Ohio State
Men -
Women
2012
-
2013 -
2014
Switch to All-time Team Page
Rank | Name | Grade | Rating |
269 |
Nicholas Pupino |
SO |
32:27 |
300 |
Jordan Redd |
SO |
32:32 |
355 |
Brian Hannaford |
SO |
32:41 |
483 |
Curtis Hanle |
SO |
32:58 |
511 |
Michael Bradjic |
SO |
33:01 |
691 |
Blake Taneff |
SO |
33:21 |
899 |
Jeff Hannaford |
SO |
33:43 |
1,129 |
Joshua Sabo |
SO |
34:02 |
1,433 |
Neff Jackson |
JR |
34:26 |
1,820 |
Jackson Neff |
JR |
35:00 |
|
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 |
4.2% |
Top 10 in Regional |
99.7% |
Top 20 in Regional |
100.0% |
|
Race Performance Ratings
Times listed are adjusted ratings based on performance compared to other runners in race.
Race | Date | Team Rating | |
Nicholas Pupino |
Jordan Redd |
Brian Hannaford |
Curtis Hanle |
Michael Bradjic |
Blake Taneff |
Jeff Hannaford |
Joshua Sabo |
Neff Jackson |
Jackson Neff |
Notre Dame Invitational (Blue) |
10/04 |
970 |
32:39 |
32:11 |
32:48 |
33:35 |
34:25 |
34:13 |
33:37 |
34:45 |
33:45 |
|
Pre-National Invitational (Blue) |
10/19 |
957 |
32:43 |
32:13 |
32:56 |
32:55 |
|
33:38 |
34:10 |
|
35:05 |
|
Big Ten Championships |
11/03 |
909 |
32:25 |
32:48 |
32:30 |
32:43 |
32:53 |
33:03 |
33:27 |
32:58 |
|
35:01 |
Great Lakes Region Championships |
11/15 |
838 |
31:57 |
32:58 |
32:29 |
32:55 |
32:28 |
32:47 |
|
34:16 |
|
|
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 Round | Ave Finish | Ave 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% |
30.2 |
728 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Region Championship |
100% |
7.4 |
217 |
|
|
|
0.4 |
3.8 |
14.9 |
33.4 |
32.5 |
13.0 |
1.7 |
0.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Individual Results
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 |
Nicholas Pupino |
5.6% |
160.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jordan Redd |
2.3% |
164.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian Hannaford |
0.7% |
174.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Curtis Hanle |
0.3% |
215.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Bradjic |
0.3% |
214.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blake Taneff |
0.3% |
218.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Hannaford |
0.3% |
241.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Nicholas Pupino |
29.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
0.7 |
0.8 |
1.4 |
1.5 |
2.0 |
2.7 |
3.1 |
3.2 |
3.9 |
3.5 |
3.2 |
3.7 |
Jordan Redd |
32.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.3 |
0.6 |
1.0 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
1.6 |
2.3 |
2.8 |
2.7 |
3.4 |
3.7 |
Brian Hannaford |
38.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.4 |
0.4 |
0.7 |
0.9 |
1.2 |
1.6 |
1.8 |
Curtis Hanle |
51.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
0.1 |
Michael Bradjic |
54.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
|
0.1 |
Blake Taneff |
68.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff Hannaford |
85.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
0.4% |
66.7% |
| |
|
|
0.0 |
|
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
0.2 |
4 |
5 |
3.8% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.8 |
|
|
5 |
6 |
14.9% |
0.1% |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
14.9 |
|
0.0 |
6 |
7 |
33.4% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33.4 |
|
|
7 |
8 |
32.5% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
32.5 |
|
|
8 |
9 |
13.0% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13.0 |
|
|
9 |
10 |
1.7% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.7 |
|
|
10 |
11 |
0.2% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
11 |
12 |
0.0% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
12 |
13 |
0.0% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
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% |
0.3% |
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
0.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
0.0 |
|
|
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 Beating | Chance Received | Average If >0 | Average |
Penn State |
0.2% |
1.0 |
0.0 |
Lipscomb |
0.1% |
2.0 |
0.0 |
Georgia Tech |
0.0% |
1.0 |
0.0 |
|
Total |
|
|
0.0 |
|
Minimum |
|
|
0.0 |
Maximum |
|
|
2.0 |