Ohio State
Men - Women
2011 - 2012 - 2013
Switch to All-time Team Page
RankNameGradeRating
118  Donald Roys SR 31:57
338  Christopher Fallon SR 32:33
414  Michael Bradjic SO 32:43
592  Joshua Sabo FR 33:05
599  Curtis Hanle FR 33:06
657  Nicholas Pupino FR 33:13
698  Blake Taneff FR 33:16
726  Brian Hannaford FR 33:19
880  Neff Jackson SO 33:35
909  Jordan Redd FR 33:38
1,052  Jeff Hannaford FR 33:50
1,504  Scott Lavoy FR 34:29
1,593  Evan Schwartz FR 34:36
National Rank #62 of 311
Great Lakes Region Rank #9 of 30
Chance of Advancing to Nationals 2.4%
Most Likely Finish 7th at Regional


National Champion 0.0%
Top 5 at Nationals 0.0%
Top 10 at Nationals 0.0%
Top 20 at Nationals 0.0%


Regional Champion 0.0%
Top 5 in Regional 19.2%
Top 10 in Regional 94.0%
Top 20 in Regional 100.0%


Race Performance Ratings


Times listed are adjusted ratings based on performance compared to other runners in race.


RaceDateTeam Rating Donald Roys Christopher Fallon Michael Bradjic Joshua Sabo Curtis Hanle Nicholas Pupino Blake Taneff Brian Hannaford Neff Jackson Jordan Redd Jeff Hannaford
Notre Dame Invitational (Blue) 09/28 824 32:02 32:33 32:43 32:13 33:04 33:10 33:16 34:02
All-Ohio Championships 09/29 1208 33:41 34:09 34:23
Wisconsin adidas Invitational 10/12 964 31:48 33:10 33:46 33:22 32:58 33:35
Big Ten Championships 10/28 927 31:59 33:46 32:43 33:11 32:55 33:29 33:37 33:09 33:20
Great Lakes Region Championships 11/09 928 31:50 33:04 33:09 33:36 32:39 33:52 33:48
NCAA Championship 11/17 32:06





NCAA Tournament Simulation


Based on results of 5,000 simulations of the NCAA Tournament. Numbers in tables represent percentage of times each outcome occured during simulation.



Team Results

Advances to RoundAve FinishAve Score Finishing Place
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
NCAA Championship 2.4% 29.9 733 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.1
Region Championship 100% 7.3 220 0.0 0.2 3.5 15.5 18.9 20.1 17.0 11.8 7.1 4.2 1.5 0.2 0.0



Individual Results

NCAA ChampionshipAdvances to RoundAve Finish Finishing Place
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Donald Roys 59.4% 100.7 0.0
Christopher Fallon 3.2% 168.3
Michael Bradjic 2.5% 182.8
Joshua Sabo 2.4% 228.0
Curtis Hanle 2.4% 225.2
Nicholas Pupino 2.4% 229.8
Blake Taneff 2.4% 237.2


RegionalAve Finish Finishing Place
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Donald Roys 12.4 0.3 0.8 2.4 4.8 7.2 9.3 8.5 7.7 6.8 5.7 5.1 3.8 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.3
Christopher Fallon 36.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.3 2.9
Michael Bradjic 43.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.7 1.3
Joshua Sabo 63.5
Curtis Hanle 64.4
Nicholas Pupino 70.5 0.0
Blake Taneff 73.8




NCAA Championship Selection Detail

Total
Region Finish Chance of Finishing Chance of Advancing Auto At Large Selection No Adv Auto At Large Region Finish
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 1
2 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 2
3 0.2% 87.5% 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 3
4 3.5% 62.6% 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.3 2.2 4
5 15.5% 0.1% 0.0 15.5 0.0 5
6 18.9% 18.9 6
7 20.1% 20.1 7
8 17.0% 17.0 8
9 11.8% 11.8 9
10 7.1% 7.1 10
11 4.2% 4.2 11
12 1.5% 1.5 12
13 0.2% 0.2 13
14 0.0% 0.0 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
Total 100% 2.4% 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.1 97.6 0.0 2.3




Points



At large teams are selected based on the number of wins (points) against teams already in the championships. As a result, advancement is predicated on accumulating enough points before the last at-large selection. Accordingly, the points below are the total number of wins against automatic qualifiers or teams selected in the at-large process before the last selection. Minimum, maximum, and average points are number seen in 5,000 simulations of the NCAA Tournament.



Received By BeatingChance ReceivedAverage If >0Average
Illinois 2.5% 1.0 0.0
Penn State 0.8% 1.0 0.0
Navy 0.0% 1.0 0.0
Cornell 0.0% 1.0 0.0
Total 0.0
Minimum 0.0
Maximum 2.0