I have correct myself. OSU did not choke in 2008. GF did not finish. They had failure as team. But the last two years they learned how deal with failure and have won 2 NCAA championships.
I have correct myself. OSU did not choke in 2008. GF did not finish. They had failure as team. But the last two years they learned how deal with failure and have won 2 NCAA championships.
Puskedra FTW next year? anyone?
There is pressure to defend, but it was substantially less than, say, Oregon in 2008, due the manner that OSU won last year - as the recap puts it they "didn't win, so much as not lose" - and the strength that Stanford was showing. It was easy for Dave Smith to talk them down to the media, let his guys rest without too many people noticing, etc.
Just too be clear I think they'll be ready (D.Smith is genis), but I would not be surprised by anything.
oldoldrunner wrote:
I have correct myself. OSU did not choke in 2008. GF did not finish. They had failure as team. But the last two years they learned how deal with failure and have won 2 NCAA championships.
Don't correct yourself so quickly. I don't remember the details, but I know Vail shat the bed in that race and Lowe was no where close to the front (injury issues though maybe?). They didn't have huge expectations, Oregon was loaded that year, but IMO they chocked.
starmiler wrote:
I'll admit that I'm prejudiced because I ran at Stanford (quite a long time ago), but I think that what you wrote about Stanford's sense of privilege and entitlement somehow eroding their will to "make it hurt" (which is exactly what you're describing) is a load of rubbish. I don't think Stanford's stature as a university has changed much since the school scored 24 points at the NCAAs when Lanana was there.
I didn't say that Stanford would always choke. Nor did I say that their mental attitude was the determining factor. They've won before, they will likely win again. My argument was that the probability of Stanford choking was higher than that of many other schools.
Please explain how the school has basically retired the Sears Director's Trophy for overall athletic excellence. It isn't just because they're spending a lot of money on athletics.
"Choking" isn't about complete failure. Stanford's 4th place finish in XC still scores serious points for the Director's Cup, even if they arguably had the talent to win it (cf., their #1 ranking) but underachieved. Stanford attracts some of the best student-athletes in the country. Often, they do well, and I didn't claim otherwise. I just pointed out a reason why Stanford athletes, on average, would be more likely to "choke" than those of other institutions.
Having said that, part of Stanford's success is money because the Director's Cup uses an institution's best 20 results (10 sports for each sex). Stanford fields more varsity teams than almost any other university (maybe the most), and generally supports them with the most scholarships allowed. So Stanford has a major advantage because they have more chances to score points than do other institutions. That's how they beat Florida last year, for example (http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/04/16/belch-how-to-win-the-directors-cup/).
Now obviously if Stanford's teams sucked across the board, having a lot of them wouldn't help. But my argument wasn't the Stanford sucked. It was that the perceived benefits of being a Stanford student would (for some, not all) decrease the motivation to realize their full potential at sports.
To argue otherwise is to claim that motivation is completely separate from the perceived costs of failure. If making it as a professional runner is your only real chance at having a comfortable lifestyle, doesn't that (on average) have to impact your motivation? For most Stanford students, the perception is that being a pro distance runner is probably a *less* comfortable lifestyle than they could achieve through non-running means. You really want to argue that that never makes a difference??
The Real Disaster wrote:
Um....remember 2003? 1997? 1996?
cracky b wrote:
Not entirely true. They maybe training/living in the same environment (social and geographic)as past teams but it is disingenuous to compare a teams performance based on a jersey without looking at the individuals that make up the team, including coaches. You could have made the case with say John McDonnell, but he is a rarity.
-cracky b
Even the teams under Vin should have won more often than they did, given the talent stockpile on them. In some cases it's the culture of the institution.
The "reason" you pointed out, in a very serious tone that pretends to be looking at all sides of your state opinion, is a completely ad hominem argument, with no basis in reason, fact, or anything except some notion you carry around about the supposed privilege and entitlement of Stanford students. I am more persuaded re: the disappointments of Stanford over the past two seasons by the poster who noted that Derrick and others appear to be "hammering" their easy Sunday long runs. Perhaps there have been some training problems; I certainly don't see evidence of any psychological failing here. You're making one up.
starmiler wrote:
The "reason" you pointed out, in a very serious tone that pretends to be looking at all sides of your state opinion, is a completely ad hominem argument, with no basis in reason, fact, or anything except some notion you carry around about the supposed privilege and entitlement of Stanford students.
It's not ad hominem, because I was not attacking any individual. Nor was I attacking Stanford. I acknowledged Stanford's success (past and future) and the high caliber of their student-athletes. And saying that a university provides its student-athletes with attractive options for employment outside sports is a compliment, not an attack.
I never said that Stanford students were privileged or entitled. In fact, I emphasized that I was not saying that: "Stanford does an extremely good job of giving its undergraduates the feeling that they are essentially guaranteed the good life thanks to their Stanford education and connections. Note that I'm *not* saying they are guaranteed this, just that the institution creates a very convincing impression that they are."
If you had taken advantage of the educational opportunities at Stanford, I would hope that you'd be better able to understand and respond to an argument. Instead, it seems like you just perceived a criticism of your alma mater, got angry, and started typing.
Do you honestly believe that the fact that Stanford students have slightly better job prospects upon graduation makes them less willing to "hurt" during a race or workout? It's not like we're talking about the difference between a life as a professional distance runner and one of poverty. The difference between the types of guys Stanford brings in compared to almost any other school is that they are better students, period.
And you are insulting Stanford athletes by making these specious claims. These are gross generalizations based on maybe two data points. Look at the football team. They are arguably outperforming their talent level more than any team in the country? "Choking" is not a word that comes to mind.
And no, I did not go to Stanford.
This is a great example of how to lie with statistics. Sure you can't point to Leung and Fout who had great races at Nationals. But what about Tom Burke (who beat Stanford's 4 at pre-nats) who finished 124. Lemon from Dayton (beat Sullivan and Fout) was 84, Soderberg was 166, Adams 135, etc. All of those guys beat Sullivan and (with the exception of Lemon), he beat them at Nationals. I'd say that historically 20-30 at pre-nats means more like 80-120 at the big show as opposed to inside the top 40.
As for the Long runs: correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like the Stanford one is at their training camp (I would assume no big races up there) while the OSU one is the day after a race. As a result of the timing I would expect there to be different emphasis.
Stanford screwed me, I was the only guy in the top 5 of the contest not to choose Ok St for the win and because of it I didn't win...I should've been smarter and not hope for the best. Oh well guess there is next year.
dope dope wrote:
I'm reading this shit about teammates hanging back to run with and help out other teammates. What utter shiite! You run for low points at nationals, period, you don't run below capacity to be someone's nursemaid. Low score wins. If someone blows up and gets passe din the last 100-meters oh well. That's the most ridiculous cockamamie excuse I've ever heard for underperforming in my life.
First I'd like to ask you if you have ever run in the NCAA cross champs? Its a meet like no other, and no other sport can compare. You're entire season comes down to that one. Nothing you or your team did earlier in the season matters much if you are a tean favored to win the National title.
Since I doubt you've been in this situation let me clue you in. I know that there are some coaches like John McDonnell who years ago had his guys always go out to the front immediately and hang on as long as they could. For the most part he had great milers and I'm sure he trained in a way to have them prepared for this.
I was on a NCAA championship team that won this way. We were dominated with seniors and had the best runner in the country that year as well. The next year we were sophomores and hoping to win but realistically probably looking at 5th or 6. I was determined to get top 30 and to be near the lead right away because the year before I got out terrible and couldn't move up. So I get out in second at the mile, 35 at 5k and finish 73rd. My team got 13th-a disaster.
The next year I was so relaxed I almost wasn't paying attention and almost missed the start. We weren't going to make the mistake of getting overly pumped up and even though I copuld always see the leader I hung back and got 5th. Now yeah if I was going for the win that wouldn't have been the approach. Nonetheless the team gets third and now has the confidence of running a solid championship.
As seniors we ran as a team. We had no stars and a different number one for every meet. I had to decide at some point whether to go with the lead pack break at 3k (and I wasn't feeling great) or staying with the second pack. I had a team that depended on me so I stayed there. Only got passed by one runner the rest of the race and our team won. Had I hung on to that lead pack I could have run the toughest most gutwrenching race of my life and maybe finished 10 spots higher. Or possibly totally blown up and lose 25-40 spots.
Can you understand this now? This is why these teams have these tactical plans. Its cross country. The team title is a pretty big deal. So is the individual (its even bigger) but usually only 3-5 guys at the most are realistically running for this.
It's not "slightly better job prospects". Stanford intentionally fosters the perception that you've got it made, that amazing things are guaranteed to happen for you as a result of your time at Stanford. Even at other top universities, such as UC Berkeley, there is not the same sense among the students that "we're golden thanks to this place."
We could test this hypothesis by giving a survey to all competitors in the NCAA XC championships that assessed how the athletes felt about their non-running career possibilities. My bet is just that, on average, Stanford runners would have greater confidence in their non-running options than most other schools. (Whether that confidence is merited or not is a separate question.) If so, is it such a leap to suggest that, in *some* cases, that perception could impact their motivation?
I specifically said that this didn't apply to all Stanford athletes. Certainly some individuals devote the same effort/intensity regardless of their other options. My argument was just that the probability was greater at Stanford for the other options to dull the edge. Though I did note that anyone can have a bad race for all kinds of reasons.
I fail to see how it is insulting to Stanford athletes by suggesting that their attractive non-sport options might impact the motivation of some of them. Are you saying it never has any impact?
dope dope wrote:
I'm reading this shit about teammates hanging back to run with and help out other teammates. What utter shiite! You run for low points at nationals, period, you don't run below capacity to be someone's nursemaid. Low score wins. If someone blows up and gets passe din the last 100-meters oh well. That's the most ridiculous cockamamie excuse I've ever heard for underperforming in my life.
After posting all that stuff above I will say I never heard of anyone taht was having a good race holding back to "help out" a teammate. That surely would cost you spots and I could never imagine me or any of my teammates running a race that way and finishing knowing they could have fnished even one spot higher but held back when it was feeling easy and under control. The only time you do that is if you're in position to win.
usaxcrunner753 wrote:
Puskedra FTW next year? anyone?
You DID watch the race didn't you? Luke (who is now a stud) will have trouble winning CONFERENCE.
Hey Bud wrote:
Jared wrote:As much as any coach can hate a sub 4 miler
Dunn needs to figure out what's happening with his season long training plan for NCAA's. Are only a few guys strong enough to last the season or are they just peaking early?
You think he would have figured that out a long time ago. Quite frankly, the regular season doesn't mean shit as long as you can qualify for nationals. If you can win or place highly at the NCAAs, that's all that really matters. You are only as good as your last performance.
NJ Breh wrote:
Just wait until next year when they get the Rosa twins, and what happened to Miles Unterreiner today?
*****************************************************
I was just looking at my December 2010 Track and Field News magazine. I as was looking at the top 25 men 2-milers I thought I'd look on how some of them did at this years NCCA Cross Country Championships.
Of top 25 runners, 18 were seniors. The Rosa twins were number 1 and 3 on the list.
The best performers this year from that list are:
1. Ryan Dohner of Klien Oak Spring Tex. #13 on the list, an 8:58 2-miler he was 72nd in 30:52.8 for Texas.
2. Erik Olson of Novato, Ca. #24 on the list,a 9:00 2-miler was 132nd in 31:28.1 for Stanford.
Those were the only 2-milers that were on the list that were true freshman this year that ran at NCAA'S.
I also added Parker Stinson who ran 29:32 for 10K last year.
He was 121st in 31:21.6 for Oregon.
My point to this is the Rosa twins may not have that great an impact next year. So help for Stanford maybe a couple of years away.
The class of 2008 is an exception, not the rule.
Think another factor may be the easy (flat) courses Stanford runs all year. When they hit adversity (high winds, big field, pressure) they have trouble coping.
The counter argument would be that Stanford does run the same course at Pre-Nats albeit at 8K so they see the course and see big fields and pretty decent competition.
But they do post fast times on perfect courses in perfect weather when they stay out west.
In 2008 O State did everything they could despite losing GF to injury.
Vail was sub 30 for 10K so he did not exactly phone in his performance.