide variety of reasons they don't. It just doesn't happen that often. And its never happened at the D3 level. So stop trying to make this more than it is, and just appreciate the idea that a school that doesn't recruit, has no athletic scholarships, is very small, and is extremely difficult to get into can produce something that most schools in the country won't. That would be pretty special.

Thank you.

Not in Oz wrote:

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.

If you are making the complex point that it is better to have 2900 than 1800, yes, you are correct and nobody could argue that. But to say that P-P is good because of its size, that’s not a very good point because there are a lot of D3 schools that have as many or more students.

Imimpresssed wrote:

Not in Oz wrote:

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.

If you are making the complex point that it is better to have 2900 than 1800, yes, you are correct and nobody could argue that. But to say that P-P is good because of its size, that’s not a very good point because there are a lot of D3 schools that have as many or more students.

It's an advantage because you can recruit students to either school. If you coach at Williams and a recruit doesn't like the campus, then he goes somewhere else. If you coach at Pomona Pitzer and a recruit doesn't like the Pitzer campus, you can say "hey go visit Pomona" so you get two chances with each recruit.

If a recruit doesn't get into Williams, that's the end of the recruitment. If a recruit doesn't get into Pomona, he applies to Pitzer to be on the same athletic team. Two chances.

Regardless of the size of the school, this is an incredible advantage.

bankrupt- I will agree with you on the advantage of having two schools to apply to, and thus two chances. And yes Pitzer is slightly easier to get into than Pomona, but surprisingly not that much. Its still a very good school, and all 5 in the consortium "share" students, so Pomona students will often times be in classes with students from pitzer or claremont as well. But when compared to other D3 schools, they do have a bit of an advantage in that regard.

With regard to the campus, thats actually not really a factor here. The 5 schools are basically one large campus. They each have some uniqueness to them (Claremont and Pomona both have their own large rec centers and tracks for instance) but you can literally get to anywhere of the 5 within 5 minutes from the center of campus. Almost think of it as 1 large university with 5 campuses touching each other. So basically, if you didn't like Pomona's campus, you surely wouldn't think much of Pitzer's bing that its only 100' away:-)

Pomona would lose handily to any decent D1 team.

To say that Pomona-Pitzer doesn't give scholarships is technically correct but a little misleading. They entice recruits with the prestige of a Pomona degree, implying higher future earnings - not a scholarship, but recruits recognize the added value they are getting. It's why so many of the fast D3 schools are also the ones that are so difficult to get in to - Williams, MIT, Johns Hopkins, etc. It makes what NCC did so much more impressive since they didn't have that carrot to dangle in front of recruits who could easily have gone D1.

On the other hand, Pomona doesn't lower academic standards nearly as much as the Ivies do for top recruits, so the fact that they could beat 6 of the 8 Ivy teams says a lot about their program and how they develop runners.

PP would be top 10 in the West Region...Where does that put them nationally in D1?? Genuinely wondering

youngbuck wrote:

PP would be top 10 in the West Region...Where does that put them nationally in D1?? Genuinely wondering

Check out Portland State's 5k times...and they were 7th in the West last year

75th.

I think there's a lot of people on or closely associated with Pomona Pitzer posting favorably here. Calm down. They haven't run any times yet.

Instead of running your mouth on a message board, how about entering your team at a real D1 cross country meet next year? Put your money where your mouth is, or shut up.