This morning, the Rice men's cross country team finished 8th among university teams at the Alabama Crimson Classic.

Marco Ruiz was the top Owl finisher, coming in at 25th place. The reminder of the top 5 were Adolfo Carvalho (43rd), Imran Bell (44th), Matt Calem (57th) and Griffin Lee (95th).

Some of the teams Rice defeated: Tennessee, LSU, Florida State, Vanderbilt, Louisiana Tech, Mississippi State and Houston.

(10-14-2016 10:10 AM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  Some of the teams Rice defeated: Tennessee, LSU, Florida State, Vanderbilt, Louisiana Tech, Mississippi State and Houston.

We did well.

Who won?

Kentucky, Georgia, UT-Arlington and Samford went 1-4. I guess we did okay (some of those football powers we beat are ranked in the top 10 of their various regional rankings in cross country) but we did also get beat by Guelph, Meridian Community College and Auburn Montgomery in the college division.

(10-14-2016 11:22 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Kentucky, Georgia, UT-Arlington and Samford went 1-4. I guess we did okay (some of those football powers we beat are ranked in the top 10 of their various regional rankings in cross country) but we did also get beat by Guelph, Meridian Community College and Auburn Montgomery in the college division.

I saw Arkansas run a couple of weeks back. How do they rank / compare to the 4 SEC schools that were identified by you and WRC in the meet we just ran (Kentucky, Georgia, Vandy, Tennessee, LSU, Mississippi State. And I guess Alabama as well?)

(10-14-2016 11:33 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:22 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Kentucky, Georgia, UT-Arlington and Samford went 1-4. I guess we did okay (some of those football powers we beat are ranked in the top 10 of their various regional rankings in cross country) but we did also get beat by Guelph, Meridian Community College and Auburn Montgomery in the college division.

I saw Arkansas run a couple of weeks back. How do they rank / compare to the 4 SEC schools that were identified by you and WRC in the meet we just ran (Kentucky, Georgia, Vandy, Tennessee, LSU, Mississippi State. And I guess Alabama as well?)

http://www.ustfccca.org/infozone/regiona...e-week.php

Regional rankings link - has a link to national top 25 too

(10-14-2016 12:07 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:33 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 11:22 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Kentucky, Georgia, UT-Arlington and Samford went 1-4. I guess we did okay (some of those football powers we beat are ranked in the top 10 of their various regional rankings in cross country) but we did also get beat by Guelph, Meridian Community College and Auburn Montgomery in the college division.

I saw Arkansas run a couple of weeks back. How do they rank / compare to the 4 SEC schools that were identified by you and WRC in the meet we just ran (Kentucky, Georgia, Vandy, Tennessee, LSU, Mississippi State. And I guess Alabama as well?)

http://www.ustfccca.org/infozone/regiona...e-week.php

Regional rankings link - has a link to national top 25 too

Thanks. National rankings are interesting, and SEC doesn't fare all that well, although Arkansas is Top 10.

Regional rankings are a little more complicated with South, South Central and Southeast regions.

(10-14-2016 11:22 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Kentucky, Georgia, UT-Arlington and Samford went 1-4. I guess we did okay (some of those football powers we beat are ranked in the top 10 of their various regional rankings in cross country) but we did also get beat by Guelph, Meridian Community College and Auburn Montgomery in the college division.

Really? You went there?

First of all, this was a good race, as Rice finished ahead of Florida State (3rd - South Region), Tennessee (7th - South Region), and Kentucky (6th - Southeast Region);

Second, Coach Warren is managing this season without his TOP 3 RETURNING runners, who are out of action due to various physical issues;

Third, only Guelph, among the non-Division I schools, finished ahead of Rice. If they had been in the same division, they would have finished in 8th overall, just ahead of the Owls. The University of Guelph (Ontario) has an outstanding cross-country program that is highly competitive when racing against U.S. teams. They have won 9 consecutive CIS titles (men) and 10 consecutive (women), in Canada's version of the NCAA Championships.

RESULTS

Most recent NCAA Regional Rankings

http://live.pttiming.com/xc-ptt.html?mid=102

These results show us to be 11th overall, not 8th. I had assumed they had counted the college teams in the results. If I'm wrong, get mad at Alabama, not me.

I'm not going to respond to your other comments which are ridiculous based on your posting history throughout the years.

(10-14-2016 08:01 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  http://live.pttiming.com/xc-ptt.html?mid=102

These results show us to be 11th overall, not 8th. I had assumed they had counted the college teams in the results. If I'm wrong, get mad at Alabama, not me.

I'm not going to respond to your other comments which are ridiculous based on your posting history throughout the years.

My last post had the correct results. Any normal person would have looked at the cumulative time to see that only Guelph, among non-D1 schools, finished ahead of Rice (and only by a combined 13 seconds - a narrow margin).

It's not Alabama's fault that some people cannot read.

(10-14-2016 10:06 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 08:01 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  http://live.pttiming.com/xc-ptt.html?mid=102

These results show us to be 11th overall, not 8th. I had assumed they had counted the college teams in the results. If I'm wrong, get mad at Alabama, not me.

I'm not going to respond to your other comments which are ridiculous based on your posting history throughout the years.

My last post had the correct results. Any normal person would have looked at the cumulative time to see that only Guelph, among non-D1 schools, finished ahead of Rice (and only by a combined 13 seconds - a narrow margin).

It's not Alabama's fault that some people cannot read.

Taking this in another direction, I do have a question . . .

It wouldn't matter here, as the point totals lined up exactly with the cumulative times at least for the Top 8 teams, but I assume that the official meet standings were based on points (runner's finishing spots), and that cumulative time was just a statistic that is routinely tracked and posted. They often list average time, which of course is straight from the cumulative time, and the spread (from #1 to #5 runner on the team).

The reason I ask is that it's certainly possible for one team to finish ahead of another in point totals based on finishing position, and have a higher cumulative time.

So I would be correct in assuming the meet finish is based on the cumulative point total?

(10-14-2016 10:35 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 10:06 PM)WRCisforgotten79 Wrote:  

(10-14-2016 08:01 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  http://live.pttiming.com/xc-ptt.html?mid=102

These results show us to be 11th overall, not 8th. I had assumed they had counted the college teams in the results. If I'm wrong, get mad at Alabama, not me.

I'm not going to respond to your other comments which are ridiculous based on your posting history throughout the years.

My last post had the correct results. Any normal person would have looked at the cumulative time to see that only Guelph, among non-D1 schools, finished ahead of Rice (and only by a combined 13 seconds - a narrow margin).

It's not Alabama's fault that some people cannot read.

Taking this in another direction, I do have a question . . .

It wouldn't matter here, as the point totals lined up exactly with the cumulative times at least for the Top 8 teams, but I assume that the official meet standings were based on points (runner's finishing spots), and that cumulative time was just a statistic that is routinely tracked and posted. They often list average time, which of course is straight from the cumulative time, and the spread (from #1 to #5 runner on the team).

The reason I ask is that it's certainly possible for one team to finish ahead of another in point totals based on finishing position, and have a higher cumulative time.

So I would be correct in assuming the meet finish is based on the cumulative point total?

Correct.