Grant MF Fisher splits 3:54.24 and loses!!!

Hingadinga wrote:

Student athlete wrote:

Do you think your little tiny high school kid could get into Stanford? There lays the challenge that every Stanford coach has - academic entrance requirements. Very few universities hold their athletes to similar entrance requirements of the regular student body - Stanford is one of those very few schools.

Notre Dame which they lost too is also one of them.

There seems to be some confusion around admissions at these places. See the story above about SAT scores of the 9 flat kid above. Places like Stanford do have higher academic standards for athletes than many other schools, but they are not as high as those required for the general student body. So the kid who ran the 1:52 might not have the grades to get into Stanford.

But where they make up the difference is that a kid who is pretty smart but in no way capable of going to Stanford without athletics suddenly has a chance to go to a top school and set himself or herself up for what happens in the 50 years after college sports.

The above only applies to sports like track, soccer, etc. Pretty sure football and basketball are their own world at any place with a good program.

I would like to know what random football team has ANYONE that can show up and split a 46 indoors, with no training. Is Usain Bolt playing football now?

Let’s look at the NCAA trials held yesterday. Tens of Thousands of specifically trained runners come out of high school. The very best 1000 or so are competing in the 400 in D1. Out of those, only the top 16 make it to nationals. 9 of those guys ran sub 47 yesterday.

Grant Fisher has done nothing that would indicate he would split 3:52 or even the 3:54 he split today.

I think you need have super high expectations for him, but for most us, he hasnt shown great potential at the mile distance.

With that said, I think Bayer and Yorks were legit better during the senior years than great is today at 1600.

Drainthefecesswamp wrote:

Student athlete wrote:

Do you think your little tiny high school kid could get into Stanford? There lays the challenge that every Stanford coach has - academic entrance requirements. Very few universities hold their athletes to similar entrance requirements of the regular student body - Stanford is one of those very few schools.

What? The coaches at Stanford absolutely can "stamp" applications. Are you thinking of the Ivy league schools? Because those schools claim all athletes have to get in on their own, then can join the team. That is very much not the case at Stanford. I had a teammate get into Stanford with a 1280 SAT and no extra curricular, community service, or other compelling story, because he ran 9 flat. No way 1280 SAT gets you into Stanford without a coach sponsoring you.

Initially, I was going to say you don’t know what you are talking about but you said you had a teammate get in to Stanford so I’ll give you benefit of doubt.

What year did your teammate run at Stanford? The last two presidents of Stanford have made athlete entrance requirements, consecutively, more difficult. I too have experience in knowing athletes that got into Stanford and didn’t get into Stanford and I can assure you that 1280 SAT would not make it past first blush. As well, 9 flat wouldn’t get a walk on position at Stanford. Thus my question of what year did your teammate run at Stanford?

Agree with Yorks superior to Fisher going into their DMR splits. Yorks had run 3:53 open in the mile. Bayer had thrown down some fast 1500s and miles but would go on to be the NCAA champ in 2012. Leading into the 2011 3:53 split he had run 7:48 and 3:57, so I wouldn’t say his performances indicated a 3:53 split at all. Grant is an NCAA champ, HS sub-4 miler and has run 7:42 already with a fast last lap.

Gehejehsh wrote:

What were Fisher’s splits? Looked like 27.xx last lap.

I was there. Fisher ran the first half of the race hard to get his team back into contention. I think he got the baton in tenth place. Don’t know his splits but he made up a ton of real estate then the pace slowed somewhat and a few guys bunched up then the pace took off again with two laps to go.

malmo wrote:

rojo wrote:

I say great race but it also showed why I hate the DMR. I thought maybe for once I'd see a team win it on the first 3 legs but Iowa State only finished 5th after and they started the final leg 7.21 seconds ahead of Notre Dame and 9.25 seconds ahead of Stanford.

I'm not understanding why that makes you hate the DMR?

I think it is Stanford he hates.

Unless it was 30 years ago, not possible. Every kid going to Stanford runs 8:54 and has a 1420 SAT.

rojo wrote:

Which team has a Paralympian? I still don't get why that's allowed.

Do you follow the sport?

I agree with your second sentence but it's inconceivable to me that the board owner would not know of said para runner.

Disagree.

Fisher has split 3:56 in two DMR’s this year. I think he could run a very fast mile if he trained more for it. In yesterday’s race he had to navigate around a lot of guys and was able to run 3:54. He beat York’s his freshman indoor year in the 3km in a sprint. My guess is he could dust both York’s and Bayer right now - no problemo.

Trying to confirm wrote:

I want to confirm, but this is off of memory, that Kimani ran 3:52 high. Can anyone else comment on this?

God Bless he and his family.

It cannot be confirmed

malmo wrote:

rojo wrote:

I say great race but it also showed why I hate the DMR. I thought maybe for once I'd see a team win it on the first 3 legs but Iowa State only finished 5th after and they started the final leg 7.21 seconds ahead of Notre Dame and 9.25 seconds ahead of Stanford.

I'm not understanding why that makes you hate the DMR?

Have to agree. Almost seems incongruous. Because the winner of the race is not determined until late in the race? And all this chatter on the boards about where legs should have placed and not placed makes for good fodder, no?

What yo be smokin man wrote:

No grant fisher ran great wrote:

Grant Fisher has done nothing that would indicate he would split 3:52 or even the 3:54 he split today.

I think you need have super high expectations for him, but for most us, he hasnt shown great potential at the mile distance.

With that said, I think Bayer and Yorks were legit better during the senior years than great is today at 1600.

Disagree.

Fisher has split 3:56 in two DMR’s this year. I think he could run a very fast mile if he trained more for it. In yesterday’s race he had to navigate around a lot of guys and was able to run 3:54. He beat York’s his freshman indoor year in the 3km in a sprint. My guess is he could dust both York’s and Bayer right now - no problemo.

Grant is a better 3k runner than Yorks, that's not up for debate. Yorks is better than Grant at 800 and mile.

fdj wrote:

What yo be smokin man wrote:

Disagree.

Fisher has split 3:56 in two DMR’s this year. I think he could run a very fast mile if he trained more for it. In yesterday’s race he had to navigate around a lot of guys and was able to run 3:54. He beat York’s his freshman indoor year in the 3km in a sprint. My guess is he could dust both York’s and Bayer right now - no problemo.

Grant is a better 3k runner than Yorks, that's not up for debate. Yorks is better than Grant at 800 and mile.

My guess is Fisher could dust Yorks right now (today) in the mile. Absolutely, Yorks would dust Fisher in the 800 all day long. Now let’s take a look at distances where each runner would be able to contend at a high level nationally and internationally and their potential. Yorks 800, mile. Fisher mile, 3km, 5km, and in the future 10km, possibly half and marathon.

rojo wrote:

I say great race but it also showed why I hate the DMR. I thought maybe for once I'd see a team win it on the first 3 legs but Iowa State only finished 5th after and they started the final leg 7.21 seconds ahead of Notre Dame and 9.25 seconds ahead of Stanford.

The reason the DMR is run, rather than the 4x8 is due to the fact that Men's scholarships were cut to 12.5, thus making it more difficult to carry extra 800 runners, so the NCAA Coaches Assn put forth the proposal that the DMR be the distance relay instead. If memory is accurate, it was Gags, while at Georgetown, that made that proposal and it was approved by a high number of coaches. It was then passed by the NCAA. I don't remember the year this was done.

Pete Schuder wrote:

rojo wrote:

I say great race but it also showed why I hate the DMR. I thought maybe for once I'd see a team win it on the first 3 legs but Iowa State only finished 5th after and they started the final leg 7.21 seconds ahead of Notre Dame and 9.25 seconds ahead of Stanford.

The reason the DMR is run, rather than the 4x8 is due to the fact that Men's scholarships were cut to 12.5, thus making it more difficult to carry extra 800 runners, so the NCAA Coaches Assn put forth the proposal that the DMR be the distance relay instead. If memory is accurate, it was Gags, while at Georgetown, that made that proposal and it was approved by a high number of coaches. It was then passed by the NCAA. I don't remember the year this was done.

The DMR and 4x8 were both run through 1993 dating back to the mid 60's. The 4x8 was eliminated after 1993.

Pete Schuder wrote:

rojo wrote:

I say great race but it also showed why I hate the DMR. I thought maybe for once I'd see a team win it on the first 3 legs but Iowa State only finished 5th after and they started the final leg 7.21 seconds ahead of Notre Dame and 9.25 seconds ahead of Stanford.

The reason the DMR is run, rather than the 4x8 is due to the fact that Men's scholarships were cut to 12.5, thus making it more difficult to carry extra 800 runners, so the NCAA Coaches Assn put forth the proposal that the DMR be the distance relay instead. If memory is accurate, it was Gags, while at Georgetown, that made that proposal and it was approved by a high number of coaches. It was then passed by the NCAA. I don't remember the year this was done.

Creative writing major? The 4x8 was run 1965-1993. The DMR was run 1967 to present. Gagliano was a high school coach when the DMR was introduced.

Who cares...those Notre Dame uniforms are absolute horse sh!t. Under Armour and Notre Dame should be embarrassed.