xxxc
Contributor
Posts: 21
|
Post by xxxc on Oct 16, 2007 16:51:41 GMT -5
Who's making it onto Sectionals?!
I've started with the Rock Falls and Princeton Regionals (both part of the Belvidere Sectional), and here's how I'm seeing them:
ROCK FALLS
1. Sycamore
2. Rock Island Alleman
3. Dixon
4. Kaneland
5. Geneseo
Individuals:
1. Campbell, Sycamore
2. Hird, Alleman
3. Gilmer, Sycamore
4. Grimson, Sycamore
5. McGuire, Alleman
6. Hueber, Sycamore
PRINCETON
1. Yorkville
2. Sandwich
3. Aurora Central Catholic
4. Princeton
5. IMSA
Individuals:
1. C. Mickow, Princeton
2. Tanis, Yorkville
3. H. Mickow, Princeton
4. Sliwa, Yorkville
5. Stahl, Sandwich
6. Pape, Yorkville
|
|
|
|
Post by xcrunner30 on Oct 16, 2007 17:16:21 GMT -5
Might wanna look for Kasey Ferrigan or Matt Logan from Dixon to be in the top 6. They've both been right around/ahead of Gilmer so far this season. I think with the performance Gilmer had at conference he is now ahead of both of them, but they are still people to look for in that race.
|
|
xxxc
Contributor
Posts: 21
|
Post by xxxc on Oct 16, 2007 18:21:27 GMT -5
Might wanna look for Kasey Ferrigan or Matt Logan from Dixon to be in the top 6. They've both been right around/ahead of Gilmer so far this season. I think with the performance Gilmer had at conference he is now ahead of both of them, but they are still people to look for in that race. I agree. Plus, Sycamore should be on auto-pilot in terms of qualifying whereas Dixon's runners have less margin for error in terms of moving on to Sectionals. |
|
|
|
Post by midwestrun09xc on Oct 16, 2007 19:03:32 GMT -5
Might wanna look for Kasey Ferrigan or Matt Logan from Dixon to be in the top 6. They've both been right around/ahead of Gilmer so far this season. I think with the performance Gilmer had at conference he is now ahead of both of them, but they are still people to look for in that race. I agree. Plus, Sycamore should be on auto-pilot in terms of qualifying whereas Dixon's runners have less margin for error in terms of moving on to Sectionals. Being on auto-pilot would be a terrible idea. Sycamore is not gods, they are not all dominate. I bet you that they will not give anyone a reason to beat them in that race. ( i should probably have more bias for my own team then sycamore) |
|
xxxc
Contributor
Posts: 21
|
Post by xxxc on Oct 16, 2007 20:44:25 GMT -5
I agree. Plus, Sycamore should be on auto-pilot in terms of qualifying whereas Dixon's runners have less margin for error in terms of moving on to Sectionals. Being on auto-pilot would be a terrible idea. Sycamore is not gods, they are not all dominate. I bet you that they will not give anyone a reason to beat them in that race. ( i should probably have more bias for my own team then sycamore) What do you mean with "I should probably have more bias for my own team than Sycamore"? Aren't you Stefan Hueber from Sycamore? |
|
|
|
Post by midwestrun09xc on Oct 16, 2007 22:06:51 GMT -5
haha, no i just know him from camp pf champs. Who said i was him?
|
|
|
|
Post by midwestrun09xc on Oct 16, 2007 22:10:09 GMT -5
I belive Stefan was FossumXC. He doesnt post anymore though, idk why.
|
|
|
|
Post by xcrunner15 on Oct 16, 2007 22:12:36 GMT -5
for rockfalls, id say
ROCK FALLS
1. Sycamore
2. Rock Island Alleman
3. Kaneland
4. Dixon
5. Geneseo
Individuals:
1. Campbell, Sycamore
2. Hird, Alleman
3. Ferrigan, Dixon
4. McGuire, Alleman
5. Grimson, Sycamore
6. Logan, Dixon
7. Gilmer, Sycamore
8. Hueber, Sycamore
9.Lopez, Alleman
|
|
|
|
Post by 800man on Oct 16, 2007 22:19:42 GMT -5
I understand the desire to state who the top finishers would be but doesn't it make more sense to post the top individuals that will qualify not on a team. If Sycamore qualifies for Sectionals, Campbell, Gilmer, Hueber, and Grimson and their other three all qualify too. Why not post the "qualifying individuals"?
|
|
xxxc
Contributor
Posts: 21
|
Post by xxxc on Oct 16, 2007 22:32:48 GMT -5
haha, no i just know him from camp pf champs. Who said i was him? Your member's bio lists your email address as 'stefanhueber@yahoo.com' |
|
|
|
Post by midwestrun09xc on Oct 16, 2007 22:58:35 GMT -5
He made it for me, as odd as it sounds
|
|
|
|
Post by midwestrun09xc on Oct 16, 2007 23:14:50 GMT -5
haha, no i just know him from camp pf champs. Who said i was him? Your member's bio lists your email address as 'stefanhueber@yahoo.com' Did he change it, i dont know where is says the emails and all? |
|
|
|
Post by runninman447 on Oct 17, 2007 21:46:02 GMT -5
Does anyone have any predictions for the Freeport Regional?
|
|
|
|
Post by xcrunner30 on Oct 18, 2007 20:29:42 GMT -5
for rockfalls, id say ROCK FALLS1. Sycamore 2. Rock Island Alleman 3. Kaneland 4. Dixon 5. Geneseo Individuals: 1. Campbell, Sycamore 2. Hird, Alleman 3. Ferrigan, Dixon 4. McGuire, Alleman 5. Grimson, Sycamore 6. Logan, Dixon 7. Gilmer, Sycamore 8. Hueber, Sycamore 9.Lopez, Alleman I respectfully disagree with those. If you look at the times, Gilmer was only 6 seconds away from Campbell at the conference meet, granted I bet Campbell didn't give it his all because he had that race in the bag. Still, Campbell ran a 15:47 at Kaneland earlier in the year a week after he ran a 15:12 at Detweiller. That's 35 seconds or so, therefore Gilmer's converted time would be about a 15:16 at Detweiller. I'm seriously doubting that Hueber, Logan, McGuire or Ferrigan could run that. McGuire has been running 40-60 seconds back of Hird. I believe that xxxc got it right in his original rankings. I believe that Grimson will be working his way up the pack during the race because he proved at Conference that he's not done yet. |
|
|
|
Post by xcrunner15 on Oct 18, 2007 21:37:35 GMT -5
actually, the last meet, mcguire was only 30 seconds off Hird at 15:30. ferrigan went a 15:19 on peoria almost three weeks ago. I didnt ask if u agreed with my rankings. The only thing I mite change is having grimson as number 3 if he is recovered over whatever his problem has been. I wouldnt change anything. No offense to gilmer, but until he runs faster then a 15:50 no matter what course , i still see him as sycamores number 3
|
|
