SCAC Track 2008

"Performance list is up...4:12 leading the 1500, and a whole 3 guys under 16 for 5k. I know it's early, but jesus man this conference sucks nowadays. Nobody broke 2 in the 800? WTF? At first I was just hoping that DePauw hadn't put their results up, but this appears to be all of the big schools except for Trinity. Dear current SCAC runners, your conference looks like a decent high school team. Try harder." -holy lord almighty

I bet whatever school you graduated from is glad your gone no matter what kinds of times you ran you pessimistic little bitch.

Man that track was effing windy....I do not know how you DePauw guys train on that thing. I'm not even joking, I nearly shat myself out there.

By the way, does anybody know who the Centre guy was that ran way out in front during the 5k? And/or why he did that?

it was chase wilson.

why did he do that? um, i think you answered your own question when you said "that centre guy..."

No way dude, I've seen some crazy guys take the lead before, but nothing like that from a guy who wasn't even close to being the fastest in the race. Nervous breakdown maybe? Or did he really think he was going to run 14:50 and just break the entire field?

Also, no disrespect to Mahoney, but that was one slow, nasty 10k.

The distance fields were pretty weak as a whole this year. And its looking like it could be even more so next year. Most of the top guys in the conference were seniors this year aside from armstrong and brush. It did make for some exciting races this year, especially in the 1500. And the original poster was right, I didnt add up the distance points, but it would seem like trinity racked up the most. It will be interesting to see if they can actually put something together for the cross season.

It was definitely a bit weaker than in years past, but I wouldn't say it was too bad, other than the 10k. Probably more a product of the wind than anything else, as far as the slow times go. I wasn't there, but from what I heard the wind was upwards of 20 mph on Friday and still around 15 mph on Saturday.

Looking at the 1500, you've got the same 1 and 2 as last year, with Parks moving up from 6th to 4th and Wright moving from 4th to 3rd. Armstrong has already run a provo, and Kime nearly took him down, so I wouldn't call that a weak field.

Agreed about next year looking pretty weak overall, but you do have Jason Parks finishing top 5 in 3 events, and a freshman from Rhodes nearly winning the steeple in a pretty decent 9:44 (Chad Bennett and Alex Nichols were only at 9:35-9:40 last year). Those two along with the three guys from Trinity should make for some interesting middle distance match ups.

Why was the 800 so slow though? I thought Brush would win by more.

The 1500 was a good race, and probably has the most future potential. You can't really compare this years steeple to last years. Bennett had already run 920 or faster and was taking it as easy as possible. These guys were dying in the final 100 ie. they were all out. The 5k and 10k were pretty weak, and the top 4 in the 5k were seniors. The 800 went our pretty slow, and brush simply waited til 200 or so to go. the slow heat was won in around 201 i believe, but they went out in 57-58. People did move up in events, but that was mainly due to graduation. I don't think they really got much faster this year than last.

as a current scac steepler let me just say that they may have looked like they were dying but that's undoubtedly because the winds were 22-23mph during the race. Not to mention that Daum took a nasty fall right before the final lap and Moore might have very well been all out since he ended up pr'ing. I am almost certain that Nichols would not have come close to a 9:43 in those conditions..he ran a 9:40 at conference last year and lost to bennett by 3 seconds..then 2 weeks later came back to run a 9:14. So as far as comparing a 9:43 winning steeple time in 22 mph winds with a fall just to make it fun seems quite comparable.

It's called style points. My true time was 9:03. You can calculate it like this:

9:43 - 40 second time bonus for totally sweet barrel roll = 9:03

Not sure what conversion the NCAA uses, but hopefully it's still a provosional time.

Much love to all you scacers,

Jeremy

is this an NAIA or JUCO conference?

if you dont think nichols could have run 943 then you are a bit crazy. he just ran 917 two weeks ago. Daum seems like a nice guy, and i'm sure if he runs another race this year he'll go faster, but I don't see him running better than 9:17.

? wrote:

is this an NAIA or JUCO conference?

DIII, South Region.

Does anyone here know what some of the SCAC schools are getting next year in terms of talent? I think Centre is getting some pretty good guys, one who went 15:30 at Footlocker South and another who was a 2x private school state champ in NC.

crazy huh? Yea I guess Nichols just really wanted Bennett to win so slowed up instead of running to his potential that makes tons of sense....nichols only ran a 9:40 at SCAC..3 seconds slower than Daum. It wasn't windy at ALL a year ago and Nichols never ate it either, plus he had Bennett to TRY and catch the entire time while Daum led the race for 6 out of the 7 laps. So what if Nichols just ran a 9:17? He ran also ran a 9:14 a year ago..all I'm saying is there is some comparison, especially with Daum running a 8:49 open 3k mid season this year...

I'm not sure if you watched the steeple at san antonio, but i did. bennett went out hard, and nichols let him go. So no he did not run to his potential. Bennett only won by three seconds because he slowed down so much to save himself. If you watched the race it wasn't nearly as close as the time makes it seem. Like I said, Daum will run faster than 940 if he races again. But he is not in the same league as Nichols is/was. Nichols was a cross all American (10th place) and also finished 40th or so. So until Daum actually runs faster than Nichols did or has this year, you can't really compare the two.