Where We Were Right & Where We Were Wrong: Nur's Record, Washington Men, BYU Women & Oregon Twilight

Friday night was as entertaining as they come, even if some races didn't pan out like we thought they would. However, in order to spice things up, I thought we would evaluate our two meets previews -- The Sound Running "Track Meet" and the Oregon Twilight meet -- and see which of our predictions ended up being correct and which ones were not-so-correct.

Let's jump into it, shall well?

NOTE: We will be addressing all other notable performances on Sunday in our First Thoughts article including Kenneth Rooks' recent 8:31 steeplechase performance.

Admittedly, the name who I first believed would run the 5k collegiate record was Northern Arizona's Nico Young. I explained how fast the NCAA has become, how the assault on records has been the norm and how this field favored the NAU men, specifically Young.

However, in that preview, I did say, "...if Nico Young doesn't break that record, then Abdi Nur likely will," and while I may have been hedging my bet a bit on that one, I gotta say that I'm pretty proud of calling that.

All of the tell-tale signs were there for this record to go down and sure enough, the Lumberjacks delivered.

And yet, at the same time, does Nur's result really surprise you? Is anyone shocked by this?

At this point, you can clearly see that I'm not surprised and frankly, you shouldn't be either. Like I just said, all of the signs were there for a super fast 5k mark and the NCAA general is attacking more and more records.

However, after Nur's early-season 10k at the Stanford Invite, which ended in a surprising 4th place finish with a time of 28:17, it would have been easy to have some (but not many) reservations about Nur this spring...but even that sounds ridiculous when I type that out.

But Nur has now solidified himself as the no-doubt best collegiate distance runner in the NCAA right now. And while I want to say more, I'm not really sure there is anything else to say for Nur.

Truthfully, the same can be said for Nico Young. I even called this a couple of weeks ago when I said, "We'll likely see [Young] in the 5k or the 10k very soon where he runs something absolutely crazy and skyrockets back up our rankings."

Yep, looks like that checks out.

And while I know I have said this multiple times, it feels like it bares repeating: Just because something isn't surprising doesn't mean that it isn't impressive. What Nur and Young did was absolutely incredible. They are now approaching unique territory of being one of the better 1-2 long distance punches of this era.

Welp, you can't win them all.

BYU's Courtney Wayment is someone who I thought would thrive in this 5k field. Similarly to the Northern Arizona men, Wayment is someone who is at her best in high-level fields loaded with pro runners where the pacing is intentionally fast.

After coming off of an all-time steeple mark and a successful indoor season, Wayment seemed like a no-brainer pick to have major success on Friday and put herself near the top of the all-time collegiate 5k list.

But sometimes, things just don't go your way.

Wayment faltered in the 5k at the "Track Meet" on Friday night, running an uncharacteristically poor time of 15:50 and hitting a wall of blocked momentum late in the race...on paper, that is.

Unfortunately, due to travel, I wasn't able to catch the women's 5k, so it's unclear if something happened to Wayment at some point during this race. With 800 meters to go, she was a little over four seconds off of the leaders. By 400 meters to go, she was almost 20 seconds off of the leaders.

Wayment went from running a 75-second lap with two laps to go, to running an 86-second lap with one lap to go.

I'll await a replay to see if that will offer any clarity, but the fact of the matter is that we shouldn't look into this result too heavily. Wayment is an absolute star who was probably going to focus on the steeplechase this spring anyway.

And honestly, it's probably best that she gets this poor race out of the way now rather than in the postseason. Sure, it would have been nice to see have her better momentum going into the next few weeks, but Wayment has enough time to rebound. She's an established veteran and has been through this process of peaking before.

So while my prediction might have been (way) off, I can't say I'm too worried about this BYU star.

Is Carley Thomas returning to her title contending ways?

She may have to do a bit more to justify that claim, but I do think we were right in our suspicions that Thomas has become increasingly more competitive this year.

After battling with a broken femur in a tubing accident, all during the pandemic, Thomas had fallen from her top spot in the women's 800 meters. However, slowly but surely, this Washington Husky standout has clawed her way back to the top, running a slew of 2:07, 2:06 and 2:05 marks before eventually running 2:04 and now, 2:03.

This is now the third-fastest time on her resume. She currently holds a 2:02 personal best from the 2020 indoor track season where Thomas emerged as a very realistic title threat to Nia Akins that year.

The top-level of the women's 800 meters has shifted dramatically since that winter season, but Thomas' underrated consistency, composure and tactics are incredibly well refined for someone who hasn't exactly raced a ton at the collegiate level for someone her age.

And of course, as we have seen twice now, Thomas can catch fire and flex some outstanding progression over the course of a season or two.

Now, admittedly, our only definitive prediction that we had for Thomas on Friday was that she would run 2:03. From there, we went on to analyze how she will do from that point on. Still, given her past setbacks and recent progression, I was pretty proud that we were able to identify this race as her true "comeback" race.

Welp. That stunk. Flat-out stunk.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily saying that any of these men were bad or performed poorly (although a few were far from good). All I'm saying is that in comparison to the unreal potential that these 1500 meter races had, almost everyone severely underwhelmed, including the pros.

In the top section, the pack refused to go with the rabbit and by half way, it was obvious that this race was not going to be setting any records.

I predicted that Yared Nuguse would run 3:34.

He ran 3:39.

I predicted that Brian Fay would run 3:35.

He ran 3:40.

I predicted that Kieran Lumb would run 3:37.

He ran 3:42.

Each of the men in the top section ran exactly five-seconds slower than I was anticipating. In fact, when you look at the other times in this field, it seems like most of these men could have run roughly five seconds faster in an ideal scenario.

For Nuguse, I'm not concerned. He's still a star and it's not necessarily his fault that this race didn't play it out like he thought it might have. And yes, he could have been the one to follow the rabbit, but you could say that about anyone in this field.

And if Nuguse didn't race here, then he probably would've soloed a 3:39 mark at some random meet anyways. I'm not worried about him at all.

It's a similar story for Brian Fay. He's been so. darn. good. this year and one "off" race is nothing to be concerned about. Especially when an "off" day for him is running 3:40 in a field where no one wanted to run fast.

As for Kieran Lumb, I don't have much to say here. It's a similar story to that of Nuguse and Fay, so I won't repeat myself.
 

The second section of the 1500 meters was actually a little bit better. There were a few strong performances that we'll eventually touch on, but there were also a few big misses.

Luke Houser and Joe Waskom are both 3:56 milers and Houser has run 3:37 for 1500 meters. I thought both men would run 3:37 on Friday night, which seemed reasonable!

And yet, that race went poorly both men. Based on the splits, Houser was in the middle-ish portion of the pack for a while, but didn't really move up. Waskom, however, was near the front of this race for the first half before paying dearly by faltering to last place.

They finished with times of 3:41 and 3:45, respectively.

In the last section, I said that Isaac Green would run 3:39, Sam Affolder would run 3:41 and that Giedrius Valincius would run 3:41.

Nope. Not even close.

Each of those men were at least three seconds off of my somewhat conservative estimates.

If I had told you coming into Friday that freshman Nathan Green would be the fastest Washington Husky in the 1500 meters despite Fay, Lumb, Isaac Green, Waskom and Houser also running this event, what would you say?
 
 You'd say "absolutely not" and try to hustle some money out of me...right?

Well, the Idaho native was able to deliver his second 3:39 mark of the season, running the exact time that we had predicted for him.

Don't look now, but Nathan Green may be one of the best 1500 meter runners on the west coast. Running two 1500 meter races in 3:39. That would be impressive for many established veterans, but for an inexperienced rookie? Well, that's something else.

Yes, Green was a high school star, is training under a coach known for developing milers and is running alongside one of the best mile/1500 meter contingents in the NCAA. On paper, Green was absolutely prepared for a race like this and it showed in the results, something that we accurately explained and predicted.

As for Theo Quax, we called this one perfectly. I predicted that he was going to run 3:39 for 1500 meters and that was exactly what he did. After a few up-and-down seasons, Quax has rallied incredibly well this spring, something that I cited in our meet preview.

Quax ran 3:59 in the mile during the winter, ran a 13:41 (5k) personal best at the Stanford Invite and then ran 3:41 for 1500 meters at Bryan Clay.

Every result leading up to Friday suggested that Quax was returning to prime form and that he was due for a time that was near/at his all-time best.

And sure enough, that was exactly what happened.

As for Pepperdine's Karl Winter, I want to say more about this result, but predicting 3:39 and him actually running 3:40 is still pretty close. Plus, I even said, "he may not make the biggest splash this weekend," so I feel like I hedged my bet here.

Still, during a night where no one was running ridiculously fast, seeing Winter somewhat deliver on a big stage is encouraging, especially as we enter the postseason.

The Adams State superstar ran 15:38 for 5000 meters in the fastest section at the Sound Running Track Meet on Friday. However, after running 15:28 earlier this season, it was easy to think that she would match that mark (or improve upon it) in this field.

However, Flanagan was originally listed in the second section of the 5k, meaning that the competition she was going to face wasn't as overwhelmingly dominant as the top section. In my mind, that seemed like the ideal setting for Flanagan, leading me to make a 15:26 prediction for her.

Of course, what I did not anticipate was Flanagan moving up to the fastest section. And in all honesty, I think that move did more damage than good.

Flanagan is still an all-time superstar in the D2 realm and one of the best long distance runners in the NCAA this year, regardless of division.

And yet, despite all of that, I think the second section likely played more into her favor. Her splits in the first half of her 5k race were fairly honest, but it was clear that the pace just got away with her in the second-half.

In section two, however, the top-two women ran 15:24, so that field may have actually been more beneficial for Flanagan and her hopes of a personal best.

I standby my original prediction which acted under the assumption that she was going to run in that second heat. Still, wrong is wrong whether I like it or not.

Here were a few quick prediction headlines that we made which turned out either right, sorta right, sorta wrong or wrong. Here are a few...

Original Prediction: 13:18

Actual Result: 13:25 (it's within reasonable reach of our prediction, so I'm saying "sorta" here)

Original Prediction: 13:29

Actual Result: 13:35 (it's within reasonable reach of our prediction, so I'm saying "sorta" here)

Original Prediction: 15:47

Actual Result: 16:03

Original Prediction: 13:37

Actual Result: 13:41 (it's within reasonable reach of our prediction, so I'm saying "sorta" here)

Original Prediction: "Kate might only have a 2:10 seasonal best, but she has the potential to improve that time given her 4:15 mark for 1500 meters from the Stanford Invitational. The elder Hunter has run 2:06 before in the 800 meters and if she hangs onto the leaders, a quick time could be produced on Friday." -- Maura Beattie

Actual Result: 2:06 en route to the win

Original Prediction: "It's admittedly hard to dislike Carrozza or not call him the favorite [amongst collegiates] off the top of your head." -- Gavin Struve

Actual Result: 3:40 en route to top collegiate honors

Original Prediction: "Given all that has happened in the NCAA landscape in recent months, it would hardly qualify as a surprise if Abdalla goes under 13:30 and drops a top-20 time. He seems due for it, especially since he is coming out to Oregon to race on a quick track that hosts the NCAA Outdoor Championships." -- Gavin Struve

Actual Result: 13:51 for 2nd place

Original Prediction: "Portland’s Jacob Klemz perhaps comes closest [when comparing Yaseen Abdalla to the rest of this field]...Klemz could realistically push Abdalla for most of this race," -- Gavin Struve

Actual Result: 13:46 en route to the win over Abdalla

Original Prediction: "The women’s 1500 meters will be a showdown between Oregon’s Aneta Konieczek and Portland’s Laura Pellicoro [amongst collegiates]...Pellicoro, meanwhile, flies under the radar on the west coast...The underappreciated Pilot miler might not have the same endurance or winning experience that Konieczek does, but she does have raw speed. She is becoming a name who consistently finds her way into the top of results when people aren’t expecting her." -- Maura Beattie

Actual Result: Pellicoro runs 4:15 en route to top collegiate honors over Konieczek