Arizona
Men - Women
2012 - 2013 - 2014
Switch to All-time Team Page
RankNameGradeRating
21  Lawi Lalang JR 31:15
209  Sam Macaluso JR 32:13
244  Collins Kibet FR 32:22
497  Kenji Bierig JR 32:59
624  Jonas Legernes SO 33:15
875  Matthew Beer SO 33:40
1,017  Thomas Valente JR 33:52
1,099  Dylan Hopper JR 33:59
1,381  Braden Timpe SR 34:22
1,568  Travis Thorne FR 34:38
1,573  Samuel Willis SO 34:39
2,689  Michael Cox FR 37:01
National Rank #42 of 311
West Region Rank #8 of 32
Chance of Advancing to Nationals 0.3%
Most Likely Finish 9th 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 8.0%
Top 10 in Regional 94.3%
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 Lawi Lalang Sam Macaluso Collins Kibet Kenji Bierig Jonas Legernes Matthew Beer Thomas Valente Dylan Hopper Braden Timpe Travis Thorne Samuel Willis
Roy Griak Invitational (Gold) 09/28 856 32:12 32:10 32:20 33:35 33:01 33:39 33:27 34:20 34:02 34:30
Mesa Thunderbird Classic 10/12 1251 33:47 34:24 34:31 34:54
Wisconsin adidas Invitational 10/19 781 31:16 32:13 32:42 32:54 33:15 33:37 33:45 34:19 34:44
Pac-12 Championships 11/02 913 32:13 31:54 33:24 33:08 34:55 35:11 33:44 35:39
West Region Championships 11/15 1011 32:20 32:43 33:26 33:04 33:50 34:30





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 0.3% 25.9 593 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Region Championship 100% 8.1 236 0.1 2.2 5.7 10.9 16.0 21.2 22.9 15.2 4.1 1.2 0.3 0.1



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
Lawi Lalang 97.9% 24.5 0.0 0.2 0.8 0.9 1.5 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.8 2.5 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.6
Sam Macaluso 1.8% 112.5
Collins Kibet 0.5% 127.5
Kenji Bierig 0.3% 211.5
Jonas Legernes 0.3% 231.5
Matthew Beer 0.3% 242.3
Thomas Valente 0.3% 244.5


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
Lawi Lalang 4.0 2.1 11.9 17.8 17.8 13.1 8.4 5.7 3.9 3.1 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3
Sam Macaluso 32.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.6
Collins Kibet 39.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.3
Kenji Bierig 69.0
Jonas Legernes 80.3
Matthew Beer 100.3
Thomas Valente 110.5




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 2
3 0.1% 66.7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3
4 2.2% 9.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.0 0.2 4
5 5.7% 1.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 0.1 5
6 10.9% 10.9 6
7 16.0% 16.0 7
8 21.2% 21.2 8
9 22.9% 22.9 9
10 15.2% 15.2 10
11 4.1% 4.1 11
12 1.2% 1.2 12
13 0.3% 0.3 13
14 0.1% 0.1 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
31 31
32 32
Total 100% 0.3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 99.7 0.0 0.3




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
Georgia 55.0% 1.0 0.6
Tennessee 7.8% 1.0 0.1
Missouri 0.0% 1.0 0.0
Total 0.6
Minimum 0.0
Maximum 2.0