Dude obviously goes to Bowdoin. Put Bowdoin 5th after they placed 1 in the top 30 last Saturday. Seems like Bowdoin peaked for the state meet 5 weeks ago.
Dude obviously goes to Bowdoin. Put Bowdoin 5th after they placed 1 in the top 30 last Saturday. Seems like Bowdoin peaked for the state meet 5 weeks ago.
bananasaremyfriend wrote:
t-bear wrote:
Don't you think after last weekend 8th might be a little low for Bates? I'd put them 5th to 6th personally, as their runners seem to be peaking at the right time
No I don't think it's a little low. That's why I placed them 8th.
Its a little odd to make a prediction like that, like why Bowdoin so high? Bates basically put 7 in front of Bowdoin's 4th man, in a bigger race theres no way Macdonald can make those points up. However, I could see Tufts bouncing back and getting 5th, but Bowdoin....
Region gets 4 teams. Easy for NCAA to leave home a top heavy CC team.
Danny vs Ryan round 2 for the title. 3/4 last NESCAC winners have gone on to win regionals - Ryan for the dub.
1. Amherst
2. Middlebury (steadily improving)
3. Williams
4. MIT (They've been up and down all year)
5. Conn (Price is making their duo a trio)
6. Bates (can't do it again)
7. Bowdoin (Home course advantage is real - could be 5th)
8. Tufts
will the committee care about conn's (perceived) top heaviness? I'd imagine that if conn or any team places 5th the main concern will be having a gap between themselves and 6th or at least between 6th and the rest...
will they? wrote:
will the committee care about conn's (perceived) top heaviness? I'd imagine that if conn or any team places 5th the main concern will be having a gap between themselves and 6th or at least between 6th and the rest...
I agree, the committee will take 4-7 teams depending on where the point gaps are.
The committee will take 2 teams as New England is objectively the weakest region in the country. The extra 2-5 bids will go to the South.
My son goes to Tufts
Jason Bateman wrote:
will they? wrote:
will the committee care about conn's (perceived) top heaviness? I'd imagine that if conn or any team places 5th the main concern will be having a gap between themselves and 6th or at least between 6th and the rest...
I agree, the committee will take 4-7 teams depending on where the point gaps are.
2016
4. Middlebury - 153 (at large bid)
5. Tufts -159 (left home). Btw they were top heavy too. Nichols and OConnor went 1,3.
No one knows what each committee will value, but history has shown, point gap is pretty meaningless. I think 1-5 spread and out of region wins mean the most. But what do I really know, I’m just a Tufts uncle.
november wrote:
Crazy NESCACs! Proves anything can happen in 2 weeks at Bowdoin. What will it be? Can MIT break into the top 3? Will Amherst edge out their third straight win against Williams this season? Who takes fifth? Does it even matter or will the committee screw NE again?
New England coaches screw New England getting bids not the committee. There is a criteria to get at large bids and the New England coaches do not follow it. St Thomas coming to Conn College may help this year if they finish high at the central region but at the end of the day how you do against out of region teams matters and New England travels out of region less than any region except the west (despite being able to drive easily to the Atlantic and Mideast). It will depend on who is 5th as Bates lost to Ramapo who isn’t even in the top 10 in the Atlantic region. Tufts has significant wins but is super inconsistent.
Tomato Cake wrote:
No one knows what each committee will value, but history has shown, point gap is pretty meaningless. I think 1-5 spread and out of region wins mean the most. But what do I really know, I’m just a Tufts uncle.
Actually everyone knows what the committee will value because the criteria for selection are very clearly and explicitly laid out in the NCAA manual...
ummm? wrote:
Tomato Cake wrote:
No one knows what each committee will value, but history has shown, point gap is pretty meaningless. I think 1-5 spread and out of region wins mean the most. But what do I really know, I’m just a Tufts uncle.
Actually everyone knows what the committee will value because the criteria for selection are very clearly and explicitly laid out in the NCAA manual...
Honestly it never feels truly objective in a rule-laid out sense. Bates women beat RPI last year and the committee took a team that lost to RPI at regionals over Bates, sometimes it just feels like a lottery after a certain point. Also take 2016 Tufts, absolutely no way they wouldn't have landed in the top 25 in a nationals race with the runners they had (they averaged 25:09 as a team for crying out loud), but once again it just feels like deserving teams are snubbed, and the "logic" that is always used is the capricious and inaccurate (once again citing 2016 Tufts, only out of region team they lost to was CMS, who ended up finishing 6th in the nation)
New England coaches screw New England getting bids not the committee. There is a criteria to get at large bids and the New England coaches do not follow it. St Thomas coming to Conn College may help this year if they finish high at the central region but at the end of the day how you do against out of region teams matters and New England travels out of region less than any region except the west (despite being able to drive easily to the Atlantic and Mideast). It will depend on who is 5th as Bates lost to Ramapo who isn’t even in the top 10 in the Atlantic region. Tufts has significant wins but is super inconsistent.
Amherst, Tufts, Middlebury and Trinity went to Paul Short. Three of those teams plus CC ran at Williams, which typically attracts out of region teams. Williams ran at Saratoga. MIT went to pre-nats. CC stayed pretty local but maybe that's because they knew St. Thomas was coming to them. The Maine schools (expect Bates women) don't travel but I don't blame them because it's a plane ride or two loooooong days of travel to get to anywhere other than the eastern edge of the AR. I'd say that's a pretty good attempt to see other regions.
except its more capricious than that wrote:
Honestly it never feels truly objective in a rule-laid out sense. Bates women beat RPI last year and the committee took a team that lost to RPI at regionals over Bates, sometimes it just feels like a lottery after a certain point. Also take 2016 Tufts, absolutely no way they wouldn't have landed in the top 25 in a nationals race with the runners they had (they averaged 25:09 as a team for crying out loud), but once again it just feels like deserving teams are snubbed, and the "logic" that is always used is the capricious and inaccurate (once again citing 2016 Tufts, only out of region team they lost to was CMS, who ended up finishing 6th in the nation)
Tie breaker always goes to the teams that are within the 500 mile no-flight radius to nationals. In 2016 when tufts (and colby) got snubbed, two at larges bids went to two iffy south region teams that were 500 miles or less from Louisville. Harsh but true.
Tomato Cake wrote:
New England coaches screw New England getting bids not the committee. There is a criteria to get at large bids and the New England coaches do not follow it. St Thomas coming to Conn College may help this year if they finish high at the central region but at the end of the day how you do against out of region teams matters and New England travels out of region less than any region except the west (despite being able to drive easily to the Atlantic and Mideast). It will depend on who is 5th as Bates lost to Ramapo who isn’t even in the top 10 in the Atlantic region. Tufts has significant wins but is super inconsistent.
Amherst, Tufts, Middlebury and Trinity went to Paul Short. Three of those teams plus CC ran at Williams, which typically attracts out of region teams. Williams ran at Saratoga. MIT went to pre-nats. CC stayed pretty local but maybe that's because they knew St. Thomas was coming to them. The Maine schools (expect Bates women) don't travel but I don't blame them because it's a plane ride or two loooooong days of travel to get to anywhere other than the eastern edge of the AR. I'd say that's a pretty good attempt to see other regions.
“Tie breaker always goes to the teams that are within the 500 mile no-flight radius to nationals. In 2016 when tufts (and colby) got snubbed, two at larges bids went to two iffy south region teams that were 500 miles or less from Louisville. Harsh but true “
Going to Paul Short doesn’t help teams, especially in the gold race. The D1 and D2 teams cause such a huge displacement that the committee looks at that race less than others (if you have a top 10 NCAA DIII guy you look way better than your team really is). If the teams had the money to go to Paul Short then they had enough to go to the meet at Rowan where they would have had more regionally ranked teams (only a few teams a year going would make a big difference, looks like it may help the Wesleyan women a lot this year). Tufts not making it in 2016 wasn’t based on who they lost to but the fact they didn’t beat anyone all year. The 3rd and 4th teams in the south were Emory and Rhodes, Emory beat Johns Hopkins, Allegheny, and TCNJ and Rhodes beat two of those teams as well. TCNJ and Washington and Lee had big races at regionals to get in when they wouldn’t otherwise and Tufts was left with no wins to show they belonged. The women got screwed last year as they met criteria and didn’t get in.
I personally hope that Tufts does really well. That school has been rapidly moving up my list as I think having Tufts on my resume will help me get a job if running doesn't end up being my career.
MIT IS GOING DOWN, LET US BAND TOGETHER BROTHERS, TOGETHER WE WILL SHOW MIT THE MIGHT OF THE 'CAC
bananasaremyfriend wrote:
Regional Predictions:
TEAM:
1. MIT
2. Amherst
3. Williams
4. Midd
5. Bowdoin
6. Conn
7. Tufts
8. Bates
...
MIT will race like hardos and win regionals, but screw up at NCAAs. Amherst and Williams will be a bit more reserved, but the Mammoths squeak it out from the Ephs.
INDIVIDUAL:
1. Sam Brunette - Plymouth State
2. Sean MacDonald - Bowdoin
3. Danny Aschale - Conn
4. Andrew Mah - MIT
5. Cosmo Brossy - Amherst
6. Ryan Cox - Williams
7. Scott Mason - Conn
8. Clark Ricciardeli - Amherst
9. Billy Woltz - MIT
10. Trevor Wysong - Bridgewater State
How are u putting Mah ahead of Brossy, Cox, and Ricciardeli??? Those four are experienced dudes, Brossy has a better 5k and 8k, Cox just won NESCACs (beating Aschale in their last two meetings, but you put Aschale ahead of Mah), and Ricciardeli is an all-american and one of the top racers late-season. Mah just came in second to Woltz last weekend, and Macdonald won't jump that far ahead of his nescac finish relative to the other guys. SAD
1. Amherst
2. MIT
3. Middlebury
4. Williams
5. Bates
6. Tufts
7. Bowdoin
8. Conn
9. WPI
10. Colby
Conn put three guys in front of Tufts 1. Conn will beat tufts and qualify for the big dance. Why is everyone so down on us getting 5 teams??!?!? We have 7 teams ranked. All 7 are ranked ahead of St. Lawrence who always finish 5th and always go to nationals. We should get 7 teams in.........
Are the programs at Amherst and Tufts decent? Academically I know I can handle them. I've run 1620 as a junior and as a soph I ran a 439 and 10flat. I know those times aren't screaming but I used to be wicked slow and have been dropping my times more than the guys I've been running against for years so I feel like I have more upside and should continue to improve.
Will these programs help me get faster and do the athletes take the program seriously? Are the coaches good guys?