Aggie point projections for tomorrow's last day ??

I have the women winning the meet by 9.5 points over Oklahoma.

A&M - 136
OU - 126.5
Neb - 116.5
tu - 90

Not an exact science but used Big12 seeds along with who made it to finals. So it essentially has it to where Beard and Collier only get one point in the 200. I expect the women to end up north of 150 given a good performance tomorrow.

I have the men projected to win by quite a margin.

A&M - 153.5
OU - 102
tu - 96
Neb - 89.5
TT - 82


[This message has been edited by clw04 (edited 5/14/2011 11:01p).]

Women

4x100 - A&M 10, tu 6, OU 5, Neb 1
Steeple - Neb 10, OU 3
1500 - tu 9, Neb 4
100h - A&M 11, OU 4
400 - A&M 15, tu 4
100 - A&M 22, OU 9
800 - tu 3, OU 10
400h - A&M 4, tu 11
200 - A&M 19, tu 9, OU 8
5000 - tu 4, OU 5
4x400 - A&M 10, tu 8, Neb 2, OU 4
Discus - Neb 5, OU 12
TJ - A&M 6, Neb 12, OU 6
HJ - tu 27, Neb 5.5, OU 4.5
PV - A&M 8, Neb 15, OU 11

A&M 136, OU 126.5, Neb 116.5, tu 90

Thanks clw... I enjoy looking at the projections heading into the finals.

Men
4x100 - A&M 10, tu 6, Neb 3, OU 4
Steeple - A&M 2, tu 1, Neb 10, TT 5
1500 - A&M 1, tu 5, OU 11
100h - A&M 3, tu 8, OU 1, TT 25
400 - A&M 23, tu 2, TT 7
100 - A&M 17, OU 5
800 - A&M 23, Neb 2, OU 1
400h - Neb 10, OU 6, TT 18
200 - A&M 12, OU 10
5000 - OU 12
4x400 - A&M 10, tu 5, Neb 3, OU 2, TT 6
Discus - tu 1, Neb 10, OU 8, TT 10
TJ - A&M 10, tu 14, Neb 8

A&M 153.5, OU 102, tu 96, Neb 89.5, TT 82

Big 12 seeds don't mean squat at this point. The times that place them in seeding were all run on different days at different meets on different tracks. There is nobody in either the 100m or 200m final that has ever beaten Jeneba Tarmoh at either distance.

Well, JR, give a better way to do projections in a non-biased version? Its not supposed to be a prediction, its supposed to be a general scorecard with what to look for in each event to keep track of the effect on the final score.

Sorry clw - didn't mean to hurt your feelings after all that work.

What you've created is a form chart based solely on performances posted during the season without regard to any other details. Even the T&F News Form Charts, as flawed as they usually are, try to consider such things as when, where, vs who, weather conditions, any head to heads, etc.

I know the difference between projections and predictions. All I'm saying is don't hang your hat on these projections - they are an interesting exercise, but if you put too much stock in them it leads to disappointment.

Wow JR, so you're saying CLW's posts there arent as thorough as T&F News Form Charts???

Really????

It's a good thing we have you to keep all this straight. In the meantime, I'd like to thank CLW. I bet he gives a decent projection, and I didnt have time to run out and get my daily Form Chart today.

What is the beef on the Other Sports board lately?? I think most of us are here because we love all of the "Olympic/nonrevenue" sports, and I think most people on Texags have some microm of nerdiness to them...but all of a sudden, it's like doing research is "uncool". You guys must be hanging out on the football boards too often, where everybody flies of the handle with whatever made up opinion they want...excuse us for having some facts and figures in our posts? It doesn't mean we "don't have lives," it doesn't mean we're saying what will happen, it doesn't mean we're claiming we can predict the future. It's what we do. Geeze!

I don't think anybody on here believes that history 100% can predict the future. But it's a good baseline, and by pointing out that history doesn't predict the future 100%, you earn a collective eye roll from everyone. If you disagree with the history, just say where you think the changes will be! You don't have to make it a big pissing contest about what history means or doesn't mean.

[This message has been edited by AGBlastoff (edited 5/15/2011 11:28a).]

Womens HJ:
tu gets 23.5
ou gets 6.5
ne gets 2.5
A&M gets 2.5 (Fitspatrick)

So ou gets 2 more than clw projects, but we get 2.5 more, so we gain 0.5 pts on the projection.

Plano,

I'm planning on updating the projections on the other TF thread until I have to head to church @ 6.

Good grief there's some thin skins on here. I will repeat my apology to clw and also repeat my acknowledgement of the work he put in in putting together his projections.

You might also note that there is still no one in the women's 100m or 200m field that has ever beaten Jeneba Tarmoh.

Let's give clw's projections, however overly simplistic they may or may not have been, some credit. I think they turned out to be what he wanted them to be- a baseline to look at the general state of the teams and adjust up or down as things went along when they were all put on the same track in the same weather.

They were generally within 8-10 points or so of being correct. They were but half a point off on the Texas women and 2 and half points off on the Nebraska women. 5 points off on the Nebraska men.

I really don't understand why, in a stopwatch sport like track and field, that we can win 2 NCs in a row, and managed not to win the Big12 men until this year. Do we just make little attempt to taper and peak for the Big12s?

In any case, congrats to both the mens and womens teams for the conference titles.

[This message has been edited by SpicewoodAg (edited 5/16/2011 9:09a).]

Conference meets are more about depth and NC meets reward top performers.

As an example, Michael Preble just won the 800 with a PR. However, his time only ranks him 8th in the nation.

quote:

---

I really don't understand why, in a stopwatch sport like track and field, that we can win 2 NCs in a row, and managed not to win the Big12 men until this year. Do we just make little attempt to taper and peak for the Big12s?

---

it is rarer to have multiple qualifications for finals in the Nationals. Then when you do, they might not place consecutively like they would in conference...

for instance, I think it was the men's 200... we had 5/9 entires... if all 5 were to walk to the finish that's still 10 points.

I'm very proud of the track teams. Two more trophies!

Great job Track team and Pat Henry.

Good prediction, clw.

My complaint (locally) is that the hiring of a basketball coach trumps dual conference championships in track. If football had done it, there would be a tickertape parade in bcs. Local media has a beautiful opportunity to do individual stories on the seniors on these 2 teams and just don't show any interest.

Congrats coaches and tracksters.

The unofficial Texags Other Sports Big 12 Championship (Track) clw Women's projection
A&M 136, OU 126.5, Neb 116.5, tu 90

Results
1 Texas A&M 146.0 (+10)
2 Nebraska 119.0 (+2.5)
3 Oklahoma 117.0 (-9.5)
4 Texas 90.5 (+0.5)

good job clw! The OU girl DNF in the 800 could've been 10 pts for them.

The unofficial Texags Other Sports Big 12 Championship (Track) clw Men's projection
A&M 153.5, OU 102, tu 96, Neb 89.5, TT 82

Results
1 Texas A&M 175.0 (+21.5)
2 Texas 103.5 (+7.5)
3 Oklahoma 90 (-12)
4 Nebraska 84.5 (-5)
5 Texas Tech 74 (-8)

I stopped the update after knowing we were destroying competition. That was fun. Thanks!

Thanks guys, but it just took 30-45 minutes to put together the seeds, who qualified and who ran.

I'll be using the Track and Field News formchart when the NCs come around since they do a little more thorough job.

do the Aggies look to do well at Regionals and the Championships?

They should do excellent at regionals and on into nationals. The men could very well have multiple qualifiers from the 100 on up through the 800 at nationals. Jumps and relays are terrific as usual.

Pretty similar story with the women. A little more geared towards the 100 and 200 than the men's group is. Daphne Fitzpatrick's already qualified for nationals in the heptathlon.

It'll be interesting to see what both the men and women can do in the javelin at regionals. Not going to be a big point event at nationals, though.

so the Aggies do well in sprints but are not deep in field and long distance?

The hundred times were impressive.