Cal Poly
Men -
Women
2014
-
2015 -
2016
Switch to All-time Team Page
Rank | Name | Grade | Rating |
278 |
Nick Woolf |
JR |
32:30 |
317 |
Swarnjit Boyal |
JR |
32:36 |
351 |
Garrett Migliozzi |
FR |
32:40 |
368 |
Devon Grove |
FR |
32:43 |
493 |
David Galvez |
JR |
32:58 |
611 |
Albert Gamez |
SR |
33:11 |
612 |
Luis Morales |
SR |
33:11 |
763 |
Peter Cotsirilos |
FR |
33:26 |
1,622 |
Dimitri Voytilla |
JR |
34:42 |
|
National Rank |
#65 of 308 |
West Region Rank |
#12 of 32 |
Chance of Advancing to Nationals |
0.1% |
Most Likely Finish |
12th 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 |
0.0% |
Top 10 in Regional |
21.0% |
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 | |
Nick Woolf |
Swarnjit Boyal |
Garrett Migliozzi |
Devon Grove |
David Galvez |
Albert Gamez |
Luis Morales |
Peter Cotsirilos |
Dimitri Voytilla |
Stanford Invitational |
09/26 |
969 |
|
32:25 |
33:11 |
33:02 |
32:58 |
32:38 |
34:01 |
33:33 |
|
D1 Pre-Nationals (Red) |
10/17 |
864 |
32:42 |
32:09 |
32:30 |
32:38 |
32:53 |
33:08 |
33:11 |
|
|
Big West Conference Championships |
10/31 |
886 |
32:23 |
32:38 |
32:34 |
32:36 |
33:39 |
34:07 |
32:48 |
33:19 |
|
West Region Championships |
11/13 |
913 |
32:26 |
33:53 |
32:38 |
32:42 |
32:37 |
|
33:00 |
|
34:43 |
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 |
0.1% |
28.0 |
634 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Region Championship |
100% |
11.3 |
314 |
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
0.2 |
0.6 |
1.9 |
5.4 |
12.8 |
24.8 |
42.0 |
11.1 |
0.9 |
0.2 |
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 |
Nick Woolf |
0.4% |
143.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swarnjit Boyal |
0.1% |
111.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Garrett Migliozzi |
0.1% |
138.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Devon Grove |
0.1% |
198.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Galvez |
0.1% |
179.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Albert Gamez |
0.1% |
199.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Luis Morales |
0.1% |
193.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
Nick Woolf |
51.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.2 |
0.5 |
0.4 |
Swarnjit Boyal |
56.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
0.0 |
|
0.1 |
0.1 |
0.1 |
Garrett Migliozzi |
60.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Devon Grove |
63.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
David Galvez |
78.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Albert Gamez |
89.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Luis Morales |
89.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
0.0% |
50.0% |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
0.0 |
5 |
6 |
0.2% |
20.0% |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
0.2 |
|
0.0 |
6 |
7 |
0.6% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.6 |
|
|
7 |
8 |
1.9% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.9 |
|
|
8 |
9 |
5.4% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.4 |
|
|
9 |
10 |
12.8% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12.8 |
|
|
10 |
11 |
24.8% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24.8 |
|
|
11 |
12 |
42.0% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
42.0 |
|
|
12 |
13 |
11.1% |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11.1 |
|
|
13 |
14 |
0.9% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.9 |
|
|
14 |
15 |
0.2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.2 |
|
|
15 |
16 |
0.0% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
|
|
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% |
0.1% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
0.0 |
|
|
99.9 |
0.0 |
0.1 |
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.