Would Mary Cain have won ncaa xc?

She would be far from winning. Somewhere near where Cranny performed.

Nope. Out of her comfort zone of the tutelage of al sal and the nike amenities, she would have fallen victim to the "freshman 15" and perhaps gotten in with the wrong crowd at university like anarchists, communists, libtards, etc. she would have her xc race rehearsals and maybe even terra haute appearance hampered by required testimony before the House Unamerican Activities Committee for questioning over her collegiate socialist interests and her prior "Cuban" connection.

Would likely have been in the top 40, so an all-american. Is not in Cranny's league, which is why she opted for the easier race (3000m) at world juniors instead of facing the likes of Cranny.

She is done with Cross - will likely never run another cross race.

Cranny certified just doesn't have the same ring as Rupp certified. What are we going to do?

To the OQ, top 10 but not a W.

That said, looks like a wimpy course, other than some wind.

fggh wrote:

She would be far from winning. Somewhere near where Cranny performed.

Cain would have been a top 5 runner on a good day. But she hasn't run XC in 2+ years (i.e. before her big break through to world class) and very few 5ks (other than the HS national record I can't think of one) or time trialed 3ks either.

adfasfd wrote:

fggh wrote:

She would be far from winning. Somewhere near where Cranny performed.

Cain would have been a top 5 runner on a good day. But she hasn't run XC in 2+ years (i.e. before her big break through to world class) and very few 5ks (other than the HS national record I can't think of one) or time trialed 3ks either.

Cain ran a 15:53 for 6th place at the 5K USA road championship in September.

Molly Huddle won in 15:10. I also think in the top 5.

If she had been planning to run the race and wasn't thrown in it last second she would have been first or second. Anyone who thinks differently is crazy or an idiot. Outside of Avery, it was weak individual field this year.

I agree with much of what olrdy said, though I don't think it was a week field.

Had she trained for it, I think she would have gotten top 5. But I don't think she could have won.

6000 is quite a bit longer than 1500 (tho in her defense she could probably beat most or all of these girls in a 3000.)

olrdy wrote:

If she had been planning to run the race and wasn't thrown in it last second she would have been first or second. Anyone who thinks differently is crazy or an idiot. Outside of Avery, it was weak individual field this year.

The post right before yours mentioned that she ran only 15:53 in September. And she is a speed runner. She would perform even worse at 6k.

Well, Spiro, I'd say she'd have stood a damn fine chance. She is the world junior champion over 3k and has wicked sprint speed.

lls wrote:

olrdy wrote:

If she had been planning to run the race and wasn't thrown in it last second she would have been first or second. Anyone who thinks differently is crazy or an idiot. Outside of Avery, it was weak individual field this year.

The post right before yours mentioned that she ran only 15:53 in September. And she is a speed runner. She would perform even worse at 6k.

And how serious do you think that race was on her schedule? Do you think she spend the last 16 weeks pointing towards it or was it just a run to do after track season to see what the endurance was like? I am guessing much closer to the later than former.

Trying to extrapolate XC exploits from previous track results is a crap shoot at best. Courses and conditions can often mess stuff up. Disanza was a 4:20/16:24 runner last year. Anyone here think she would be top 10 in XC this year?

JP Morgan wrote:

Well, Spiro, I'd say she'd have stood a damn fine chance. She is the world junior champion over 3k and has wicked sprint speed.

"World junior champion over 3k" is meaningless. What was the time?

A world class miler trains at about the pace the NCAA athletes run. If she really focused on it, I think she could have gotten second, but unless she planned planned for it, I would place her somewhere in the top-10. Cain is exponentially more talented than every athlete in the NCAAs and has run a world class road 5K, but I suspect a 6K cross country race is past her upper limit and even if she trained for XC I don't think she could have beaten Kate, who is a world class 10K athlete herself. - I know some people will disagree, but I have seen enough to know that a world class miler can race competitively at the NCAA level at almost any distance or in Cain's case the 400m to 10K including XC.

That a 4.20/16.24 runner could come second says how weak the field was this year. Forsey (16.02 at World Juniors) was 14th and is no better than a dozen Canadians in CIS, so the field was weak if that many Canadians could have placed in the top 20 or so.

With talents like Cain and Ephraimson bypassing this meet, it will get even weaker. Cranny is already being wasted (like Cuffe was this year) at Stanford - where good runners go to die.

Heck even Avery is an also-ran runner globally - can she even run under 15 minutes for 5000m? No. That is how weak the NCAA has become for women. And that IS a weak time when the world record is 14.11. Time for the NCAA coaches to step up - no wonder Ajee Wilson passed on the NCAA as well - and get these women to actually run fast in College. There should be a dozen or more under 15 minutes for 5k, an equal amount under 4.05 for 1500m (Cain did that as a HS junior). Should be a similar number under 2.00 for 800m. Sad really to see so much talent wasted.

No, but might have been top 10 on a good day.

pajt0934 wrote:

I agree with much of what olrdy said, though I don't think it was a week field.

Not week, but certainly weak. There is a reason second place was somebody almost nobody has ever heard of. She ran great and the field was really weak individually. Look at the credentials of the girls from the top 10 and then look at past years top 10s. Outside of like Houlihan, Avery, and Bates the rest of the top 10 is pretty unheralded.

With that said, Houlihan was a legitimate contender for the title coming in. She had a bad day, but on a great day would have been a comfortable 2nd. Houlihan is an 800/1500 girl and Cain has faster PRs than her at those (and likely) every distance.

Forsey is on a a whole other level than anyone in CIS for xc. Forsey beat Colleen Quigley at NCAA's by 12 seconds while Quigley cruised to an easy 11 second gap-win over the next closest Guelph runner at the Paul Short Run earlier this season. No way any woman from CIS would crack top 30 or even 40 at NCAA's.

She wouldn't have been able to stay with Kate if that's what you're asking.