Washington women ranked ahead of Oregon

So what did Washington do to take the #1 ranking away from Oregon? They placed 1st in the Sundodger and Auburn meets where they faced absolutely no serious competitors. Washington hasn’t yet raced a ranked team, or even a top-25 individual runner from ‘07 Nats. It was obvious to any knowledgeable observer that Washington would easily dominate their first two meets this season. In contrast, Oregon convincing beat #11 ranked Arkansas at Dellinger last weekend by 23 to 60, yet they lost their #1 ranking. Unfortunately, many coaches voting in these polls give very little thought to their voting.

But I'm actually glad this has happened. It will light a fire under the Oregon women as they will now have something to prove (that they are indeed #1). It also takes the target off their backs. So Oregon, whose top runners won't be racing together until PAC-10s will be going after #1 Washington at PAC-10s. They will be focused and hungry to beat Washington in a big way. Perfect!

I suspect most voting coaches looked at the impressive times of the Washington runners at Auburn, not realizing the course was about 300m short. Most probably didn't read the letsrun "How Short was Auburn" thread. Also, the Dellinger course was very soft from prior day rain, and it rained heavily during part of the women's race as well, slowing times even further.

Simply comparing the times Washington ran this weekend vs. Oregon's times, it would be easy to vote Washington #1. This wouldn't have happened if the coaches realized the times weren't comparable and instead looked at the competition both schools faced.

Too bad you dilweeds don't realize that these ramkings are not voted on but are made up by the regional reps.

Nationals is shaping up as 4 PAC10 teams (Oregon, Washington, Stanford, & Arizona State) vs. Florida State.

Voting wrote:

Too bad you dilweeds don't realize that these ramkings are not voted on but are made up by the regional reps.

I'll agree these rankings do look "made up". Doesn't each region have multiple reps and aren't nearly all of these reps coaches? Perhaps they don't vote per se, but they somehow come to agreement on a ranking that is akin to voting.

Before you go calling people dilweeds, tell us where XC fans can read a description as to how the Regional Rankings and National Poles are arrived at. There is no mention of how this is done on USTFCCCA’s website, nor is there any “contact us” feature on that website where one could ask them how they do this.

Each region has one rep. and that rep. determines the ranking for that region after collecting information from the coaches in that region. No doubt, Washington’s coach didn’t tell this rep. that his team’s very fast times at the Auburn meet were due to a course that was about 300 meters (or over one minute) short. So that likely explains why Washington surpassed Oregon who defeated #11 Arkansas this past weekend by 23 to 60.

The 9 region reps along with 3 at-large reps are the 12 voters for the national poll. Hopefully they will take into consideration the short Auburn course and that Washington, in its two meets this season, has not faced any serious competition. If these 12 voters don't know whats going on with the top two schools, then these USTFCCCA polls are just a joke.

Guys race was about a minute short, girls was much closer to an acurate 5k. They were two different courses.

True it was short, but do not exagerate the difference.

Looks like, in your opinion, the polls are a joke. They voted 11 to 1 for Washington.

http://ustfccca.cstv.com/sports/division1/spec-rel/100708aag.html

The Auburn course was indeed short, but only by about 20 seconds or so for the women.

Maybe the coaches realized Washington is deeper than Oregon. Who knows, but I wouldn't get your panties in a bunch about a coach's poll. It's just a poll that no one outside of us give's a rat's ass about.

You guys need to go back and read the later posts on the "How Short was Auburn" thread. On average, the top 9 women finishers set 5K XC PRs of 58 seconds! The women's course had to be somewhere between 60 and 90 seconds short. Yes, it was a different course from the men's course. If Auburn couldn't measure the men's course correctly, what makes you think they measured the women's course correctly? Just because the Auburn coach says the women's course was measured correctly, this doesn't make it so.

Go here and read the post by Run77.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2700481&page=2

If the Washington supporters want to believe their women ran that fast, let them. They will be in for a rude awakening when they finally race agaist some competition.

5k XC PR's?? Is that really relevant? When was the last time the Washington women ran a 5k XC race?? They did NOT run any 5K XC races in 2007 so that comparison has got to go out the window.

It is reasonable to think that the course was 30 seconds short, and on average the MUCH IMPROVED Washington women's squad PR'ed on average by 30 seconds. Many of them PR'ed by about that much comparing sundodger 07 to 08.

no "contact us" feature? two seconds of looking and i've got:

http://ustfccca.cstv.com/ot/ustca-div1-xc-coaches.html

5k xc is for amateurs, short course or not. Lets see what happens when an additional k along with some stiff competition is added like at the pac10's & ncca's. especially for the younger speedsters that are not used to the distance.

The only "young speedsters" that would not be used to the distance would be babcock and schaaf. The rest of the top 7+ are all returning huskys that have run 6k many times.

But, Schaaf ran 19:58 already this year for 6k so she seems to have that extra K figured out. Regardless of the actual distance, she broke the course record by a hefty amount.

wooooooowwwww.... wrote:

5k XC PR's?? Is that really relevant? When was the last time the Washington women ran a 5k XC race?? They did NOT run any 5K XC races in 2007 so that comparison has got to go out the window.

Most of the top-9 finishers at the Auburn meet also beat their 5K “track” PRs, many by a significant margin. I did not add that information because it would have made the post more complex.

The fact is that Washington, in its first two meets, has raced against only one runner who has placed in the top 100 at '07 Nats. Washington should have dominated, and did, their first two meets. But none of this indicates they should be ranked #1. Oregon at least easily beat #11 ranked Arkansas (#13 at '07 Nats) by 23 to 60.

So Washington races very weak competition and Oregon easily beats #11 ranked Arkansas (who advances to #10). Yet Washington gets 11 of 12 first place votes this week when Oregon had 11 of 12 first place votes last week. That is crazy!!!

This shows what many have long claimed -- that the USTFCCCA poles are given very little thought and analysis by their 12 voting members. I've read many posts in prior years protesting how a certain team could possibly be ranked as low or as high as USTFCCCA ranked them. Now I understand why. The Washington coach reported his results to the West Region USTFCCCA representative without telling him about the short course. This West Region rep. then voted Washington #1 in the West Region based on those great Auburn times, and the other 11 voting lemmings followed suit in the national poll.

I really don't care if Washington is ranked above Oregon. That will soon sort itself out at the PAC-10 Championship. But I'm really disappointed that the 12 voting members of the USTFCCCA polls are doing such a poor job. They seem to be placing far too much weight on finish times (as if this were outdoor track), and almost ignoring the strength of the competition. How else can you explain Washington going from 1 to 11 first place votes when they beat no ranked team or top individual while former #1 Oregon easily beat #11 Arkansas by 23 to 60?

Any USTFCCCA polls before pre-Nats are almost meaningless. I’m not certain I’d give any weight to their late season polls either. In USTFCCCA’s last ’07 poll (just after Regionals) they ranked Princeton #4 (finished 14th) and Minnesota #5 (finished 12th). I’m not expecting good accuracy from USTFCCCA even in their late season polls, but they can’t even get a good handle on who the top-5 are. Let’s hope the letsrun super poll ends up being a better guide to the top teams.

How would you know that the voting members voted with "times' in mind. Washington has a roster with threee new athletes that accomplished this last year in HS.

1. Fastest American High Schooler at 1600m EVER.

2. Fastest American High schooler at Steeple EVER.

3. Fastest Canadian High schooler ever at 5000m EVER

Add to this last years top returners, 19th and 20th at the NCAA Cross Country Meet.

Add to this at least 4 others that can run in the top 7 for the Huskies.

Add to this a gap of 31 sec for the 1-5 runners. when the # 1 sets a Sundodger record. That is AMAZING. 31 sec would come out at aprox 40 at 6km.

Add to this a 1-7 Gap of 45 seconds at 5km or 2.9 miles or 3.06 miles, who cares. 45 seconds 1-7 gap for a team that has a front runner that is currently running like a top 5 runner in the NCAA. Hell, she could be the 2nd best runner in the NCAA right now.

Short course. Obviously. Many ways to figure out why almost every voter had washington as # 1 this week.

Remember, Louie Quintana voted washington #1 in the regional poll. I have a feeling that he has every statistic memorized for the West Regional teams as he is doing everything in his power to beat them by the NCAA meet.

Wejo,

Why don't you organize a group of about 5 very serious fans of men's XC and another group of 5 for women's XC and ask them produce a weekly "Letsrun Experts XC Poll".

It should be easy for this group to do considerably better job than the USTFCCCA poll. If kept to about 5 members, the group could meet and discuss their thoughts by a simple conference phone setup.

If your final poll ends up being much better than the final USTFCCCA poll at predicting the NCAA Nats results, then this new "Letsrun Experts Poll" should get a lot of publicity in future years (and be worth some advertising $$ to you). All you need to do is select a small group of very knowledgeable fans of men's and women's XC who are eager to spend 3-4 hours/week doing this new poll. If you had an XC Nats prediction contest last year, perhaps you invite the top winners of that contest to be the initial members of this new LR Experts’ Poll.

You can also track the results of the individual members and upgrade the group by replacing the least predictive members the following year. Have separate groups rank the men and the women. Few fans seriously follow both men and women XC. You reduce the workload of these members by asking them to focus on only one gender. Also, have them rank only the top-10. There is a much better chance being accurate if the efforts are focused on ranking just the 10 top teams as opposed to 30 teams. About 90% of the interest in these polls will be with the top-10 teams. An honorable mention list could contain the names of other teams who the group feels might make the top-10 list later in the season.

While your new Super Poll will be interesting, it is more of a popularity contest, because schools with more XC fans will have more voters in this poll. Many participants will be voting without any real knowledge of the strength of the competition. It is unlikely this Super Poll will be a good predictor of NCAA Nats.

Pure speculation, but using Katie Follett as a benchmark, and inputting Washington's new team into last years national results would have netted the following place predictions:

5, 11, 12, 19/Follett, 20, 21, 30

Total Score = 67

1st place Stanford last year wone with 145 points.

Again, this analysis has no merit in reality, but if Katie Follett is currently in the same shape she was last year, then it looks like Washington has an absolutely incredible squad right now. Definitely meriting a #1 ranking.

Seriously, give some credit to these coaches. It's their job to analyze statistics. You're an idiot to think they didnt put any thought into them.

Because there is no way to compare which team has beaten what other ranked teams, let's just analyze the squads.

Both have low 1-5 spreads. Washington's was 31 seconds at 5k. Oregon's was 47 seconds at 6k. (Add 20% to WA and you get 37 seconds)

Kosinski was a high finisher for the ducks last year at nationals. She had a shaky track season, but she should likely be in the top 10 at NCAA's.

Schaaf, seems to be many strides ahead of last year's washington women that took 19th and 20th. Her performances maybe even indicate she can also be top 10 at nationals. Her club coach back in Canada also coached Simon Bairu, a former NCAA XC champion. She's no rookie.

True, Nicole Blood has some room to improve the oregon top 3. So does Anita Campbell. She's not even in the top 5 yet.

If Schaaf and Kosinski both land in the top 5 or top 10 at NATIONALS (Pac10s and regionals wont mean much), and the Washington women's spread is as low as it was on Saturday, Washington probably wins.

Not so hard to see afterall.

Your argument that the 2007 coaches poll was wrong about nationals last year because of 2 teams is just plain ignorant. The poll is an opinion of how a team will perform if they have a good day. If one runner has a bad race, and it completely changes the order. Coaches polls CANNOT and SHOULD NOT predict this.