SMU
Men - Women
2016 - 2017 - 2018
Switch to All-time Team Page
RankNameGradeRating
123  Hannah Miller SO 20:03
277  Charlotte Tara Murphy SO 20:28
508  Tess Misgen FR 20:51
511  Marlene Gomez-Islinger SR 20:51
755  Rakel Barrientos JR 21:12
864  Anneke Grogan JR 21:19
1,091  Alison Esparza SO 21:34
1,782  Rebekah Bosler SR 22:19
1,930  Julie Jungblut FR 22:28
National Rank #66 of 348
South Central Region Rank #5 of 38
Chance of Advancing to Nationals 21.4%
Most Likely Finish 3rd at Regional


National Champion 0.0%
Top 5 at Nationals 0.0%
Top 10 at Nationals 0.0%
Top 20 at Nationals 0.2%


Regional Champion 0.0%
Top 5 in Regional 94.3%
Top 10 in Regional 100.0%
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 Hannah Miller Charlotte Tara Murphy Tess Misgen Marlene Gomez-Islinger Rakel Barrientos Anneke Grogan Alison Esparza Rebekah Bosler Julie Jungblut
Panorama Farms Invitational 09/23 817 20:21 20:09 20:51 20:31 21:24 21:52 22:14 22:11
Pre-Nationals (Black) 10/14 22:29
Pre-Nationals (Red) 10/14 904 19:59 20:42 20:54 21:02 21:14 21:27 22:10
AAC Championship 10/28 830 20:00 20:46 20:36 20:38 21:15 21:19 21:12 22:19 22:48
South Region Championships 11/10 895 19:50 20:36 20:59 21:14 21:26 21:21 21:14





NCAA Tournament Simulation


Based on results of 2,000 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 21.4% 29.9 731 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.2 2.2 4.6 11.7
Region Championship 100% 3.5 133 20.5 30.8 28.7 14.3 5.7 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
Hannah Miller 47.9% 100.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Charlotte Tara Murphy 22.3% 156.6
Tess Misgen 21.5% 210.3
Marlene Gomez-Islinger 21.4% 212.1
Rakel Barrientos 21.4% 236.1
Anneke Grogan 21.4% 240.8
Alison Esparza 21.6% 247.1


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
Hannah Miller 9.8 1.9 2.8 4.2 5.1 6.3 5.5 6.7 6.3 6.0 6.6 6.4 6.9 7.1 6.1 6.5 5.0 3.3 2.9 1.5 1.5 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.3
Charlotte Tara Murphy 18.7 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.8 1.7 2.0 3.0 3.4 4.9 4.6 6.0 8.3 8.6 7.6 7.6 6.8 6.8 5.0 4.3 3.9
Tess Misgen 29.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.3 1.7 2.7 3.5 4.1 3.6 3.3 3.6
Marlene Gomez-Islinger 29.7 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.6 2.5 3.1 3.6 3.2 4.6 5.2
Rakel Barrientos 43.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.4
Anneke Grogan 48.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3
Alison Esparza 61.0




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 20.5% 100.0% 20.5 20.5 2
3 30.8% 2.3% 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 30.1 0.7 3
4 28.7% 0.7% 0.1 0.1 0.1 28.5 0.2 4
5 14.3% 14.3 5
6 5.7% 5.7 6
7 0.1% 0.1 7
8 8
9 9
10 10
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 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
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38
Total 100% 21.4% 20.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 78.6 20.5 0.9




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 2,000 simulations of the NCAA Tournament.



Received By BeatingChance ReceivedAverage If >0Average
Texas 58.3% 1.0 0.6
Missouri 5.0% 1.0 0.1
Brown 0.4% 1.0 0.0
Pittsburgh 0.2% 1.0 0.0
Total 0.6
Minimum 0.0
Maximum 3.0