First Thoughts: Carleton's Narrow Win, Pomona-Pitzer's Comeback Campaign, Dominance by Smith & Gregg

Written by Kevin Fischer & Conor Daly, edits & additional commentary via Garrett Zatlin

---

The national meet are all wrapped up and Turkey Day is fast approaching. However, we still needed to give our thoughts and analysis on the D3 cross country national meet before we get to Thursday. Below, Kevin and Conor gave their thoughts on Saturday's performances...

---

Click here for final results

---

Women's Reactions

The four podium teams in the women's race were separated by a total of seven points. Is there one result on paper that you can point to and say, "That's why Carleton won the national title"?

Kevin: I don't think there is necessarily one result that swung the meet in favor of Carleton.

None of the Knights' runners shocked me when looking at each of their races independently of each other (although they were still very strong). I also don't think that anyone from NYU, U. of Chicago or Claremont-Mudd-Scripps ran particularly poorly. However, the combination of every Carleton individual running up to their full potential (rather than 90% or 95% of their potential) ended up being too much for the other contending teams.

But if I had to call out one individual, I would say that Phoebe Ward's 16th place finish was massive in the grand scheme of things. I predicted that she would place 24th, Gavin said she would finish 23rd and Conor said that she would settle for 28th. And of course, as you can see, she exceeded all of those predictions fairly comfortably -- that ultimately made a serious difference in a tight team race.

Conor: I agree with Kevin that there’s no singular result that turned the tables in Carleton’s favor. I just think that their entire lineup delivered on the better end of expectations which is so hard to do amidst the stresses of a national championship.

However, if I was to pick a “hero” for Carleton, then I’d say that it was probably Aliya Larsen who came up huge in 46th place. The sophomore had been running very well this fall, but an 8th place finish at the North regional meet and the rest of her resume didn't necessarily suggest that she was going to be a borderline All-American...at all, really.

Fiona Smith unsurprisingly dominated the NCAA D3 XC Championships, winning by over a minute. Has it been a challenge to gauge Smith's historical greatness after having to battle behind Kassie Parker for so many seasons, but now having no one who can challenge her?

Kevin: To some extent, yes.

Fiona Smith now has three individual national titles across the seasons, her first two coming this past winter without Kassie Parker present. As I reflect, I think Smith's all-time status would be looked at a little bit differently if she had gotten at least one head-to-head win over Parker in a championship scenario (or if she had just won those national titles in an alternate universe where Parker doesn't exist).

But in terms of a single season, Smith has achieved an unprecedented level of dominance in the deepest era of Division Three distance running, only recording a margin of victory under a minute once this season (at the North regional meet).

I do think that the fact that she hasn't been challenged (at all) almost makes what she is doing even more impressive. There is often an urge to completely overlook times in cross country which is understandable considering the intricacies of different courses. But when you see that Smith is consistently running sub-20 (6k) marks on the grass in completely solo efforts, you have to think that her fitness level is otherworldly right now.

Conor: It would be an understatement to say that Fiona Smith has been unfairly living in Parker’s shadow. I’d even go as far as to say that Smith has been better in her last three collegiate seasons than Parker has been in her last three (and remember, those aren't the same timelines).

If you look back at their head-to-head battles at the NCAA Outdoor Championships last year, Smith only lost by three and four seconds over 5k and 10k, respectively. And if you're someone who says "a win is a win," then sure, Smith wasn’t able to get it done.

But to me, what is more impressive is that Smith was in her third year of college whereas Parker was in her sixth. To come that close with such a major experience and developmental discrepancy is incredibly impressive. And as far as this past weekend goes, winning a national title by a minute in any year is mind-boggling.

However, the more jaw-dropping stat to me is that she set a championship record on an absolutely brutal course. If you were there, then you know what I’m talking about. But if you weren’t, then you can take my word that it was very likely the hilliest cross country course anyone in Division Three has run.

How would you grade your overall team predictions?

Kevin: Maybe a B-.

There were a couple of things that I got right, but there were a couple of tough looks as well. Those included predicting the ultimate national champions, Carleton, to finish 4th overall, overreacting to Eau Claire's regional win over UW-La Crosse and underreacting to Central College’s really solid conference and regional meet efforts.

However, one thing that I will shamelessly give myself credit for was predicting six of the top-seven teams correctly, with that lone miss being a Wartburg squad that had an uncharacteristically tough day.

Conor: Very funny of Garrett to drop a question in here to humble myself.

Truthfully, I’d give myself a C. I did well with the top-five teams and bottom few teams, but everything in between was a bit of a mess. There were a few of occasions where I was six or seven spots off from where a team actually finished -- Central College, Amherst, Emory and Wartburg were tough misses.

It’s just a friendly reminder that races aren’t run on paper and that’s the beauty of the sport.

Which women's team were you down on earlier this season, but now owe an apology to?

Kevin: Emory. At no point in the season did I consider them a top-10 team. When they made a serious run at the South regional title, only losing to Lynchburg on a tie-breaker, it was really surprising to me, and I wasn't sure if they'd be able to replicate that type of performance at nationals.

Admittedly, I predicted an 11th place finish for the Eagles, so I guess it shouldn't be that surprising, but I still wasn't fully sold on them and they ended up thriving.

The rise of Brigid Hanley (8th) as a top-tier talent has been huge, but it was the recent introduction of freshman Elizabeth Csikai (22nd) that ended up being the difference-maker for this team. The All-American rookie didn't race until the South regional meet which, in retrospect, changed the structure of this scoring group dramatically.

All in all, that was great work from a young, talented team that had very little margin for error in their lineup. This group has made huge strides from last year despite losing a superstar in Annika Urban.

Conor: I wouldn’t necessarily say that I was "down" on this team; it’s more so that I just never really considered them to be in the picture for a top-10 finish. But long story short, they showed the country that they're the real deal.

I am, of course, talking about the Central College women, a program that left Carlisle, Pennsylvania with a huge 9th place run.

The Dutch's lead duo of Caroline McMartin and Megan Johnson is almost always good enough to build a team around, but it was in the latter stages of the season that we saw some big runs out of their backend contributors that lead them to success.

Addy Parrott (37th) slowly evolved into an All-American talent this fall and Kira Hooper was a sneaky-good stable support piece for a team that had a gap after their top-four.

Individually, who was the biggest surprise?

Kevin: There were a few really great individual performances, but I have to give the nod to Riley Capuano (11th).

The Athena distance standout had been really solid all season long as the third scorer for Claremont-Mudd-Scripps. However, I didn't expect her to finish ahead of teammate Elle Marsyla and be that close to the top-10. That was a great day for her and her performance was enough to help the Athenas to a 3rd place team finish and almost get them over the hump for a national title.

Conor: Like Kevin, I’m going to give a nod to someone who came up huge for their team. In my mind, that’s Maddie Kelly from U. of Chicago.

In the early going, Kelly looked just as good as teammate Evelyn Battleson-Gunkel. In fact, she even looked like someone who would be a top-10 contender, nationally. But after a 7th place finish at the Augustana Interregional Invitational, a 5th place result at the UAA XC Championships and a 6th place showing at the Midwest regional meet, the early-season sharpness we once saw wasn’t quite there.

And sure, we can't discount that all of the fields in those three meets were very strong, but coming into the weekend, Kelly was projected to be about a 20th place finisher. Yet, Kelly ran a patient race and moved up throughout the field to finish 7th -- that was a tremendous result for the team battle.

---

Men's Reactions

On a scale of 1 to 10, how surprised are you that the Pomona-Pitzer men won the national title (by one point over UW-La Crosse)? What did we miss in our analysis, if anything, that made us look elsewhere for our national title picks?

Kevin: Maybe a 7.

There was no doubt a surprising result -- the Sagehens' hadn't given us much reason to predict them as winners of NCAA gold this fall. But in hindsight, I don't think it's the most shocking thing that we've ever seen.

We knew how much talent that this group had -- it was just a matter of putting it all together. The only time that we saw them in action against other true contenders was at D3 Pre-Nationals where they had a really rough outing.

I think we were a little conservative in our interpretation of their dominance over Claremont-Mudd-Scripps at the SCIAC XC Championships and the West Regional XC Championships. Plus, we should have viewed their performance at D3 Pre-Nationals as an anomaly rather than a true indicator for where they were.

Admittedly, I don't think that they were the best team in the country for most of the season, but there's no doubt that they were on Saturday. They deserve to celebrate after taking a lot of criticism last November.

Conor: There was never any doubt that Pomona-Pitzer had the personnel to win a national title. But based on how they were performing this season, it just didn’t seem like a national title was in the cards.

I’d say that I'm 9 out of 10 surprised that the Sagehens were able to pull out the title.

Leading into the race, it looked like the battle for gold would be a fight between North Central and UW-La Crosse who were viewed as leaps and bounds above their competitors. The fact that any other team broke up this duo was wildly impressive, nevertheless a team that wasn't favored for the podium.

I think that the Sagehen’s racing schedule made it tough for us to gauge where they were at. Outside of D3 Pre-Nationals, the best Division Three competition that they went against was our "Honorable Mention" team (per our last update), Claremont-Mudd-Scripps.

Pomona-Pitzer took down the Stags easily on two occasions, but that didn’t really tell us much. As Kevin said, we should have valued their dominance at their conference meet and regional meet significantly higher.

With Ethan Gregg securing a cross country national title, who would you say has the better overall resume across all three seasons: Gregg or Christian Patzka? Is it even?

Kevin: I would say Patzka simply because of the added versatility with the steeplechase on the outdoor oval, but other than that, it's pretty even.

Going through the numbers, we have nine All-American honors and two national titles for Patzka and eight All-American honors and two national titles for Gregg. There's not much to separate them, especially when you consider that Gregg should have had a 9th All-American honor if not for the decision to disqualify him from the 5000 meters at last year's outdoor national meet.

So as far as distance running goes, their resumes are even, but Patzka’s ability to go over barriers gives him a slight edge in my eyes.

Conor: The Gregg vs Patzka debate is one that totally depends on a personal preference. No matter which way you look at the numbers, you can’t differentiate them.

Here’s how I think about it…

From a point-scoring perspective at national level competition (which is kind of how our Transfer Value Rankings were crafted), I can’t see one as having the edge over the other. In cross country, Patzka beat Gregg twice, but Gregg beat Patzka at the "Big Dance", so I’d say that they’re really just about equal.

On the indoor oval, Patzka probably has the advantage over the 3k/5k double and will score a few more points than Gregg.

As far as outdoors, the opposite will probably occur.

Gregg projects to win the 10k and then come back to score in the 5k. Patzka projects to win the steeplechase and then come back to attempt the 5k after having a steeplechase prelim in his legs, and then the steeplechase final the same day, at which point I’d certainly give Gregg the edge over 5k.

What was your biggest takeaway from the national meet?

Kevin: That you needed to have a superstar in order to compete for the podium. The top-four teams all had at least one finisher in the top-nine.

And if you look at teams like Carnegie Mellon and MIT, whom I had predicted to finish 3rd and 4th in the team race, they didn't have the same dynamism -- and they suffered for it. That was in spite of both teams having better top-five time spreads than any of the teams who finished on the podium.

Conor: The national meet is a great example of just how challenging it is to compete at the highest level year-in and year-out. It’s so common to see a superstar one year have a rough go the next year.

Out of the top-20 finishers at last fall’s national meet, 12 of them returned again this year. However, I'd bet you’d be surprised to hear that only seven of them remained in the top-20 with only four placing higher this year compared to last.

I think a lot of this is due to the fact that, a) the level of competition in Division Three is improving so rapidly, and b) recency is so important.

This isn’t to say that the opposite isn’t equally possible. There are plenty of All-Americans who finished outside of the top-100 at last year’s competition, even some who finished outside the top-200 and some who didn’t even qualify.

Which men's team were you down on earlier this season, but now owe an apology to?

Kevin: I would say Pomona-Pitzer, but I think that's a little too obvious of an answer. Plus, we already talked about them in an earlier section, so I'll say Williams.

Looking back at their results throughout the season, I realize that I should have seen a result like this coming. However, I think I interpreted some of their results a little unfairly.

When they beat MIT at Purple Valley, it was “only September”. They finished 2nd behind MIT at D3 Pre-Nationals and I put more emphasis on that result since it was a bigger meet. Then they won the NESCAC XC Championships as well as their regional title. But because the margins weren't that dominant, I didn't come away super impressed.

But on Saturday, the Ephs proved that I was wrong about them. They came away with a podium finish that surprised me in the moment, but really shouldn't have.

Conor: To be honest, other than Pomona-Pitzer, no other team in the top-10 terribly exceeded our expectations. We keep talking about the Claremont-Mudd-Scripps men in relation to the Sagehens, but I think they deserve some credit in their own right for their 12th place run this past weekend.

The Athenas were the 6th place team at D3 Pre-Nationals and 2nd at both their conference and regional meets, falling to the Sagehens on both of those occasions. Sure, I thought that they would be good, but not 12th place type of good. Their strength was in their tight pack, a similar lineup structure to Carnegie Mellon, but just a step down.

All-in-all, the Stags on both sides peaked very well this past weekend. Kudos to them.

Individually, who was the biggest surprise?

Kevin: Caleb Silver of Central College continues to have great performances at cross country national meets. Last year, his 25th place finish seemed like it was out of nowhere after finishing 22nd at the American Rivers XC Conference Championships and 13th place at the Midwest Regional XC Championships.

This year, he was once again a big surprise by finishing 7th overall! Before the regional meet, he was ranked at TSR #18, but a tough day at the regional level indicated that he might finish lower than that on the national stage.

Of course, he did the opposite and led the Dutch to a really solid 15th place team finish.

Conor: Ivan Appleton of Tufts has to be the biggest surprise. All three of our writers predicted for him to be in the 30s, barely sneaking into All-American status. However, Appleton went out and had by far the best race of his life, finishing 13th.

Appleton did not even have a win to his name this fall, but since he raced against MIT and Williams in the latter-half of the season, that doesn’t seem too unusual.

Looking back at it, Appleton’s runner-up finish at the NESCAC XC Championships was our sign that he was in top-20 form. He fell only to John Lucey (who went on to get 6th at the national meet) by 11 seconds and finished ahead of projected top-half All-American, Nikhil DeNatale.