Men's Track Rises to #19 Ranking

Great accomplishment.

It is. Especially given the limited weeks of warm weather the team has. Meanwhile, it's intriguing to see CornellBigRed headlines such as "No. 61 MTennis visits Bucknell."

Are we actually improving overall, or is this just the rise and fall of specific sports? It sure seems to me with hindsight that Cornell was, in the main, awful in the 80's and 90's, and that the last 15+ years have seen a rising tide.

billhoward
It is. Especially given the limited weeks of warm weather the team has. Meanwhile, it's intriguing to see CornellBigRed headlines such as "No. 61 MTennis visits Bucknell."

Don't really need that much warm weather for track. You train all year round anyway. Distance guys run outside no matter what the weather and our indoor facility is very good (Could have less cotton mouth effect and be banked but other than that it is good and allows the team to train even in poor weather). All this said, the ranking won't last too long as if I recall correctly track rankings are based on a virtual scoring at nationals based on the current performance lists, and many of the best runners (particularly distance guys) are just coming off their first race. Regional championships like IC4As, and the NCAA Regionals will produce all sorts of times that are likely to drop some of our guys down the list. In short, great accomplishment, but the action on the track is just about to get fun.

Trotsky
Are we actually improving overall, or is this just the rise and fall of specific sports? It sure seems to me with hindsight that Cornell was, in the main, awful in the 80's and 90's, and that the last 15+ years have seen a rising tide.

The release said this ranking system has only been in existence since 2008. I feel like the track teams in general have been very good for longer than that. Whether they would have received a ranking this high in any of the previous successful years is way beyond my understanding, and I'll leave that open to be answered by anybody who knows the sport well.

I lived in one of the track houses, though I was far from a track athlete. I graduated in 2006, and some of my roommates (either my year or the year after) won Heps 7 out of 8 times (indoor + outdoor). The track program has dominated the Ivy League for the last decade now.

Trotsky
Are we actually improving overall, or is this just the rise and fall of specific sports? It sure seems to me with hindsight that Cornell was, in the main, awful in the 80's and 90's, and that the last 15+ years have seen a rising tide.

It is The System.

Director's Cup standings since 1994.

Cornell's rank:

1994 69
1995 134
1996 79
1997 90
1998 202 (dead last)
1999 163
2000 140
2001 122
2002 72
2003 97
2004 80
2005 73
2006 66
2007 55
2008 75
2009 59
2010 52
2011 70
2012 67
2013 65 in current standings

Incidentally, Princeton is on pace to finish in the top 20!

Oops, found this after going through every year manually...

So coaches vote on the rankings?

Shouldn't ranking of track teams be completely objective? Presumably everyone runs/participates in the same events. You have the times, distances, heights, etc. Should be pretty straightforward, relative to team sports.

Jordan 04
So coaches vote on the rankings?

Shouldn't ranking of track teams be completely objective? Presumably everyone runs/participates in the same events. You have the times, distances, heights, etc. Should be pretty straightforward, relative to team sports.

I'm pretty sure coaches only vote in Cross Country. As I said, I'm pretty sure that Track Rankings are computerized based on the current performance lists, which is why I said this is a great accomplishment, but it may not last because a lot of great runners and field athletes, but particularly distance runners, have yet to really start their seasons, which means that the performance lists that these results are based on will change massively. There's also some data involved from prior seasons. But its determined based on where these runners would finish at nationals based on their current times and a few other factors unlike Cross Country, where quite frankly time is irrelevant and place is all that matters.

css228

Jordan 04
So coaches vote on the rankings?

Shouldn't ranking of track teams be completely objective? Presumably everyone runs/participates in the same events. You have the times, distances, heights, etc. Should be pretty straightforward, relative to team sports.

I'm pretty sure coaches only vote in Cross Country. As I said, I'm pretty sure that Track Rankings are computerized based on the current performance lists, which is why I said this is a great accomplishment, but it may not last because a lot of great runners and field athletes, but particularly distance runners, have yet to really start their seasons, which means that the performance lists that these results are based on will change massively. There's also some data involved from prior seasons. But its determined based on where these runners would finish at nationals based on their current times and a few other factors unlike Cross Country, where quite frankly time is irrelevant and place is all that matters.

Interesting, thanks.

RichH

Trotsky
Are we actually improving overall, or is this just the rise and fall of specific sports? It sure seems to me with hindsight that Cornell was, in the main, awful in the 80's and 90's, and that the last 15+ years have seen a rising tide.

The release said this ranking system has only been in existence since 2008. I feel like the track teams in general have been very good for longer than that. Whether they would have received a ranking this high in any of the previous successful years is way beyond my understanding, and I'll leave that open to be answered by anybody who knows the sport well.

When I was on the team in the 70s, we had at least one top 20 ranking. I seem to recall we got as high as 15th. That was in the days of Dave Doupe, Jim Leonard, Jorman Granger, etc. I wish I could say I contributed to that ranking, but I was just a journeyman javelin thrower who picked up a few points here and there in the smaller meets.

Javelin thrower? Your username is unrelated?

Women win Outdoor Heps. Men finish second to Princeton.

I don't watch much track but if the women win with 145 points, what does it say about Yale that they managed only 10 in finishing last? Yale men also last by a good margin.

nyc94
Women win Outdoor Heps. Men finish second to Princeton.

I don't watch much track but if the women win with 145 points, what does it say about Yale that they managed only 10 in finishing last? Yale men also last by a good margin.

Like usual it means that there are a few teams are really stacked and the rest of the league isn't very good, especially on the Men's side where in track it has been Princeton and Cornell for so long that the rest of the league basically concedes Indoor and Outdoor to them and focuses on Cross Country where one or two athletes can make a far greater difference. Since there are roster limits for Heps it also means that the best teams have to have a quite few guys who can score (top six) in multiple events (one reason Cornell tends to focus on sprint and field points, distance guys can't really run as many events in one championships). If it weren't for roster limits, Cornell would probably win Heps almost every year, since we leave a lot of IC4A qualifiers off the Heps roster, particularly in distance, where Princeton's dominance pretty much undid our chances. Usually if we want to win Dartmouth or Columbia or someone else needs to take some points there. But back to Yale, what it says is that it has very few people on their team can finish in the top 6 of an event, even when other teams athletes are doubling and they are focusing on taking points wherever they can. Heps is scored 10-8-6-4-2-1 from 1st to 6th in each event, so that means they had at most 10 6th place scorers in about 20 events, including the relays in which 3/4 of the league scores. It's more likely they only had 2-3 scorers.

css228

nyc94
Women win Outdoor Heps. Men finish second to Princeton.

I don't watch much track but if the women win with 145 points, what does it say about Yale that they managed only 10 in finishing last? Yale men also last by a good margin.

Like usual it means that there are a few teams are really stacked and the rest of the league isn't very good, especially on the Men's side where in track it has been Princeton and Cornell for so long that the rest of the league basically concedes Indoor and Outdoor to them and focuses on Cross Country where one or two athletes can make a far greater difference. Since there are roster limits for Heps it also means that the best teams have to have a quite few guys who can score (top six) in multiple events (one reason Cornell tends to focus on sprint and field points, distance guys can't really run as many events in one championships). If it weren't for roster limits, Cornell would probably win Heps almost every year, since we leave a lot of IC4A qualifiers off the Heps roster, particularly in distance, where Princeton's dominance pretty much undid our chances. Usually if we want to win Dartmouth or Columbia or someone else needs to take some points there. But back to Yale, what it says is that it has very few people on their team can finish in the top 6 of an event, even when other teams athletes are doubling and they are focusing on taking points wherever they can. Heps is scored 10-8-6-4-2-1 from 1st to 6th in each event, so that means they had at most 10 6th place scorers in about 20 events, including the relays in which 3/4 of the league scores. It's more likely they only had 2-3 scorers.

Thanks for the reply. I still find it amazing the Yale women scored only 10 points when even seventh place Penn managed 56. The Penn men were also seventh, 46 points to Yale's 19.

nyc94
I still find it amazing the Yale women scored only 10 points when even seventh place Penn managed 56. The Penn men were also seventh, 46 points to Yale's 19.

Marching on the Dean's Office is no longer an Ivy/Heps event. Else all the Ivies would be Top Ten.

Close of dual season at #13 if I remember a tweet correctly.