rupoewiruweor````` wrote:
They were in Waterloo, Iowa in 2003 dicktard.
Look at the big brain on Brad.
Where was NCAA XC in 2002?
Perhaps they were able to glean information from the course, despite not running there several years in succession.
rupoewiruweor````` wrote:
They were in Waterloo, Iowa in 2003 dicktard.
Look at the big brain on Brad.
Where was NCAA XC in 2002?
Perhaps they were able to glean information from the course, despite not running there several years in succession.
Okie88 wrote:
Not an OSU fan, I'll say that right away. But, I will also say that bashing Smith for this is ridiculous. As far as strategy goes it was the best possible strategy. All of his guys know how to race, they have all proven it. So there is no need to go out and race for the sake of racing. Today they did a work out that will further help them prepare for nats, allowing them to take less time to recover than they would have if it had been a race, and thus continue to prepare, focused solely on the only race that counts.
The whole idea of running a XC (not a prelim track race) as a workout, just making sure to qualify, is a dangerous pattern of thinking to fall into. What if you don't snap out of it at NCAAs?
oldoldrunner wrote:
From The Stands wrote:I guess cross country has really changed since my day. I remember going out under 4:20 both my junior and senior years and being in 15th place or so. Everyone who wants to be up front, goes out over their head. If they haven't raced enough, they will die. The more racing the individual does, the better they will be able to hang on. Racing is different from fitness, that's why hardly anyone sets a pr the first race of the season and then goes backwards the remainder of the year.
I believe you went out that fast. Yes it had changed. I stated before these are smart runners with smart coaches. You stated, "everyone who wants to be up front, goes out over their head." Well, just like in baseball the complete game is no longer, going out over your head is no longer done. They have been racing the NCAA'S at Terre Haute since 2004. The runner and coaches have figured out that going out in sub 4:20 on this course will only make the big bad bear jump on their backs. Yes things changes and the ones that make the best change will win.
You have to remember that lots of people go out fast, and even if you go out at a perfect pace, going around all those groups of people can use up more energy than it saves, assuming you can move at all. Too many people, too narrow a course, and you're screwed.
ksnhggfsf wrote:
The whole idea of running a XC (not a prelim track race) as a workout, just making sure to qualify, is a dangerous pattern of thinking to fall into. What if you don't snap out of it at NCAAs?
the whole idea of running an all out 10k 9 days before nationals is also dangerous
ngsgffsds wrote:You have to remember that lots of people go out fast, and even if you go out at a perfect pace, going around all those groups of people can use up more energy than it saves, assuming you can move at all. Too many people, too narrow a course, and you're screwed.
But the regional and national meets are not held on narrow courses these days. There are no trails, it's all on golf course-like (or at least open field) terrain where there is generally more than enough room to run around a group without having to run through trees or out in the slop. OK, starting off in 130th place at the mile at nationals is going to be tough to recover from, because you'll be in a huge pack of people, but sub 4:20 for the first mile is just haphazard on these types of courses.
Smith is a good coach, and there are different ways to approach racing and race efforts. However, just from my observations, I haven't noticed any greater success from the teams that use the Wisconsin/Oklahoma St. approach than others. I'm not for pounding every week, but I think you're walking a dangerous line to ask someone to go all out for the first time all fall at the national meet.
Last time I checked they won regionals handilly and look to have everyone healthy and qualified to nationals. If there is another strategy I would like to hear it. Ok State does not have a good 6-10 like other schools who maybe have 14-20 blue chip recruits and can insert new talent fairly easily. Oregon for sure can do that and Stanford looks to be able to. Did anyone think of that? Having all of your top who you need to run well at nationals healthy, confident, and rested is the best stategy for a team that needs all 5 guys to run well in order to place.
Regional in track is no different than regionals in XC for a lot of top teams/individuals. They simply do it in order to make it to the next step.
I am sure it would be really great if OSU perfect scored regionals and then blew up at nationals. I agree it was not probably the most dramatic way to get fans...but most real fans will be in IN watching nationals. Enjoy bashing another coach who only makes his runners better. Because Colby was dropping 29:30s in HS during cross. He probably never cracked 15. Oh yeah...Vail was one of the best XC before OSU...and German, he ran 13:20s in HS and sub 4 equivalent back in the day. Seriously, open your eyes ppl.
hayward102 wrote:
Smith is a good coach, and there are different ways to approach racing and race efforts. However, just from my observations, I haven't noticed any greater success from the teams that use the Wisconsin/Oklahoma St. approach than others. I'm not for pounding every week, but I think you're walking a dangerous line to ask someone to go all out for the first time all fall at the national meet.
Very intelligent post. I'm with you, but keep in mind OSU has raced their own Jamboree, the Chili Pepper Invite, and the Big 12 meet. I believe the Jamboree and Big 12 were all out efforts, but neither race went out as fast as the NCAA race will.
Looking back at 2005, I think Jerry Schumacher figured it out that year as the results from the Big Ten Meet will tell. Unlike previous years, the Badgers roared out from the start covering the first 1000 in 2:41 on a tough/soggy Minnesota course. They ended up putting 8 runners in the top 9. Could have been the talent, great coaching, or both, but they were prepared to run that year.
As for this years championship, Stanford appears to be ready to race no matter the conditions or tactics. I don't see them having a bad day. They will likely score somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 points. It's up to OSU to figure out how to score slightly less than that. I see the Cowboys putting 4 in the top 15 and their fifth around 50th. Will it be enough?
[quote]NFW wrote:
[quote]hayward102 wrote:
Looking back at 2005, I think Jerry Schumacher figured it out that year as the results from the Big Ten Meet will tell. Unlike previous years, the Badgers roared out from the start covering the first 1000 in 2:41 on a tough/soggy Minnesota course. They ended up putting 8 runners in the top 9. Could have been the talent, great coaching, or both, but they were prepared to run that year.
According to oldoldrunner, Terminator X, Racing Strategery
going out that fast, 2:41 is stupid. These experts hope the Wisconsin team was able to make it accross the finish line with such a bizarre strategy.Didn't they get the memo, the new way to race is to go out SLOW.
How did Wisconsin do again?? Never mind.
From The Stands wrote:
[quote]NFW wrote:
[quote]hayward102 wrote:
Looking back at 2005, I think Jerry Schumacher figured it out that year as the results from the Big Ten Meet will tell. Unlike previous years, the Badgers roared out from the start covering the first 1000 in 2:41 on a tough/soggy Minnesota course. They ended up putting 8 runners in the top 9. Could have been the talent, great coaching, or both, but they were prepared to run that year.
According to oldoldrunner, Terminator X, Racing Strategery
going out that fast, 2:41 is stupid. These experts hope the Wisconsin team was able to make it accross the finish line with such a bizarre strategy.Didn't they get the memo, the new way to race is to go out SLOW.
How did Wisconsin do again?? Never mind.
Yeah but at nationals they went out as a team. First 5 were all 14:55 at 5k, with future 27:36 runner Tim Nelson a bit back at 14:58. Simon Bairu was leading at 8K in 23:33 and went on to win in 29:15.9 with Tim Nelson being their 6th man in 30:06. Seems to me they knew not go out to fast at Terre Haute. Bairu went in 14:55 and closed in 14:20 that is not going over your head and holding on. That is racing strategy and knowning the course.
NFW wrote:
Very intelligent post. I'm with you, but keep in mind OSU has raced their own Jamboree, the Chili Pepper Invite, and the Big 12 meet. I believe the Jamboree and Big 12 were all out efforts, but neither race went out as fast as the NCAA race will.
Then maybe Oklahoma St. has had more honest efforts than I gave them credit for. I am not saying you have to pound at regionals if that isn't necessary. In general, I think the best place to be is an appropriate balance of fresh and battle tested.
Oldoldrunner,
You are correct about NC's, however, I thought we were talking the Big Ten meet
The intent of my post was you have to get out up front in order to stay up front. It's rare when someone comes from behind to win. That's how we ran, and it took a 4:20 mile to get up there. Maybe it was because of the Kenyans, types of courses, etc. Even looking through the NC results over the years, I don't see to many people moving up over the last half of the races. Most of the top 20 were close to where they finished at the half way point.
My last post on this subject, I think I wrote to much to early and I am exhausted.
Well look at german from track. he sure came a long way since high school. So D smith must know what hes talking about
MikeM wrote:
... Enjoy bashing another coach who only makes his runners better. Because Colby was dropping 29:30s in HS during cross. He probably never cracked 15. Oh yeah...Vail was one of the best XC before OSU...and German, he ran 13:20s in HS and sub 4 equivalent back in the day. Seriously, open your eyes ppl.
What the heck is this supposed to mean?
If you ran in the late 70's and early 80's then you know WSU, Oregon and UTEP had four runners on each team that did or could have run sub 28:00 10k. Just those three teams alone would have put you in the low teens at the mile. How many teams today have that type of talent?
Yeah but at nationals they went out as a team. First 5 were all 14:55 at 5k, with future 27:36 runner Tim Nelson a bit back at 14:58. Simon Bairu was leading at 8K in 23:33 and went on to win in 29:15.9 with Tim Nelson being their 6th man in 30:06. Seems to me they knew not go out to fast at Terre Haute. Bairu went in 14:55 and closed in 14:20 that is not going over your head and holding on. That is racing strategy and knowning the course.[/quote]
You are correct, they went out slower and did not control the race from the front like they did at the Big Ten Meet. But the point here is that they were prepared to go hard from the gun, run even, or negative split that year. By blowing it out at the conference meet they experienced oxygen debt fairly early in that race, this was a missing component from 2004. Simply put in 2005, they were ready for anything.
On to Oklahoma State, they have controlled at the start and as a pack in all of their races this season. Are they prepared for a 4:30 first mile? If not will they be able to move up in the field? Last year only Fernandez (before the injury) and Kosgei did successfully. In my mind I feel that OSU is the better team, but Stanford seems to be better prepared. Monday will be interesting.
I don't know about that...when he was a high school senior, German was All-World to the LetsRun posters. You just watch too, when NC's are held next week, Okie State will fold just like they did last year? Why? It isn't so much that Smith is a terrible coach, it has more to do with the fact that the best teams have been RACING each other out West all season. Those teams have been tested and have been through the gauntlet, that is why Stanford will win it all, and Oregon will finish ahead of Okie State. Count on it.
OSU wrote:
Well look at german from track. he sure came a long way since high school. So D smith must know what hes talking about
You have discovered our strategy! We are training the cross country team for the mile!
From The Stands wrote:
You are correct about NC's, however, I thought we were talking the Big Ten meet
The intent of my post was you have to get out up front in order to stay up front. It's rare when someone comes from behind to win. That's how we ran, and it took a 4:20 mile to get up there. Maybe it was because of the Kenyans, types of courses, etc. Even looking through the NC results over the years, I don't see to many people moving up over the last half of the races.
We heard you the first six times when you said that's how you ran it back in the day. What people have been trying to point out to you is that many runners use different strategies, and in fact very few people go out in under 4:20 these days. (Why else do you think Sam Chelanga can open up big leads? Because most other runners have realized that, on the wide-open courses now used for NCs, there's no point in blowing your load in the first mile.)
Of course, there's more than one possible strategy. Different teams will try different things. Do you seriously think there's only one way to train and one way to race, and anyone who doesn't do things the way you did is just stupid?
Ultimately, there are pros and cons to every strategy discussed in this thread. What it comes down to is how well the strategy is executed, and how fit the runners are.
The fact that we're even talking about a school like Oklahoma State as a contender shows Dave Smith knows exactly what he's doing as a coach. Next you haters will be knocking Boise St.'s football coach for incompetence. These men put these small-time schools on the map.