A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
BTHERIOTNL wrote:Well as a former Captain of UCLA. Former NCAA Champion. Former Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner. Having sat with Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Peter Ueberroth, SEC Chairman Chris Cox - are you doubting my credits or my judgment? Mack was never a part of the Rampart scandal. Not one bit of evidence. Never seen at the bank.
I'm not doubting your judgment one bit. I'm 100% sure that reality and fantasy are one and the same to you.
How do you claim to be a "former NCAA champion" when you've never made an NCAA final? In fact, I can't find any record that shows you ever qualified for the NCAAs, not even once in your career. You claim to have been captain of UCLA's 1978 NCAA Championship team, you should have at least looked up the results of that meet -- won by USC. I suppose you'll claim there's "not one bit of evidence" "and book it" here, as well?
Now if you told us you were Gerry Lindgrens twin separated at birth, that I'd believe.
Maybe it is my hard wired mathematical brain, and I have mentioned this before, but I never understood why people don't know their pbs to the 10th of a second especially when a national class athlete.
Brian Theriot CORRECT Captain 1980 CORRECT 1978 NCAA Champion - UCLA INCORRECT NEVER RAN IN THE NCAA's Mile: 3:56 CORRECT 800: 1:45.79 CORRECT 1500: 3:37 DUBIOUS
Is this info NOT correct?
That's NOT the question. He claimed to be an NCAA Champion. He never ran in the NCAA meet.
BTHERIOTNL wrote:Well as a former Captain of UCLA. Former NCAA Champion. Former Costa Mesa Planning Commissioner. Having sat with Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Peter Ueberroth, SEC Chairman Chris Cox - are you doubting my credits or my judgment?
Mack was never a part of the Rampart scandal. Not one bit of evidence. Never seen at the bank. You know it and the facts have proved it. Learn your facts.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/ ... 339064.php His dad Brian starred in football and track at Newport Harbor in the '70s. Dad was a seven-time CIF champion in track, setting seven school records - he'll rattle them off with encyclopedic memory on request - before moving on to captain the UCLA track team to a 1978 NCAA championship. NOT TRUE In college he tallied a 3:56.1 mile. NOT TRUE (though highly believable a reporter would misquote this one) From there he moved on to an international career that included three Olympic Trials.
Now, it's true that reporters can and do mix up the facts, but given the history of embellishment here, IKOFDI.
Last edited by malmo on Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:09 am, edited 3 times in total.
I'd be wary of the first claim of 3:36, then the second of 3:37. Not knowing your times to the 1/10s is one thing. Not knowing them to the full second is another.
Does anyone have the results (or yearly lists) from Olso 1984? Tilastopaja says he ran 3:56.1 on July 20, then ran 3:37.00 on July 21, which, if true, would be an impressive double indeed. However Tilastopaja has been known to have inaccurate data, especially 20 year old results.
Sub 4 chronicles reports it differently, 3:56.1 on July 21
Snopes would say this urban legend needs further confirmation.
Last edited by malmo on Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'd be wary of the first claim of 3:36, then the second of 3:37. Not knowing your times to the 1/10s is one thing. Not knowing them to the full second is another.
Does anyone have the results (or yearly lists) from Olso 1984? Tilastopaja says he ran 3:56.1 on July 20, then ran 3:37.00 on July 21, which, if true, would be an impressive double indeed. However Tilastopaja has been known to have inaccurate data, especially 20 year old results.
Sub 4 chronicles reports it differently, 3:56.1 on July 21
Maybe the 1500 time is a split in the mile? Looks about right, I think.
I'd be wary of the first claim of 3:36, then the second of 3:37. Not knowing your times to the 1/10s is one thing. Not knowing them to the full second is another.
Does anyone have the results (or yearly lists) from Olso 1984? Tilastopaja says he ran 3:56.1 on July 20, then ran 3:37.00 on July 21, which, if true, would be an impressive double indeed. However Tilastopaja has been known to have inaccurate data, especially 20 year old results.
Sub 4 chronicles reports it differently, 3:56.1 on July 21
Maybe the 1500 time is a split in the mile? Looks about right, I think.
1 Dave Moorcroft 3:34.2 at 1500 wins in 3:50.95
2 G Williamson 2nd 3:34.13 and 3:51.6
3 Chuck Aragon 3:34.7 and 3:51.6
4 Pascal Thiebaut nt and 3:52.2
5
6
7
8 [not confirmed but looking likely] Theriot 6th at 1500 [3:37.00] and 8th at 3:56.10
That's one hell of a rig, but very possible.
Last edited by malmo on Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
malmo wrote:He claimed to be an NCAA Champion. He never ran in the NCAA meet.
what he claimed:
BTHERIOTNL wrote:Former NCAA Champion.
As the Resident TOE, I am going to have to allow Mr. Theriot's statement. He was part of the team in 1978 when UCLA was indeed the (co-)Champion. NCAA Champions are both teams and individuals. As a member of the winning team, he is indeed an NCAA Champion, just as are all members of a basketball, baseball, etc., team. I think we have therefore shown that the claims are indeed true.
malmo wrote:He claimed to be an NCAA Champion. He never ran in the NCAA meet.
what he claimed:
BTHERIOTNL wrote:Former NCAA Champion.
As the Resident TOE, I am going to have to allow Mr. Theriot's statement. He was part of the team in 1978 when UCLA was indeed the (co-)Champion. NCAA Champions are both teams and individuals. As a member of the winning team, he is indeed an NCAA Champion, just as are all members of a basketball, baseball, etc., team. I think we have therefore shown that the claims are indeed true.
Interesting to note that USC "won" the meet and was declared victorious (59-50 over UCLA and UTEP), but was later found to have had an ineligible athlete, moving the Bruins and Miners up.
tafnut wrote:As the Resident TOE, I am going to have to allow Mr. Theriot's statement. He was part of the team in 1978 when UCLA was indeed the (co-)Champion.
Overruled. If you don't compete you are not part of a Championship - period. Claims of being a National Champion have been categorically proven false.
Last edited by malmo on Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
KevinM wrote:Interesting to note that USC "won" the meet and was declared victorious (59-50 over UCLA and UTEP), but was later found to have had an ineligible athlete, moving the Bruins and Miners up.
malmo wrote:If you don't compete you are not part of a Championship - period.
Are you saying he wasn't even on the season roster? If he was, then he IS an NCAA champion. You don't have to PLAY in the World Series to get a ring.
The championship programs with whom I've had involvement (in collegiate track and field -- not MLB) have only awarded rings to athletes that competed in the championship meet.
Ring or not, it is certainly a stretch to list "NCAA Champion" on your list of personal accomplishments when:
1) You did not compete in the meet; and
3) Your team (co-)won the meet thanks to a violation discovered after the fact.
KevinM wrote:Ring or not, it is certainly a stretch to list "NCAA Champion" on your list of personal accomplishments when:
1) You did not compete in the meet; and 3) Your team (co-)won the meet thanks to a violation discovered after the fact.
Noted. But it IS open to interpretation. Last year our girls won the State Championship with 6 girls. At the season-ending party, all 55 girls, right down to the 6th graders, got State Champions t-shirts and they all wear them proudly. That's MY perspective.
tafnut wrote: Last year our girls won the State Championship with 6 girls. At the season-ending party, all 55 girls, right down to the 6th graders, got State Champions t-shirts
From whom? The State Federation? The school? You? Anyone can print a State Championship t-shirt. That doesn't make the wearer a State Champion.
I'm surprised you didn't give t-shirts to everyone in the school. That wouldl be in keeping with today's "everybody is a winner" school of thinking.
I was first exposed to this in Atlanta some time in the '90s, I think during an indoor nationals. Kid came into the lobby with a trophy that was at least 3-feet tall. We asked what the trophy was for and he said a karate tournament. We congratulated him on winning and he said that he had lost his first match and was out. About then, kids started pouring through the door and they all had monster trophies. Turns out that that was just part of "participation." The organizers, of course, get to charge outlandish entry fees to cover all this largesse of course. And little Johnny gets a monster trophy whether he deserved it or not. Pathetic.
malmo wrote:If you don't compete you are not part of a Championship - period.
Are you saying he wasn't even on the season roster? If he was, then he IS an NCAA champion. You don't have to PLAY in the World Series to get a ring.
Wrong. In track you have to declare your NCAA team based on who actually qualifies (through Proof of Performance). At present, you can also declare two relay alternates not otherwise entered in the meet. Are you saying he's a National Champion just because he didn't get cut by UCLA that year?
And BTW, If you don't TRAVEL to the World Series with your team, you are probably playing in AAA, or have been removed from the roster. Guys on the bench that don't into a game are like relay alternates. They get a ring.
Wrong? I know I have been guilty of this at times also, but am I WRONG, or is YOUR perception of the issue just different than mine? I am NOT 'wrong' to say that a non-scoring (/playing) member of a championship team isn't also a 'champion'. What if you go to the meet and finish ninth - no points? Does that make you worth squat? The definition of 'champion' is, especially in this context, sufficiently ambiguous to allow more than one interpretation.
OK, for clarification; Guys that don't go to the NCAA Championship from the team that wins, DO get to attend the party afterwards (along with family, friends and support staff) and WILL receive tee-shirts... But no rings.
tafnut wrote:
KevinM wrote:Ring or not, it is certainly a stretch to list "NCAA Champion" on your list of personal accomplishments when:
1) You did not compete in the meet; and 3) Your team (co-)won the meet thanks to a violation discovered after the fact.
Noted. But it IS open to interpretation. Last year our girls won the State Championship with 6 girls. At the season-ending party, all 55 girls, right down to the 6th graders, got State Champions t-shirts and they all wear them proudly. That's MY perspective.
Wrong? I know I have been guilty of this at times also, but am I WRONG, or is YOUR perception of the issue just different than mine? I am NOT 'wrong' to say that a non-scoring (/playing) member of a championship team isn't also a 'champion'. What if you go to the meet and finish ninth - no points? Does that make you worth squat? The definition of 'champion' is, especially in this context, sufficiently ambiguous to allow more than one interpretation.
decafan wrote:Nope. You're definitely wrong. Re-read my post.
I did and now you may re-read mine. You are applying a perspective way too narrrow in scope. There is NO official definition of what constitutes an NCAA Champion in this regard. If the coach tells the whole team they are also champions (and I 100% gurantee that some coaches have), they are.
decafan wrote:Nope. You're definitely wrong. Re-read my post.
I did and now you may re-read mine. You are applying a perspective way too narrrow in scope. There is NO official definition of what constitutes an NCAA Champion in this regard. If the coach tells the whole team they are also champions (and I 100% gurantee that some coaches have), they are.
It's not a difficult concept. Should(when?) my team wins a state championship the ONLY people on that award stand, and the only ones getting rings, will be the kids who actually ran in that state meet. But the whole team and assorted adults who had no hand in it? Not a chance, and I've never understood those who do.
Wrong? :D I know I have been guilty of this at times also, but am I WRONG, or is YOUR perception of the issue just different than mine? I am NOT 'wrong' to say that a non-scoring (/playing) member of a championship team isn't also a 'champion'. What if you go to the meet and finish ninth - no points? Does that make you worth squat? The definition of 'champion' is, especially in this context, sufficiently ambiguous to allow more than one interpretation.
Yes you are wrong. Being a Champion, especially a National champion, is not a foggy post modernist exercise. Only those who have actually done it can say they are National Champion.
decafan wrote:Nope. You're definitely wrong. Re-read my post.
I did and now you may re-read mine. You are applying a perspective way too narrrow in scope. There is NO official definition of what constitutes an NCAA Champion in this regard. If the coach tells the whole team they are also champions (and I 100% gurantee that some coaches have), they are.
It's not a difficult concept. Should(when?) my team wins a state championship the ONLY people on that award stand, and the only ones getting rings, will be the kids who actually ran in that state meet. But the whole team and assorted adults who had no hand in it? Not a chance, and I've never understood those who do.
Correct...and you are perfectly justified to share the moment with the rest of the team by buying them T-Shirts.
guru wrote:It's not a difficult concept. Should(when?) my team wins a state championship the ONLY people on that award stand, and the only ones getting rings, will be the kids who actually ran in that state meet. But the whole team and assorted adults who had no hand in it? Not a chance, and I've never understood those who do.
More difficult than you might imagine. I coached the 2 PV girls that scored. The girls distance coach coached the 4 distance girls that scored. The Head Coach is the sprints coach - zero points. So he is the Coach of the team that won, but he is not a State Champion. Nor are the other coaches (boys distance coach, throws coach, hurdles coach). Nor are the captains of the team, since they didn't score. News Flash - we declared all coaches and team members 'Champions' and they wear the t-shirts to 'prove' it. It doesn't take any post-modernist thinking to see how or why we did that. They are all part of a TEAM. The TEAM won (as also did some individuals, but you don't actually need any individual winners to win a TEAM championship), ergo, members of the TEAM are a part of the CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM. Are you all confusing the individual aspects vs. the TEAM aspects of track. Do the 6th and 7th placers of a championship cross country team not get anything? THEY DIDN'T SCORE! THEY'RE LOSERS! If they had never made the trip, the TEAM still would have won! It was NICE that they were there, in case of a problem, but they weren't needed at all in the win!!!
Bottom line - if the TEAM won, then everyone on the team is a part of the Championship. If this is not so, why bother having team points at all! I'm mightily confused why I seem to be the only one that sees it this way!! (though I should be used to it by now, shouldn't I?!)
Your cross country argument is weak, because the 6 and 7 do RUN in the state meet, therefore they deserve to be a part of the championship. Kids whose season finished two weeks before the state track meet do not.
It's not a garden party, it's a championship. If you compete you're a part of it. If you don't you're not.
guru wrote:Your cross country argument is weak, because the 6 and 7 do RUN in the state meet, therefore they deserve to be a part of the championship.
Ooooh, so those kids who make it to States but finish dead last in the prelims, THEY are Champions, but the excellent athletes who had tougher competition in their event and did NOT qualify for State, THEY ARE LOSERS. Thanks for clearing that up!
P.S. Not only are y'all NOT going to dissuade me from this, but I will even go so far as to say it is y'all who are WRONG!!!
guru wrote:Your cross country argument is weak, because the 6 and 7 do RUN in the state meet, therefore they deserve to be a part of the championship.
Ooooh, so those kids who make it to States but finish dead last in the prelims, THEY are Champions, but the excellent athletes who had tougher competition in their event and did NOT qualify for State, THEY ARE LOSERS. Thanks for clearing that up!
Losers? No, but is my 65 second 400 runner going to stand on the same awards stand with my 54 and 55 4x4 runners just because they're all on the team? No.
By the way, like malmo said T-shirts are fine for the whole team, or the whole SCHOOL for that matter. You did that for your team and that's fine tafnut. I'm sure there are plenty of 65 year old Indy Colts fans wearing Super Bowl T's. But the awards stand, rings, and TITLE of champion belong to those who earned them.
I know I have been guilty of this at times also, but am I WRONG, or is YOUR perception of the issue just different than mine? I am NOT 'wrong' to say that a non-scoring (/playing) member of a championship team isn't also a 'champion'. What if you go to the meet and finish ninth - no points? Does that make you worth squat? The definition of 'champion' is, especially in this context, sufficiently ambiguous to allow more than one interpretation.
