So...with the new rankings being released finally (speaking in terms of D-1 of course), what are the bigger surprises (b/c there are many)? The fact that the Big 12 has THREE teams ranked in the top 9 (and 4 in the top 25)? Or the fact that Arkansas starts the year at number FIVE this year? Of course there are others....
....maybe the fact that the national rankings (http://ustfccca.cstv.com/) and the regional rankings (http://ustfccca.cstv.com/ot/c-xc/division1-men-regional-poll.html) for the preseason have SUCH a disparity this year. There always is, but this time even more so (see the west region for details....)
The Big 12 had 3 in the top 10 AT THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS in each of the last two years.
at the 2005 nationals, CU was 5th, UT was 7th, OSU was 8th and Kansas was 12th.
In 2006 CU was 1st, UT was 7th, OSU was 10th and KU was 20th.
The Big 12 has quietly become the top cross country conference in the NCAA.
Yeah, wasn't trying to say they didn't deserve it or anything, but they usually come on as of late in the year ("they" being the Big 12 teams)....it's rare that they start out this high.
Red B. wrote:
Yeah, wasn't trying to say they didn't deserve it or anything, but they usually come on as of late in the year ("they" being the Big 12 teams)....it's rare that they start out this high.
well when they finish that high does it really matter?
I think those in the top 10 preseason rankings are likely good enough that they should be ranked somewhere. After that, it's just one idiot coach voting for another idiot coach to help each other recruit idiot athletes that can't think for themselves. Rankings suck. Thank goodness we have a sport that can line up and determine the real champ. If only they would do away with those "at large" berths to the NCAA Championships. What an asinine way to get to the NCAA's!!
I was surprised Colorado was number 2. I don't know their team real well, but they'd have to have a lot of secrets to pull out a second place finish. They lost Nelson, Strang, Heinonen, who else? I don't think Pifer and Vaughn can pull the rest of the team to #2, but we'll see. Arkansas is probably better than 5, but they haven't run that well in recent years (funny that not great is still consistant top 5).
Colorado's got Medina, Harkrader (hopefully healthy), Neuman (14 min guy). Maybe Tebo will be healthy and contribute.
....and Wetmore
The fact that Lamar was left out of the national rankings, despite a solid victory over Texas is definitely a shocker.
They got votes last year, so what gives??
CU is underated!
Again, misinterpreted. Wasn't saying they didn't DESERVE to be that high nor that they wouldn't finish that high at the end of the season; it's just surprising to see the Big 12 getting this much respect at the beginning of the season (warranted or not).
NAU will place MUCH higher than 20th at NCAA's. Maybe top 10 or 5? Wait to see at Griak if they have everyone eligible or Pre Nats. They will be the surprise team this year.
Flagstaffer wrote:
NAU will place MUCH higher than 20th at NCAA's. Maybe top 10 or 5? Wait to see at Griak if they have everyone eligible or Pre Nats. They will be the surprise team this year.
How are the new Australian guys running?
Pretty well. David ran an 8:00 3k time trial before he came and Ben ran the Austrailian junior 20k record. They are fit!
They ran down in San Diego this weekend but only ran one of their top 5.
Any idea how Washington State's men are ranked sixth in the west region, and Washington eighth, yet Washington is ranked #30, and Washington State isn't ranked in the national poll?Is there separate voting from the west region/national polls?
Token wrote:
....maybe the fact that the national rankings (http://ustfccca.cstv.com/) and the regional rankings (http://ustfccca.cstv.com/ot/c-xc/division1-men-regional-poll.html) for the preseason have SUCH a disparity this year. There always is, but this time even more so (see the west region for details....)
...apparently the "regional rep" votes on the regional rankings and that's it, so in essence it's separate from the national rankings. But yes, there are a number of inconsistencies between the two.
just wondering... wrote:
Any idea how Washington State's men are ranked sixth in the west region, and Washington eighth, yet Washington is ranked #30, and Washington State isn't ranked in the national poll?
Is there separate voting from the west region/national polls?
Token wrote:....maybe the fact that the national rankings (http://ustfccca.cstv.com/) and the regional rankings (http://ustfccca.cstv.com/ot/c-xc/division1-men-regional-poll.html) for the preseason have SUCH a disparity this year. There always is, but this time even more so (see the west region for details....)
....my case and point exactly?
nerdy dork wrote:
I was surprised Colorado was number 2. I don't know their team real well, but they'd have to have a lot of secrets to pull out a second place finish. They lost Nelson, Strang, Heinonen, who else? I don't think Pifer and Vaughn can pull the rest of the team to #2, but we'll see. Arkansas is probably better than 5, but they haven't run that well in recent years (funny that not great is still consistant top 5).
Ahh, the usual early season doubt that they relish. They've gotten this every year for as long as I can remember and look at what has happened the past few. A healthy Vaughn can win it, Pifer is a top 5-10 guy, I hear Medina is a fit animal right now, Tebo could come tearing back, and you know they always have a couple guys that step up and make it happen when a couple others leave (Heinonen and Strang) which could be Neuman and a healthy Hark can rain serious hell on a cross course. Mark will have enough "secrets" to make sure they are hunting the Badgers down in Terre Haute once again.