Buffs too wrote:
I think the OP is saying that as good as they are in xc, they suck at track (men).
Maybe CU excels in XC because it's a team event. Lots of guys together at a high level, top scorer to last scorer. But maybe/typically not so many standout individual performances. Maybe this translates to the track.
The CU women just got 4th at the PAC12 track championships behind Oregon, USC, and Stanford
The men got 5th behind Oregon, Stanford, USC and Arizona without their two biggest stars, Klecker and Dressel
That’s pretty good if you ask me...
BuffFacts wrote:
The CU women just got 4th at the PAC12 track championships behind Oregon, USC, and Stanford
The men got 5th behind Oregon, Stanford, USC and Arizona without their two biggest stars, Klecker and Dressel
That’s pretty good if you ask me...
Yeah, but at least every one of those schools tries in throws, excels in sprints and hurdles, actually enters relays, and has at least a 1:48 guy, a pv, hj, & long jumper. Absolutely no justification for such a lame effort by a top PAC 12 program.
Everybody would agree that those places are pretty good. The question was if CU is a top program. So the answer is no when it comes to track.
They had someone win the 800 at pac 12s last year...
Lets cut the crap. CU hasn't been about anything in track in field since Quiller.
Face it, CU is not very good in XC and they stink in T&F. And no hope for the future as Wetmore is lazy.
critic 100 wrote:
Lets cut the crap. CU hasn't been about anything in track in field since Quiller.
Face it, CU is not very good in XC and they stink in T&F. And no hope for the future as Wetmore is lazy.
You can't say "cut the crap" and then "CU is not very good in XC". Those contradict each other.
Buffer wrote:
BuffFacts wrote:
The CU women just got 4th at the PAC12 track championships behind Oregon, USC, and Stanford
The men got 5th behind Oregon, Stanford, USC and Arizona without their two biggest stars, Klecker and Dressel
That’s pretty good if you ask me...
Yeah, but at least every one of those schools tries in throws, excels in sprints and hurdles, actually enters relays, and has at least a 1:48 guy, a pv, hj, & long jumper. Absolutely no justification for such a lame effort by a top PAC 12 program.
Could scholarship allocation have anything to do with this?
Ralphie wrote:
2013 - 1. COLORADO........... 149
2014 - 1. COLORADO............. 65
2015 - 2. Colorado.................. 91
2016 - 6. Colorado................ 223
2017 - 8. Colorado................ 294
So, in the last five years they have had two national championships, a second place finish, and two top tens. If that's not awesome I don't know what is.
I would ask that you please leave facts out of any potential discussion thread. They have no business here at letsrun.
BuffBluff wrote:
CU under Wetmore is revered for its distance program. On the men's side in particular, how long do they get to ride on their laurels before they lose this reputation? On paper, comparing rosters, it would seem that CU has had the horsepower to compete with, say NAU, but in reality CU has fallen way short of the potential on that roster.
Further, why does CU not even try and compete in T&F vs their XC efforts??
OP is pretty clearly talking about xc, so let's address that.
If Colorado isn't a top program then who is?
NAU was the team that couldn't get over the hump until this golden generation came along.
Syracuse: their last 4 years they've finished 5, 1, 3, 13. Colorado has gone 1, 2, 6, 8
Portland: their last 4 years are 4, DNQ, 13, 2
Oregon and Stanford constantly get ripped for under performing compared to their talent level.
BYU was great last year but they tanked at nationals, and the year before that they finished 1 place behind...Colorado
Arkansas had back to back 5th place finishes, but when's the last time they were a real contender?
Wisconsin would kill for a top 10 finish right now.
Cut the crap means, people should stop thinking CU is some super power in track. Wetmore is a terrible coach. All his past athletes were from thr J. Quiller years. That was when the Buffalos were descent in the sport.
When is the AD gonna grow some and clean house with that coaching staff.
Let's not forget that Dressel is injured and Klecker is redshirting (unsure if that is due to health or not). Those two would be All-Americans (they were during indoors last year) and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Next.
critic 100 wrote:
Cut the crap means, people should stop thinking CU is some super power in track. Wetmore is a terrible coach. All his past athletes were from thr J. Quiller years. That was when the Buffalos were descent in the sport.
When is the AD gonna grow some and clean house with that coaching staff.
Ok, but what are they in XC? If your answer is anything but dominant then please explain two national championships, a second and then two top tens in the past five years.
critic 100 wrote:
Cut the crap means, people should stop thinking CU is some super power in track.
You just changed from "not very good in XC" to "not a powerhouse in track". One is obviously true, one is obviously crap.
Bonkers wrote:
BuffBluff wrote:
CU under Wetmore is revered for its distance program. On the men's side in particular, how long do they get to ride on their laurels before they lose this reputation? On paper, comparing rosters, it would seem that CU has had the horsepower to compete with, say NAU, but in reality CU has fallen way short of the potential on that roster.
Further, why does CU not even try and compete in T&F vs their XC efforts??
OP is pretty clearly talking about xc, so let's address that.
If Colorado isn't a top program then who is?
NAU was the team that couldn't get over the hump until this golden generation came along.
Syracuse: their last 4 years they've finished 5, 1, 3, 13. Colorado has gone 1, 2, 6, 8
Portland: their last 4 years are 4, DNQ, 13, 2
Oregon and Stanford constantly get ripped for under performing compared to their talent level.
BYU was great last year but they tanked at nationals, and the year before that they finished 1 place behind...Colorado
Arkansas had back to back 5th place finishes, but when's the last time they were a real contender?
Wisconsin would kill for a top 10 finish right now.
I always find it amazing how someone comes in and posts something FACTUAL and others disregard it to essentially just complain. +1 for this post.
Anyone can put runners at the bottom of Flagstaff mountain and tell them to run up hill. Hell, my grandmother could do that training.
Wetmore was out east before he came to CU. What did he do out there? He comes to Boulder and says,
"Duh, everybody go out and run mountains". If you survive, you might be good.
That is what you do when you can't convince talent to come to your program, its called recruiting. Seriously, who would not want to go to Boulder to train and study. "Q" had every event covered because he was a great recruited and a great coach.
Case in proof... when was the last time CU actually had an All American in anything less than a steeple chaser. There are other events in T&F but not according to Wetmore. Get rid of thr Bum.
critic 100 wrote:
Anyone can put runners at the bottom of Flagstaff mountain and tell them to run up hill. Hell, my grandmother could do that training.
Wetmore was out east before he came to CU. What did he do out there? He comes to Boulder and says,
"Duh, everybody go out and run mountains". If you survive, you might be good.
That is what you do when you can't convince talent to come to your program, its called recruiting. Seriously, who would not want to go to Boulder to train and study. "Q" had every event covered because he was a great recruited and a great coach.
Case in proof... when was the last time CU actually had an All American in anything less than a steeple chaser. There are other events in T&F but not according to Wetmore. Get rid of thr Bum.
I will never understand people who argue against success. I will say it again. In the past five years he has had two national championships, a second place finish and two top tens. That is dominant. Those are hard facts. Those are hard results. What are you talking about with respect to XC? What is your point with respect to XC? And by the way, CU was not dominating before Wetmore.
critic 100 wrote:
Anyone can put runners at the bottom of Flagstaff mountain and tell them to run up hill. Hell, my grandmother could do that training.
Your grandmother couldn't have gotten Brent Vaughn, Bret Schoolmeester, Jon Severy, Stephen Pifer, James Strang, Jared Scott, and Brad Harkraker to beat Simon Bairu, Matt Tegenkamp, Chris Solinsky, Tim Keller, Bobby Lockhart, Josh Spiker, and Tim Nelson in a national cross country race.
Ralphie wrote:
critic 100 wrote:
Anyone can put runners at the bottom of Flagstaff mountain and tell them to run up hill. Hell, my grandmother could do that training.
Wetmore was out east before he came to CU. What did he do out there? He comes to Boulder and says,
"Duh, everybody go out and run mountains". If you survive, you might be good.
That is what you do when you can't convince talent to come to your program, its called recruiting. Seriously, who would not want to go to Boulder to train and study. "Q" had every event covered because he was a great recruited and a great coach.
Case in proof... when was the last time CU actually had an All American in anything less than a steeple chaser. There are other events in T&F but not according to Wetmore. Get rid of thr Bum.
I will never understand people who argue against success. I will say it again. In the past five years he has had two national championships, a second place finish and two top tens. That is dominant. Those are hard facts. Those are hard results. What are you talking about with respect to XC? What is your point with respect to XC? And by the way, CU was not dominating before Wetmore.
"With respect to xc" ...."with respect to xc"....
We get it.
Wetmore is a great xc coach, period.
However, CU is a PAC 12 program and the sxhool deserves better representation at t&for. The absolute truth of the matter is Wetmore treats T&F as a mere tool for his xc program. For example, the success of his women DMR indoors Nats win proves they can be viable in track meets. But that was an anomoly as Wetmore really hardly enters athletes in relays. (That team btw, was not the full "A" team either, they can be even better)
It's as if t&f is for scrimmage practice only.
....If that's true, then CUs xc program should be even better, not just among these PAC12s that are actually good at both. Of course, these schools recruit 10x harder than Wetmore, which brings up the other reason CU doesn't perform even better.
CU is good, sometimes great at xc but they should be better. CU could be good at t&f but they're embarrassingly bad compared to their distance potential and just awful at all other events. Doesn't have to be mutually exclusive to be good at xc or good at t&f. CU could and should be among the best at both.
Track lives matter wrote:
CU is good, sometimes great at xc but they should be better.
Name one program that has been more consistently good at cross country since Wetmore began coaching at CU. Now, how many of those programs that you name always supplement with a couple or all foreign runners? Take a look at the past twenty years and count the number of US born athletes and teams that have won NCAA XC championships. The vast majority have come from CU. Part of the reason they do not score as well at track is partially because he doesn't race his runners as often as a lot of coaches out there, which typically benefits the runner long term.