Abilene Christian, McNeese Lead the Southland at South Central Regional

first_img 21 Charlotte Tara MURPHY SO SMU 20:35.8 +1:00 5:31 21 2 The Hacketts’ trip to nationals is a program first and will be the Southland’s first representation at the NCAA Championship meet since 2015. It marks the first time the league has earned multiple bids since Lamar sent Clerc Koenck and Renee Graham in 2007. 23 Charles MILLS JR Texas 30:50.5 +1:01 4:57 22 6 6 7 11 Rice 313 18 Joseph MEADE JR Texas State 30:34.1 +45 4:55 17 1 3 1 7 7 4:47 1 1 20 UL-Lafayette 463 3 Anna WEST SO Baylor 19:40.0 +4 5:16 3 1 7 Hannah MILLER SO SMU 19:50.7 +15 5:19 7 1 Houston Baptist NTS 7 4 McNeese 173 7 5 Texas State 179 1 Arkansas 35 2017 NCAA Women’s All-South Central Region Team 4 SMU 148 7 3 24 Alex RIBA SR Texas A&M 30:52.8 +1:03 4:58 23 3 7 23 UT-Rio Grande Valley 582 7 7 11 Justin DOMANGUE SO UT-Arlington 30:14.9 +25 4:51 11 1 ACU’s 5th place team finish (163 points) led the league’s women’s sides, followed by Lamar in 10th place (296). McNeese finished 12th (336) followed by Texas A&M-Corpus Christi (16th, 404), Stephen F. Austin (17th, 413), UIW (22nd, 526) and Nicholls (24th, 789). 13 Texas State 379 12 UIW 283 7 6 1 Arkansas 59 14 UL-Lafayette 340 Complete ResultsCOLLEGE STATION, Texas – Michaela and Alexandria Hackett headlined the Southland Conference performances at the NCAA South Central Regional Championships, finishing 5th and 6th, respectively, to secure automatic spots in the NCAA Cross Country Championships next week. The Wildcat women finished fifth out of 24 finishing teams. 6 Alexandria HACKETT SR Abilene Christian 19:50.2 +15 5:19 6 2 8 Lamar 235 9 Susannah LYNCH JR North Texas 20:03.6 +28 5:22 9 1 6 17 Central Arkansas 378 7 22 Garek BIELACZYC SO Texas 30:48.6 +59 4:57 21 5 12 Brenley GOERTZEN JR Texas Christian 20:18.2 +43 5:26 12 1 7 15 Arkansas State 398 6 Texas A&M 196 7 7 6 22 Arkansas State 563 16 Abby GUIDRY SO Texas 20:23.5 +48 5:28 16 2 23 UL-Monroe 664 Pl Team Pts 24 New Orleans 733 19 Abilene Christian 515 7 14 LSU 381 10 UT-Arlington 255 13 Tulane 337 5 Abilene Christian 163 5 Michaela HACKETT SR Abilene Christian 19:47.6 +12 5:18 5 1 4 Lindsey BRADLEY JR Baylor 19:42.3 +7 5:17 4 2 The Hackett twins will head to E.P. Tom Sawyer Park in Louisville, Ky., for the 2017 NCAA Division I Cross Country Championships on Saturday, Nov. 18, hosted by Louisville. 2 Texas 73 2 # 21 UTSA 551 19 Jacob PICKLE JR Texas 30:36.0 +46 4:55 18 3 7 24 Meghan LLOYD JR Texas 20:39.2 +1:04 5:32 24 4 3 Alex ROGERS JR Texas 30:03.1 +14 4:50 3 1 Four Southland women’s athletes earned all-region accolades, headlined by the Hackett twins in 5th and 6th place. Michaela finished with a 6K time of 19:47.6 while Alexandria was right behind her at 19:50.2. McNeese’s Katja Woelfl finished 23rd with a time of 20:36.3 while ACU’s Diana Garcia-Munoz took 25th (20:41.3). 10 Nathan JONES SR McNeese 30:14.7 +25 4:51 10 1 9 North Texas 290 7 7 5 Jack BRUCE SR Arkansas 30:04.8 +15 4:50 5 1 6 Arkansas-Little Rock NTS 15 LSU 349 10 Lamar 296 7 1 Nikki HILTZ SR Arkansas 19:35.5 17 Enrique SOTO SR McNeese 30:33.8 +44 4:55 16 2 14 Dajour BRAXTON JR LSU 30:27.3 +38 4:54 13 1 2017 NCAA Men’s All-South Central Region Team 2 7 7 6 13 Isaac LALANG SR Arkansas-Little Rock 30:19.5 +30 4:52 Northwestern State NTS Pl Athlete Year Team Time Gap Pace Pts TmPl 3 Baylor 116 Pl Athlete Year Team Time Gap Pace Pts TmPl 5 In total, three men and four women earned spots on the All-South Central Region team with top-25 individual finishes. Jones topped the men’s list with a 10K time of 30:14.7 while Lamar’s Jamie Crow finished 15th (30:30.5). McNeese’s Enrique Soto took 17th, clocking in at 30:33.8. Sam Houston St. NTS 25 Andrew RONOH JR Arkansas 30:53.7 +1:04 4:58 24 5 16 Stephen F. Austin 367 24 Nicholls 789 3 Texas A&M 98 Pl Team Pts 18 Sam Houston State 487 6 7 7 7 6 7 17 Alex CRUZ JR Texas 20:24.9 +49 5:28 17 3 7 5:15 1 1 16 Matt YOUNG FR Arkansas 30:31.9 +42 4:54 15 4 17 Stephen F. Austin 413 5 12 McNeese 336 2 7 12 John RICE SO Texas 30:19.3 +30 4:52 12 2 Central Arkansas NTS 7 7 21 Houston 483 9 Devin MEYRER SO Baylor 30:13.0 +23 4:51 9 1 On the men’s side, McNeese finished fourth as a team out of 24 with 173 points, led by Nathan Jones with a 10th-place individual finish. 1 Emmanuel ROTICH JR Tulane 29:49.1 2017 NCAA South Central Region Women’s Team Results 2 Brian BARRAZA SR Houston 29:51.5 +2 4:48 2 1 7 Rice 234 4 Jon BISHOP SO Texas A&M 30:03.8 +14 4:50 4 1 # 6 Christian FARRIS SR Texas A&M 30:05.2 +16 4:50 6 2 6 18 UT-Arlington 413 8 Tulane 282 19 UTSA 456 7 Alex GEORGE SR Arkansas 30:12.4 +23 4:51 7 2 22 UIW 526 Nicholls NTS 6 6 6 22 Lauren BARTELS SR Tulane 20:35.8 +1:00 5:31 22 1 1 1 Louisiana Tech NTS 2017 NCAA South Central Region Men’s Team Results 21 Mike LOWE SR North Texas 30:46.0 +56 4:56 20 1 11 North Texas 263 15 Jamie CROWE JR Lamar 30:30.5 +41 4:54 14 1 2 Texas 93 16 A&M-Corpus Christi 404 Lamar men finished eighth with 235 points while UIW took 12th (283), followed by Stephen F. Austin in 16th (367), Central Arkansas at 17th (378), Sam Houston State 18th (487) and Abilene Christian in 19th place (515). New Orleans rounded out the finishing conference teams with a 24th-place finishing spot (733). 7 15 Ashton ENDSLEY FR Arkansas 20:21.0 +45 5:27 15 7 Arkansas-Little Rock NTS 2 Carina VILJOEN SO Arkansas 19:36.0 <1s 5:15 2 2 7 20 UT-Rio Grande Valley 549 7 Texas Christian 278 20 Gabrielle SATTERLEE SO Baylor 20:33.7 +58 5:30 20 3 19 Khayla PATEL SO Rice 20:32.4 +57 5:30 19 1 11 Taylor WERNER SO Arkansas 20:14.2 +39 5:25 11 4 6 8 Therese HAISS SR Arkansas 19:57.9 +22 5:21 8 3 9 Baylor 248 6 Houston 203 8 Austen DALQUIST SR Arkansas 30:12.6 +23 4:51 8 3 14 Sydney BROWN JR Arkansas 20:19.8 +44 5:27 14 6 3 7 1 18 Ashley DRISCOLL SO Texas A&M 20:26.2 +51 5:28 18 1 20 Eric KROON JR Texas 30:39.6 +50 4:55 19 4 7 UL-Monroe NTS 10 Destiny COLLINS SO Texas 20:05.4 +30 5:23 10 1 23 Katja WOELFL SR McNeese 20:36.3 +1:01 5:31 23 1 13 Lauren GREGORY FR Arkansas 20:19.0 +43 5:26 13 5 25 Diana GARCIA-MUNOZ SR Abilene Christian 20:41.3 +1:06 5:32 25 3last_img read more

Todays tech superstars are making companies like Google Amazon and Apple seem

first_img Sponsored Content by Disney Institute How Disney Uses Spontaneity to Make Customers Feel Like… ShareVideo Player is loading.Play VideoPauseMuteCurrent Time 0:00/Duration 2:43Loaded: 6.08%0:00Stream Type LIVESeek to live, currently playing liveLIVERemaining Time -2:43 Playback Rate1xChaptersChaptersDescriptionsdescriptions off, selectedCaptionscaptions settings, opens captions settings dialogcaptions off, selectedAudio Tracken (Main), selectedFullscreenThis is a modal window.Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.TextColorWhiteBlackRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentBackgroundColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyOpaqueSemi-TransparentTransparentWindowColorBlackWhiteRedGreenBlueYellowMagentaCyanTransparencyTransparentSemi-TransparentOpaqueFont Size50%75%100%125%150%175%200%300%400%Text Edge StyleNoneRaisedDepressedUniformDropshadowFont FamilyProportional Sans-SerifMonospace Sans-SerifProportional SerifMonospace SerifCasualScriptSmall CapsReset restore all settings to the default valuesDoneClose Modal DialogEnd of dialog window.Close Modal DialogThis is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button.Close Modal DialogThis is a modal window. This modal can be closed by pressing the Escape key or activating the close button.PlayMuteCurrent Time 0:00/Duration 0:00Loaded: 0%Stream Type LIVESeek to live, currently playing liveLIVERemaining Time -0:00 Playback Rate1xFullscreenEditor’s note: An earlier version of this story published on May 20.“You’ve got to spend money to make money” is one of the most widely accepted business adages of all time. And nowhere is that belief more innate than in Silicon Valley, where companies like Tesla, Uber, Lyft, and Snap command dizzying valuations based on the belief that one day, they will indeed make money. Raising fresh billions to fund operations, boosters of these companies would have us believe, is a regular rite of passage. After all, didn’t giants like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google also burn through tons of cash on their path to profitability?Fortune decided to find out: How much money did Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google spend in their early years? And how does that compare with what today’s hot names are spending? To get the numbers, we went back to each company’s earliest published financial reports, starting with the offering statements for its IPO.It turns out the assumption that successful tech companies burned lots of cash in their youth isn’t merely wrong—it’s staggeringly wrong. Look closely at the early days of the giants—the Fab Four, as we’ll call Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google (now Alphabet), and you’ll see that they were models of frugality compared with the new wave (which we’ll dub the Breakneck Burners: Tesla, Uber, Lyft, and Snap).It’s true that in the dotcom frenzy of the early 2000s, many tech companies posted losses while devouring new funding. But the ones that burned piles of cash were such failures as Webvan and eToys.com, not winners like Google. Today, says accounting expert Jack Ciesielski, “you’ve got these companies chewing through mountains of cash, and investors are comparing them not with the failures of the dotcom era but with the survivors.”For this analysis, the crucial measure isn’t net profit but “free cash flow” (FCF), calculated by taking “cash generated by operating activities” minus capital expenditures (capex). In other words, business income minus money you spent to grow your business.The differences are stark. Let’s start with Google. Amazingly, the company appears never to have been significantly cash flow negative. Similarly, Apple never showed negative free cash flow starting with its first full year in business and weathered only short-lived deficits as a mature player. Facebook showed just two years of negative FCF (in 2007 and 2008, when it burned $143 million).At Amazon, long the poster child for taking losses today to earn profits tomorrow, the numbers seem almost quaint. The new venture had negative FCF of $10.6 million from 1994 to 1997, but that was just a fraction of total sales. The only major underwater span in its history came from 1999 to 2001, when negative FCF totaled $813 million. But by 2002, Amazon’s FCF turned positive. All told, the Fab Four had total negative free cash flow in their early years of almost exactly $1 billion.By contrast, the Burners have already torn through $23.9 billion, encompassing 22 years of FCF deficits and outspending the Fab Four by around 20 to 1. At this pace, will they ever reward investors? Here’s the outlook for each.TeslaCash burn (total negative FCF): $10.9 billion over 12 years.Outlook: Negative FCF ballooned to $4.1 billion in 2017 but narrowed the following year to a (comparatively) modest $222 million. The reprieve was short-lived, as Tesla began to spend heavily to ramp up production of its mass-market Model 3. In the first quarter of this year, sales tumbled, and FCF fell to minus $945 million, forcing Tesla to raise $2.4 billion in equity and debt funding. Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas shocked the markets by lowering his previous “bear case” for Tesla’s stock price from $97 to $10, citing dangers of slowing sales in China. Jonas warned that declining overall demand is pushing back the date when Tesla will be able to fund itself from operations.Jonas’s price target (all targets are for 12 months from now): $230Current price: $216UberCash burn: $8.9 billion over three years (not including losses from earliest years).Outlook: In the offering statement to its long-awaited IPO in May, Uber revealed FCF numbers from 2016 through 2018. In 2016, Uber posted negative cash from operations of $2.9 billion and spent $1.6 billion in ­capex, for a negative FCF of $4.5 billion. Since then, the shortfalls have been shrinking, although they have remained substantial as the company has offered price promotions to customers and spent heavily on the launch of its Uber Eats food-delivery service, raising sales and marketing expenses by 25% in 2018 and 54% in Q1 of 2019. Tom White of brokerage D.A. Davidson tells Fortune, “Uber has bought itself some time with good recent performance on revenue and bookings. But by the end of this year, investors will start thinking of 2020 as hopefully the year where meaningful progress is made toward profitability.” If quarters keep slipping by without concrete progress, he adds, investors “will get discouraged or impatient.”White’s price target: $46Current price: $42.33LyftCash burn: $1.36 billion over three years and one quarter (not including losses from earliest years, which were not specified in the IPO prospectus).Outlook: In 2016, Lyft burned $496 million in FCF, and since then, the trajectory has improved only slightly. The shortfall shrank a bit to $350 million in 2018, but in Q1 of this year, it stood at $110 million. Lyft is asset-light, but it’s still spending so heavily on such basics as driver pay, insurance, R&D, and marketing that operating losses have continued to mount. Dan Galves of Wolfe Research points out that Lyft depends on dense urban markets for nearly 60% of its business, despite those areas making up only 5% of U.S. households. And annual growth in those metro areas, he reckons, has slowed to 24%, half the rate in early 2018. Galves also cites high driver costs that “are taking almost all the revenue” and doubts that Lyft will win broad appeal outside the big cities.Galves’s price target: $52Current price: $58.32SnapCash burn: $2.72 billion over four years (not including losses from earliest years, which were not in IPO filings).Outlook: Snap is still burdened by big research expenses, equal to one-third of its total costs, and R&D needed to expand its photo-sharing platform is expected to jump to over $900 million this year. Additionally, it’s instructive to look at how much cash Snap is burning in relation to all the money it collects marketing its service. From the start of 2017 through Q1 of this year, Snap had $2.33 billion in revenues and churned through 73% of that amount, $1.71 billion in cash. Michael Pachter of Wedbush notes that although user and revenue growth is impressive, “the road to profitability appears to have gotten longer.” He’s concerned that big spending on ­infrastructure and R&D has pushed back the date when Snap will show positive Ebitda to at least Q4 of 2020.Pachter’s price target: $12.25Current price: $13.62A version of this article appears in the July 2019 issue of Fortune with the headline “The Biggest Burners.”More must-read stories from Fortune:—When the next recession hits, 4 good things could happen—5 things to know about Facebook’s new cryptocurrency—There are now 3 people worth over $100 billion—Here’s when most economists think the next recession is coming—Listen to our new audio briefing, Fortune 500 DailyDon’t miss the daily Term Sheet, Fortune‘s newsletter on deals and dealmakers.You May Like HealthFormer GE CEO Jeff Immelt: To Combat Costs, CEOs Should Run Health Care Like a BusinessHealthFor Edie Falco, an ‘Attitude of Gratitude’ After Surviving Breast CancerLeadershipGhosn Back, Tesla Drop, Boeing Report: CEO Daily for April 4, 2019AutosElon Musk’s Plan to Boost Tesla Sales Is Dealt a SetbackMPWJoe Biden, Netflix Pregnancy Lawsuit, Lesley McSpadden: Broadsheet April 4last_img read more