The Sprint to Sprints: 2017 Edition

[wgsm]

1. Cornell
2. Harvard
3. Yale
4. Columbia
5. Penn
6. Princeton

7. Navy
8. Dartmouth
9. Georgetown
10. MIT

[DamnDaniel]

Eastern Sprints is a Test, and I have the answer key:

1. Yale* --> Yale's shown they're really fast in a tailwind (someone said they set a course record earlier this year)
the good: they're fast in a tailwind, coming off winning 2016 sprints, row lower than competition (suggests maybe these guys are pretty effective)
the bad: they just got taken to task by harvard in the back 9 of HYP

2. Harvard
the good: thought they rowed an awesome, complete 2K at HYP, seem to have found their groove and are just a fast boat through-and-through
the bad: I thought they rowed pretty high in the body of HYP and if they don't execute well, rowing high can kill you in a tailwind... like running on a treadmill that's a little too fast

3. Cornell
the good: undefeated, ranked #1, supposedly have their dudes coming back from injury, have kind of shown speed throughout the season
the bad: not sure they've been tested yet (I think harvard has picked up speed), and I'm not sure how awesome they are in a tailwind (didn't really get away from princeton in the tail


4. Princeton
the good: I think they're probably pretty good in a tailwind, they held off #1 cornell for most of the race, and ended up losing it at the end, could see them taking the big red down
the bad: they lost to cornell, lost to HY, and while it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they nabbed cornell and finished 3rd, I gotta go with my gut

5. Penn
the good: colin farrell is their coach, they were 2 seconds off of Yale in pretty quick conditions
the bad: I think that was their best result of the season so far, they didn't shut the door on navy, they didn't take down princeton, and they lost to cornell and harvard (in a headwind)

6. Navy
the good: navy is killing it and they're "back on the scene", they beat princeton,
the bad: their season has gone like that song "started at the bottom now we here"... in reverse.

7. Columbia --> these guys might just suprise everybody and do really well.
8. Dartmouth
9. GT
10. MIT

* = predict they'll set a course record in the final, assuming the forecast stays the same (which I hope it does)

The aspiring commentator in me is extra-stoked for this weekend's edition of Sprints for a few reasons:
1) a lot of unanswered/murky questions on who is really the fastest boat in the league
2) related: a lot of these crews seem somewhat similar in speed (should make for a tight final)
3) extremely fast (16-20 mph) largly-direct tailwind forecast throughout the day sunday (should make for fast times AND tighter margins)
4) related to 3: tailwinds are about who rows best not who is the strongest --> the winner = the most skilled horse, not necessarily the biggest, more of a "true" winner (IMO)

addendum: would be cool to find out the class-years of all the guys in this final... I've found (in general) more experienced rowers = more technically proficient = generally better in a tailwind... would be curious if there's any correlation between placement order and "avg age of crew"

[Cowbells123]

If nobody gets blown off course....

YALE
HARVARD
CORNELL
PRINCETON
NAVY
PENN

Why does it always seem the weather gods like to muck with the boats....

[lt.wolf]

That was a great final. Cornell rowed exceptionally well in the conditions and keeping well composed by the pressing Harvard. Penn! Good on them for getting away from Princeton and the others for a medal. Well deserved.

Harvard has seen quite a resurgence in one year under Boyce and company!

[photofinish]

Perhaps a bit off topic, but lt.wolf, do you think that these past couple years in the gutter for Harvard were really the fault of Bartman? I've heard that Bartman was very disliked by the team, but that tends to happen to any coach when a team has a huge drop in performance like that. I always thought that Harvard was just going through the natural cycle of on-off years that most programs have, but seeing Boyce turn it around so quickly really makes me wonder. Do coaches really have that large of an impact, and that quickly? And if so, was Bartman really trash and Boyce the real deal?

[TheNatureBoy]

Bartman consistently underachieved at Vesper as the Elite coach; so not one bit surprised he failed at Harvard.

[Sarge]

It is always interesting to see what happens in year 1 of a coaching change. There are examples all around the sports world of the incoming coach having great success in year 1. For that to happen, the athletes need to be prepared physically to perform (i.e. the training program needs to have been in place), you need talented athletes, (who were brought in during the prior regime) and the athletes must not have given up hope. Then, when presented with the opportunity, they are capable of responding. These turnarounds are all over the place. The real proof will come in 3 to 4 years as the "new" coach gets established and his or her recruits fill the ranks.

[lt.wolf]

I feel Bartman is a good coach for a national team program. His crews always seemed to be in shape and he had a good training regiment, stronger and fitter than most with good technical skills.

[photofinish]

Yeah. It might just be that Bartman's style isn't right for lightweight programs, but he could shine as a heavyweight coach. Though TheNatureBoy seems to think that this was not the case at Vesper.

[Wykehamist]

It was amusing to hear the announcer at Sprints comment that Accomando and Boyce had stepped up on the recruiting front . . . since Boyce was only hired last summer, his first class of recruits won't be at Newell until this September.