Is it talent? Is it luck? Is it masterful peaking? Why did Wisconsin only win one team championship with Solinsky,Teg, Buiru,Withrow etc and Colorado won two championships in four years with Vaugh,Pifer,Strang etc.
Is it talent? Is it luck? Is it masterful peaking? Why did Wisconsin only win one team championship with Solinsky,Teg, Buiru,Withrow etc and Colorado won two championships in four years with Vaugh,Pifer,Strang etc.
They are won in all sorts of different ways.
What a strange question.
People have bad days costing their team. People have good days helping their team.
Some years are weaker giving more teams a shot.
Some years a team is so good they can have off days and still win.
Scoring the fewest points.
Some teams just seem to "CRACK" under the pressures of NCAA XC Champs. The favorites rarely win. What individuals have been on the most championship teams in the last 8 years?
TomSlick wrote:
..... What individuals have been on the most championship teams in the last 8 years?
Steve and Mary
In years past there have been some teams like Stanford, Codorado and Arkansas that were clearly the best team and barring a total collapse, they were going to win. I don't want to oversimplify or reduce it to luck, but most of the time the team that wins is the one that has one or two scorers run over their heads and no more than one guy underperform. A 10K is difficult distance to get right and a 10K without 400m splits over natural terrain is even more difficult to get right. Having 5 things all go right at the same time, on the same day in life and in running takes luck.
Wisconsin lost by a fraction of a second on a course that ran long (a slow 10km course) which favored the altitude trained Buffs and the style that they ran that race (Solinksy did not have a great XC career, he was better on the track and Teg was oft-injured and 10km was long for him with variable background, Withrow also had injuries that prevented him from racing well most years).
Some years a team is dominant (and Stanford, despite strong-looking performances leading up to NCAAs was not a dominant team). Look at the teams that won big; Wisconsin they year they won had everyone healthy and their 6th guy was ahead of most teams #2 guy.
I think it is one reason that XC gets such interests on this board -- there is a lot of uncertainty and this is not like a game where there are only two teams playing but more like who will be the BCS top two given what you know the week before the first ranking.
The top teams do not have to play all of their cards week-in, week-out and so you do not know how strong they really are. Plus, with XC the variation in how one or two of the less reliable runners (i.e., the 4/5/6 guys who are good but not stars) do is so very important is the opposite of track and field where the top guys in each event get the most levered points.
XC is won in the trenches, and by the good runners, not the top five headline guys.
Good coaching. Dave Smith is a perfect example.
26mi235 wrote:
Teg was oft-injured and 10km was long for him with variable background
Hold on there partner, Teg don't run him no 10k.