By: Jarrett Felix Considering I can still vividly remember his first NCAA championship, it’s hard for me to believe that Ed Cheserek is on the verge of completing his collegiate career. The Oregon senior enters the spring track season with big goals, both individually and as a team, before he sets his sights on the next stage of his remarkable track and field journey. Cheserek’s run over the past four years has been incredibly memorable. He entered the ranks as a talented prospect, but not the world beater he is today. As a freshman, he was a big underdog against Kennedy Kithuka of Texas Tech, the defending NCAA champion. But in sloppy conditions, Eddy overcame Kithuka’s strong mid race surge and roared to victory in a thrilling comeback. Of course, that could be seen as a fluke performance. As Cheserek hit the track for the first time, he would face a superstar in the distance ranks that shadowed even Kithuka. It seems hard to remember now, but once upon a time people were building the case that Lawi Lalang was the greatest distance runner in NCAA history. In 2012, Lawi ran 13:08.28 at the Millrose Games, pushing right alongside eventual Olympian Bernard Lagat en route to the indoor collegiate record. Later that indoor season, he won both the 3,000 and 5,000 meters against the experienced, title starved Chris Derrick. Then in 2013, he won the indoor titles in the mile and 3k with times of 3:54.74 and 7:45.94 before moving to outdoors and winning the 5k-10k titles. By the time Ches was set to face him at the 2014 Indoor NCAA Championships, Lalang had already clocked a 7:44 for 3k and a collegiate record 3:52.88 in the mile. Lalang would now attempt the unthinkable 5k-3k-mile triple at the championships (at altitude), looking to cement his legacy as an all-time great. But Cheserek cut him off before things could even get started, stunning Lawi on the last lap of the 5k to win in a time of 13:46. After losing the mile, Lawi dropped the 3k from his agenda, allowing Cheserek to sprint away from everyone again for his third title in three tries. It wasn’t until the next outdoor season that Cheserek finally lost a title bout, as Lawi gave him everything he could handle in a thrilling, record setting outdoor 5k finale. Lalang won the gold 13:18.36 to 13:18.71. That freshman season, Cheserek won four NCAA titles, led his track compatriots to a team title and clocked bests of 3:36.50, 13:18.71 and 28:30.18. Ironically, as he enters his senior season, all of those marks still stand as his personal bests. Since the first title, Cheserek has always been about winning. And not just individually. Although he has racked up a ton of titles, he has also doubled and tripled to try to help his team score as many points as possible. Who can forget his memorable DMR anchor at the 2016 indoor championships a few short minutes after the 5k where he rallied back with a herculean 3:51 1600 meter split to defeat Izaic Yorks and Washington? I’m not sure anyone talks much about the sacrifices Cheserek makes for his team. He’s always racing a ton, focusing on the NCAA championships and then not doing much in the regular season’s aftermath. By the end of the spring, it has seemed he hasn’t had the stamina to go record chasing. In fact, the guy has been such a team player that some of us were shocked to see him on the performance list for the BU Last Chance Meet, where he truly and earnest chased a fast time. The result was a 3:52.01 collegiate record, stealing the honors from ... Lawi Lalang. With too many titles to count, Cheserek has said he will look hard at grabbing collegiate records before his time is up. Some of those collegiate records will be very hard to get. The first, and perhaps most probable, is the 3:35.30 Collegiate Record held by Villanova’s Sydney Maree in 1981. The second, would be the 13:08.4 outdoor 5,000 meter record, held by Henry Rono from 1978 (although it’s worth noting Lalang’s 13:08.28 from the indoor season is faster). The final, seemingly impossible, potential record would be Sam Chelenga’s 27:08 10,000 meters. That time, set in 2010 at Stanford, is the fastest collegiate time by almost 20 seconds and is 80+ seconds better than Cheserek’s personal best. It’s very possible that Cheserek doesn’t grab any of these records and, honestly, I don’t think he needs to in order to finalize his legacy. Because “King” Cheserek didn’t earn his crown by running fast times. His claim to the thrown comes from victories. The kid’s got 17 NCAA titles, not counting his team victories, and he’s still chasing a couple more. And this isn’t a sprinter, it’s a distance runner who takes on the longest, most grueling events the system offers. I’m honestly not sure what things will be like when Chesrek does graduate in a few month’s time. The narrative in NCAA distance running has become very Ed-centric as everything revolves around “Will Ches win?” or “Who can beat Ches?” to the point where, when the guy loses to anybody it’s a massive story. The guy stretches his range from the mile all the way up through the 10k, racing the best guys at each level in each of their specialties and comes out with about as close to a perfect record as you can reasonably ask. His victories are historic and the upsets he slips into are even more so. Cheserek is the face of NCAA distance running and we should appreciate him while we’ve got him. Because without him, it’s going to be hard to find a new polarizing star to get the people talking. So with one more spring left to build his legacy, let’s see if the King can turn it up a notch for his final regal rotation before handing over the crown. Best of luck to whoever has to wear that thing next. #cheserek #lalang #jfelix #ncaa #featurefriday

David Ribich is a Western Oregon senior who just became the 501st American miler to break the 4-minute mile barrier. He has captured the attention of running fans all around the nation and is developing into one of the best distance runners in the NCAA. We were lucky enough to send a few questions to David Ribich and learn a bit more about him and his running career. We would like to thank Ribich for his time and extremely detailed answers! EARLY PORTION OF CAREER 1. Let’s start from the beginning. How did you get into running? What kind of times were you running in high school? Thinking all the way back to my early running days, I began running in 7th grade because Enterprise Jr. High did not offer soccer past 6th grade. Being from a small school had its pros and cons. At the time, I thought no soccer was a con. Now, I could argue that it was a big pro. Enterprise is a town of just 2000 people, located in the north east corner of Oregon, encapsulated by the Eagle Cap Mountain range. It is a beautiful place to live and I am fortunate enough to call Enterprise home. I began running because I simply loved burning off energy. I was the hyperactive-name on the board kid that counted down the minutes to recess. By the time the Fall rolled around, I was ready to find a sport I could do. Football was out of question due to my size. Going into high school, I was 86lbs 4’11. I looked more like the actual football than I did the players. With my only two options being football or cross country, I chose the latter, because running is one of the only sports that a small underdeveloped kid could beat a grown man in (at least when you compare to my younger days.) When I graduated from high school, a strong passion for the sport emerged. It was my confidence, my motivation, and my identity. I was known as “the runner”. I loved the every aspect of the sport. The hills, the hard work, and the reward of personal bests. When I graduated high school, I was still not fully developed and my high school coach knew that. I thank my high school coach for the successes I’ve had today because he knew my body was in development and never pushed me beyond my limit. I graduated from high school with PRs of 15:57 (cross 5k), 8:57 (3000m), 4:10 (1500m), and 2:04 (800m). My times were good enough for a 118 person-sized high school, but not good enough for Division I attention. 2. When did you realize that this was something you wanted to do in college? Which schools were you looking at / getting recruited by? What made you choose Western Oregon? I knew I wanted to compete in college when I was a sophomore in high school. I remember walking into university offices like Oregon State and Western Oregon, handing the coach a portfolio of my first two years of high school performances, and leaving it at that. My college decision was made pretty easy because I really did not have that many schools looking at me in the first place. I got letters from Eastern Oregon, Western Oregon, and Southern Oregon, so the amount of options were limited. I chose Western because I knew some guys on the team, it was far enough way from Enterprise that I felt like I was in a new place, and it was close enough where if I needed to rush home for some reason, I could make the seven hour drive. I verbally committed to Western in December and signed with them in February. They offered me a great scholarship out of high school and I had a feeling it was going to be a great fit. 3. Talk a little bit about your first few years at Western Oregon, mainly the expectations you had, and the adjustments you had to make. The expectations I had quickly turned on a swivel. Here I am, coming out of high school, thinking I was one of the best in the state, you know? A 4x state champion (2A), I thought I was a big deal. Little did I know that I was the 64th best 1500m runner out of all divisions in the state during my senior year. I got into college and felt a whirlwind of new competition and sport. I went from being the only guy on my team who was able to run fast, to just another guy on the workout grind. I wouldn’t call it cockiness or arrogance when I came out of high school, but I think I was purely being naïve. I didn't comprehend that there was a great big world out there that I didn’t fully understand. The adjustments I made took about 5 months of finding my rhythm with the program, I would have practice PR's and I would run fast times in races, but my big breakthrough came at the end of February where I ran 4:13 in the mile. That was a big shock to a lot of us, myself and coach included. That was 3 seconds off my 1500m PR so from there, Coach Johnson and I became more and more on the same page, developing workouts and strengthening my body as a middle distance runner. He too, knew my body was in development, so his patience and awareness let my body grow naturally. Once he felt confident that my body could handle the collegiate workouts, we started the process. 4. During indoor track of your sophomore year, you improved your mile time to 4:05 at the SPU Final Qualifier and found your way into an All-American spot at Nationals. What kind of confidence did that give you moving forward? Sophomore year was a big turning point in my career that had ups and downs, I would say the year of 2016 was my big year not because of what I accomplished, but because of what I learned about the sport and what I learned about my own confidence. That year, I ran 4:05 in the mile, snuck into the final at Div. II Nationals, and earned an All-American Accolade. That spring, I ran 3:43 in the 1500, set a new conference and school record, and finished 5th at the Outdoor National Championships in Florida. After that year (sophomore), I went into the fall of my junior year with complete expectations that I would make Nationals as a junior in cross country. I thought, “hey man, you did it as a sophomore, easy peasy.” Flash forward to regionals after a month of injury rehab I finished 15th, 2 seconds off from qualifying in a 10k. It was the biggest turning point in my career. I am so thankful for that injury because it was the first dream-hindering element that I had ever faced. It put every race before that in perspective. My sophomore year I finished 67th at Nationals for cross country and I was devastated. My junior year, I did not even qualify, so I would have been ecstatic to be 67th again. It put into perspective that my sophomore year was fueled by a bit of an inflated head that my future successes were guaranteed. So in terms of confidence, I would say it gave me too much and what I needed was a setback. After that fall of my junior year, the focus was back to the basics, enjoy the process not the prize. RECENT PERFORMANCES 5. Although you have made solid progression throughout your entire career, the 2016-2017 track seasons seemed to be when you really broke out by earning personal best times of 1:49, 3:39, 4:02, and 8:13. You would later go on to secure your first-ever individual national title in the 1500 and even found a spot on the starting line for the 1500 meter final at the US Championships this past summer. What was it about those winter and spring track seasons that made you as strong as you were? This last winter and spring was fueled by the perspective that nothing is guaranteed. The winter after I failed to qualify for Nationals in cross country, my coach and I got on the same page and I told him that I wanted to enjoy the sport again. I wanted to be able to close my eyes, take a deep breath on a run, and just feel alive. Just feel the passion and the joy of just running. So often we get caught up in this egotistical tango of competition that we forget the big picture of what we can accomplish in the sport. I took each day and each week at a time focusing on the specific task. In January I wasn’t focused on the spring, I was focused on January, and continued to maintain that mentality until I found myself on the starting line at the USA Championships. At the time, the winter months were my favorite weeks of training. My roommate Josh and teammates Dustin and AJ stayed to train. We trained every day together, worked out in the snow, and just enjoyed each other's company. It was a beautiful feeling waking up to a workout with a three other guys and a coach. It felt like we were really the only people on the planet. Those three other guys and myself later formed the Distance Medley for Western Oregon, and set a Division II national record along side a National Title. My strength was just running, not focusing on the outcomes and enjoying the thrill of each race/practice. 6. Let’s fast forward to this season. A few weeks ago, you ran a 2:21 1K to defeat some of Oregon’s top athletes and pushed World Championship qualifier (and former D2 star) Drew Windle to the line. Talk a little bit about that race and the emotions that followed. It was a great race really! Mick from Oregon and I are great friends and have had some great races. Drew and I are DII friends fighting for the same goal. I got on the line confident in the fact that I was surrounded by friends fighting for a common goal, rather than enemies lining up to battle it out in a blood bath. Drew and I texted all week leading up to the race and I respect the guy a lot. He is a tremendous inspiration and being able to race him was a thrill of speed. I didn’t put a time expectation on the race, I just wanted to compete. 2:21 was a big surprise for me. I really didn’t think that that time was going to be the golden ticket. 7. This past weekend, you ran a 3:58 mile to run under the 4-minute barrier for the first time in your career. You are now the 2nd fastest D2 miler in NCAA history (assuming that we exclude the “wind-assisted” mark from Oliver Aitchison in 2016). Talk about what that means to you and how it feels to be part of a very elite club. I feel great. It's January 31st, so it's a few days after the weekend and I am definitely a bit sore, have some fatigue, etc. But other than the physical feeling, its incredible. I have gotten tremendous support from D2 competitors and fellow runners congratulating me and the support I get from others is unreal. I truly couldn’t accomplish these feats if I didn’t have an army behind me. Being the 501st American to break 4 minutes is a funny feeling. I am just the honorary member to the 500 club, but if anyone can be 501, im glad its me. I've got a good sense of humor for it. Every male runner at one time has fantasized about running sub 4, so the fact that I made that a reality is surreal. In the spring, my 1500m time converted to a sub 4, so that was when I really had the mind blow moment. This last weekend was more so a calm collected confidence of “just do what you know you can do.” 8. So where do you go from here? What’s the goal? What else will we see you run? We go back to the grindstone and continue to sharpen the necessary skills and fitness needed to compete for the next six months. The most important aspect in my training is health. I have run some great times and won some great races, so now it is just about enjoying the last two seasons of collegiate athletics, race hard, and recover harder. Staying healthy is the ultimate goal. Of course, records are included in my goals, but those cannot be obtained without a healthy body. At the Husky Invite, as of right now, I will be running the 3K. The pressure is on as I have stepped up from 1K, to the Mile, to now the 3k. There will be a lot of outside hype leading up to the race, but ultimately, we are just going for a fast time and a fun race. As the season(s) go on, we will pick and chose what and where I race until closing out these collegiate chapters. 9. After you have finished your eligibility, will you go pro? I am more in love with the sport now than I have ever been before! My coach has done a great job of letting me focus on the present while he obtains contact for the future. Him and myself have talked with post collegiate groups briefly, but May is the month for all that fun process. Running has been apart of my life since 7th grade and it feels like it is just getting good, so stopping after this year seems a bit silly to me. So in a quick response, yes. MISCELLANEOUS 10. As seen in your Flotrack interview, your sock game is always on point. What I think we all want to know is, what’s the inspiration and how do you keep with these fresh looks? Where can we snag some of these socks? Jeez, the sock game blew up a bit more than I thought it would. I bought those socks my sophomore year at a PDX shop before boarding the plane to outdoor nationals in Florida. I feel like the biggest pressure I have now is living up to the sock expectation. Those specific socks have been my sidekick in multiple National and important races. I'm not superstitious, but those socks have been pretty lucky. 11. As mentioned earlier, your PR’s are now 1:49, 2:21, 3:58, 8:13, and 29:49. Do you see yourself as more of as an 800/Mile guy or a Mile/5k guy? I think it will all depend on my future plans. Right now, our training is spread from 800 to 3000, but I could still throw down a good 5K if needed. Something I have enjoyed the most here at Western is Coach Johnson's philosophy. He makes sure that we don’t categorize ourselves as “event racers”, but that we categorize ourselves as “racers” who can be put in any distance or any race and still compete to win. That is the confidence he bestows upon us after breaking down incredible workouts we do throughout the season. It’s a great feeling of confusion knowing you could potentially PR from 800-10k. 12. You’ve been able to run with some of the top talent in D2 over the years with guys like Dustin Nading, AJ Holmberg, and Sam Naffziger to name a few. What’s it like to run with such a strong group year-in and year-out? It is incredible because the group is in a constant state of commitment and chance. It may be a weird combination, but Sam Naffziger's senior year really set a tone for the program to follow. As a senior, he really dedicated his last two seasons in achieving his dreams. During the outdoor season, he was a 1500m All-American, which helped establish Western Oregon as a middle distance powerhouse. The ability Coach Johnson has in developing athletes is the reason we have had successes. I have shaved 31 seconds off my 1500m time since high school. In the first year that Dustin Nading was in our program, he improved his 1500m time by almost 13 seconds. Nading is my daily training partner and one of my best friends, so the friendship that we have can be attributed to both of our successes. We keep each other accountable and feed off of each other like brothers. Literally, most of the time, Dustin and I playfully bicker in workouts about who is going to win, who is going to lead, and so on and so forth. Usually, this friendly competition leads to us dropping some really great times. 13. During NCAA XC last year, you went out with Tiffin star James Ngandu, but ended up fading towards the end. Afterwards, you said you were happy you took a chance. Two months later has that view changed at all? No way! That race is still one of my all time favorites. It closed out a great 2017. The only thing I wish I would have done differently was congratulate Ngandu personally, but I couldn’t find him. He was probably cooling down somewhere by the time I came in. I learned a lot that race, good and bad, that appropriately affected my winter training. From the feedback and the messages that I received after that race, I would say it was far worth it. It was a memorable race none the less! 14. The Western Oregon DMR just ran 9:47 at the UW Invite this past weekend. After coming off of a 9:40 and an NCAA title last year, what do you think the ceiling is for this relay? An interesting question that I honestly don’t know the answer to. Every DMR race in the last two years we have won. We are 3 for 3 when not trying to jinx us. If we are in a 9:3X race, I think you would find us in the hunt. Win or lose, we could compete and be pulled to a fast time if we don’t pull off the win. We are competitors. I can summarize by saying that the DMR is the focus for Indoor Nationals. The race with Adam State last march was crazy. In fact, it was probably the craziest race I have ever run in. From that, the rivalry/friendship we have developed with ASU gives me confidence that it will be another great race this year amongst other great teams. 15. You have become a bit of an icon for D2 runners all around the nation. In a way, you are proving that men and women from D2 can be just as good (if not better) than those from D1 or any other division. When your time at Western Oregon has ended, what is the legacy that you hoped to have left behind? Yeah, icon is a flashier word than I would use. I would consider myself more so a pioneer for the sport. I want Division II athletes to step on the starting line confident that no matter the division or field, they are racing for the win. Putting Division II athletes aside, I just want there to be a world where people disregard divisions and see athletes on the line as racers because, ultimately, we are all people fighting for the same goal. Dividing people by titles of divisions separates athletes even further from accomplishing dreams. I would love to think that I have helped elevate Division II entirely to point where jerseys don’t make a difference, it’s the people in them. This year has already been record setting and the growth over the last four years would not have been possible if I went anywhere else. I can confidently say that. So as an inspiration to high schoolers, go where you believe you will develop. Put the money, politics, jersey aside. Go somewhere where you will love the coach and process. Track is track. 16. Finally, what is one thing that we need to know about David Ribich? David Ribich would not be David Ribich if it wasn’t for the support behind him. My family is constantly driving and flying hours on end to help me pursue my dreams. My team helps me grind out the hard days. We stick together through the good and the bad. The coaching staff has constantly helped me develop as a person and an athlete. Finally, my girlfriend for being the love of my life. What I do and what I have done wouldn’t be possible if it was just “David Ribich”. I have a lot of people to thank, but a quote I believe to be true is one I have told many high school athletes, “Just because you are from a small school does not mean you have to have a small dream.”

College recruiting, transfers, and injuries can make or break a program. The development or recruitment of just one elite-level athlete can help push your program to the next level. It can be the difference between 1st and 2nd at a National Championship, the two seconds your DMR needed to qualify for Nationals, or maybe just another top-tier name who can help build the legitimacy of your program for years to come. There are many people who would argue that collegiate distance running is a level playing field and that the right training can turn anyone into a superstar (I happen to agree). Still, no one is going to ignore the fact that a guy like Drew Hunter could have had a massive impact on a college program. Below, we identified a few notable names from the past few years and discuss what the storylines could have been if things played out differently. What If... Georgetown XC stays healthy? The 2016 Georgetown Hoyas squad had the potential to be one of the most lethal and exciting teams in recent history. Jonathan Green was coming off of a breakout year where he finished 5th at the 2015 NCAA XC Championships. Notre Dame All-American and distance star Michael Clevenger transferred to Georgetown to do graduate work and finish his eligibility. Darren Fahy and Scott Carpenter had huge spring track seasons in the steeplechase and seemed primed to have strong cross country seasons that fall. Amos Bartelsmeyer and Michael Lederhouse were developing into experienced veterans who displayed consistent improvement and reliability. It also helped that the Hoyas brought in an elite-level recruiting class while younger guys like Christian Alvarado were beginning to show promise. We should also mention that Georgetown brought back their entire 2015 varsity squad which placed 10th at XC Nationals that year. It was tough to dislike what the Hoyas brought to the table. During the preseason rankings, Flotrack ranked the Hoyas 5th in the nation while my projections (when I wrote for Etrain) had them at 3rd. We were both very, very wrong. Jonathan Green sustained an injury earlier that summer and only raced once during the cross country season before shutting it down completely. Michael Clevenger struggled to adapt to his new training group and failed to enter the realm of All-American fitness that he was once in. Darren Fahy, who placed 49th at the 2015 XC Championships, was MIA throughout the entire 2016 season and it remains unclear whether he was preserving eligibility or injured. Amos Bartelsmeyer ran twice during the regular season, but wasn't seen again for the entirety of the championship meets. It might be safe to assume that he was injured during that time frame. The rest of the Hoya freshmen class was solid, but they failed to provide anything more than filler spots in the 6th and 7th scoring positions on the varsity squad. Christian Alvarado, a sophomore at the time, provided some support in the scoring but never became the ace that some thought he could be. After struggling at Paul Short and Wisconsin, the Hoyas rebounded and were able to capture both the Big East and Mid-Atlantic team titles, albeit both relatively weaker in comparison to other conferences and region. Georgetown would qualify for Nationals and settle for 21st overall. Scott Carpenter was the silver lining throughout the entire 2015 season as he ended up placing 10th at Nationals to complement a slew of other big-time performances that season. The grey and blue lost one of the best low-sticks in the nation to injury, key scorers went missing, their new transfer never returned to his peak fitness, and the depth wasn't as strong as it was expected to be. Still, you can't help but ask "what could have been"? The last time Georgetown finished as a top four team in the nation (now known as All-American) was 1965 where they were 4th among 18 teams. Could the Hoyas have been All-Amercan in 2016? If this team was entirely healthy and replicated their best finishes at NCAA's, you would have had the following... - Green: 5th place (4th team scoring) - Carpenter: 10th place (8th team scoring) - Clevenger: 38th place (31st team scoring) - Fahy: 49th place (39th team scoring) - Bartelsmeyer: 128th place (105th team scoring) TOTAL TEAM SCORE: 187 points In 2016, scoring 187 points would have been enough to push out Ole Miss for the 4th place position (they scored 196 points). That evaluation is simply a cumulation of the best performances that their projected top five have actually run at Nationals. That doesn't take into account any improvements that they would have had. So yes, theoretically, that Georgetown squad (at it's best) would have been an All-American team for the first time in over half a century (51 years). Justyn Knight had chosen Oregon over Syracuse? In November of 2016, Syracuse.com published an article detailing Knight's rise through the high school ranks and the attention he was receiving from other programs. One of the more widely recognized programs that was offering Knight a scholarship was Oregon. However, the push to do a year at a prep school prior to his arrival at Oregon was enough for Knight to decline the offer and join Coach Fox at Syracuse. But what if Oregon had not suggested that prep year? What if Knight decided to become a Duck? What if Justyn Knight and Edward Cheserek were on the same team? Even if it was just for one year? Let's fast forward to the 2015 season when Oregon finished 4th overall at the National Championships with 183 points. Syracuse won the title that season with 82 points, edging out Colorado who finished 91 points. In that race, Knight finished 3rd in the team scoring (4th overall). But now suppose that Knight had chosen Oregon. If we maintain that all of the finishes would have been the same, Oregon would have improved their team score to 120 points, overtaken Stanford, and watched the Orangemen fall to 130 points. Colorado would have won the national title, the Ducks would have been 2nd, and Syracuse would have earned the bronze. That's how much of an impact one guy can have in a single race. Ryan Vanhoy doesn't join Ole Miss? One of the greatest hiring decisions in recent history (and maybe ever) was Ole Miss hiring an assistant coach from Northeastern, Ryan Vanhoy. After three years at UNC (where he ran collegiately) and one year at Northeastern, Mississippi took a chance by hiring the younger candidate. Their decision turned out to be a phenomenal choice. Vanhoy began to attract some of the top runners in the nation, specifically transfers. In nearly two years, the Rebels brought in Craig Engels (NC State), Ryan Walling (UNC), Wes Gallagher (Northeastern), MJ Erb (Syracuse), and Ryan Manahan (Georgetown). Can anyone remember an accumulation of transfer talent better than this? The Rebels gained an unreal amount of hype in the summer of 2015 thanks to the amount of talent that they recruited. Their cross country team was projected to become an All-American squad and some thought that they could even contend for a national title. Of course, expectations rarely go according to plan. Unfortunately, MJ Erb struggled to adjust and began to lack consistency. Many forgot that Ryan Walling had no eligibility left for cross country. Wes Gallagher was (assumedly) redshirted and had no role during the 2015 cross country season. The lack of star power and the need to rely on milers resulted in deafening (and even unnecessary) criticism. Ole Miss would go to finish a disappointing 30th place at Nationals. However, with the cross country season behind them, we got to see The Vanhoy Project in full effect. Engels and Erb may not have qualified for NCAA's, but they began to thrown down some very competitive times. Meanwhile, Ryan Walling began to find momentum in the 5000 meters and eventually finished the winter season as an All-American. Transition to the outdoor season and the Ole Miss squad was beginning to back up their hype from nearly 8 months ago. Walling replicated his All-American performance in the 5000 meters, Engels became an All-American in the 1500 (and qualified for the Olympic Trials), and Erb snagged the last All-American spot in the steeplechase. Fast forward to next cross country season and something special began to brew in Oxford. Erb was far more consistent, Tobin was became a legitimate low-stick, and their depth began to back-up the the rest of their scorers. The Rebels would shock the nation to finish as an All-American team at Nationals (4th overall) while Erb placed 6th and Wes Gallagher finished 39th (individual All-Americans). The indoor track season was equally as impressive. Craig Engels rebounded from an early-season injury and hopped onto the Ole Miss DMR which eventually went on to win the national title. The win continued to validate Vanhoy's vision for his squad. In just a few short years, Vanhoy has turned an average Mississippi squad into one of the most feared mid-distance / distance programs in the nation...but what if never came to Oxford? What if Vanhoy opted to stay with Northeastern and somehow became the coach during that time? Would the Huskies now become the powerhouse we see Ole Miss as? The thought process isn't as crazy as it may seem (although available scholarship money could have played a role). With the credentials of training Eric Jenkins and key individuals like Wes Gallagher and Paul Duffey on the roster, Vanhoy may still have been able to attract MJ Erb when he was leaving Syracuse. After all, Northeastern is only two hours away from Syracuse... A scenario of keeping Gallagher and recruiting Erb seems realistic, but would Engels and Walling have a reason to go up north? In case you may have forgotten, Vanhoy ran collegiately for UNC and was a graduate assistant there for three years. His connection to Ryan Walling (who ran for UNC) is an easy one to make. Meanwhile, Engels (then with NC State) was an in-state rival who was less than a half-hour down the road from UNC. Vanhoy had tried to recruit Engels to UNC two years prior and was able to reignite that dialogue during his move to Ole Miss. It's very possible that he could have accomplished the same thing at Northeastern... Ryan Manahan's transfer from Georgetown was an interesting one. Controversy surrounding the Hoya program was enough incentive for a few athletes to leave. How he landed with Vanhoy is still up for speculation, but he did go to high school only an hour away from Erb. If you connect enough dots, Manahan's move to Northeastern definitely seems possible. Obviously, some of this is speculation and there are a wide-array of factors that could play a role in all of these transfers. Still, the network between Vanhoy and all of these transfers makes plenty of sense. Who knows? Maybe Northeastern could have been the powerhouse program that Ole Miss is today...

By: Ben Weisel On Monday, news broke that collegiate record holder Michael Saruni was turning pro. Last year, Saruni won the 800 meter title at the indoor championships and later finished 3rd in the spring. However, it may be fair to say that he is best known for breaking Donavan Brazier’s collegiate record by running 1:43.25. Saruni follows Isaiah Harris as the second 800 meter specialist to forego their remaining eligibility and strike while the iron is hot. The removal of overwhelming title favorites leaves the 2019 half-mile crown free for the taking. Traditionally one of the deepest races at the NCAA Championships, many 800 All-Americans go on to have successful professional careers. However, the collegiate 800 field has seen significant turnover from their top stars. Over the last few years, elite talents such as Brandon McBride, Clayton Murphy, Emmanuel Korir, Shaq Walker, Eliud Rutto, and Donavan Brazier have left the NCAA behind to graduate and sign professional contracts. Runners who turned pro have gone on to race in the Diamond League, the World Championships, and the Olympics. Not only do these athletes compete in these prestigious races, but they challenge for titles. Clayton Murphy won a bronze medal at the 2016 Rio Olympics. Emmanuel Korir went on to win Diamond League races and run 1:42.05. Donavan Brazier backed up his World Junior record with a win at USA indoors in 2017. The standard for top NCAA performances is not too different than what you may see in your typical pro field. There are numerous runners who have consistently run sub 1:47, so winning or simply being an All-American in the 800 can lead to a relatively profitable professional career (or so it seems). It's easy to understand why Harris and Saruni took a different route. Some may argue that they should have delayed inking a sponsored deal, but there frankly wasn't much left for them to accomplish. They've both run under 1:45 and have each secured a national title. These two can compete at the highest level right now, and it would be silly to pass up that opportunity. They are (arguably) just as good as Brazier, Murphy, and McBride were when they were in their collegiate prime. In fact, the departure of Harris and Saruni is one of the best things that could have happened for top 800 runners around the nation. This will give someone new a chance to earn a national title or maybe even move up a few All-American spots. Not only will they have more room to accomplish their goals, but it could increase their chances of signing that coveted pro contract. Having two national champions leave the NCAA in a single year may actually be better for the sport in more ways than one. In addition to pumping out pro contracts, the 800 has often been fast when it comes to the NCAA final. While most distance races are run tactically, 800 runners hit the gas right away. From 2014 to 2018, the race has gone out in 51.14, 55.64, 50.35, 51.69, and 51.09, respectively. In 2016, Donavan Brazier won in what was then a collegiate record of 1:43.55 thanks to McBride's blistering 50.35 first lap. If these mid-distance specialists want to make a name for themselves, their best chance to do it is at the national meet where they'll likely be pushed to a new personal best. With the loss of Isaiah Harris and Michael Saruni, this year’s field is wide-open for the next 800 meter star to make his name at the 2019 NCAA Championships. Five of the eight from last year’s outdoor final return, but there are others who should also compete for the title. Let's take a look at who those candidates might be... Marco Arop, Sophomore, Mississippi State (PR: 1:45.25) The 2018 outdoor final for 800 meters was riveting. Harris would have the race of his life, earning a personal record of 1:44 and pulling off one of many exciting upsets from the weekend. More importantly for this year, the race also saw multiple rising stars post strong results. The most notable of these youngsters was Marco Arop. The Mississippi State Bulldog ran a personal best at NCAA's to place 2nd overall as a freshman, also upsetting Saruni in the process. The six-foot-four Canadian won his country’s national championship this past summer by beating Mississippi State alum and 2016 Olympian Brandon McBride. Arop will look to follow in McBride's footsteps by securing an NCAA title of his own. Bryce Hoppel, Junior, Kansas (PR: 1:45.67) + Devin Dixon, Junior, Texas A&M (PR: 1:45.62) Finishing right behind Arop at the national meet were sophomores Bryce Hoppel and Devin Dixon. Dixon had a strong 2018 season which saw him qualify for indoor nationals and run a new personal best at the LSU Invitational. After struggling for most of the regular season during outdoors, Hoppel rallied to place 4th at the national meet and lock-in a new PR of his own. Look for these two to lower their PR's this year and improve their tactical racing styles. Joe White, Senior, Georgetown (PR: 1:45.73) We didn't get to see White toe the line for the entirety of the 2017-2018 academic year, but that may have been a good thing. With Harris and Saruni now out of the picture and another year of development on his resume, White could scare for the title in 2019. The Georgetown star was one of the few individuals capable of competing (and even beating) Isaiah Harris. With a strong PR, multiple big-meet wins, and two bronze medals, the veteran should be considered a favorite to win it all this winter and spring. Jonah Koech, Senior, UTEP (PR: 1:46.23) You don’t even have to leave UTEP to find Michael Saruni’s replacement. Koech, who finished 6th at the outdoor national meet with a PR, was a little behind Hoppel and Dixon. He's a touch inconsistent, but he brings impressive range that you don't often see from other elite 800 runners. With times of 48.30 (400), 3:43 (1500), and 23:34 (8k), Koech could be an All-American in almost any distance event. Perhaps a season of concentrating on the 800 could push Koech into title contention. Robert Heppenstall, Senior, Wake Forest (PR: 1:46.68) Senior Robert Heppenstall may be one of the most consistent half-milers to ever come through the NCAA. The Wake Forest product has not only made Indoor and Outdoor Nationals every year of collegiate career, but he's also been an All-American each time he has qualified. With Harris and Saruni out of his way, Heppenstall could make 2018 the year where he finds himself in the top three. Daniel Kuhn, Senior, Indiana (PR: 1:46.06) + Cooper Williams, Junior, Indiana (PR: 1:46.06) Hoosier teammates with identical personal bests, Kuhn and Williams will look to make it to the outdoor finals this year. Kuhn just missed out on the finals by one spot in 2018 while Cooper was a few places behind him. With PRs of 47.06 (400) and 1:15.23 (600), Kuhn has the talent and speed to compete with anyone. Cooper, on the other hand, has a nice 3:44 (1500) personal best which shows he has the endurance and strength to hang with the best. As we grind through cross country season, 800 specialists are usually forgotten because many are not contributors for top cross country teams. However, let’s not forget about one of the top track races in the NCAA...because who knows? Maybe the next Clayton Murphy or Donavan Brazier might show up. Get ready, because in 167 days the next half-mile champion will be crowned in Birmingham.

By: Sam Ivanecky Although the NCAA Cross Country national meet is roughly two months away, it’s never too early to start making predictions about who will win. Defending champion Ednah Kurgat is back this season and is the early favorite. However, no woman has won back-to-back years since Sheila Reid of Villanova in 2010–2011, so it wouldn’t be shocking to see a new face on top of the podium come November. Here’s a quick breakdown of the front-runners. FAVORITES Ednah Kurgat (New Mexico) Kurgat is the easy choice after going wire-to-wire last year and winning by a whopping eight seconds. Not only did she win last year, she finished first in all five races she ran last fall. She continued to build an impressive resume on the track with a runner-up finish at Nationals in the indoor 5k as well as 6th place in the same race during outdoors. If she remains healthy, there is no question she will remain the favorite. Allie Ostrander (Boise State) The 2018 NCAA steeplechase champion is the top returner behind Kurgat from the 2017 national meet (finished 4th). Ostrander started 2017 a bit on the slower side, finishing only 9th at the Nuttycombe Invitational, but returned to form by November. Previously, she finished 2nd at the 2015 national meet and redshirted the 2016 season. After a stellar spring on the track, it would be surprising not to see Ostrander light up the cross course. Anna Rohrer (Notre Dame) Entering the 2018-2019 academic year, Rohrer has finished 6th (2015) and 3rd (2016) at the national meet. She redshirted 2017 due to injury, but was back on the track this spring placing 6th in the 10,000 meter at Nationals. Based on that, it’s reasonable to assume she’s transitioned back into training with no lingering effects from her injury and should be in full health to lead Notre Dame this fall. In her most recent XC season, she never finished lower than 3rd. Will she be able to replicate that in 2018? Sharon Lokedi (Kansas) Her 44th place finish in 2017 was a bit of an anomaly after finishing 10th in 2015 and 5th in 2016. Earlier this year, she won the NCAA 10k over a field that included 2017 NCAA XC champion Karissa Schweizer as well as Anna Rohrer. After her track season, she seems like a lock for a top three finish. However, Lokedi has dealt with some inconsistency previously in XC. In 2015, she finished 11th at BIG 12's before finishing 10th at NCAA's. The Kansas Jayhawk was 10th at Pre-Nats in 2016 before her 5th place at NCAA's. If Lokedi can remain consistent this fall, she will be in the mix when she toes the line in Madison, Wisconsin. DARKHORSES Katie Rainsberger (Washington) In the fall of 2016, Rainsberger finished 4th as a true freshman at Nationals. She also finished 4th in the 1500 meter final at NCAA's. While this hints at her ability to finish near the front in 2018, she seemed to struggle during her sophomore seasons of track and XC. Rainsberger, unfortunately, failed to make it out of the West Regional Preliminary last spring. Although she finished 16th at the 2017 national meet in XC, it remains to be seen how she will handle the transition from Oregon to Washington. So far this season, she has only competed once; a tempo effort at the Sundodger Invitational (which Ostrander won). Weronika Pyzik (Oregon) Pyzik made a huge jump from 2016 to 2017, going from 87th to 5th at Nationals. She continued to find success on the track, finishing 10th in the NCAA 10k and running a PR of 32:37. Her 5th place finish in 2017 shows she is capable of finishing near the front, but she lacks some of the experience that many of the other returners have. After such a big jump in 2017, it’s difficult to tell if she can continue to improve in 2018. However, based on her track season, it seems very realistic to be near the front again. Like Rainsberger, it will be interesting to see how she adjusts to training in a new environment. Weini Kelati (New Mexico) As just a freshman, Kelati finished 7th in 2017. She also finished 3rd and 5th in the indoor 3000 and 5000 meters, which prefaced a 9th place finish in the 5000 meters during outdoors. Despite her youth, Kelati had a consistent 2017 XC season, finishing between 15th and 2nd in all of her competitions. With only one XC season so far, Kelati’s potential remains somewhat unknown. However, based on her track performances, she should improve on her finish from last fall. While it likely won’t be a big enough jump to win in 2018, she could easily be on top in the coming years. Dani Jones (Colorado) She hasn’t finished higher than 10th (2017) at the national meet, but Jones should easily change that state in November. The Colorado star has experience winning on the national level with her victory in the 3000 meters at NCAA indoors in 2016. She was 2nd in the mile this past indoor season and redshirted outdoors, where she took the opportunity to race against the pros. Jones finished 5th at USA's in the 1500 meters and ran 4:07 at the Pre Classic, taking the overall win. She has consistently improved in her NCAA XC showings (49th in 2015, 22nd in 2016) and her coach Mark Wetmore is known for developing top-end female runners, including Olympic medalists Jenny Simpson and Emma Coburn. Barring injury, Jones should have her best performance at NCAA's this fall. WAY-TOO-EARLY PREDICTIONS FOR 2018 NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS Ednah Kurgat (New Mexico) Allie Ostrander (Boise State) Dani Jones (Colorado) Sharon Lokedi (Kansas) Weini Kelati (New Mexico) Anna Rohrer (Notre Dame) Katie Rainsberger (Washington) Weronika Pyzik (Oregon)

The Cross Country Rating Index (CCRI) is USTFCCCA’s attempt at coming up with an objective ranking based on feedback from the 2017 USTFCCCA Convention. The system is built off of the RPI model used in other collegiate sports such as basketball with additional contributing factors that are more applicable to cross country than other sports. It uses individual rankings to build team rankings. The team rankings are broken up into sections: Team Potential Index (TPI) and Team Actual Varsity Context Index (AVC). Using these components, each Division 1 team is giving a score which is used to rank every team. There is not much subjectivity to this system; coaches are not polled for these results. Here is some quick background information before we jump into the actual article... How does it work? The individual rankings are determined using every Division 1 race throughout the season. Each athlete is rated according to how well he/she performs in relation to the rest of the field. The ratings also are adjusted by including how competitive the race was and the overall strength of the field. This all is combined to create the Individual Contest Performance Rating (ICPR). All of an athletes ICPRs is then averaged to create an Individual Season Performance Rating (ISPR). The individual’s CCRI is then computed by comparing each athletes ICPR for every race against every other runner. Or in really basic terms, individuals are scored, averaged, and then compared. The team rankings are formulated using the individual rankings as well as the AVC Index and the TPI. These two indexes are combined to give each team a final score. What are the AVC Index and TPI? Let’s start with the Team Potential Index (TPI) as it’s the easier of the two concepts to grasp. In 2018, the TPI measures the “win share” of a team against every team in the NCAA Division I. By establishing the individuals’ CCRI, this indicates the top seven runners on each team and can thus, predict the dual meet results for all teams in Division I. For purposes of the TPI, dual meets are scored and then measured with respect to a perfect meet (15-50, a 35 point win). So, a 15-50 dual meet victory equates to 1000 win share points for the winning team with 0 points going to the losing team. Any other victory is compared by margin of victory using the following formula. Note: Margin of Victory would be negative for a loss. 500 + 500 ( (Margin of Victory) / 35 ) = Win Share The TPI is then, “based on a formula that weighs the opponent with the calculated margin of victory or defeat (also known as "win share”)” according to USTFCCCA’s official release of the ranking system. This weighting system is likely based on a comparison of the raw individual CCRI, but has no been officially released. Or in really basic terms, they find the top seven of each team, simulate a dual meet between every team in the country, and calculate scores for teams based on how well they did compared to competition. The Actual Varsity Contest Index (AVC) is more akin to the current qualifying procedure that focuses on "A" squads as determined by who competes at the NCAA Regional Championships. Prior to those meets, a varsity squad is determined by the top seven athletes in the individual CCRI rankings or top nine at a conference meet. TPI + 500 ( (Margin of Victory) / 35) = Matchup AVC Like current procedure, an “A” squad in the regular season needs four runners from the official regional team or the aforementioned early-season determinations. Then, all head-to-head meetings where both teams ran “A” varsity squads are scored as dual meets. A matchup’s AVC score is then created by taking the opponent’s TPI plus the “win-share” margin of victory. So if Teams A and B both have TPIs of 800 and Team B win the dual meet 20-35. Team B’s win share would be approximately 214, giving Team B a matchup AVC of 1014 and Team A a matchup AVC of 586. The final AVC is the average of all matchup AVCs. Finally, the final CCRI is a combination of the TPI and the AVC score, meshing the hypothetical results with actual head-to-head finishes. *** Having gone through some of the current ranking procedures, there are still a lot of questions about how the CCRI will be used, how it will evolve, and how it exactly functions. Ben Weisel, Michael Weidenbruch, and Sean Collins weigh in on some of those questions and more. Sean Collins After researching into the CCRI and working through the scoring procedure, I think there still needs to be a little more transparency into how exactly the formulas, rankings, and procedures are run. The USTFCCCA has been incredibly thorough and transparent up to now, especially with their full explanation of the system here and some further expansion on that throughout the publication of team resumes and additional details presented in their subsequent rankings releases. Regardless, the ambiguity in a few areas is still troubling should the CCRI ever move from a ranking system, to a qualifying procedure, but we will get to that in a bit. Looking purely at the ranking system as is, USTFCCCA has already announced a change to the 2019 version that will exaggerate the current system’s margin of victory. Not only will it give points based on the “win share” procedure noted above, it will supplement those with an average individual CCRI bonus. The example given by the USTFCCCA is that Team A beats Team B 15-50, but also has an average individual CCRI of 1200, compared to team B’s 900. Team A would earn the maximum 500 points* on win share from the perfect victory PLUS a 300 point bonus from the individual CCRI difference (1200-900 = 300). What other things might you like to see in future rankings? *Note: USTFCCCA published that example with a maximum of 400 points from the win share, but that appears to be a typo based on their other statements on TPI. Michael Weidenbruch The question of how much weight postseason races carry would need to be addressed. I don’t think it would be too difficult to make conference and regional results have a bigger impact on the rankings, but this would need to be done. A team could have a great first half of the season, turn in mediocre postseason performances, and still be ranked highly based on their earlier results. Similarly, teams that heat up late in the season would need to be rewarded appropriately. The question of how regional results directly affect the ranking would need to be answered as well. A few regions only have one team in the top 31 as the current rankings stand. Assuming the number and makeup of regions remain the same, this would be a foreseeable issue every year. Would the priority be bringing in the 31 best teams, or would there still be an emphasis on having at least two teams from each region? If it’s the latter, the ranking would be significantly affected. Princeton was the top team from the Mid-Atlantic ranked at 30th, but adding a second team from both the Northeast and South would bump Princeton out of qualifying contention. The Mid-Atlantic would then need both of their teams added in, which would bump out the last two teams that were 3rd or worse in their region, but still top 31 nationally. That would result in teams that were originally solidly in the top 31 being bumped out because of the regional requirement. For this reason, I can’t see the CCRI and having two teams from each region work together. It would need to be one or the other. Another question I have is, how are teams that do not qualify for Nationals affected in the post-nationals rankings? For example, Virginia finished the season ranked 13th by the CCRI. They moved up two spots after NCAA's concluded. How does this happen? Presumably, teams that were previously ranked ahead of them slipped back, but I struggle to see how a team that missed qualifying for Nationals has somehow improved despite not even making the meet. There was also a lot of movement in the bottom half of the rankings, where none of the teams raced after regionals. Ben Weisel In our Over/Under reaction article this year, we discussed whether it is a good idea to realign the regions. One suggestion that a coach had suggested to me is reducing the amount of regions to four. If the amount of regions are reduced, then teams will not automatically earn qualifying spots at regionals. The CCRI could potentially be a way to determine which teams go to which regions as well as a way to balance out the four regions. By creating an objective ranking system, there could be a fair system that makes all of the regions balanced. The geographic regions would need to be replaced by regions that are similar to the NCAA basketball tournament regions. While it is nice to put teams in their geographic region, the emphasis is on creating four equal regions. The obvious problem with this is that the system needs to be more transparent, so teams know how to give themselves the best chance at qualifying for regionals. In addition, as the system is not exact so by drawing a line at an arbitrary number, could unfairly exclude teams. Another issue with using four equal regions is the amount of travel that some teams could be making. This obviously could cost schools more money which could prevent some teams from attending regionals even if they qualify. The hardest part of this proposal is how to determine which individuals are invited to the regional competition. The benefits would be more competitive regional races and a higher likelihood of the 31 best teams in the country earning a spot at Nationals. This would also increase the overall competition of Nationals. The at-large bids could be eliminated along with the complex Kolas point system. Instead, the top eight teams from each region would automatically qualify. While this system could make qualifying for regionals more complex, it would certainly make the national qualifying system much easier. Sean Collins I think if the NCAA were to consider regional realignment with the CCRI, it would need to reconsider regional meets altogether. Trying to balance regions based on historic CCRI would only make the more competitive regions less so, and not make any weaker regions significantly more competitive in my estimations (should the number of regions not change). The larger issue I have with regional realignment by CCRI would be the logical contradiction by the NCAA. By doing so, the NCAA would admit it’s looking either for the top 31 teams in the nation or for a greater distribution of teams across regions. In the first scenario, realignment by CCRI would only partially adjust the procedure and not solve the issue. If you believe the CCRI determines the top 31 teams in the nation, then the CCRI should pick those teams outright without regard to region. With regard to the latter, realignment does not alter the distribution of teams from across the nation. It might change the way we think about the selection process, but it would not significantly alter the geographic distribution. UTEP will be in El Paso regardless of whether they compete in the South Central or the Mountain region. Very few consistent team qualifiers would be affected and it would not significantly alter the results. Moving to four regions (or five, or six) could help with both of those issues, but I’m struggling with how that makes a large difference. The eastern regions (Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast) are some of the largest by number in the current system and any realignment would also have to stand up to scrutiny on equally proportioned regions by quality and quantity. This would likely lead to an even more stacked West region that would include most of the current Mountain region, or a CCRI balancing would gerrymander some odd looking regions that could not be embraced. Michael Weidenbruch I don’t think it would be a terrible idea to use the CCRI rankings to help determine national qualifying spots. The ranking is based entirely on performance throughout the season, so every meet matters. It would also take the weight off of teams that underperform at regionals, as of right now regional performance is a heavy influencer when it comes to qualifying and I think that is somewhat flawed. The Kolas system does a good job picking the at-large teams, but sometimes weaker teams that have strong regional performances get pushed in and end up keeping other teams out. For example, Tulsa was not expected to get pushed into NCAA's this year, and had Oklahoma State finished 3rd in the Midwest, Georgetown would have qualified. Georgetown is ranked 11 spots higher than Tulsa in the CCRI. I like the idea of reducing the number of regions, but I agree with Sean that this would not fix some of the perceived issues with the current system. Ben’s idea of teams needing to qualify for regionals based on the CCRI rating is interesting. If the number of regions is reduced, the number of teams in each will increase, so it would not make sense to have every team compete in what would be a massive race. Breaking the CCRI down by region would be easy, and the top X teams could qualify for regionals. That seems fair to me. The problem with this is for individuals. The ICPR could be used to determine this, but I would be worried that this could be a messy system for determining which individuals on low-ranked teams get a spot at regionals. Sean Collins To piggyback on the individual ranking issues, I’ve been worried about athletes who don't race until late in the season. While I cannot come up with an immediate example, I’m wondering how the ranking applies to someone who runs unattached early in the season and then competes officially later. Do the unattached races count toward their ranking (or should they)? Another possible, but less likely issue, is that a team could decide to run slower athletes in order to lower the mean time of a race to bolster their teammates’ gap scores. It likely would not make a large effect, but running extra speed-oriented 800 runners in 6k/8k races would likely put them toward the back of the pack and benefit faster athletes. This could especially have a large impact in a dual meet between mismatched teams or to bolster an athlete into individual qualifying if they use that after limiting teams. I admit, there are a number of rather drastic negative assumptions one has to make in order to reach that conclusion, but it appears that bad-natured racing tactics and decisions could positively impact some athletes and that does not sit extremely well with me. *** To close out this discussion, how does everyone feel about the rankings results? Do you think they align with your views of the top teams in the nation? Sean Collins Looking at the top 10 teams, those teams matched exactly with the top ten teams at NCAA's, so I’d have to say that these rankings do a relatively good job overall. Moving further down the list, it becomes difficult to have a ton of faith in the rankings. For example, Buffalo men finished 7th in the Northeast region while Yale men finished 17th, but the final rankings have them separated by only 2 positions, 85th to 88th. Neither team had any major issues at regionals to my knowledge. So overall, I’m glad that there’s a new ranking in place and I think that it’s doing alright especially for the first year, but I’m not quite confident in it yet to make close calls between teams. Michael Weidenbruch Overall, these rankings seem pretty fair. There’s nothing I have a major objection to in the top 50. It’s really interesting to see how well some teams placed in the rankings despite not qualifying for nationals. Virginia stands out to me here. They are ranked 13th, which I think is appropriate (maybe a tiny bit of an overrating, but not much). It is refreshing to see teams getting the recognition they deserve despite not necessarily performing on the biggest stage. Syracuse is another team that I think is appropriately recognized in the rankings. A bad performance at NCAA's doesn’t have to ruin a team’s position. However, I agree with Sean that the rankings become less reliable further down the list. Lehigh is ranked 110th compared to Bucknell in 120th. Bucknell beat Lehigh at the Patriot League Championship as well as the Mid-Atlantic regional. The two barely met during the regular season, and the postseason results tell me that Bucknell is the better team. Despite the flaws in the lower end, I think this new ranking system is a good addition. I will be interested to see if it is eventually used to determine national qualifying spots because it could dramatically change what the fields for NCAA's look like. If regionals is no longer an all-or-nothing affair, some teams may get the benefit of the doubt and have another chance to prove themselves at Nationals. This would also likely increase the level of competition. Ben Weisel Like Michael and Sean, I think the rankings have done a good job at rating the top teams in the country. The top 50 teams are about right with just a few exceptions. As you go further down the list, there are more errors. For the South region, 5th place Georgia Tech is ranked 20 spots ahead of 2nd place Florida State while 3rd and 4th place Tennessee and Belmont are also ranked ahead of the Seminoles. The CCRI system needs to at least have similar teams within 10 spots of each other in order for the system to be used as the qualifying metric for regionals or Nationals

1st Round Selections Michael: Dani Jones is an easy first pick. She has individual titles in cross country as well as the indoor 3k and DMR. After redshirting this past indoor season, I think she will be a title contender in either the 1500 or 5k (or both). Ben : Allie O is the pick because of her utter dominance in the 3k steeple. I know we talked about how unpredictable the steeple can be during the men’s draft, but I think Ostrander is on a different level. She even scored a point in the 5k after winning the steeple last year. Sam: It’s hard to pass on someone who has yet to lose a race on the track in 2019. Hull will (likely?) run the 5000 meters, and maybe only that, but a win is huge points and I feel she is a safe bet to get a good amount of points rather than risk picking someone who may be more of a boom-or-bust. Sean: Weini Kelati. Even though Kelati has yet to come away with an NCAA title, Kelati is still one of the most dominant runners in the collegiate ranks. I think Kelati will likely go for the 10k/5k double this spring, so I thin she can bring home double digit points for the Lobos, even if she doesn’t win an event. John: Alicia Monson just had the best indoor season of her career. She ran 8:45 to take home the Millrose title and then proceeded to come back snd win her first national title in the 5000. Monson provides range from 1500 to 5000 meters and has the potential of moving into the 10,000. Matt: She will most likely once again have a choice to make whether to run the 800 or 1500, but after coming off of an indoor title in the 800 and having the fastest indoor mile in the country, Danae Rivers is very likely to get points, if not win, no matter which event she chooses. Garrett: The problem with going last is that you don’t really get the opportunity to snag a national title contender. Luckily, I feel very confident that Birk can produce some major points in the 5000 meters. The only risk is that she ends up pursuing the steeplechase (which I don’t think she will). She’s been super consistent and has been well ahead of her competition as of late (outside of Jessica Hull). I feel pretty confident about taking her in the first round. 1st Round Commentary Sam: I really like the Dani Jones pick for the same reason I like the Hull pick. Both should win their respective events, even if they don’t double . Michael: We could also see a great battle between the two if they run the same event! Ben: I almost went with Hull over Ostrander, but I was nervous about her being matched with Jones in either the 1500 or 5k. While Ostrander is an injury risk, I feel very confident that she will win her event as long as she is healthy. Sam: If you didn’t end up taking Ostrander, I was going to. Great minds think alike, right? Ben : Right! Garrett: As I mentioned in the men’s draft, I am very against taking steeplechasers. However, I’m not sure there is anyone more guaranteed to win a national title than Ostrander. She is the obvious choice, even with Prouse lurking behind. It’s a really solid pick and outside of a crazy fall, she will secure 10 points for Ben. Matt: At first, based on recency, I was very surprised Allie O got picked before Hull, but Ostrander has been so dominant in the steeple that it is completely understandable. Sam : Also, the fact that Ostrander almost certainly runs the 5k and steeple means more (likely) points. John: I’m with Matt on the recency bias as I like the Hull pick over the Ostrander pick. Sean: Garrett, you grabbing Birk at the end of the round is a great pick. Maybe slightly too early for her given the huge competition at 5k, but I think she definitely deserves being up here. Garrett: She may not be the absolute ideal pick from a scoring perspective, but if you had to pick a runner to build a team around, I would choose her. 2nd Round Selections Garrett: Charlotte Prouse. I know I’ve been against men’s steeplechasers, but that’s because the men’s field is so wide open and it feels like anyone who qualifies for Nationals could end up winning (it’s still early, I know). When you look at the women’s field, it’s basically down to Ostrander and Prouse. Although Prouse may not win, I’ll happily take the scoring security wherever I can get it. Matt: Karissa Nelson has been as sure of a thing as you can find in terms of scoring at national track meets. She has finished in the top three at her past three track National Championships, including a 2017 national title in the mile. After finishing 2nd at this year’s indoor championship, I see her being in the mix to win another title. John: I’m going with Katie Rainsberger here. The Oregon transfer hasn’t skipped a beat since changing schools. She had a strong indoor season with a PR in the mile and a nearly identical time in the 3000. She’s run 4:11 before and I think she gets back on that track this spring making her a 1500 meter contender. Sean: Ednah Kurgat. I think Kurgat and Kelati could pull some great team tactics and come out 1-2 in one of the distance races if things go well. Not sure why I believe this since they really have never shown the ability to tactically win as a duo, but Kurgat is still an NCAA XC Champion and an NCAA top 10 all-time indoor 5k runner. If that’s not good enough credentials, I don’t know what is. Sam : So I wrote the steeplechase preview for the women and then remembered I’m a complete idiot and didn’t even mention Cohen… I was going to tweet about it, but then I remembered we had this draft and didn’t want to remind you guys that Cohen has a personal best 10 seconds faster than Allie Ostrander… Ben: My pick is Rachel Pocratsky of Virginia Tech. I think she has a chance to compete for at least a 2nd place finish in either the 800 or 1500 at Nationals. I would be surprised if she didn’t improve on her 3rd place finish in the 800 from indoors. Michael: Christina Aragon. She has consistently performed well on the national level and should be a contender to make the podium in the 1500 after finishing 4th last year. 2nd Round Commentary Sam: Rainsberger… Interesting. She did not even make the finals last year, but she also has a history of being great. Matt: Aragon is a great pick if she comes into the season in the right form. We have not seen her race in a while. John: I’m excited about the Rainsberger pick. It might be earlier than expected, but I believe she will get back on track for the outdoor season like her freshman one. Michael: Rainsberger is a solid pick here in my opinion. She has had some bad luck at national meets in the past, but she is just too good to pass up. Garrett: Interesting to see Kurgat fall to the second round after an indoor season where her performances fell flat. Still, I think she can give Sean a few points which is often half the battle. Ben: I was really hoping that Sean would be scared off by picking two Lady Lobos and that Kurgat would fall to me. I think she is a great second round pick because of the risk/reward with her. If she gets back into top shape, she could be a contender in the 5k and 10k, but if she tails off she might only earn a few points. Regardless, she is worth the bet. Sean: One of them is going to score major points in the 10k/5k. Might as well take them both! Sam: An interesting note...four of the first 12 picks were women on the New Mexico roster. Garrett: Together, they just bring so much value in terms of scoring (especially Kelati). The veteran/young star combo is pretty lethal in my eyes Sam: I can’t tell if picking Cohen this early was a big mistake or not. I wasn’t sure if people remembered she has run crazy fast and I didn’t want to wait it out and see… Sean: I definitely didn’t remember which is a huge shame since Cohen could be the NCAA’s next star if she figures it out. Just missing the NCAA indoor meet definitely hurt her name recognition across the sport more broadly. 3rd Round Selections Michael: Dorcas Wasike will be a great addition to my team in the 10k. She was 2nd last year and just ran a strong race to win the Raleigh Relays. Wasike should be a sure contender to win the 10k and could even double back in the 5k if she chooses to go for the double. Ben: Even after a very disappointing indoor national meet, I think Lokedi is worth a pick in the third round. As the reigning champ in the 10k, she clearly has the talent to compete with anyone. If she can turn her season around and get back into the form she was in during the early parts of the indoor season, then she could be a huge addition to my team. Sam: O’Keefe is somewhat of a wild card, but I think she has a big upside. She ran really well outdoors in the 5000 meters in 2017 and had a really solid indoor season as well. Plus, Stanford athletes seem to do better during outdoor compared to indoor. Sean: While I worry Anna Rohrer might redshirt this year, she’s only missed a first-team All-American finish once (the 10k in 2017). If she lines up, she’s going to make sure the race is fast enough to drop most of the field and while she probably will not win, she’s going to earn me some points if she makes it to the line. John: I think I could be reaching here with Lauren Gregory. But the redshirt freshman qualified for the mile and 3000 during indoors. She was an All-American and it looks like she’ll chase that event during the outdoor season. I think there is potential at 5000 meters, but I’m not sure that comes to fruition this year. Matt: Taylor Werner took Jessica Hull to the line in the 3k at indoors. She has looked as good as ever and has already opened up the season with a solid 10k. Even though I am not really sure what event she is going to pick this outdoor season, she is a player in any race that she chooses. Garrett: Makena Morley is really consistent and is ALWAYS an All-American when she gets to the national stage. I will happily take points from someone who I know will be in the top eight when she crosses the line. 3rd Round Commentary Ben: Dang Michael, I was really hoping to be able to snag Wasike. Matt: SAM!!! I wanted O’Keefe. Great pick there, my friend. Matt: Wasike is a great pick also. Michael has a potential national champion in the 10k and scorer in the 5k in the 3rd round. Sam : See my previous statement about great minds thinking alike… Michael: The Anna Rohrer pick seems like a high risk/high reward situation for Sean. We haven’t seen her race since cross country where she had a good season, but was not exactly lights out. If she’s healthy, she could be a title contender. John: Agreed with Rohrer. I completely forgot that she had eligibility. I think he either gets at least six points with her or none. Garrett: Yeah Rohrer was a big one and she is a super dangerous pick, especially in the 10k. She can bring some serious firepower to the table. Sam : Morley will be the most undervalued pick from this draft. She will finish top four in either the 5000 or the 10,000. Was really hoping she would make it another round… John: I debated picking Morley, definitely feeling like I missed by not taking her. She’s been trending upwards for a while now. Sean: One of the most interesting things about the Colorado women is not knowing who might perform well on that day. I mentioned this in the 10k article, but Morley would have likely been projected to score in the 10k last year out of the three Buffaloes to make it to the NCAA meet, but Kaitlyn Benner ended up being the only one in the top eight. Ben: I like the Werner pick. She really impressed me with her overall performance at the indoor national meet. 4th Round Selections Garrett: Paige Stoner could qualify for Nationals in the steeplechase or the 10,000. I’m not sure. Truthfully, I think this pick carries a high risk / high reward aspect to it. Stoner is a stud, but she needs to run well on the right day. If she can navigate through a tactical field, I could see her earning bronze at Nationals. Matt: Do not forget about who pushed Sammy Watson to the line last year in the 800. Abike Egbeniyi has all the ability in the world to take the 800 meter title. She did not make the finals during indoors, but the same thing happened last year and we all saw what happened come outdoor season. John: I told myself in the men’s draft I wouldn’t choose an 800 runner, but here I am. I really like Allie Wilson here. Fresh off a personal best of 2:02.65, she’s put herself in the upper quadrant of competitors in the 800. There’s potential for an upset and plenty of points. Sean: Julia Rizk. NCAA mile champion. Not sure anyone noticed…. Nobody? Okay, well she’s on my team now and I’m predicting a top four finish. Sam: I’m in the same boat as John with regards to picking 800 meter runners. That said, Bissah had the fastest time in the NCAA this past indoor season and she scored points last outdoor season. I feel (relatively) confident that she can score me at least a couple of points in the 800. Ben: I’m a little nervous about picking Lilli Burdon because she hasn’t run as well this year as she did last year at Oregon. With that said, she finished 3rd in the 5k last year and that talent and experience is too tantalizing to pass up. Michael: I’m picking Millie Paladino because she put together a very impressive race to finish 3rd in the mile during indoors after falling in the prelim. That sort of grit is what will give her a shot to get back on the podium come June. 4th Round Commentary Sam : ...and now Garrett has taken both of the people I was going to draft this round… John: Sean with another strong sleeper pick with Rizk. The mile champ will aim at defending her title and I think she has a strong chance at doing so. Sam : Devil’s advocate. Rizk was a one-hit-wonder and will not even make finals in the 1500. Matt: Damn, Sam…….. Sam : Are you referring to my pick or my take on Rizk? Matt: The Rizk take. Sam : Lightning doesn’t strike twice. Sean: I get that logic when you win a conference championship, but that doesn’t happen indoors at the national meet. You have to run multiple big races and Rizk also ran great legs on the Ohio State DMR. Do I think she’s the favorite at the mile? No. Will she score? Probably. Garrett : I hate to do it, but I’m kind of on the same page as Sam. She’s a phenomenal runner with great tactical skills, but I just can’t get behind the idea of her being another big-time scorer. There’s a reason she wasn’t selected until the 4th round, but I hope she proves me wrong and silences the critics (me and Sam). John: Man, my comments didn’t seem to resonate with anyone... Ben: Matt, I was wondering if anyone was going to pick Egbeniyi. She certainly has talent, but I picked her for my indoor team and it hurt when she didn’t even make the finals. 5th Round Selections (Rapid Fire) Michael: Jessica Drop. She looked promising at Raleigh this weekend! Ben: Sinclaire Johnson. There’s no DMR to keep her from running an individual event outdoors. Sam: I legitimately know nothing about Ilarda except that she just won the steeple at Stanford. Sean: Carina Viljoen. The third best distance running Razorback can still beat 99.9% of the NCAA. John: I love Susan Ejore here. She has the potential for an 800/1500 double at Nationals and I’m confident she goes to the podium in at least one of these two events. Matt: Taryn Rawlings...Riding with Portland for once Garrett: Nicole Hutchinson. She had a phenomenal indoor track season, but struggled a bit at NCAA’s. She’ll be back for revenge this spring. 5th Round Commentary John: I’m a big fan of the Sinclaire Johnson pick and the Taryn Rawlings pick. Garrett: Also a big fan of the Sinclaire Johnson pick. She’s a great tactical runner who can be a serious threat in the 1500 if that’s what she ends up choosing. In fact, she could win the NCAA title. Who knows? She might be the best pick of this entire draft... Michael: Part of me is surprised to see Viljoen make it this far without having been picked. Then again, I could have taken her in an earlier round, but glossed over her... Ben: I thought about picking Hutchinson in the fourth round and honestly forgot about her when I was picking in the 5th round. She hasn’t ever scored at Nationals, but she certainly has the talent to make the jump this outdoor season. Matt: I think the Jessica Drop pick is the steal of this draft. Sean: Susan Ejore though… Probably not the steal of this draft. Then again, that’s what could make someone a steal. 6th Round Selections (Rapid Fire) Garrett: Whittni Orton. Slightly underwhelmed during indoors, but her win at the Stanford makes me think that she has regained momentum. Matt: Isobel Batt-Doyle….I guess...She had a really good opener. John: Alexis Fuller for me, please! The senior didn’t have the close to her indoor season she would have liked, but she qualified for the national meet last year and then made the final this past winter. Her PR's of 2:05 and 4:12 are good enough win a national title (in theory). Sean: Jaci Smith. Surprise 10k scorer in 2018? Check. Surprise 5k scorer indoors in 2019? Check. Surprise NCAA Champion? Check coming soon... Sam: Cierra Simmons. My new strategy is to only draft people in the steeplechase. Someone has to score points there, right? Ben: Nia Akins. She finished 2nd in the 800 and is still here in the sixth round. I’ll take her. Michael: Sarah Edwards. She’s a toss up and could run the 1500 or the steeple. If she goes with the 1500, she could be a contender... 6th Round Commentary Sam: I was about to ask how long is it going to take before someone picks Orton… Garrett: Had to bite the bullet. She was simply too good and too experienced. Sam : I would hardly call it biting the bullet when we’re in the sixth round. I feel it’s a great pick. Michael: I was going to take Jaci Smith here! Matt: Solid strategy Sam, thought about doing this early but things got away from me. Garrett: I really like the Simmons pick. She is extremely underrated and showed that this past indoor season. Sam : She was one of two collegians to beat Charlotte Prouse last season so that’s worth something. Michael: Akins is an underrated pick here. Nice one, Ben. 7th Round Selections (Rapid Fire) Special Rules: Single points for anyone who has scored at an NCAA Championship track meet before. Double points for someone who has never scored at a (track) National Championship. Triple points for anyone who has never qualified for a National Championship on the track. Michael: Rachel McArthur. She could have scoring potential in the 800 or even the 1500...and I can’t pass up on triple points! Ben: Katrina Robinson. Gimme those triple points in the 5k. Sam: Rachel King. Sometimes I pace her workouts... Sean: Katy-Ann McDonald. John: GABBY CRANK! Matt: CAILIE LOGUE!!!!!!!!! Triple points here we come! Garrett: The make or break pick: Erin Finn 7th Round Commentary Garrett: Was really thinking about the McArthur pick… Sam : Robinson has a very high potential. Ben: I really like this 7th round everyone can just fire out their hot takes without any consequences. Sam : Agreed. I now have four of seven runners in the steeple, lol. Ben: Honestly, I don’t hate that strategy. You are guaranteed a good amount of points if only from the steeple. Garrett: I stacked the 800 and won the women’s indoor draft so it’s definitely not a bad strategy Matt: Garrett, once again, just make, no break. Garrett: She HAS to run this outdoor season...right? She didn’t run indoors and the big story line was her coming back to complete her eligibility. Unless she’s injured (again), I just don’t see why she wouldn’t compete this season... Michael: That could be the pick of the draft right there... Ben: I thought long and hard about Finn in the sixth round! I really like the pick even in the seventh round. Sam : Here’s another hot take. Finn doesn’t even qualify for NCAA's Ben: 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

Mike Fanelli Track Classic Leads to Multiple #1 Times With a newly minted name, the early-season meet in San Francisco stuck true in producing early strong results throughout the entirety of Division Two. We previewed the meet earlier in the week where we predicted fast results for many of the athletes that were attending. The meet now accounts for 33 marks that are inside the top 10 of times in the NCAA (for the distance events). Understandably, the season is still very young and we should see some more variety of meets scattered throughout the leaderboard at season’s end. On the men’s side, we saw Victor Moreau (Academy of Art) take home the victory in the 1500 as he ran 3:46.65, good enough for #2 in the NCAA. Moreau has quietly become of the top names in the country after a strong indoor track season where he walked with a 4th place All-American in the 3000 meters. If he is able to maintain this momentum from the indoor season, Moreau will be serious threat at the national meet (again). Ruben Dominguez (Cal Poly Pomona) entered the national title conversation this past weekend after running 14:01 and finishing 3rd overall (while taking over the top spot in D2). He has quietly come out of nowhere after training through the indoor season and preparing for the outdoor oval. He'll still need to elevate his fitness to another tier, but this result shows just how much he's refined his raw talent. Don't forget that this guy has personal bests of 1:55 and 3:49 in the middle distances as well. Jake Mitchem (Colorado Mines) and Edwin Kangogo (Alaska Anchorage) battled it out to near-matching times in the 3000 meter steeplechase. Mitchem led the way in 8:56.02 while Kangogo right behind him in 8:56.08. When you consider that it's not even April yet, you have to be excited about what this duo could bring to the table at the national meet in late May. Marcelo Laguera ran 29:25 and now sits #2 in the country at 10,000 meters. He held the top spot on the NCAA leaderboard until Zach Panning’s race in Raleigh the next day. Regardless, Laguera is on a mission to show that his cross country national title is no fluke. When we think of the elite distance runners in Division Two, we often think of Gidabuday and Panning. However, based on his recent performances, we may need to add Laguera into that conversation. Danielle McCormick (Alaska Anchorage) was the only woman who earned an NCAA #1 time this weekend. She won the race in 2:05.65 to lock her into another national meet. It's not quite enough to challenge someone like Skylyn Webb, but it could put her in a position to make significant improvements and make her a legitimate challenger. Sophie Dodd (Simon Fraser) was also in that race and ran 2:07.44. That time has her sitting at NCAA #3, but I feel like she'll build upon that mark over the next few months. She is quietly one of the better half-milers in the NCAA. It's also worth noting that Casey Monoszlay (Cal Poly Pomona) and Madeline Geesen (Colorado Mines) both ran under the 17:00 barrier for 5000 meters. Caroline Kurgat Shatters D2 10,000 Record When we all pulled up the Stanford Invitational start lists earlier in the week, we had a pretty reasonable guess that we would see a D2 record go down with Caroline Kurgat (Alaska Anchorage) entered in the invite section. However, she did more than just break the D2 national record. In fact, she exceeded our expectations as she ran 32:08 for a 5th place finish behind only the likes of Emily Sisson, Molly Huddle, Allie Ostrander (Boise State), and Paige Stoner (Syracuse). Heading into the meet, the record was held by Sylvia Mosqueda of Cal State LA when she ran 32:28 at the 1988 D2 Championships. Of course, Kurgat's record comes as no real surprise as she has already broken the indoor 3000 and 5000 records this past winter. After this weekend, she has one more record to try and take down as Neely Spence of Shippensburg holds the outdoor 5000 meter record with a time of 15:33. With Bryan Clay and Mt. Sac in just a few weeks, as well as Payton Jordan in May, Kurgat will have chances to claim the legendary quartet of records in D2. The Women’s 800 Looks to Be Deep We already mentioned Danielle McCormick and Sophie Dodd as they ran the NCAA #1 and #3 times in the country. McCormick ran 2:05.65 and Dodd ran 2:07.44, both personal bests for the ladies. Rachael Walters (Grand Valley State) ran 2:05.68 at the Florida Relays and is a second off of her personal best. She is a veteran who continues to be a consistently dangerous competitor in the middle distance events. Kristen Metcalfe (Embry-Riddle) has yet to debut in the 800 this outdoor season, but after her 2nd place finish at NCAA's and a 2:03 personal best, she certainly has to be considered as a threat. Skylyn Webb who hasn’t raced to her full potential yet this outdoor season, but the defending champion won’t be an easy out. When you look at all of these women, it's tough to ignore the talent. McCormick was the 2018 indoor NCAA champ, Webb is coming off of her second title, Cedarville's Carsyn Koch-Johnson is a former four-time national champion, and Metcalfe has a pair of runner-up finishes on the national stage (she’s also the outdoor D2 record holder at this event). When we get to late May, these will be the four names that we are likely talking about, but I would not be surprised if we had five to six legitimate contenders for the title. That's pretty crazy to think about when you consider how good Skylyn Webb is... Early, Fast 10k's Zach Panning (Grand Valley State) led the way in the 10k this weekend. He ran 28:30 at the Raleigh Relays and now currently sits almost a full minute ahead of NCAA #2. Panning's time is also a 35 second personal best and top 10 all-time performance in Division 2. We could give you some intricate analysis, but the message is simple. Panning is REALLY good. There were six athletes who broke the 30:00 barrier at Raleigh led by Panning's 3rd place finish. Jack Mastraneda (Charleston (W.V.), 29:36), George McCartney (Malone, 29:40), Matthew Pahl (Michigan Tech, 29:46), Daniel Haymes (West Texas A&M, 29:56) and Luke Greer (Carson Newman, 29:57) also joined in the festivities of the weekend. Let's also not forget about Stetson Rayas (Dallas Baptist) who found himself under the 30:00 barrier with a time of 29:43 at the Mike Fanelli Track Classic. Every single one of these performances was a personal best for each respective athlete which is another phenomenon within itself. The 10,000 has a chance to be one of the best races during championship season as the battle for the podium spots will be highly exciting. Underappreciated Performances Julia Howley (Simon Fraser) Julia Howley threw her name into the mix of Simon Fraser athletes who are competing well recently. The senior who primarily competes at the 1500/3000 distances gave the steeplechase a go for the first time in her career.The result? A time of 10:03.19 and an automatic qualifying mark that is nine seconds clear of what was required to run. That mark is a also a top 10 time in D2 history, leading us to believe that Howley can (and likely will) run faster than that by the time NCAA's roll around. Dennis Mbuta (Grand Valley State) The sophomore for Grand Valley is continuing to make a name for himself. At the Raleigh Relays this weekend, Mbuta ran one of the more impressive doubles in recent memory. Beginning with the 1500, Mbuta ran to a time of 3:46.98 and won his heat by three seconds. Given where Mbuta finished in the rankings for the mile during indoors, this doesn’t come as much of a surprise. It was the second time he has ever run a 1500 and he cut 11 seconds off his mark from last year. Mbuta proceeded to come back later in the day and win the invite section of the 800. His 1:49.89 is only six tenths of a second off of his overall PR and currently has him sitting at #2 in the NCAA. Jason Gomez (Notre Dame de Namur) Talk about a breakout performance from the freshman. With just a few meets underneath his belt, Gomez might have had the race of the weekend as he ran a three second personal best of 1:50.72 and was the second fastest D2 athlete at the Stanford Invitational. There was no evidence that this was coming this weekend given his last time out. Gomez currently sits in the #3 spot on the D2 performance list, but has likely booked his ticket to the NCAA meet in late May. I think it’s safe to assume that Gomez should get faster as the year goes on which could mean we will be talking about another guy in the 1:48 to 1:49 range.

Since TSR launched, we have been publishing Weekend Reviews which detail most of the top performances that took place over each respective weekend. However, those articles were often redundant and didn't mention anything that you couldn't already find. So this season, we're taking a different approach. We'll mention the top headlines from the weekend and discuss how they impact the rest of the country. Let's give this a go... FULL RESULTS FROM THIS WEEKEND HERE BYU Men Establish 10k and Steeplechase Dominance The BYU men and women entered the Stanford Invite ready to make a statement and they did just that. The duo of Conner Mantz and Clayton Young ran away from the field to post a 1-2 finish and secure the top two times in the country, running a pair of 28:18's. Daniel Carney (28:49) wasn't far behind while veteran Dallin Farnsworth ran 28:56 in the non-invite heat. But all of those men have shown that they were capable of posting times like that before, whether it be through their performances on the track or through their finishes during cross country. What might be even more impressive are the breakout performances we saw after that top group... Michael Ottesen (28:58), Connor Weaver (29:02), and Brayden McLelland (29:19) added a trio of impressive results, giving the Cougars even more firepower to a roster that is already overflowing with talent. That makes for a total of SEVEN different men under 29:20 before April of this season. That doesn't even include Rory Linkletter who was in Denmark for the World Cross Country Championships or Connor McMillan who ran 13:50 in the 5k this past weekend. And the steeplechase? That was just as impressive. Matt Owens and Clayson Shumway weren't able to chase down Indiana's Daniel Michalski for the win, but they were able to take the next two spots with times of 8:36 and 8:38, respectively. Teammate Jacob Heslington ran 8:43 to finish 8th in the same heat. Yet, what really grabbed my attention were the times we saw from their teammates. True freshman Kenneth Rooks ran 8:46 and Garrett Marsing ran 8:54 in the non-invite section. That gives the Cougars a total of five men under the nine minute barrier so far this season. What's even crazier is that we never mentioned Alex Hedquist or Porter Reddish, two men who have run under nine minutes before in their careers. They will likely dip under that mark later this season. It is difficult to fathom just how strong the BYU men were this past weekend. Still, we've seen this story before. In the past, the BYU men have destroyed their competition during the regular season, but would end up faltering on the national stage. Luckily, that trend seems to be diminishing when you look at the past two national meets. Between cross country and indoor track, the BYU men have earned eight All-American finishes from five different athletes this year. Take note, the Cougars have found a formula to succeed and this might be the deepest their roster has ever been. Hull Leads the Way for Numerous Breakout Performances We knew Jessica Hull was talented. Really talented. But did anyone expect her to dominate the 5k this past weekend? The Oregon superstar can seemingly do it all after running 15:34 for 5000 meters to take home the win at the Stanford Invite. Hull cruised past her competition in the mile and 3000 meters this past winter, but never ventured in the 5000 meters, leaving many to question how effective she could be by moving up in distance. Obviously, those doubts have been erased. Yet, as exciting as that performance was, let's chat about the runners who finished behind Hull. It was no surprise to see women like Erica Birk (15:38) or Makena Morley (15:43) cross the line with strong results, but the breakout performances we saw were just as impressive. Iowa State sophomore Cailie Logue came up big this past weekend, finishing as the 3rd overall collegiate in a time of 15:40. Utah's Sarah Feeney, who finished as an All-American in the mile this past indoor season, was close behind in 15:41. Minnesota's Bethany Hasz ran 15:45 and was closely followed by Georgetown's Josette Norris, the Hoya ace who has rallied back from injury to run a massive personal best of 15:46. Of the top seven collegiates in the Stanford Invite 5k, six of those women ended up with new personal bests. However, there is more to this race than just a few new personal bests. With Colorado's Dani Jones expected to make a return to the outdoor oval this season, many fans around the country were expecting her to matchup with Hull in the 1500 meters at Nationals. Is that potential head-to-head battle now in jeopardy? Could Hull move up to the 5000 meters where her kick becomes even more potent in tactical races? It suddenly seems possible... Underappreciated Performances Camp & Huerta have breakout performances, drop roughly three seconds off PR Cal State Fullerton ace Samantha Huerta had never run faster than 2:07.36, a personal best that dates back to March of last year. However, that changed this past weekend after she soloed a 2:04.33 to take home the win by nearly seven seconds at the Titan Team Challenge. As for BYU's Anna Camp, she was in a similar situation prior to this weekend. With a personal best of 2:07.27, she wasn't expected to be in contention for a top finish. Of course, that all changed when she dropped a 2:04.86 to finish as the 2nd overall collegiate (behind Notre Dame's Jessica Harris). Danae Rivers may have run 2:03 at the Florida Relays, but Huerta and Camp stole the spotlight this weekend. Bartlett edges Perretta at Florida Relays Although Florida alum Andres Arroyo pulled away for the win in a time of 1:45, he was closely followed by two national-caliber collegiates. After running a 3:44 last week, Avery Bartlett took top collegiate honors by out-kicking 2019 indoor finalist Domenic Perretta for the win, 1:47.54 to 1:47.75. Bartlett showed us last year that he thrives on the outdoor oval and 2019 seems to be no different. Women's steeplechase confirms speculation In our Stanford Invite Preview , Sam Ivanecky was expecting a big performance for South Dakota State's Rachel King while I sung the praises of Providence's Brianna Ilarda. As it turns out, we were both right. Ilarda went on to take the win in an NCAA #1 time of 9:50 while King settled for 2nd in 9:54 (NCAA #2). The consistency of Ilarda and the history of success for King made these two women great sleeper picks. Justine Kiprotich returns to national spotlight I'm not sure why, but there may not be anyone more dangerous than Kiprotich during outdoor track. The Michigan State star was runner-up in the 1500 at the national meet in 2017 and then 7th in the same race during 2018. After running 3:43 to take the win at the Raleigh Relays this past weekend, he will look to maintain his status as a legitimate title threat this outdoor season. Orton reclaims top position in the 1500 The BYU miler entered the indoor track season with high expectations from fans within the running community. However, some of her performances seemed to lack a spark as she barely snuck into the national meet and failed to get out of the prelims at Nationals. Despite the less than ideal ending to her indoor season, Orton found a way to regain her momentum this past weekend by finishing as the top collegiate in the Stanford Invite 1500 with a time of 4:15 (NCAA #1) to defeat other national stars like Millie Paladino, Susan Ejore, and Lauren Gregory (among others). Aaron Templeton continues to validate breakout year When the Furman superstar finished 4th in the Pre-Nats Cardinal race during cross country, some people (including ourselves) wondered if he would be able to replicate that performance...then he finished 5th at the Cross Country National Championships. After training through the indoor track season due to expired eligibility, Templeton came back to the outdoor oval and made a huge statement. The Paladin veteran ran 28:27 at the Raleigh Relays to easily outrun an established 10k stud in Lawrence Kipkoech who ran 28:41 for 2nd. In a year where the 10,000 meter title seems relatively wide-open, Templeton has emerged as an exciting sleeper pick for June. Quick Thoughts Cole Rockhold (Colorado State) He was injured at the end of cross country and caught the tail-end of the indoor season. To comeback and run 13:53 at Stanford is a very good sign for someone who could end up as an All-American. Isobel Batt-Doyle (Washington) Lilli Burdon and Katie Rainsberger often grab the attention on the Huskies' roster, but Batt-Dolye had an excellent performance in the 10k at Stanford this past weekend. While Ostrander, Stoner, and Kurgat stole the spotlight, it was Batt-Dolye who finished 4th in a time of 32:20. She should be getting more attention for a performance that was quietly one of the better breakout results of the weekend (it was a new personal best by a minute and 21 seconds). Theo Quax (Northern Arizona) The true freshman from New Zealand toed the line for the first major invite of his college career and the result did not disappoint. Despite some of the initial attention being directed to teammate Brodey Hasty (who ran 13:55), it was Quax who ran a time of 13:49 to win section two of the Stanford Invite 5k. With this performance, Quax adds even more firepower to NAU's endless roster of superstars. With many top veterans on the team leaving after this season, Quax's emergence could not have come at a better time. Furman's Steeplechase Duo How about the Lady Paladins? Gabrielle Jennings and Kristlin Gear went 1-2 in the steeplechase at the Raleigh Relays with times of 9:59 and 10:05, respectively. The next closest finisher was 10 seconds back. Whenever you can go into a major invitational and cruise past the competition, it's hard not to be excited. Those times aren't going to win a national title, but it's a great way to start the spring. Expect Jennings and Gear to use this past weekend as a momentum builder for the next few months. Indiana Men Kyle Mau and Ben Veatch are going to be a problem. The Hoosier duo went 1-2 in the Stanford Invite 5k with times of 13:44 and 13:45, respectively. Their ability to close in the final 400 meters showed how dynamic their racing style is. However, the biggest performance had to be from Daniel Michalski. He had a respectable indoor season, but no one was expecting him to unleash an 8:35 steeplechase to upset some of the biggest and best names in the nation. He showed us plenty of potential this past winter with consistent PR's as well as a few wins. Don't think he can't be a contender for a national title. Jessica Lawson (Stanford) Let's talk about sophomore Jessica Lawson. She had a few respectable performances during the winter and fall, but to run 4:18 in her season debut is a very encouraging result. The Stanford underclassman finished 4th in the Stanford Invite 1500 and held off a few notable names in the process. It's taken some time for the New York native to acclimate to collegiate competition, but this is the first result we've seen from Lawson that indicates that she can be just as good as teammates like Fiona O'Keeffe, Abbie McNulty, Christina Aragon, Caitlin Collier, and Ella Donaghu.

The first major meet of the outdoor season is finally here! As always, the Stanford Invite will feature some of the biggest and best names in the NCAA and provide us with one of the more exciting meets of the outdoor season. Below, Sam and Garrett teamed up to discuss the entries and the performances that could highlight the weekend... Entries found here Which event are you most excited to see? Sam The women’s Invite 5000 is absolutely loaded. Jessica Hull will be the (obvious?) favorite after going undefeated during the indoor season, including dominant wins in the 3000 and DMR. She won’t get the win easily though, as both Allie Ostrander and Erica Birk should make things interesting. Ostrander is more known for the steeplechase outdoors, but this race should give her a chance to chase a fast time. It doesn’t make sense for her to run the 5000 at NCAA's (given the high level of competition) so this may be one of the few times we see her in this event during outdoors. Still, let's not forget that she did run 15:16 indoors at BU, which is her lifetime personal best. I could also see Erica Birk running a big personal best this weekend. Somehow, her fastest 5000 meter time on TFRRS is a 17:05 which isn’t even relevant at this point. I think Hull will probably win this one, but I could see Birk finishing ahead of Ostrander. The field also includes Makena Morley, Katherine Receveur, Aubrey Roberts and Callie Logue… it’s crazy deep for this early in the season. Garrett I'm going with the men's Invite 1500 on this one. There are a slew of sub-four guys in this race that are dynamic athletes who can make this race exciting. For the most part, everyone in this field is evenly matched and I think it's a great chance for a handful of underrated studs like George Kusche, Jack Anstey, Sam Ritz, Kieran Wood, and Talon Hull to get some attention on a big stage. Don't be surprised if we see someone flirt around the 3:40 mark. With Arizona State's William Paulson and Kasey Knevelbaard headlining the field, things could get very fast. I'm a really big fan of all of these guys, so I'm excited to see them toe the line. Which athlete who didn’t run indoors are you most excited to see on the outdoor track? Sam Hassan Abdi of Oklahoma State is someone we haven’t seen on the NCAA stage for awhile. If you don’t count the 1500 he just ran at Arkansas, he hasn’t raced against collegiate competition since this meet a year ago, in which he ended up dropping out. Abdi was a big name a couple years back when he was raking in top 10 finishes nationally, but with his extended absence, I almost forgot he still had eligibility left. He owns a personal best of 28:54 in the 10k and I think he has the potential to be in the mix this weekend based on his credentials. Garrett I'll go with Paige Duca of Boston College. I wrote about how she was one of the more underrated names in the NCAA entering this past indoor season, but she never toed the line. If she's completely healthy, I think she is someone who is sneaky good. Duca is a respectable tactical miler who can also post an array of strong times (at a variety of distances). She made the invite section of the 1500, so expect her to run something close (or under) her personal best time of 4:18. How will Brodey Hasty fare in his outdoor track collegiate debut for NAU? (Second heat of the 5000) Sam This heat of the 5000 is a great field for Hasty and it sets him up for his first collegiate win if everything goes to plan. He is going to see strong competition from guys like Carlos Villarreal of Arizona and Brody Smith of Purdue, but I think Hasty is definitely capable of winning this race now that he’s under the guidance of Mike Smith at NAU. The biggest question will be how he handles the collegiate scene versus high school racing, but I think he got in enough big meets in during the indoor season to hold his own. Garrett He'll do...ok, I guess? It's tough to say. I'll be honest, I wasn't really blown away by Hasty this past indoor season. He held his own, but I wasn't overly impressed. That said, I think the Stanford Invite will be the perfect opportunity for him to get a nice mark under his belt. I don't think he'll win (given his lack of experience), but I could see him running under 14:10. Which athlete will break through and make a name for themselves this weekend? Sam Normally, I don’t like to write about teammates, but I’m going to break that rule because I think Rachel King could have a huge showing in the steeplechase at this meet. I realize her personal best is 9:57 and she qualified for NCAA's last year, but I think she could really break through as a contender on the national scene this weekend. King has been steadily improving since her freshman year and made a big jump to reach the national meet for the first time last season. The field for this meet features a few other women who made NCAA's including Ciera Simmons of Utah State. While Simmons should come in as the favorite, King will have a great chance to get the win and make a name for herself on a national level. Garrett I'm going bold here and saying that Devin Meyrer from Michigan is going to have a huge day in the 10,000 meters. The transfer from Baylor now has a few seasons at Ann Arbor under his belt and I think that will benefit him as he moves to the longer distance. His personal best is "only" 31:09, but keep in mind that he's only run one 10k on the track in his entire collegiate career. With Coach Sullivan now overseeing his training, I expect to see a breakout performance from Meyrer. How many athletes entered in the steeplechase will we see at NCAA's? Sam King, Simmons, Wayment, Owens, Roth, Rotich and Shumway. Three of the women, four of the men. Total of seven. Garrett I really like what we saw from Briana Ilarda of Providence this past winter. She was kept in the shadow of Millie Paladino, but had a slew of impressive performances. I think you're going to see her, Courtney Wayment (BYU), Rachel King (South Dakota State), and Cierra Simmons (Utah State) make it to the NCAA meet in June. After that, I don't feel super confident picking too many others. In the end, that's four total women. As for the men, I feel like I could pick this entire field (and that's only the invite heat I'm talking about). Shumway is a lock. Owens is a lock. Heslington is...not quite a lock, but a heavy favorite to qualify. It would also be shocking if neither Rotich nor Roth qualified. Overall, I think those five are very strong candidates to qualify for the outdoor national meet. Then there are other guys like Absacal, Mylenek, Manley, Schutte, and Ewing who could all find a spot to Austin, Texas if they have a great day. If I have to choose a number, I'm going with seven total men. Don't ask me which ones. That gives us a (very shaky) grand total of 11. What will be the biggest takeaway from this meet? Sam We’re going to see someone emerge in the steeplechase on the men’s side who could be a real contender for the win at the national meet. I don’t know who, although I like Shumway’s chances, but someone is going to come up big this weekend in the steeplechase. I think the same thing is less likely to happen for the women given there are a lot of big names who are running other events or not racing at all. Garrett We haven't really talked much about the 10k yet, but that is always the premier event of this meet (or at least one of them). In fact, there's a good chance we could see the fastest time of the entire season posted at Stanford this weekend. However, let's keep in mind that no man since 2012 has run the fastest 10k in the country and won the 10k national title in the same year. As for the women, that trend only lasts until 2016. Basically, get excited to watch a bunch of fast times, but let's not automatically declare the top collegiate finisher as the NCAA title favorite after this weekend. History advises against that.