| Rank | Name | Grade | Rating |
|---|
| 359 |
Nokuthula Dlamini |
JR |
20:37 |
| 871 |
Hattie Schunk |
JR |
21:19 |
| 1,080 |
Jasmine Torres |
SR |
21:33 |
| 1,095 |
Taryn Otto |
FR |
21:34 |
| 1,386 |
Denae Chapman |
SO |
21:53 |
| 1,420 |
Kaylee Amershek |
JR |
21:55 |
| 1,584 |
Lauren Offerman |
FR |
22:04 |
| 1,636 |
Lauren Younger |
JR |
22:08 |
| 1,658 |
Bret Leigh Nance |
SO |
22:10 |
| 1,836 |
Kaitlyn Tharp |
JR |
22:22 |
|
| 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 |
0.0% |
| Top 10 in Regional |
0.2% |
| Top 20 in Regional |
100.0% |
|
Times listed are adjusted ratings based on performance compared to other runners in race.
Based on results of 2,000 simulations of the NCAA Tournament.
Numbers in tables represent percentage of times each outcome occured during simulation.
| NCAA Championship | Advances to Round | Ave 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 |
| Nokuthula Dlamini |
0.6% |
173.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Regional | Ave 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 |
| Nokuthula Dlamini |
50.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.2 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
| Hattie Schunk |
95.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Jasmine Torres |
107.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Taryn Otto |
108.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Denae Chapman |
120.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Kaylee Amershek |
121.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lauren Offerman |
125.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
| 4 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
| 5 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
| 6 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
| 7 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
| 8 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
| 9 |
0.1% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
9 |
| 10 |
0.1% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
10 |
| 11 |
0.6% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
11 |
| 12 |
1.0% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.0 |
|
|
12 |
| 13 |
1.2% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.2 |
|
|
13 |
| 14 |
2.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.6 |
|
|
14 |
| 15 |
3.3% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.3 |
|
|
15 |
| 16 |
7.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.8 |
|
|
16 |
| 17 |
15.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
15.2 |
|
|
17 |
| 18 |
27.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27.9 |
|
|
18 |
| 19 |
39.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
39.8 |
|
|
19 |
| 20 |
0.8% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.8 |
|
|
20 |
|
| Total |
100% |
0.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
100.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
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 Beating | Chance Received | Average If >0 | Average |
|
| Total |
|
|
0.0 |
|
| Minimum |
|
|
0.0 |
| Maximum |
|
|
0.0 |
