Why did Gordon Mack catch so much heat for those comments? Because he was highlighting Seymour and it could be construed as "putting pressure" on her? I don't think the criticism he got for those comments was warranted. This seems like typical prognostications and fun banter/commentary made before almost any big race -- where you talk about "key performers" for each team, etc. Mack wasn't highlighting Seymour with any criticism or "negativity", such as suggesting that she hadn't performed as expected during the season up to that point. He was merely saying that she was a key performer for that team.
Why did Gordon Mack catch so much heat for those comments? Because he was highlighting Seymour and it could be construed as "putting pressure" on her? I don't think the criticism he got for those comments was warranted. This seems like typical prognostications and fun banter/commentary made before almost any big race -- where you talk about "key performers" for each team, etc. Mack wasn't highlighting Seymour with any criticism or "negativity", such as suggesting that she hadn't performed as expected during the season up to that point. He was merely saying that she was a key performer for that team.
As I recall he said the only one of the 255 runners that day that mattered was Seymour, which is just crazy. As we know they won even without Seymour in their top 5 that day.
Why did Gordon Mack catch so much heat for those comments? Because he was highlighting Seymour and it could be construed as "putting pressure" on her? I don't think the criticism he got for those comments was warranted. This seems like typical prognostications and fun banter/commentary made before almost any big race -- where you talk about "key performers" for each team, etc. Mack wasn't highlighting Seymour with any criticism or "negativity", such as suggesting that she hadn't performed as expected during the season up to that point. He was merely saying that she was a key performer for that team.
Your points are valid. He had a very on-point take; evidently Seymour’s performances had been fading through the season, and he in-effect, called her out on it. But that was the two-edged-sword, to in effect, publicly put such an intense spotlight on her.
What if Moreno had not had the performance she had that day? How would Seymour have felt then?
Why did Gordon Mack catch so much heat for those comments? Because he was highlighting Seymour and it could be construed as "putting pressure" on her? I don't think the criticism he got for those comments was warranted. This seems like typical prognostications and fun banter/commentary made before almost any big race -- where you talk about "key performers" for each team, etc. Mack wasn't highlighting Seymour with any criticism or "negativity", such as suggesting that she hadn't performed as expected during the season up to that point. He was merely saying that she was a key performer for that team.
Your points are valid. He had a very on-point take; evidently Seymour’s performances had been fading through the season, and he in-effect, called her out on it. But that was the two-edged-sword, to in effect, publicly put such an intense spotlight on her.
What if Moreno had not had the performance she had that day? How would Seymour have felt then?
While Mareno's performance was obviously excellent and very clutch i dont think it was quite as crazy as people have been saying. She had been trending upwards all season. She was 36th at Nuttycombe and 12 at Regionals. At regionals she finished just behind Brynn Brown from UNC who was 42nd at XC Nationals. If you move Mareno back to 43rd just behind Brown again then NC State still wins.
I think the implication that NC State didn't have anyone else that could step up if Seymour faded was stupider than putting any pressure on Seymour. When you have 3 in the top 15 you have a ton of leeway for other runners to fade.
While Mareno's performance was obviously excellent and very clutch i dont think it was quite as crazy as people have been saying. She had been trending upwards all season. She was 36th at Nuttycombe and 12 at Regionals. At regionals she finished just behind Brynn Brown from UNC who was 42nd at XC Nationals. If you move Mareno back to 43rd just behind Brown again then NC State still wins.
I think the implication that NC State didn't have anyone else that could step up if Seymour faded was stupider than putting any pressure on Seymour. When you have 3 in the top 15 you have a ton of leeway for other runners to fade.
And if Moreno has finished only 12 seconds ahead of Rauber like at Regionals, Mareno would have been back around 59th, with NC State solidly finishing 2nd.
While Mareno's performance was obviously excellent and very clutch i dont think it was quite as crazy as people have been saying. She had been trending upwards all season. She was 36th at Nuttycombe and 12 at Regionals. At regionals she finished just behind Brynn Brown from UNC who was 42nd at XC Nationals. If you move Mareno back to 43rd just behind Brown again then NC State still wins.
I think the implication that NC State didn't have anyone else that could step up if Seymour faded was stupider than putting any pressure on Seymour. When you have 3 in the top 15 you have a ton of leeway for other runners to fade.
And if Moreno has finished only 12 seconds ahead of Rauber like at Regionals, Mareno would have been back around 59th, with NC State solidly finishing 2nd.
One could argue Rauber had a poor race. She was with Mareno through 2k and then fell back 50 spots over the next 2k while Mareno moved up.
But whether or not NC State would win isn't even the point. The point is that NC State had avenues to win even with Seymour not having a good race, which makes Mack's point stupid even if you remove the insulting part of it that so many tried to hang onto.
Freshman Rauber was their spotty 5th that season. Their top 3 were solid. Mack was saying their 4th man that season (which happened to be Seymour) needed to step-up or they could lose the trophy. But a new 4th man, Mareno, arose to the occasion.
Freshman Rauber was their spotty 5th that season. Their top 3 were solid. Mack was saying their 4th man that season (which happened to be Seymour) needed to step-up or they could lose the trophy. But a new 4th man, Mareno, arose to the occasion.
I think you do have fuzzy recollections. Rauber only beat Mareno once that entire year, at ACC's. She finished outside of NC state's top 7 more often than she beat Mareno. Mareno was their clear 5th.
And if Moreno has finished only 12 seconds ahead of Rauber like at Regionals, Mareno would have been back around 59th, with NC State solidly finishing 2nd.
One could argue Rauber had a poor race. She was with Mareno through 2k and then fell back 50 spots over the next 2k while Mareno moved up.
But whether or not NC State would win isn't even the point. The point is that NC State had avenues to win even with Seymour not having a good race, which makes Mack's point stupid even if you remove the insulting part of it that so many tried to hang onto.
Not only did NC St have other options, but just saying 1 person on 1 team in the 255 person field is the only one mattered is just stupid. As I recall NM finished in a pack, amidst many runners. If they had all run maybe 5 seconds faster they might well have won.
I was thinking of revising my post before I saw yours. Yes, Rauber was their 5th that day. Mack rightly concluded a 20-30 point swing would hinge on whether the 4th showed up that day, and the athlete that had been solidly in the 4th spot that season was Seymour.
I was thinking of revising my post before I saw yours. Yes, Rauber was their 5th that day. Mack rightly concluded a 20-30 point swing would hinge on whether the 4th showed up that day, and the athlete that had been solidly in the 4th spot that season was Seymour.
He was not saying Tuohy, Chmiel or Bush’s performance would be irrelevant; rather, he was saying they were unquestionably solid that season. His point was that a huge point swing would hinge around their 4th.
I was thinking of revising my post before I saw yours. Yes, Rauber was their 5th that day. Mack rightly concluded a 20-30 point swing would hinge on whether the 4th showed up that day, and the athlete that had been solidly in the 4th spot that season was Seymour.
But I can maybe make the other case with you and say Mack could have instead concluded “NCState is too deep, such that even if Seymour continues to fade, they still will quite likely finish 1st based on performances to date of Rauber and Mareno.”
Not only did NC St have other options, but just saying 1 person on 1 team in the 255 person field is the only one mattered is just stupid.
On top of that, it’s cross country, not track, and involves 5 scorers, not 1. The probability of something going awry on each team is what made his call-out so idiotic. Was Seymour sliding further as the season went along? Sure. Was she really the only relevant scorer in a race involving 250+ athletes on a hilly 6k course? No. That’s just silly.
Even in 2023 last year, NC State won without Chmiel because NAU as a whole underperformed. Not because of 1 runner.