Can Michigan Women Win Indoors?

I think it will depend on how much Gall and Edwards have to push on the DMR. I think they'll have to dig pretty deep to win. If their respective finals are somewhat tactical, and if there are a fair amount of people in the finals who also ran the DMR, then they have a shot. But there could be people like Barr from Arkansas who could win the mile because she could be fresher (I'm not sure if Ark. qualified a DMR, anyone know?).

Last year Erdman was expected to win the indoor 800, but she had to lay out a 2:02-3 split in the DMR the night before because Gall gave them a poor leadoff in the 1200. Johnson from Cal (very fresh) ended up winning. Offili I think is more of a lock, and Wade is so tough that she should turn up a few points. I definitely think they can get 40 points -- anyone know if other teams have that capability? (I only keep up with the Big 10...).

No, they couldn't even beat Minnesota.

No disrespect to Minnesota, they are an amazing team with a great coach. But winning a conference title does not translate to national prominence. They won Big 10s without a single individual title (I think... I could be wrong about that -- I know they have great field events and I don't remember all the winners for sure, but I thought I read that somewhere). Minnesota's individuals will earn a lot of lower place points, but most likely won't even come close to the potential 40+ that Michigan can get.

Track history has many examples of one or two individuals carrying a team to a state/national title (especially if they are a sprinter). Michigan has better individuals, Minnesota has a better team. Despite that, Michigan will fare MUCH better than Minnesota in the "team" scoring. Not really that fair when you think about it, huh?

Erdman and the steeplchaser were much hotter than Edwards and Gall.

You're spectacularly wrong. The Gophers won with Liz Roehrig in the pentathlon, Alicia Rue in the pole vault and Liz Podominick in the shot put. Plus they would have won the 600 had Dorniden not fallen.

"Spectacularly wrong"? A little extreme don't you think? The poster acknowledged that he wasn't sure about the field events. I think his main point was actually interesting -- that the "better" team does not sometimes place as high nationally as a team with 2-3 elite individuals.

You make a good point about Dorniden!

bump

benry wrote:

"Spectacularly wrong"? A little extreme don't you think? The poster acknowledged that he wasn't sure about the field events. I think his main point was actually interesting -- that the "better" team does not sometimes place as high nationally as a team with 2-3 elite individuals.

You make a good point about Dorniden!

You are correct, for Nationals you need a few very good athletes while at Big Tens you need some pretty good athletes and a broad team. Those pretty goo' athletes might finish 7th at NCAAs, which is nice but will not get you the points for a title and the broad team will not score at all, since they will not even qualify for the meet. For instance, Wisconsin is only taking the DMR guys and Bethke (in one event), and are unlikely to score the maximum of 20 points from those two events (10-12 is more likely). Last year they had those top guys in Solinsky and Omole and a great race from the DMR group (plus the failure of Texas).