How’d Izzy T-bot slide into the slow poke heat 2 as the sole sub 4:10? There’s 5 sub 4:09 in heat 1. Very different pathways to the final. Go Margot!
for some unknown reason the methodology of assigning the runners from the quarterfinal results to the semi finals was different this year from last. From the quarterfinal results the fastest and slowest 1st place finishers went to semi heat 1. Ditto for the quarterfinal 2nd, 3rd etc finishers. In the past they alternated so the fastest and slowest quarterfinal 2nd place finishers would have gone to semi heat 2 instead of 1. Bott was 2nd place in her quarterfinal heat so she went to heat 2 becuase she was slower than Barnett who was fastest quarterfinal 2nd place finisher but faster than Ramsden who was 2nd in her quarterfinal heat.
PRs have nothing to do with the placement. Just 1) place in quarterfinal and then 2) time in quarterfinal.
How’d Izzy T-bot slide into the slow poke heat 2 as the sole sub 4:10? There’s 5 sub 4:09 in heat 1. Very different pathways to the final. Go Margot!
for some unknown reason the methodology of assigning the runners from the quarterfinal results to the semi finals was different this year from last. From the quarterfinal results the fastest and slowest 1st place finishers went to semi heat 1. Ditto for the quarterfinal 2nd, 3rd etc finishers. In the past they alternated so the fastest and slowest quarterfinal 2nd place finishers would have gone to semi heat 2 instead of 1. Bott was 2nd place in her quarterfinal heat so she went to heat 2 becuase she was slower than Barnett who was fastest quarterfinal 2nd place finisher but faster than Ramsden who was 2nd in her quarterfinal heat.
PRs have nothing to do with the placement. Just 1) place in quarterfinal and then 2) time in quarterfinal.
They did the same from round 1 to the quarters at regionals (at least in the west). They used their S formula and the Qs... heat 1 (2Q,3Q) heat 2 (1Q,4Q)... all this did was assure that the same people are racing each other in every round... they think this is the fairest way. I don't see it that way myself.
In my opinion, it should be mixed up... as apparently they did in years past (as you say above)... there are any number of ways to mix things up but for some reason they think using the Qs is the way to go. I just don't think it works well for mid-distance/distance events where races can be more strategic.
for some unknown reason the methodology of assigning the runners from the quarterfinal results to the semi finals was different this year from last. From the quarterfinal results the fastest and slowest 1st place finishers went to semi heat 1. Ditto for the quarterfinal 2nd, 3rd etc finishers. In the past they alternated so the fastest and slowest quarterfinal 2nd place finishers would have gone to semi heat 2 instead of 1. Bott was 2nd place in her quarterfinal heat so she went to heat 2 becuase she was slower than Barnett who was fastest quarterfinal 2nd place finisher but faster than Ramsden who was 2nd in her quarterfinal heat.
PRs have nothing to do with the placement. Just 1) place in quarterfinal and then 2) time in quarterfinal.
They did the same from round 1 to the quarters at regionals (at least in the west). They used their S formula and the Qs... heat 1 (2Q,3Q) heat 2 (1Q,4Q)... all this did was assure that the same people are racing each other in every round... they think this is the fairest way. I don't see it that way myself.
In my opinion, it should be mixed up... as apparently they did in years past (as you say above)... there are any number of ways to mix things up but for some reason they think using the Qs is the way to go. I just don't think it works well for mid-distance/distance events where races can be more strategic.
this is right and the prize for the 6 who ran so fast in the west regional is they get to race each other again, and lucky for them they add in Tuohy and Appelton (and others) from the east who happened to run slow...so one thing we know is at least 1 of those 8 will not be in the final.
who said something was wrong? But keeping all the fastest heat placers together in the semi seems wrong
Agreed
As a fan, I'd rather see it a little more balanced so we get the best race in the finals. Heat 1 has their work cut out for them today. Heat 2 we pretty much know how the race will unfold and who the top 2 or 3 will be.
Heat 1
Athlete PB Mia BARNETT UCLA [SO] 4:08.44 Simone PLOURDE Utah [JR] 4:08.70 Klaudia KAZIMIERSKA Oregon [FR] 4:08.53 Katelyn TUOHY NC State [SO] 4:06.84 Margot APPLETON Virginia [SO] 4:08.96 Abbe GOLDSTEIN New Mexico [SR] 4:10.32 Maddy ELMORE Oregon [FR] 4:08.87 Sophie O'SULLIVAN Washington [SO] 4:08.06 Lauren FREELAND Michigan State [JR] 4:14.28 Kimberley MAY Providence [SO] 4:13.24 Gabrielle WILKINSON Florida [SR] 4:14.47 Maia RAMSDEN Harvard [SO] 4:11.73
Heat 2
Athlete PB Izzy THORNTON-BOTT Oregon [JR] 4:08.64 Shannon FLOCKHART Providence [SO] 4:10.80 Billah JEPKIRUI Oklahoma State [FR] 4:12.39 Laura PELLICORO Portland [JR] 4:11.63 Olivia HOWELL Illinois [JR] 4:09.71 Melissa RIGGINS Georgetown [SO] 4:10.09 Silan AYYILDIZ South Carolina [SO] 4:12.11 Tiana LOSTRACCO Bradley [JR] 4:10.69 Amina MAATOUG Duke [SO] 4:13.16 Anna GIBSON Washington [SR] 4:12.65 Rylee PENN Cincinnati [JR] 4:10.13 Flomena ASEKOL Alabama [JR] 4:11.38
As a fan, I'd rather see it a little more balanced so we get the best race in the finals. Heat 1 has their work cut out for them today. Heat 2 we pretty much know how the race will unfold and who the top 2 or 3 will be.
Heat 1
Athlete PB Mia BARNETT UCLA [SO] 4:08.44 Simone PLOURDE Utah [JR] 4:08.70 Klaudia KAZIMIERSKA Oregon [FR] 4:08.53 Katelyn TUOHY NC State [SO] 4:06.84 Margot APPLETON Virginia [SO] 4:08.96 Abbe GOLDSTEIN New Mexico [SR] 4:10.32 Maddy ELMORE Oregon [FR] 4:08.87 Sophie O'SULLIVAN Washington [SO] 4:08.06 Lauren FREELAND Michigan State [JR] 4:14.28 Kimberley MAY Providence [SO] 4:13.24 Gabrielle WILKINSON Florida [SR] 4:14.47 Maia RAMSDEN Harvard [SO] 4:11.73
Heat 2
Athlete PB Izzy THORNTON-BOTT Oregon [JR] 4:08.64 Shannon FLOCKHART Providence [SO] 4:10.80 Billah JEPKIRUI Oklahoma State [FR] 4:12.39 Laura PELLICORO Portland [JR] 4:11.63 Olivia HOWELL Illinois [JR] 4:09.71 Melissa RIGGINS Georgetown [SO] 4:10.09 Silan AYYILDIZ South Carolina [SO] 4:12.11 Tiana LOSTRACCO Bradley [JR] 4:10.69 Amina MAATOUG Duke [SO] 4:13.16 Anna GIBSON Washington [SR] 4:12.65 Rylee PENN Cincinnati [JR] 4:10.13 Flomena ASEKOL Alabama [JR] 4:11.38
Stop your whining. The 2nd section has the NCAA indoor mile champ in Howell, Maatoug who had the fastest mile time indoors, Asekol who was 3rd in the mile indoors, and Flockhart who was 7th at the NCAA 1500 in 2022 as a freshman and is the highest placing returner in the field. Flockhart was also on the Penn Relays winning 4x1500. And we know Izzy is good.
It's not about times, it's about racing. The first section has faster times but they don't have anywhere near the success of the 2nd section if you look at past NCAA Championship results for the mile and 1500. Even Tuohy has never run the 1500 or mile before at NCAAs, it's different than the 5k or 3k.
Eh, no one is whining. If the heat with the slower times produces more winners in the final, as you say, that is probably because they are less tired from the semifinal.... Which is one of the reasons imho it would be better if the semifinal is more balanced. But it is what it is.
Eh, no one is whining. If the heat with the slower times produces more winners in the final, as you say, that is probably because they are less tired from the semifinal.... Which is one of the reasons imho it would be better if the semifinal is more balanced. But it is what it is.
Not whining.
All I am saying is they should mix things up more. All the athletes who were in Barnett's round 1 heat are in the heat with her here... just seems like there could be other ways to do it. That's my only point. And I get down votes... people on this site are strange.