Pac-10 Women- NCAA point totals

UCLA getting 0 is pathetic. They recruit great runners and then burn them out.

Is it just me or for all the hype the Pac-10 women get, they did sort of underperform at Nats?

In their defense, Oregon expended more scholarship money on field events than they did on the distances. Washington was basically totally a distance team and yet Oregon scored what...over 40 points...and Washington was in the toilet. Let's not forget that Washington started the year with a 10 deep XC team that all but disappeared at the NCAA outdoor meet. Bottom line was that Oregon finished 2nd in the Nation and Washington finished in their usual 27th or thereabouts.

Yea cause Washington puts everything in women's distance. Oregon actually has a track program.

As a whole the Pac 10 women may have underperformed, but let's not forget that coming into the championships, the Oregon women were rated as 5th. With their 2nd place finish, they actually over performed the prognosticators.

But you could argue Zoe Buckman underperformed. And why doesn't Kosinski move up to 5k? She does so well in xc...

Bridgmon and Blood did well though.

Zoe Buckman ran her fastest race of the season in the prelims, so how is that under performing? I agree that Kosinski should move to the 5K, but suspect that she still has the "miler's mentality". Next season, I'd be willing to wager that she will be running more 5K's.

Why didn't you include scores in field events or events under 800m?

Hasay is overrated... mark my words, she will not improve or do as well as Chetelat, Sveinsson, etc.... she is gone.

dude, that's what haters said about Steph Twell as well, when she came to fame early in her career... so far she is still performing well. Hasay has a similarly mature attitude towards the sport and towards publicity... If Hasay keeps that up she could succeed, and Vin L. seems to be sensible enough not to burn out talents!

Washington= B+ (Invested a lot of $$ for just 12 points)

Oregon = B (Good 5k but not much else)

Stanford = B (Lambie and Fleishman did not score a point)

USC = C+ (long for years of Langerholc and Penc)

ASU = D (down year for the Sun Devils)

Arizona = D (No Skieresz points this year hurts Wildcats)

WSU = D (started season good but faded)

California= D (post Johnson era off to a rocky start)

Oregon St = C (new program..give them a break)

UCLA = D (late tailspin not a good thing)

What do you mean by Lambie and Fleshman not scoring a point? They graduated...

Yea sure, that's the reason why she is running slower than her sophomore year.

Yea, Washington really wasted a lot of money on distance runners. They better forget it and put the money elsewhere.

All they did was win NCAA Cross, and score 12 points in the distance events at Outdoor nationals. I dont think many teams managed to do much, if any, better.

Couldnt you make the reverse argument, that Texas A&M wastes too much money on sprinters and jumpers and not distance runners? Look how poorly they did in cross country.

Washington and Oregon spent the same amount on scholarships. Washington got 12 points and Oregon got 43 points. Hmmmm, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that Washington underperformed big time relative to Oregon. Closed case.

Okay that's because Oregon actually has a track program, whereas Washington puts everything into womens distance.

Uh yes, so Washington spends everything on a few distance/XC girls, yet they score only 12 points. Now, pray tell what if Oregon beats Washington in XC this fall, which they have the potential to do? Besides, they can continue to underperform because there is no one in Seattle gives a damn about a bunch of runners?

Oregon women certainly have the potential to beat the Huskies in 2009 XC, but will they? You could have said the same thing last year, but who won? They don't give out awards for potential. I agree with the earlier poster about Hasay - she hasn't improved at all in her senior year of h.s. and she looks like a kid who is adapting to a maturing body. I honestly hope she excels in college and beyond but history shows high school records and Foot Locker wins don't have much predictive power.

I believe Manley was making a joke when he mentioned Lambie and Fleshman. He also did the same thing for Skieresz at Arizona, and Langerholc and Penc at USC. All of the mentioned runners were All Americans or NCAA Champions in track. This is clearly a reference to the good old days when track was reveared more than XC in the Pac-10.