So Allegheny Pulls an Upset

allegheny sucks really bad, they'll never ever make top 10 again, i bet they won't even qualify for nationals next year, they just got really lucky at regionals losing to haverford by 3 points because haverford just had a really bad race that day, and at nationals they are just really good mudders. i bet they didn't even make top 3, it probably was just a scoring error, they probably should have been 23 where they belonged...it's not like they have any track studs at all.

instead of getting yourself in a hissy fit over an online debate why don't you just prove me wrong during the track season and next year at nationals again since some of you are obviously on the team.

MegaZord wrote:

instead of getting yourself in a hissy fit over an online debate why don't you just prove me wrong during the track season and next year at nationals again since some of you are obviously on the team.

personally, I thought a solid track season and a good XC season back-to-back was enough, but if you insist...

well guess what i didn't pay attention to them in track or cross until nationals and a lot of other folks didn't either.

alright I'm a bit fired up about this now so I did some homework using their own website. Allegheny was beaten by 9 different D3 teams during the season. So the highest they could possibly be ranked WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY OTHER TEAMS THEY DID NOT FACE(this includes Calvin and NYU)would be 10th. At the Upenn race they more than doubled Cortland's score, Cortland's 111 to Allegheny's 234 and at Prenats they more than doubled Geneseo's score, Geneseo's 71 to their 153. Not to mention that only one of their runners broke 26 ONE time the entire season. I mean I don't know what courses they run on, but I would assume they saw a relatively flat course at some point in the season.

This info came right off their website and I encourage you see for yourself. If I made a mistake, then I'm sorry. I think you're being a little unrealistic if you don't think the mud helped them a tad. I know mud helped my team I can't deny that. They either got lucky or they should start selling books on the secret to peaking because I myself will buy 7 copies.

I never said they didn't run great, never said they didn't run tough. They all beat the snot out of me in Ohio. Just asking you to look at the rest of the season. They got lucky and I don't expect to see them on the podium again next year if its dry. Hey if I'm wrong bump this thread and throw it in my face, but I think I've stressed my point enough on this thread.

"Allegheny ran really well at nationals and I did'nt - so there - everyone sucks now!" That teach 'em all.

Just to keep with the trend of arguing with everything you post... Allegheny didnt even run at Upenn so I'm not entirely sure that came from their website. I did my homework too. They did run at the Penn State invite however. Where they did lose to Cortland badly, and yes they did lose to all those other teams from what I gather, but had you checked earlier posts and noted one of their top runners, mourer, didn't run in any of those races. Post his return they lost to one school before nationals, haverford at regionals which I would like to note was also very muddy. The mud may have helped them the tinyest bit possiable, but why didn't any other teams run so amazing sweet in the mud then? Why did they lose to Haverford a week before in the mud?

Allegheny the first half of the season when they lost to teams and Allegheny the second half of the season when they lost to 3 top ten teams (2 at nationals) were not the same teams, mentally, physically or even roster wise.

I dont get why people are soo pissed about allegheny pulling it off.... citing races throughout the season to compare to the national race....... last time i checked the only race that matters is NATIONALS.... so for all the people that are pissed or can't beleive they got 3rd maybe you should transfer to a program that understands how to work hard during the (season) and the meets that dont count TAPER and PEAK for the races that actually count.... this is coming from someone that hasn't read up on their season off their "website" and just heard about some of the meets during the season then looked at the results at nationals.....

MegaZord wrote:

Not to mention that only one of their runners broke 26 ONE time the entire season. I mean I don't know what courses they run on, but I would assume they saw a relatively flat course at some point in the season.

Place broke 26 twice (pre-nats, rochester)--also not running hard at pre-regionals for the win...PSU was 5.2 miles--the conversion times for 8K puts 2 under 26 in that race, and it's actually a fairly hilly course...rochester was relatively flat but it poured before and during the race, creating some mud etc.

MegaZord wrote:

Not to mention that only one of their runners broke 26 ONE time the entire season. I mean I don't know what courses they run on, but I would assume they saw a relatively flat course at some point in the season.

i'm sorry, but some of the courses that teams out west run on during the season, my grandma could run sub 26 on...course times don't mean anything..just look at some of the courses that allegheny ran on during the season and the weather conditions that they ran them on. so quit comparing course times and just wait until track season.

spedmaster wrote:

allegheny sucks really bad, they'll never ever make top 10 again, i bet they won't even qualify for nationals next year, they just got really lucky at regionals losing to haverford by 3 points because haverford just had a really bad race that day, and at nationals they are just really good mudders. i bet they didn't even make top 3, it probably was just a scoring error, they probably should have been 23 where they belonged...it's not like they have any track studs at all.

Allegheny got lucky at regionals (which, by the way, was quite a muddy race as well)? Nonsense. Allegheny ripped Haverford apart at Nationals. My team beat Allegheny early in the year. They ripped us apart at Nationals as well. They were at their best when it counted.

They'll be right up there next year too...I believe they lose one of their top nine. If you're on a team, get your training in, quit your whining, and stop overrating your guys who go 26:30 on some grass speedway.

First off, quit being bitches and just run... Secondly, Allegheny ran tough and hard when it mattered, so stop hating on them because they beat you, they obviously put the miles in and trained to peak at the right time. Also the mud effects EVERYONE, therefore it is not an excuse why you ran slow, everyone ran slow

Quit making excuses, it is lame.

I was in the Div III nationals race, and all I have to say is that there was no luck involved that some teams did well and some did not. The teams that did well had to want it, and want it bad. It was not a day to skip across the ground and ran a fast time. It was all about trudging through mud for 27-28 minutes and hurting very second of it. Allegheny may have placed higher than they should have, but they earned that right every step they took that day.

pretty sure he was being sarcastic...esp. given his next post

Marco Dozzi is a track-stud AND he likes heavy metal music. Challenging him is like challenging Slayer to a rock-off. Eat pies man, just eat pies.

The goal of any cross country team is to be ready for the big race at the end of the season. Allegheny was ready when it counted the most.

Most likely it is not an "upset" but rather they came under radar.

Why did they come under everyone's radar?

First, because they focused on the end of the year, not on the earlier parts of the year in which polls are based upon. And, second, because national polls are not a true measurement by any means, especially for cross country. There are so many things that the polls do not and can't measure when conferences, regionals, and nationals come along.

The hype around national polls should be flushed down the toilet. I don't know who does those polls, but consider this: The polls going into nationals were highly incorrect when comparing to the actual finishes at nationals. For example, the polls had 4 midwest teams ranked in the top 10 (2-5-8-9). At nationals, the midwest went 9-11-13-25-26.

Getting back to Allegheny, I believe that in general, the entire mideast region came under the radar, likely due to the polls. Entering nationals, mideast teams ranked were 6-14-23-33 (Haverford, Allegheny, Carnegie Mellon, and Muhlenberg). At nationals, the mideast went 3-10-12-29 (Allegheny, Haver, CMU, and Muhl).

I should point out that Claremont-Mudd-Scripps entered nationals ranked #28, and finished #16. Likely they're the only team that the "mudd" helped. Harvey would be proud.

Congrats to Allegheny. You earned your third place finish.

This is definintly a comment of a sore loser. Probably a Haverford runner. Allegheny improved throughout the year and peaked at the right time, who cares what they did throughout the season, and if they lost to 9 other D3 teams throughout the season. Last i checked, it was about who was on the podium at the end. If you think Allegheny wasnt a good team, then you should of proved it at the race. Good job Allegheny, way to show up and run your asses off. No one can take it from you, you guys kicked some ass.

Those who are sore losers, keep complaining. Its funny to read your posts. Cuz it proves you didnt bring it. People talking about "oh it was muddy, we couldnt run cuz well cuz it was muddy" or "it wasnt cross country, but elimination challenge" .... whatever!!!! cross country IS about running on crappy terrain! if you cant hack it, wait till spring to run. I never heard so many complainers about mud in my life. If you say your team lost cuz it was muddy, then you dont know what cross country is. Everybody runs in the same conditions and are just as tired as you are. They just grab their balls and go when you give in to the pain. Thats why those teams that stood on the podium all deserved it.

spedmaster wrote:

allegheny sucks really bad, they'll never ever make top 10 again, i bet they won't even qualify for nationals next year, they just got really lucky at regionals losing to haverford by 3 points because haverford just had a really bad race that day, and at nationals they are just really good mudders. i bet they didn't even make top 3, it probably was just a scoring error, they probably should have been 23 where they belonged...it's not like they have any track studs at all.

this is the quote for my comment above....sorry

ONE TIME, someone in Arizona said something about Marco Dozzi's mom. He RAN to their house and punched them in the face. RAN THERE. Their house was far away. FAR. like 1267 miles. LOOK IT UP! He's a track-stud. China sent him a letter to ask if he would breed with their women to create super-athletes. How many kids from Haverford can say that? They probably don't even know where China is, or Arizona (so they couldn't have completed the aforementioned task either).