Scored Meet…

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 19 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #12252
      DonCheadle
      Member

      Here it is:

      School SumOfPoints
      Olivet 412
      Hope 367
      Kalamazoo 311
      Calvin 164
      Albion 105
      Alma 16

      A couple of things:
      1a) This is based on predicted results, not seed times or anything else like that.
      1) Diving I really had no idea. I gave the albion guy both boards and olive 2-5.
      2) I don’t think Krone is tapering. I have Heyboer beating him in the 500.
      3) I have Dekker winning 200 Im, 100 fly, 200 fly
      4) The point differential between Kzoo and Hope is about the same as Hope to Olivet. If it is reasonable for Hope to think they can win, it is reasonable for kzoo to think they can get 2nd
      5) Relays are not counted here.
      6) When in doubt, I gave the edge to Hope 1, Kzoo 2, Olivet 3. I used a lot of times from last year.

    • #34349
      DonCheadle
      Member

      Rank Swimmer Name SumOfPoints
      1 Heyboer, Phil 48
      2 Vanderbroek, Chaz 42
      3 Rose, Matt 38
      4 Engers, Wade 36
      5 Nelis, Ryan 35
      6 Ruch, Mitch 26
      7 Waterstone, Kyle 24
      8 Kurti, Steve 21
      9 Collins, Brian 19
      10 King, Brandon 18
      11 Vogelzang, Ryan 11
      12 Richardson, James 11
      13 Holton, Jacob 11
      14 Hoesch, Karl 8
      15 Cook, Jake 7
      16 Glas, Abram 5
      17 Bravo, Andre 4
      18 O’Brien, Kevin 3
      19 Ray, Matt 3
      20 Greer, Aaron 1

      Hope will need to exhibition 2 of these guys.

    • #34350
      silentp
      Member

      For those of you wondering, the BEST case scenario for Hope would have them outscoring K by 18 on relays, and that’s with K getting 4th in all 3 free relays and Hope beating Olivet in both medlies, which i think most Hope people think is a foregone conclusion, even though it’s not.
      In this scenario, Hope would outscore Olivet by 22, assuming Olivet gets 2nd in all free relays and 3rd in both medlies. Just FYI

    • #34351
      stewie
      Member

      Just FYI, the top 18 guys listed above may not be the top 18 guys that Hope will use at the meet.

      Also, we are assuming you put people in their correct events. A lot to assume there and we all what assuming gets you…

    • #34352
      Monkey Boy
      Member

      Also, we are assuming you put people in their correct events. A lot to assume there and we all what assuming gets you…

      Normally this would win the ‘Thanks for stating the obvious, jackass!’ award, but…

      Just FYI, the top 18 guys listed above may not be the top 18 guys that Hope will use at the meet.

      … is just too much! 😆

      Great job!

    • #34353
      DonCheadle
      Member

      One correction I made was that I had waterstone going a 159.50 in the 200 fly when I should have written 119.50 I got that corrected in the team scores but I did not post the corrected individual point total. Anyhow, from a Hope perspective, who do you look at and think that he is scoring more points than what I posted?

    • #34354
      Ghost Rider
      Member

      Cheadle,
      I was wondering how you broke down the points for Olivet and K, since you did so for Hope? I don’t dissagree with what you have so far mostly.

    • #34355
      quacker
      Member

      @DonCheadle wrote:

      Anyhow, from a Hope perspective, who do you look at and think that he is scoring more points than what I posted?

      Of course I don’t know how you broke it all down, but I’ll look at the bottom of the list and bump some guys up from where you’re at. The optimistic part of me thinks that everyone will go up (except Heyboer, because that’s just impossible), but here are a few that I felt needed commenting:

      Andre Bravo with only 4 points? He’s got the 5th best time in the L right now in the 200 back with still a really good chance to final. Even his PR now would place him 4th last year. 6th place is 9 points and 7th is 7 points so I’d put him at 3 times what you predicted for all his events.

      Matt Ray at only an 11th and 12th? He’ll be better than that. He’s got the 4th best mile and the 7th best 500 on the MIAA list. I know that thing doesn’t show tapered times from Olivet, but he’ll be in the Big Boy heat of the 1650 and won’t fall to 11th or 12th.

      Pretty much copy and paste the above paragraph but put in Richardson’s times and places. He too shall go beyond your prediction.

    • #34356
      silentp
      Member

      Correct me if i’m wrong, but i believe Cheadle last scored out the meet in 2004 and had Hope winning by 150. It was that or someone from Hope scored it out and had them winning by 150. Just some food for thought.

    • #34357
      quacker
      Member

      @silentp wrote:

      Correct me if i’m wrong, but i believe Cheadle last scored out the meet in 2004 and had Hope winning by 150. It was that or someone from Hope scored it out and had them winning by 150. Just some food for thought.

      So does that food that we’re thinking about taste like a.) Cheadle actually has no bias because he chose Hope in the past so we should trust his judgment, b.) the MIAA meet is quite unpredictable, even for a man of Cheadle’s expertise, or c.) Cheadle stinks at predicting meets?

      Also, shouldn’t history push Kalamazoo to make capturing an MIAA title its ultimate goal this season? Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t there a banner that Kalamazoo swimmers once used that said “Never Ever Ever Again” on it? I think someone said that this had to do with the hope that no Kalamazoo swimmer would ever graduate without being part of an MIAA championship team. Well, this year is the year to make that happen for those seniors.

    • #34358
      maverick1
      Member

      6.) When in doubt, I gave the edge to Hope 1, Kzoo 2, Olivet 3. I used a lot of times from last year.

      yup

    • #34359
      DonCheadle
      Member

      @silentp wrote:

      Correct me if i’m wrong, but i believe Cheadle last scored out the meet in 2004 and had Hope winning by 150. It was that or someone from Hope scored it out and had them winning by 150. Just some food for thought.

      I looked it up, and it was 2004, and the margin I had was 83.5 points. The guys from Kzoo swam awesome and made up some of the margin.

      I think the guys from Kzoo can beat Hope. I don’t think they will, but they sure as hell have a shot. And before you pucker your asshole to the size of a decimal point, there is no disrecpect intended here. It is just what I believe.

    • #34360

      I really can’t get on board with anybody scoring out the meet yet with psyche sheets not out. That will clear a lot of this up.

      I would assume you mean that they have a shot if they were a better team. Kalamazoo does not have a chance of beating Hope. Kzoo matches up FAR better in a dual than they do in a championship meet with anyone because of the 1st place scoring and look at the meet that they swam against one another! Hope and the OC are too deep to let a team that has 3 studs and no freestylers beat them.

      I am sure it will be tough to accept 3rd, but that’s just the way the cookie crumbles.

    • #34361
      Low Tide
      Member

      Kzoo’s goal should be to place first. They should be thrilled with second, and pleased with third provided they swim well. Fourth should be a huge disappointment.

      If they keep getting the bodies, they should have the depth in the next couple years to seriously contend with Olivet and Hope at leagues.

    • #34362
      el radio
      Member

      what about the fac that Olivet is going to be graduating a lot of seniros this year. Some of them have been pretty crucial to their success last and this year. With next year possibly being a down year for Olivet, KZOO could definitely do some damage in the comings years, i even dare to say that next year they will be in contention

    • #34363
      Aflac
      Member

      Cheadle wrote:

      Rank Swimmer Name SumOfPoints
      1 Heyboer, Phil 48
      2 Vanderbroek, Chaz 42
      3 Rose, Matt 38
      4 Engers, Wade 36
      5 Nelis, Ryan 35
      6 Ruch, Mitch 26
      7 Waterstone, Kyle 24
      8 Kurti, Steve 21
      9 Collins, Brian 19
      10 King, Brandon 18
      11 Vogelzang, Ryan 11
      12 Richardson, James 11
      13 Holton, Jacob 11
      14 Hoesch, Karl 8
      15 Cook, Jake 7
      16 Glas, Abram 5
      17 Bravo, Andre 4
      18 O’Brien, Kevin 3
      19 Ray, Matt 3
      20 Greer, Aaron 1

      Do you only have Kyle Waterstone swimming two events? I’m sure the guys at Hope would love to see six of his teammates outscore him. Because if that happens, they are in great shape to win a league title.

      And why the Bobby Dekker bandwagon? Great swimmer, don’t get me wrong but KW gets not respect and that’s probably great with him. But why is Dekker so much better than Waterstone? Dekker’s best 200 IM is better than Kyle’s, yes. But after that Kyle’s second best swim is better than Dekker’s. I’m not trying to make a case that Waterstone is better than Dekker because this argument would be foolish, I’m just trying to understand why Dekker takes 2nd to Heyboer (assuming) in the IM and Waterstone is a distant 3rd when only one time in Bobby Dekker’s life has he swum faster than Waterstone’s second best 200 IM time. If Dekker is in line to go a 1:52 Mav, where do you have Waterstone, 1:58 or so? Hanky.

    • #34364
      Aflac
      Member

      Plus he’s a senior. Which can often mean some good things. But yeah, probably 1:58 or so.

    • #34365
      DonCheadle
      Member

      @Aflac wrote:

      Do you only have Kyle Waterstone swimming two events? I’m sure the guys at Hope would love to see six of his teammates outscore him. Because if that happens, they are in great shape to win a league title.

      And why the Bobby Dekker bandwagon? Great swimmer, don’t get me wrong but KW gets not respect and that’s probably great with him. But why is Dekker so much better than Waterstone? Dekker’s best 200 IM is better than Kyle’s, yes. But after that Kyle’s second best swim is better than Dekker’s. I’m not trying to make a case that Waterstone is better than Dekker because this argument would be foolish, I’m just trying to understand why Dekker takes 2nd to Heyboer (assuming) in the IM and Waterstone is a distant 3rd when only one time in Bobby Dekker’s life has he swum faster than Waterstone’s second best 200 IM time. If Dekker is in line to go a 1:52 Mav, where do you have Waterstone, 1:58 or so? Hanky.

      If you look on the previous page you will see that I already explained this. I entered Waterstone incorrectly in th 200 fly and had him placing last (because I entered his time at 159 in stead of 119 (think seconds). I fixed that though and the the change was reflected in the team scores.

      Regarding KW: again there is no reason to bicker. Contact me via PM if you want to stake your claim that KW will beat Dekker.

    • #34366
      maverick1
      Member

      i posted:

      200IM- Dekker, in hopefully a 1:52

      do i think dekker will win…yes. why do i think so, because his fly is much better than last year and he’s got a very strong freestyle, and in head to head competition i think the guy who finishes stronger will win most often (see me vs. jaffee 2005 miaas in the 500 and mile).

      i didn’t mean to hate on k waterstone, i think he’ll go a 1:54, maybe be borderline for getting into nats, which is damn good, but i still pick dekker.

    • #34367
      silentp
      Member

      Remember last year when I (and probably we) picked Dekker over Waterstone and all the Hope people threw a hissy fit, because it was such a stupid pick? Then remember how Dekker won and went to NCAAs? Then remember when Dekker had a WAY better EMU meet this year than last? Yup, i’ll stick with Dekker.

      Waterstone will be quick though, but we Kzoo guys hear every year how fast he’ll be (see talk of 400 IM last year) and he never lives up to the hype. This is merely the hype though, he has obviously swam some quick 200 IM times (not sarcastic), and of course 2nd best times are really important (sarcastic)!

Viewing 19 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.