{"comments":{"911941":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"911941","comment_id":"911941","member_id":"43715","comment":"Ok, quick summaries for your questions that Michak didn't answer:
\n
\nWhy is Gig Harbor #1? To put it bluntly, they've shown to be better than everyone this year. How is that determined? By looking at how each individual would score against the average NXN field over the past seven years. Ratings are derived from a variety of factors, but at this point of the season the most important factors are history: How fast did they run, and how fast has the course been compared to the regional and national courses (and also taking a look at how runners have done at other courses this year, if there were any weather conditions that are making the course slower than the historical average, etc.). For a comparison with a team you're probably more familiar with, how do Gig Harbor and Christian Brothers stack up?
\n
\nHere is a comparison of the athletes on the two teams. At the far left is their projected ranking on their team; next column is championship-weighted ratings (not applicable for CBA yet, since they haven't run their state meet); third column is seasonal rating. I also included their track times, for a more recognizable point of comparison.
\n
\n1 187.8 187.8 Mike McClemens 12 Christian Brothers Academy NJ 9:13.50 \/ 4:14.29
\n2 186.5 186.5 Blaise Ferro 10 Christian Brothers Academy NJ 9:13.26 \/ 4:23.70
\n3 184.4 184.4 Tom Rooney 12 Christian Brothers Academy NJ 9:09.70 \/ 4:17.25
\n4 182.0 182.0 Francis Bogan 12 Christian Brothers Academy NJ 9:19.29 \/ 4:44.27
\n5 179.0 179.0 Nick Trigani 10 Christian Brothers Academy NJ 9:30.87 \/ 4:24.42
\n6 178.3 178.3 Mike Cassidy 12 Christian Brothers Academy NJ 9:22.03 \/ 4:20.12
\n7 175.2 175.2 Josh Kruppa 11 Christian Brothers Academy NJ 9:26.13 \/ 4:33.26
\n
\n1 192.9 194.1 Wolfgang Beck 12 Gig Harbor WA 9:12.07 \/ 4:15.94 (though note that he ran 9:14.60 \/ 4:13.08 as a soph 2 years ago, and 9:13.06y over hay bales a month ago)
\n2 192.8 192.8 Logan Carroll 12 Gig Harbor WA (DNC) \/ 4:14.00y
\n3 190.2 190.4 Tristan Peloquin 11 Gig Harbor WA 9:09.27 \/ 4:17.92y
\n4 185.2 185.4 Mahmoud Moussa 12 Gig Harbor WA (did not run track at Arcadia)
\n5 175.6 176.4 Michael Hammer 11 Gig Harbor WA 9:51.46 \/ 4:44.83
\n6 171.9 172.4 Jordan Oldenburg 12 Gig Harbor WA (DNC) \/ 4:22.34
\n7 164.1 164.1 Jack Shields 9 Gig Harbor WA
\n
\nAnd for an additional point of comparison, here is how Gig Harbor fared at Bob Firman, a course that runs very similarly to Holmdel Park. Though note that this meet was in mid September... Gig Harbor has gotten a bit better since then.
\n
\n2. 12 Wolfgang Beck 15:15.28 Gig Harbor
\n10. 12 Logan Carroll 15:38.14 Gig Harbor
\n12. 11 Tristan Peloquin 15:44.90 Gig Harbor
\n21. 12 Mahmoud Moussa 16:06.71 Gig Harbor
\n35. 11 Michael Hammer 16:23.25 Gig Harbor
\n128. 12 Charles Shields 17:38.17 Gig Harbor
\n139. 9 Jack Shields 17:47.72 Gig Harbor
\n
\n... their team time at that race was only slower than to 2008 NXN#1 North Central WA and 2012 NXN#3 North Central WA (back when they were 100% healthy, unlike late season), which means they were faster than multiple NXN trophy teams including 2012 NXN#1 Arcadia CA, 2009 NXN#2 Joel Ferris WA, 2011 NXN#3 Davis UT, 2011 NXN#4 Arcadia CA, 2005 NTN#5 Mountain View UT, 2009 NXN#6 North Central WA, 2010 NXN#6 North Central WA, 2006 NTN#9 Trabuco Hills CA, 2007 NXN#7 North Central WA, 2012 NXN#7 Kamiakin WA, and a host of other NXN qualifiers from the Northwest, Southwest and California. And then their state meet performance was the best that Washington has ever seen, which includes MANY US#1\/2\/3\/4\/5 teams over the past quarter century (note: this course is about 25 seconds faster than Holmdel):
\n
\n1. 12 Logan Carroll 15:06.37 Gig Harbor
\n2. 12 Wolfgang Beck 15:09.28 Gig Harbor
\n3. 11 Tristan Peloquin 15:14.24 Gig Harbor
\n9. 12 Mahmoud Moussa 15:29.62 Gig Harbor
\n29. 11 Michael Hammer 15:59.38 Gig Harbor
\n39. 12 Jordan Oldenburg 16:09.10 Gig Harbor
\n73. 9 Jack Shields 16:30.76 Gig Harbor
\n
\n
\nWestern US teams dominating the rankings: It will even out a little bit this week, as the Illinois and Indiana state meets had some pretty good performances, but what Michak said is right. Take a look at the regions east of the Rockies aside from the Midwest... the South hasn't proven to be very elite at the top, as has been the case sans Southlake Carroll for a few years now; Southeast has some good teams, and are ranked accordingly, so that isn't unusual for them. New York has more boys teams ranked than in the past, and that's credit to how deep the state is at the top this year. So the only region that really doesn't have many teams compared to normal is the Northeast, which has CBA and West Chester Henderson but not many other teams (the pair of Rhode Island teams and Connecticut teams have bounced in and out of the rankings, but that's it) ... then again, it is pretty much normal as well to only have 4-6 Northeast boys teams in the US Top 40. California, the Southwest, and the Northwest are three of the four deepest boys regions in the nation (Midwest being the other). It shouldn't be a surprise that there are a lot of teams from those regions in the rankings - there always have been, because the teams are just that good (look at track results, FLN and NXN finishes of both athletes and teams over the past decade, a significant portion of the top and middle of the races are from those regions, and those regions also tend to be extremely competitive for those spots they earn - as are the Southeast and Northeast, though those teams that make it through aren't always scoring as low as their Western counterparts).","date_added":"Nov 14th 2013, 5:23am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"911871":{"pb_id":"44418","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"911871","comment_id":"911871","member_id":"44418","comment":"A couple of other things to note about Gig Harbor.
\n
\nOne of the historical footnotes of the town - though not necessarily the school - is that Doris Brown Heritage grew up here. She was one of the true pioneers of women's distance running and she went to the neighboring school in the same district, Peninsula High. She was an amazing talent who emerged in the late 50s and was something of a precursor to Mary Decker. Of course it's both interesting and sad to note that as a senior in high school she was forbidden from running on the school track because of her gender.
\n
\nBut the current thing that I think is unique about Gig Harbor is that coach Mark Wieczorek is, himself, a national-class 800-meter runner. He was a finalist in the U.S. Outdoor championships in both 2011 and 2012 (Olympic Trials). Not only that, but Wieczorek is dating Brie Felnagle, who is a well-known and accomplished runner, and he's roommates with Matt Scherer, a former Oregon Duck and one of the top pace-setters in the world. Scherer is also helping Mark as an assistant coach with the Gig team (and, full disclosure here, he's a long-time RunnerSpace employee). They are also part of a Brooks-funded training group that includes folks like Riley Masters, Katie Mackey, Angela Bizzarri, etc. So the runners in Gig Harbor program get to see what elite level training and racing is all about through their coach.","date_added":"Nov 13th 2013, 11:29pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":{"wally_id":"1082747","email_settings":"4294967295","email":"dbind4@aol.com","address":"DougB","gender":"u","member_id":"44418","member_name":"DougB","avatar_location":"av-44418.jpg","avatar_type":"upload","avatar":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-44418.jpg"},"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-44418.jpg","pb_title":"DougB","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=44418","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/DougB.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1082747"},"911710":{"pb_id":"43735","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"911710","comment_id":"911710","member_id":"43735","comment":"

<\/a>Bsarno1, on , said:<\/p>

\nWould like see more about the Gig Harbor team.
\nWhy are they no. 1.
\nHow big is the school, XC turnout etc.
\nwhen does season open....first legal practice varies from state to state.
\nDo they compete out of state....
\nLately, ratings seem to be dominated by West Coast, particularly massive Calif. and Wash., and mountain states Colorado and Utah. Is there a reference point..such as NXN performance.
\nKnow Washington runners and Saarel have done well at Arcadia and spring....but Washington is soooo far away and deserves a shoutout for earning high
<\/div><\/div>
\nI've seen you post this in two threads so I will answer it in the proper spot, (I'll let watchout answer why he has them at number one and the question about the West being so good but I think its because we are faster on this side of the mississippi)
\nGig Harbor has a 3 year count of 1433.43 which means it has around 1900 students and had 40 boys and 35 girls out for XC this year.
\nThe first legal practice was on August 26th, but they have a very strong summer training program run by captains and parents
\nAnd they competed at 3 major invites this year UW Sundodger, Nike Pre Nationals (in Oregon) and Bob Firman Invite (in Idaho at the NXNNW course) at Sundodger they beat instate powers Eisenhower, Kamiakin amoung others while running in a pack, then at Bob Firman they ran there only all out effort of the regular season they scored 63 points to North Centrals 149 and beat several top Washington and Utah Teams and at Nike Pre Nationals they again ran in a pack this time all of there top 5 finished in 1 second to take place 13 to 17 and won the meet easily. Now at the state meet they ran a historic race in which they finished 1-2-3-9-29 and ran the fastest team time ever at Sun Willows on a course that has had all time great Mead, Ferris and North Central squads compete on.","date_added":"Nov 13th 2013, 8:38am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"Michak","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43735","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43735","pb_wally_id":"1073841"},"911690":{"pb_id":"45736","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"911690","comment_id":"911690","member_id":"45736","comment":"Would like see more about the Gig Harbor team.
\nWhy are they no. 1.
\nHow big is the school, XC turnout etc.
\nwhen does season open....first legal practice varies from state to state.
\nDo they compete out of state....
\nLately, ratings seem to be dominated by West Coast, particularly massive Calif. and Wash., and mountain states Colorado and Utah. Is there a reference point..such as NXN performance.
\nKnow Washington runners and Saarel have done well at Arcadia and spring....but Washington is soooo far away and deserves a shoutout for earning high","date_added":"Nov 13th 2013, 7:41am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"Bsarno1","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=45736","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/Bsarno1.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1116260"},"909254":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"909254","comment_id":"909254","member_id":"43715","comment":"There is more to how fast a course runs than just the distance.
\n
\nBut yes, Burbank is a solid team.","date_added":"Nov 10th 2013, 8:11pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"908976":{"pb_id":"52099","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"908976","comment_id":"908976","member_id":"52099","comment":"Utah State Meet - Oct 23, 2013
\r\n
\r\nConnor Mcmillan 12 American Fork 15:04.1
\r\nZachary Jacklin 11 American Fork 15:27.8
\r\nTyler Bell 12 American Fork 15:46.6
\r\nCasey Clinger 9 American Fork 15:52.7
\r\nCaleb Thompson 12 American Fork 16:04.4
\r\nSpencer Herzog 12 American Fork 16:07.7
\r\n\t
\r\nPacific League Meet - Nov 7, 2013
\r\n\t\t\t\t
\r\nChoe, Elliot 12 Burbank 14:44.09 6\t
\r\nMkrtchyan, Arsen 12 Burbank 14:49.12 7\t
\r\nEllman, Gabriel 12 Burbank 15:08.38 11\t
\r\nMoskowitz, Ethan 12 Burbank 15:09.91 12\t
\r\nVizcaino, Enrique 11 Burbank 15:18.97 16\t
\r\nDoyle, Brennan 11 Burbank 15:22.93 18\t
\r\n\t
\r\nw\/ 20 second altitude adjustment\t\t\t\t
\r\nAm Fork\t\tBurbank\t\t\t
\r\n1444\t1\t1444\t2\t\t
\r\n1507\t4\t1449\t3\t\t
\r\n1526\t9\t1508\t5\t\t
\r\n1532\t10\t1509\t6\t\t
\r\n1544\t11\t1518\t7\t\t
\r\n1547\t12\t1522\t8\t\t
\r\n\t\t\t\t\t
\r\n\t35\t\t23\t\t
\r\n\t
\r\nw\/ 30 second altitude adjustment\t\t\t\t
\r\nAm Fork\t\tBurbank\t\t\t
\r\n1434\t1\t1444\t2\t\t
\r\n1457\t4\t1449\t3\t\t
\r\n1516\t7\t1508\t5\t\t
\r\n1522\t9\t1509\t6\t\t
\r\n1534\t11\t1518\t8\t\t
\r\n1537\t12\t1522\t10\t\t
\r\n\t\t\t\t\t
\r\n\t32\t\t24\t\t
\r\n\t\t
\r\nw\/ 30 second altitude adjustment\t\t\t
\r\nAm Fork\t\tBurbank\t\t\t
\r\n1424\t1\t1444\t2\t\t
\r\n1447\t3\t1449\t4\t\t
\r\n1506\t5\t1508\t6\t\t
\r\n1512\t8\t1509\t7\t\t
\r\n1524\t11\t1518\t9\t\t
\r\n1527\t12\t1522\t10\t\t
\r\n\t\t\t\t\t
\r\n\t\t\t\t\t
\r\n\t28\t\t28","date_added":"Nov 10th 2013, 9:49am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"milermike","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=52099","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/milermike.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1318790"},"903892":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"903892","comment_id":"903892","member_id":"43715","comment":"Agreed with all you said. As previously stated, I'm sure York will bounce back (they almost always do). Also, I'm sure Glenbard West will continue to rise in the rankings as they continue to get better (Perez's return having much to do with that, obviously). They were ranked in the top 10 in the pre-season for a reason!","date_added":"Nov 4th 2013, 1:55am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"903891":{"pb_id":"51677","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"903891","comment_id":"903891","member_id":"51677","comment":"

<\/a>cerutty fan, on , said:<\/p>

\nI'm certainly not trying to disparage runners from anywhere, just saying that according to overall population the two states seem about right in line. Was just giving you a hard time about the Century League.
\n
\nThe numbers I had down were for returning runners, meaning no seniors from last year.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nMea culpa. I see now in your orig message you already did say "returning runners." I just missed it, my apologies.
\n
\nRelated to my earlier post re rankings: York boys seemed to run their Sectional race trying to live down to (or below) Watchout's rankings. I haven't heard yet if some of their guys were sick, but I can't complain about their rating now. We'll see after State. Some other IL teams coming together well, should be an interesting state meet.
\n
\nGlenbard West girls, however, ran fantastic, and if they duplicate next week at State will be deserving of higher ranking. (I didn't see the other great IL girls teams in person, but based on results looked like Naperville North ran great, possibly Palatine, too. New Trier girls were a bit off (and missing a top 5 runner), but I expect they'll bounce back next week.","date_added":"Nov 4th 2013, 1:49am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"ILDistanceFan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=51677","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/ILDistanceFan.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1272024"},"900573":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"1","parent_id":"0","pid":"900573","comment_id":"900573","member_id":"43715","comment":"West Plains boys obviously has the best shot - they're sitting at MW#6 and just off the national rankings, after being MW#4 and US#40 in the last updates.
\n
\nSte Genevieve girls could sneak into the national rankings with a strong performance from their pack runners, though I think MW Top-5 might be out of reach when the Michigan teams are included.
\n
\nFor Ohio, it's more of a longshot beyond the already ranked St. Xavier boys, but maybe Mason... their boys are just off the MW Top-10 for now.
\n
\nFor Michigan, Hudsonville girls barely missed out on the national rankings this week, and Traverse City Central wasn't far off either. Groose Pointe South has a shot as well. On the boys side, Waterford Mott boys could sneak into either the national or regional rankings as they aren't too far behind West Plains MO. I have Milford Highland and Northville a bit further back.","date_added":"Nov 2nd 2013, 1:40am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"900568":{"pb_id":"51470","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900568","comment_id":"900568","member_id":"51470","comment":"What Missouri teams can you see potentially making a jump into the rankings, along with other Midwest teams, it seems as though Illinois and Indiana continue to be the strongest of the Midwest region.","date_added":"Nov 2nd 2013, 1:27am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"xcrunnerdude","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=51470","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/xcrunnerdude.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1254523"},"900221":{"pb_id":"50627","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900221","comment_id":"900221","member_id":"50627","comment":"

<\/a>ILDistanceFan, on , said:<\/p>

\nYeah, I'd say what you read is not at all accurate about track times. I think you looked at INDOOR season only.
\n
\n2013 Illinois state meet ONLY (not all season, just the one meet) had
\n
\nSub 9:20: 17 (13 in 3A, 3 in 2A, 1 in 1A)
\n
\n1600, sub 4:17: 8 (took 4:18:02 to qualify for final in 3A - so 12 at 4:18 or faster)
\n
\nAgain, that's from ONE MEET.
\n
\nActually, when I look at ILMileSplit.com (and I'm not vouching for their listing), for OUTDOOR track (only) I see
\n
\n1600M
\nSub 4:22 - IL 45
\nSub 4:20 - - IL 31
\nSub 4:17 - - IL 16
\n
\n3200M
\nSub 9:27 - - IL 48**
\nSub 9:20 - CA 57 - IL 27
\n
\nTo be fair, I also see more CA runners than you listed meeting your criteria (see sub 9:20 3200). So, CA has about twice as many fast 3200 runners. (But if we want to compare REGIONS, as in NXN regions, we'd have to add to IL: Mich, Ind, Oh, & Missou). No one is saying (well, I'm not saying) CA is bad at XC or track, but no need to disparage runners from Illinois or elsewhere.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nI'm certainly not trying to disparage runners from anywhere, just saying that according to overall population the two states seem about right in line. Was just giving you a hard time about the Century League.
\n
\nThe numbers I had down were for returning runners, meaning no seniors from last year.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 8:25pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"cerutty fan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=50627","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=50627","pb_wally_id":"1212787"},"900156":{"pb_id":"51677","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900156","comment_id":"900156","member_id":"51677","comment":"

<\/a>cerutty fan, on , said:<\/p>

\nMaybe the accuracy of Milesplit is questionable, I'm really not sure, but here is what they report in terms of number of returnees from last track season.
\n
\n1600M
\nSub 4:22 - CA 48 - IL 21
\nSub 4:20 - CA 36 - IL 12
\nSub 4:17 - CA 21 - IL 2
\n
\n3200M
\nSub 9:27 - CA 47 - IL 17
\nSub 9:20 - CA 21 - IL 7
\n
\nCalifornia's population is about 3x that of Illinois. It looks like they have about 3x the depth as well.
\n
\nAs for hype, I think the top 7 runners from the Century League could beat the top 7 runners from the entire state of Illinois. :D
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\n
\nYeah, I'd say what you read is not at all accurate about track times. I think you looked at INDOOR season only.
\n
\n2013 Illinois state meet ONLY (not all season, just the one meet) had
\n
\nSub 9:20: 17 (13 in 3A, 3 in 2A, 1 in 1A)
\n
\n1600, sub 4:17: 8 (took 4:18:02 to qualify for final in 3A - so 12 at 4:18 or faster)
\n
\nAgain, that's from ONE MEET.
\n
\nActually, when I look at ILMileSplit.com (and I'm not vouching for their listing), for OUTDOOR track (only) I see
\n
\n1600M
\nSub 4:22 - IL 45
\nSub 4:20 - - IL 31
\nSub 4:17 - - IL 16
\n
\n3200M
\nSub 9:27 - - IL 48**
\nSub 9:20 - CA 57 - IL 27
\n
\nTo be fair, I also see more CA runners than you listed meeting your criteria (see sub 9:20 3200). So, CA has about twice as many fast 3200 runners. (But if we want to compare REGIONS, as in NXN regions, we'd have to add to IL: Mich, Ind, Oh, & Missou). No one is saying (well, I'm not saying) CA is bad at XC or track, but no need to disparage runners from Illinois or elsewhere.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 7:24pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"ILDistanceFan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=51677","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/ILDistanceFan.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1272024"},"900152":{"pb_id":"51677","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900152","comment_id":"900152","member_id":"51677","comment":"

<\/a>watchout, on , said:<\/p>

\nI agree, but as their only races in the last 3 weeks were WSS and their Regional race, and as I have said numerous times I look at the best performance for each individual in the last 3 weeks, last 4 weeks, and so on ... you can understand how not having a strong result in the last 3 weeks inevitably leads to a drop in the rankings. And as I also said, I expect them to rise again in the rankings after their Sectional and State meets.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nI know, and I know I'm being a bit of a homer here - but someone's gotta do it!
\n
\nWe'll be looking to see how the rankings change after Sectionals and State; and even more eager to see results from interstate competition at NXN regionals. Too bad there is such limited inter-regional competitions, and that affects the selection for the one chance it can happen (NXN).","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 7:02pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"ILDistanceFan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=51677","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/ILDistanceFan.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1272024"},"900136":{"pb_id":"50627","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900136","comment_id":"900136","member_id":"50627","comment":"

<\/a>Mike Newman, on , said:<\/p>

\nCalifornia is not that good. It's just a fact. Way too much hype.
\n
\nShocked that York dropped that low. All they do is win.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nMaybe the accuracy of Milesplit is questionable, I'm really not sure, but here is what they report in terms of number of returnees from last track season.
\n
\n1600M
\nSub 4:22 - CA 48 - IL 21
\nSub 4:20 - CA 36 - IL 12
\nSub 4:17 - CA 21 - IL 2
\n
\n3200M
\nSub 9:27 - CA 47 - IL 17
\nSub 9:20 - CA 21 - IL 7
\n
\nCalifornia's population is about 3x that of Illinois. It looks like they have about 3x the depth as well.
\n
\nAs for hype, I think the top 7 runners from the Century League could beat the top 7 runners from the entire state of Illinois. :D","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 5:16pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"cerutty fan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=50627","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=50627","pb_wally_id":"1212787"},"900102":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900102","comment_id":"900102","member_id":"43715","comment":"

<\/a>ILDistanceFan, on , said:<\/p>

\nAs for York, when they run 4 guys tying for 1st with the same time, you can bet they weren't going all out. We'll see how it shakes out at State and NXN-midwest. Unfortunately, at least from the perspective of trying to compare across regions, IL teams rarely compete out of state. The one instance that comes to mind this year was the Naperville North girls, and they had their worst performance of the year there, by any measure.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nI agree, but as their only races in the last 3 weeks were WSS and their Regional race, and as I have said numerous times I look at the best performance for each individual in the last 3 weeks, last 4 weeks, and so on ... you can understand how not having a strong result in the last 3 weeks inevitably leads to a drop in the rankings. And as I also said, I expect them to rise again in the rankings after their Sectional and State meets.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 4:06pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"900096":{"pb_id":"51677","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900096","comment_id":"900096","member_id":"51677","comment":"

<\/a>watchout, on , said:<\/p>

\nI'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say...
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nBasically I'm just quibbling, but the point is: It's XC, don't read TOO much into times, even on well tested courses. You know that already, obviously, that's what make your\/Tully's speed ratings so great,even though of course they have some limitations. If you assume some shifts in the distribution of times is completely legit because the times are on well-tested courses, whereas you assume others are not legit (or only accept shifts toward slower), then it's hard to know whether you're consistently correcting for course bias.
\n
\nIt's a tough racket! That's part of what makes it fun - and why we can appreciate your efforts even while we attempt to "correct" what we see as a bias. As I said, I don't have Cali info, so if you can tell me that times are basically steady except for the top few teams\/individuals, that would address my question.
\n
\nAs for York, when they run 4 guys tying for 1st with the same time, you can bet they weren't going all out. We'll see how it shakes out at State and NXN-midwest. Unfortunately, at least from the perspective of trying to compare across regions, IL teams rarely compete out of state. The one instance that comes to mind this year was the Naperville North girls, and they had their worst performance of the year there, by any measure.
\n
\nI predict State meet in IL won't be as blazing fast this year as last. Why? Lots of rain this week, and forecast for next. Not during the meet, but enough to soften the course a bit. We'll see.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 3:23pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"ILDistanceFan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=51677","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/ILDistanceFan.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1272024"},"900095":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900095","comment_id":"900095","member_id":"43715","comment":"

<\/a>Keith Chann, on , said:<\/p>

\nInteresting to see that Great Oak jumped into the rankings this week. They had, unquestionably, their worst race of the season and entered the rankings this week which I can only determine was based on their result from Mt. SAC Inv. I am not suggesting that GO should not be ranked based on their previous results but, it does seem odd that this is the week they enter the top 25.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nIt also helped significantly that I re-evaluated Nike South (and the rest of the Texas meets). That also helped the Texas girls (Southlake Carroll would have jumped significantly simply because they finally got one of their frontrunners back)
\n
\nNike South was 4 weeks ago. So not an absolute help (even if they ran their best there, it would be tempered by whatever they ran at Inland Empire or Mt. SAC), but definitely a big help.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 3:12pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"900093":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900093","comment_id":"900093","member_id":"43715","comment":"

<\/a>ILDistanceFan, on , said:<\/p>

\nTo paraphrase Syndrome (The Incredibles"): "When everyone is fast, noone is fast."
\n
\nI find this an interesting discussion, particularly from someone who derives (or has derived) speed ratings that are "course neutral." I don't have all the Cali meet info in front of me, but one of several scenarios could be unfolding. Tell me which is most likely:
\n
\n1. 100th (or 200th) place in each meet\/class\/division, for both boys and girls, is about the same as it ever was, on only slightly improved. But the winners are breaking records. And the best times\/runners are concentrated among a few teams. This scenario gives the strongest support to the idea that this is a great year in Cali XC for both boys and girls. Courses are running about the same, but a few people\/teams are excelling.
\n
\n2. 100th (or 200th) place is significantly faster (say 15sec) for boys, but not for girls; and a few teams are especially responsible. This would suggest the courses are running the same but boys are having a great year, spread across all teams and individuals. A bit weird for such even improvement across the state, but possible. And much more likely to happen in one gender than in both.
\n
\n3. 100th\/200th place for both boys and girls is significantly faster than usual, almost across the board. This suggests either "something is in the water" (or in the weather - great training weather? great racing weather?) or, more likely the course is running fast this year.
\n
\nWhy would a "well-tested" course run fast? There are many possibilities. The combination of dampness and usage can be critical. A course used as often as Mt Sac can be flattened into a highway under some conditions, or churned to mud under others - the latter being less likely in SoCal than in Illinois (let alone Portland Meadows).
\n
\nBeing from Illinois (which I think is very under-rated in your current rankings, but that's another story), I look at Detweiller (3m course) times over the years. There are good years and bad, but if you look at 100th place at State meet, while it's pretty consistent there is variation. In last 11 years, the fastest 100th place boy in the large school division is 15:24 (twice), lowest is 15:57 (average= 15:38, std dev=11s). Were these fluctuations in racing population, or course? Well, let's look at another group running same course over same period: the girls (average=18:40, std dev= 20s for girls). The correlation between 100th place for girls and boys is 0.92. This suggest something in common is driving the time variation. The most likely variable is the course (and\/or weather -- take them both in combination). Surges in sport popularity or competitiveness might contribute, but weather's contribution has been obvious some years, and subtle but discernible others.
\n
\nThat doesn't mean course\/weather is the only factor. For 1st place the boy-girl correlation over same 11 years is only 0.49 - so, course contributes, but individual variation does too, naturally. And some years are better for boys (2008 was relatively fast for boys much less for girls), other years better for girls (2012 was by far fastest ever for girls, only = fastest for boys).
\n
\nThe discrepancy between genders (or between divisions\/classes) is a better sign that one group just happens to be having a good year. A year when all groups\/genders get better, deep through the results, suggest the course is running fast.
\n
\nIsn't that just they type of analysis your speed ratings are supposed to account for?
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\n
\nI'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say... so I'll respond as best as I can.
\n
\nIndeed, course conditions (most notably weather, such as rain leading up to the meet leaving a course wet or muddy, wind at the meet, a heatwave, extreme heat, etc.) can and most definitely do effect how fast a course runs. That's why the NXN-MW and NXN National courses have been pretty inconsistent. That has nothing to do with how well the course runs in good conditions, though, which is the case in all the examples I've brought up this year (specifically, Mt. SAC and Detweiller in this conversation). This isn't the first time it's happened, and not the first time very good teams have competed in good conditions either. So the point remains, doesn't it? Teams are running fast. They are proving how good they are by running fast. This can be seen by a quick look at All-Time lists, particularly on well-tested courses. And it's backed up by athletes running similarly fast on other courses, both well-tested and not. Hence why California (and other states) have had several highly ranked teams. Illinois and Midwest teams have been running well, but when put in a historical context (how good are the marks they've been running, really? not just who they have race and\/or beaten), teams from other states have been doing better. Thus, teams from other states have been ranked higher. In York's case, as I said, they haven't really run many races lately, and with their WSS race not being all that impressive, it shouldn't be surprising that they've dropped a few spots - especially when the teams they are ranked near have a similar All-Time standing on well tested courses.
\n
\nIs Mt. SAC, and other California courses, faster than year than in the past? I don't see how - good weather, but that's not exactly uncommon. No course changes at Mt. SAC, minor on other courses that shouldn't effect how slow the course is (still basically flat, still the same distance). When the only difference is that runners are running faster, the only answer is that the runners ARE faster. Sure, if you graph out the races or look at how times at a specific finishing position compare, the graph shows that the races are faster than in the past - but that's why I don't use race graphing as my primary rating tool: it can downgrade performances on the same course in the same conditions with the same race tactics (in other words, identical situation beyond athletic capability of the athletes in the meet) if only the athletes are a little better this year. An increase in the of quality of the field doesn't lessen the caliber of performance at the meet, and so you shouldn't treat it as such. A perfect example is Utah last year - times were notably better across the board, but the conditions were pretty similar to the past, and the course wasn't changed - so did the course run significantly faster, or was it just that the athletes were that much better? If you look first and foremost at graphing the race to rate the performance, then the athletes would get a lower rating than in the past; if you look at what the athletes have done to that point (raced on other courses, and give credit to the runners running fast rather than the course running fast despite similar conditions), the ratings would be the same for an equal performance in previous years. Graphing the course would have suggested Utah wouldn't have dominated the NXN-Southwest meet - yet they did, having 3 teams in the top 5 and 6 in the top 10 on the boys side, and 3 in the top 6 and 5 in the top 10 on the girls. Their best-ever year.
\n
\nGive credit to the kids, not the course. The kids are the ones running the race. Running better times in similar conditions means they are better, not that the course is faster.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 3:01pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"900090":{"pb_id":"48488","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900090","comment_id":"900090","member_id":"48488","comment":"Interesting to see that Great Oak jumped into the rankings this week. They had, unquestionably, their worst race of the season and entered the rankings this week which I can only determine was based on their result from Mt. SAC Inv. I am not suggesting that GO should not be ranked based on their previous results but, it does seem odd that this is the week they enter the top 25.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 2:54pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"Keith Chann","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=48488","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/Keith-Chann.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1272068"},"900085":{"pb_id":"51677","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900085","comment_id":"900085","member_id":"51677","comment":"

<\/a>watchout, on , said:<\/p>

\nMt. SAC is extremely well tested, has been around forever, and yet these teams continue to run All-Time marks on it. They [CA teams] aren't overhyped - they are very good. That's just a fact.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nTo paraphrase Syndrome (The Incredibles"): "When everyone is fast, noone is fast."
\n
\nI find this an interesting discussion, particularly from someone who derives (or has derived) speed ratings that are "course neutral." I don't have all the Cali meet info in front of me, but one of several scenarios could be unfolding. Tell me which is most likely:
\n
\n1. 100th (or 200th) place in each meet\/class\/division, for both boys and girls, is about the same as it ever was, on only slightly improved. But the winners are breaking records. And the best times\/runners are concentrated among a few teams. This scenario gives the strongest support to the idea that this is a great year in Cali XC for both boys and girls. Courses are running about the same, but a few people\/teams are excelling.
\n
\n2. 100th (or 200th) place is significantly faster (say 15sec) for boys, but not for girls; and a few teams are especially responsible. This would suggest the courses are running the same but boys are having a great year, spread across all teams and individuals. A bit weird for such even improvement across the state, but possible. And much more likely to happen in one gender than in both.
\n
\n3. 100th\/200th place for both boys and girls is significantly faster than usual, almost across the board. This suggests either "something is in the water" (or in the weather - great training weather? great racing weather?) or, more likely the course is running fast this year.
\n
\nWhy would a "well-tested" course run fast? There are many possibilities. The combination of dampness and usage can be critical. A course used as often as Mt Sac can be flattened into a highway under some conditions, or churned to mud under others - the latter being less likely in SoCal than in Illinois (let alone Portland Meadows).
\n
\nBeing from Illinois (which I think is very under-rated in your current rankings, but that's another story), I look at Detweiller (3m course) times over the years. There are good years and bad, but if you look at 100th place at State meet, while it's pretty consistent there is variation. In last 11 years, the fastest 100th place boy in the large school division is 15:24 (twice), lowest is 15:57 (average= 15:38, std dev=11s). Were these fluctuations in racing population, or course? Well, let's look at another group running same course over same period: the girls (average=18:40, std dev= 20s for girls). The correlation between 100th place for girls and boys is 0.92. This suggest something in common is driving the time variation. The most likely variable is the course (and\/or weather -- take them both in combination). Surges in sport popularity or competitiveness might contribute, but weather's contribution has been obvious some years, and subtle but discernible others.
\n
\nThat doesn't mean course\/weather is the only factor. For 1st place the boy-girl correlation over same 11 years is only 0.49 - so, course contributes, but individual variation does too, naturally. And some years are better for boys (2008 was relatively fast for boys much less for girls), other years better for girls (2012 was by far fastest ever for girls, only = fastest for boys).
\n
\nThe discrepancy between genders (or between divisions\/classes) is a better sign that one group just happens to be having a good year. A year when all groups\/genders get better, deep through the results, suggest the course is running fast.
\n
\nIsn't that just they type of analysis your speed ratings are supposed to account for?","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 2:37pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"ILDistanceFan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=51677","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/ILDistanceFan.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1272024"},"899555":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899555","comment_id":"899555","member_id":"43715","comment":"

<\/a>Michiganfan, on , said:<\/p>

\nI know first hand that Brea ran without two of their varsity runners. They had their regular 5 guys run and rested their 6 and 7 guys. My son runs for Brea. That's a fact.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nInteresting. The results included everyone I had for Brea Olinda's top-7 previously. Who was it that sat out? Jeff Sipple and Chris DeDio were the only ones that I've been keeping track of that weren't in the results. You could make a case for Sipple being their #7, but I think DiMaggio Orozco passed him up and Trevor Lunde was faster than him at Clovis as well.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 5:51am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"899518":{"pb_id":"50324","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899518","comment_id":"899518","member_id":"50324","comment":"

<\/a>Keith Chann, on , said:<\/p>

\nBrea was not without 2 top runners. They ran the full varsity squad.
\nGreat Oak was not 6th at Mt SAC
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nI know first hand that Brea ran without two of their varsity runners. They had their regular 5 guys run and rested their 6 and 7 guys. My son runs for Brea. That's a fact.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 5:37am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"Michiganfan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=50324","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=50324","pb_wally_id":"1206004"},"899516":{"pb_id":"50627","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899516","comment_id":"899516","member_id":"50627","comment":"

<\/a>watchout, on , said:<\/p>

\nAh. Well, in cases like this, I think it's probably best to go with whatever the official results say (I realize it's important to give teams credit for their actual finishing place, but the rankings aren't done by team finish at invites and the official results are what should be commented on for saying where they finished in the meet). Has meet management corrected the results elsewhere, so that we can also update the commentary?
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nNo, I don't think it will be possible to correct all the results, it would be too time consuming with 124 races to rescore.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 5:12am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"cerutty fan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=50627","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=50627","pb_wally_id":"1212787"},"899477":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899477","comment_id":"899477","member_id":"43715","comment":"Ah. Well, in cases like this, I think it's probably best to go with whatever the official results say (I realize it's important to give teams credit for their actual finishing place, but the rankings aren't done by team finish at invites and the official results are what should be commented on for saying where they finished in the meet). Has meet management corrected the results elsewhere, so that we can also update the commentary?","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 4:54am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"899463":{"pb_id":"50627","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899463","comment_id":"899463","member_id":"50627","comment":"

<\/a>watchout, on , said:<\/p>

\nGreat Oak was sixth in the Division 1\/2 Team Sweepstakes race at Mt. SAC: http:\/\/events.mtsac....\/2013\/hs\/73.pdf<\/a>
\n
\nComments regarding what the teams did get abbreviated (shortened); as a result, the teams at Mt. SAC this week (or Manhattan last week) are probably in the elite race (Team Sweepstakes for Mt. SAC, Eastern States for Manhattan) unless otherwise noted. Hence Brea Olinda's comment about winning the D3 Sweepstakes race, or Loyola winning the Individual Sweepstakes race.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nGreat Oak was actually 7th, 1 point behind Dos Pueblos. Scoring mixup put GO's Giba at 36th, but was actually 37th.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 4:50am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"cerutty fan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=50627","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=50627","pb_wally_id":"1212787"}},"last_id":"899463","url":"comments.php?item_type=news&item_id=193296&item_url=profile.php?member_id=51470"}