Seriously. C'mon Buffs. We were better than this!
Seriously. C'mon Buffs. We were better than this!
Wetmore reminds me of the Hardcore Pawn TV show on TruTV (formerly court TV) because he looks like the owner of Hardcore Pawn shop in Michigan. You know?
Wetmore doesn't care about your silly conference meet, bro.
Or track in general.
Because he has won a number of national championships and conference championships in cross country. Not many top level sprinters want to train in a state where it is cold a lot of the time, but a whole lotta distance runners and throwers want to train where the air is thin and the gravitational force is less. But hey, give him credit, they did win a conference championship in track when they hosted one year.
Gravity isn't measurably less at altitude. Its so small that the word negligible would over-state the difference.
joedirt wrote:
But hey, give him credit, they did win a conference championship in track when they hosted one year.
That was the big12. Totally different ball game in the Pac12.
joedirt wrote:
the gravitational force is less.
You just made anyone with a brain groan from deep within their souls.
malmo wrote:
Gravity isn't measurably less at altitude. Its so small that the word negligible would over-state the difference.
Well technically it IS measurable. Otherwise we wouldn't know about it. Negligible, but measurable.
your words are inaccurate wrote:
Well technically it IS measurable. Otherwise we wouldn't know about it. Negligible, but measurable.
Newton knew about it, and he had no way of measuring it.
Here are Newton's calculations:
Boulder 40° Lattitude gb = ???? m/s²
New York 40° Lattitude gny = 9.802m/s²
G40°/G0° = (R0°/ R40°)²
gny/gb = (rb/rny)²
9.802/gb = (6369.6km/6368km)²
9.802/gb = 1.0005025
9.802/1.00050 = gb = 9.7970m/s²
The pull of gravity at Boulder is 99.95% compared to New York City. Translation: negligible
malmo wrote:
Gravity isn't measurably less at altitude. Its so small that the word negligible would over-state the difference.
Gravity will aid the pole vaulters by about a quarter inch in Rio since the ground at the equator is further from the center of the earth. So there's that...
Science Guy wrote:
Gravity will aid the pole vaulters by about a quarter inch in Rio since the ground at the equator is further from the center of the earth. So there's that...
How do you figure that?
Fixed
malmo wrote:
Newton knew about it, and he had no way of measuring it.
Here are Newton's calculations:
Boulder 40° Lattitude gb = ???? m/s²
New York 40° Lattitude gny = 9.802m/s²
gny/gb = (rb/rny)²
9.802/gb = (6369.6km/6368km)²
9.802/gb = 1.0005025
9.802/1.00050 = gb = 9.7970m/s²
The pull of gravity at Boulder is 99.95% compared to New York City. Translation: negligible
Yes, CU has dominated in XC and Wetmore has done an excellent job with his post collegiate athletes. Wetmore is a great distance coach, but his job is to be a college track and field coach.
As a head collegiate track and field coach in the Pac12, it is not acceptable to finish in last place. What is more troubling is the lack of points in the distance races. If you're going to go the pure distance route, than you better score significant points in that area.
I think the notion that top level sprinters don't want to train at CU is a poor excuse. There are plenty examples of cold weather schools with sprinting success - Oregon for one. Besides, CU has had success in the sprints. When they won their Big12 title in 2008, they garnered huge point in the distances, and had solid points in the sprints and throws. This proves that it can be done and Wetmore has the capacity to do it. But this notion that it's OK to completely suck on the track, as long as we're good in XC, is not ok. Why not expect to be great in both?
XC National Championships go a long way.
Science Guy wrote:
Gravity isn't measurably less at altitude. Its so small that the word negligible would over-state the difference.
Gravity will aid the pole vaulters by about a quarter inch in Rio since the ground at the equator is further from the center of the earth. So there's that...[/quote]
Some science guy. Rio isn't near the equator.
statsguy wrote:
joedirt wrote:But hey, give him credit, they did win a conference championship in track when they hosted one year.
That was the big12. Totally different ball game in the Pac12.
Yeah, Texas isn't much of a track school.
Wetmore factor wrote:
Seriously. C'mon Buffs. We were better than this!
Maybe Wetmore is just smart enough to realize that conference track is completely meaningless. Nothing to be gained from making your distance guys run 3 races to win points.
Case in point: In D2 ranks, Alaska Anchorage's 13:41/28:37 XC national champion ripped his Achilles tendon at his conference meet when his coach stuck him in the steeple to win some extra points. You'll never see Wetmore pull that kind of BS.
Wetmore can do what he wants. He is THE man! Admin care less... Football - Basketball The fact he wins ncaa titles in Cross - Well just a bonus. Get over it... Aint gonna change
jewbacca wrote:
Case in point: In D2 ranks, Alaska Anchorage's 13:41/28:37 XC national champion ripped his Achilles tendon at his conference meet when his coach stuck him in the steeple to win some extra points. You'll never see Wetmore pull that kind of BS.
Ouch! Just this weekend?
Or...maybe sometimes everything comes together exactly right--make that exactly wrong--and you have a terrible conference meet. People get sick or hurt, leave the team for any of a wide range of reasons, compete poorly on the day. It happens.
The Buffs have had considerable success in non-distance events in the past, and I'm sure they can do so again. This was just a bad season/meet.