Same goes for the state meet. Injury and illness aside. If you finish that far back you came from a really weak regional, the points you score won't help your suck-ass team in the standings, or you are a displacer who won't displace anyone.
Plenty of runners sitting at home who deserve to be there more than you. YOU SUCK!
then wouldn't those runners finish in the last 10% and not deserve to be there? No matter how small the field is there will always be a last 10%.
Somebody's gotta finish last. So, let's say we take the last 10% of the field and remove then. What then, do we take the next 10% and remove it? Where do we stop? I think if you make nationals, good job, particularly if you made it as an individual as opposed to being on a team and just going cause the team went. State championships where just anyone shows us is another thing.
My condolences on not making it to nationals.
the cancer guy wrote:
Somebody's gotta finish last. So, let's say we take the last 10% of the field and remove then. What then, do we take the next 10% and remove it? Where do we stop? I think if you make nationals, good job, particularly if you made it as an individual as opposed to being on a team and just going cause the team went. State championships where just anyone shows us is another thing.
Wouldn't we have to stop when there were only 9 guys left in the race?
math not fun wrote:
Wouldn't we have to stop when there were only 9 guys left in the race?
If you beat no one, you are in the zero percentile. Thus, the last finish in any race of any number of people is in the last 10%. If you win a race where you are the only runner, you are in the zero percentile.
hey douchebag. YOU SUCK!
http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/images/stories/NCAA_XC_PDFs/1978-men.pdf
An accomplished runner would never come on this board to express such a dim opinion.
terry smithwick wrote:
Same goes for the state meet. Injury and illness aside. If you finish that far back you came from a really weak regional, the points you score won't help your suck-ass team in the standings, or you are a displacer who won't displace anyone.
Plenty of runners sitting at home who deserve to be there more than you. YOU SUCK!
whats your point? someone's gotta come in last. you sound bitter about these bottom 10% people? was it possible that you were that bottom 10%? anyway, this was a stupid thread.
whoa!!! 226th place is the james hogue who was the running imposter.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/09/03/010903fa_fact_samuels
I wonder if this is the race that preceded his dropping out, and started his criminal career.
agreed! And if 100% of the runners finish in the top 10%, then everybody becomes an all american and everybody is awesome
I saw the name and thought, mmmm.
I saw that meet in Madison. Amazing day. A lot of good runners in that field.
Thank you for posting this (and for making a very good point), I had the results sitting in a drawer for decades, but had lost it when we moved north.
haha YO wrote:
GOOD FOR YOU!!!
http://files.sharenator.com/south_park_smug_313_Whoa_Mass_Effect_Girl-s300x242-98351-535.gif
if this were reddit you would get an upvote.
Troll 0/10
So, should they have had someone else play tight end for Oregon in the BCS game because he was not one of the top 90% of the players on the field?
This is a TEAM sport, remember?
Now, if you are an at-large runner, that might be the case, but almost none of the at-larger runners finish at the back 10%. Also, you you have said Henry Rono did not belong at NCAAs the year that he finished 200th or something like that?
Most of those in the bottom 10% are the 6/7 runners of the teams in the 20-31 range. They are not going to be able to take the top individuals from the teams that ended up 32-43, which is the implication of you 'claim'.
This is more like something I might expect a football fan who is not a running fan to say, but not a running fan that really thought about the situation.
The fact of the matter is, there is no one that is or should be in the race instead of them and they have earned the right to run that race. In addition you have a selection bias in your observation that you probably are not aware of. These individuals are generally long-shots to have an effect on the race/team standings. In such a case the optimal strategy is often to hope that the race is one of those great ones that comes out of the blue and run the first half harder than would be the case if your goal was to optimize your time. In most such cases that aggressive approach will result in a slower time. And, when that happens you are so far out of it that it no longer matters how you run and it becomes are to push yourself in the uncomfortable zone in that manner that you would push if you were having that on-day and running above your head.
If you are Terry Smithwick, you deserve to go back to math class.
henry rono in 237?? was that the most distinguished field in ncaa history? you have the future long time American record holder in the 10k (Mark Nenow), well back. You have Jim Spivey, Ken Martin, Plasencia, Salazar, and so many others who made a mark as pros.
jjjjjjjjjjjj wrote:
henry rono in 237?? was that the most distinguished field in ncaa history? you have the future long time American record holder in the 10k (Mark Nenow), well back. You have Jim Spivey, Ken Martin, Plasencia, Salazar, and so many others who made a mark as pros.
Just a few more from that field:
Mike Musyioki
Thom Hunt
Sulieman Nyambui
Steve Lacy
Don Clary
Dan Henderson
Dan Dillon
Jim Stinzi
Rudy Chapa
Richie Harris
Doug Padilla
Randy Jackson
Joseph Nzau
Kirk Pfeffer
Mark Nenow
Marty Froelick
John Tuttle
Mark Scrutton (204th, went on to some fast running a few years later)
If you don't win you shouldn't have been there. Everyone else is a loser.
jjjjjjjjjjjj wrote:
henry rono in 237?? was that the most distinguished field in ncaa history? you have the future long time American record holder in the 10k (Mark Nenow), well back. You have Jim Spivey, Ken Martin, Plasencia, Salazar, and so many others who made a mark as pros.
While that was an undeniably good field, I still doubt there were 236 world-class runners in it. Bottom 10% is bottom 10%.
