That looks like a good display of the Team’s Top 5 Average Rating. Howevere, when I scroll down that page to look at the individual runners, there is no Pamela Kosgei. Maybe because she hasn’t yet run a meet? Nonetheless, you included her when computing New Mexico’s Top 5 Average Rating.
I am on New Mexicos page right now. Their top 5 average is not computed using Pamela Kosgei (or the average would be much faster).
In the simulator, there is a trash can to delete runners. The tables themselves are just displaying information from the database and are not mutable.
I have to hand it to you, the front-end gui with quick data access for comparison makes LACCTiC a very nice tool.😊
But I don’t see where the 90% chance of winning is, unless you were joking about that part.
After you are set with the teams and runners, you need to click the simulation button to show the probabilities. It will give each team a scoring range as well as the chance of winning. Faith is bigger than math, so BYU is the overwhelming favorite no matter how you run the simulation games.
when I ran it I had to check the include runners not on roster to get Jane H......and inactive to get Jenna H, and then delete Anderson of NC St...so check who is shown on BYU and NC St...it is much closer than 139 points!
Okay, I now see what you did, and here is the result:
Recall, in my simulation listed earlier in this thread, post #95, I had NC State under BYU by 29 points, as follows:
BYU……………….vs….NC State Hedengren 15:03……..Hartman 15:10 (+4) Chamberlain 15:24…..Napoleon 15:30 (+2) Hutchins 15:30………….Gapes 15:30 (+0) Rohatinsky 15:50………Michalak 15:33 (-31) Far/Goff/Rob 15:53……Put/Engle 15:50 (-4) NC State under BYU by 29 pnts. (Note, places in parentheses are the placements between respective TiCs at 2024Natty’s.)
But I don’t see where the 90% chance of winning is, unless you were joking about that part.
Although it’s tough since Carmen Alder has been underperforming this season; if she runs to her previous ability, she’d be with Hutchins, putting BYU ahead of NC State. She’s the wild card in this scenario.
But I don’t see where the 90% chance of winning is, unless you were joking about that part.
After you are set with the teams and runners, you need to click the simulation button to show the probabilities. It will give each team a scoring range as well as the chance of winning. Faith is bigger than math, so BYU is the overwhelming favorite no matter how you run the simulation games.
Recall, in my simulation listed earlier in this thread, post #95, I had NC State under BYU by 29 points, as follows:
BYU……………….vs….NC State Hedengren 15:03……..Hartman 15:10 (+4) Chamberlain 15:24…..Napoleon 15:30 (+2) Hutchins 15:30………….Gapes 15:30 (+0) Rohatinsky 15:50………Michalak 15:33 (-31) Far/Goff/Rob 15:53……Put/Engle 15:50 (-4) NC State under BYU by 29 pnts. (Note, places in parentheses are the placements between respective TiCs at 2024Natty’s.)
But I don’t see where the 90% chance of winning is, unless you were joking about that part.
Although it’s tough since Carmen Alder has been underperforming this season; if she runs to her previous ability, she’d be with Hutchins, putting BYU ahead of NC State. She’s the wild card in this scenario.
Isn’t Hutchins the wildcard? Was that an unfounded rumor someone mentioned on another thread she might be injured?
They have 5-7 depth, but not #4 depth. That is the major difference maker. And NC State’s #5 is stronger than those BYU 5-7’s. NC State’s #5 Englehardt probably has potential to continue to sharpen , putting her on level with their current #4.
Getting down to Michalak’s 15:38 is probably too much of a reach for Sadie this season, but getting to Rylee Blade’s (she used to best Blade in high school Xcountry) current 15:46 level should not be out of the question, unless she’s injured.
Although it’s tough since Carmen Alder has been underperforming this season; if she runs to her previous ability, she’d be with Hutchins, putting BYU ahead of NC State. She’s the wild card in this scenario.
Hutchins current 15:30 rating might be generous, considering her lowest cross country TiC, ever, is only 15:51. That’s a HUGE chasm down to Michalak’s latest 15:32 at Nuttycombe.
Isn’t Hutchins the wildcard? Was that an unfounded rumor someone mentioned on another thread she might be injured?
Hutchins wildcard even if she does run. At her best she could finish 10th, not so good is a DNF.
I actually don't think we are even certain yet who the 7 runners will be for BYU or NC St, so that is still a factor.
Agree with posters on Oregon and Florida that they will be questionable at 5-7. Impossible to win with just 4, and difficult to win with 5, as all must go perfectly.
Thought Templier, Shea and even Quarzo still candidates, if someone makes a late charge, or there is an injury.
They can run 8 at ACC.
Their regional is easy, so even that late they can experiment.
Several NC St runners in the past have debuted for the season at nats Tuohy, Bush, Tyynismaa so Henes has proven to be flexible.
I gave you their current Base 7, and don’t expect it to change for Natty’s (barring injury/illness/etc.) All seven will quite possibly not suit up for all three remaining meets, except for Natty’s. And those of that seven that do may not be going 100%, except for Natty’s.
I gave you their current Base 7, and don’t expect it to change for Natty’s (barring injury/illness/etc.) All seven will quite possibly not suit up for all three remaining meets, except for Natty’s. And those of that seven that do may not be going 100%, except for Natty’s.
That's the point, stuff happens. ie No Chmiel at last moment for 2023 nationals, but others stepped up.
BYU and NC St fortunately have 10 runners for 7 spots, other teams not so fortunate.
The last minute changes to top team's actual 7 runners at nats generally have more impact on team finish than say the lacctic rankings.
I gave you their current Base 7, and don’t expect it to change for Natty’s (barring injury/illness/etc.) All seven will quite possibly not suit up for all three remaining meets, except for Natty’s. And those of that seven that do may not be going 100%, except for Natty’s.
That's the point, stuff happens. ie No Chmiel at last moment for 2023 nationals, but others stepped up.
BYU and NC St fortunately have 10 runners for 7 spots, other teams not so fortunate.
The last minute changes to top team's actual 7 runners at nats generally have more impact on team finish than say the lacctic rankings.
How can lactate possibly simulate getting sick?
Think of it as their current “starting lineup”, as in baseball or basketball; fans going to the game will expect to see the starting lineup unless something unforeseen happens.
I gave you their current Base 7, and don’t expect it to change for Natty’s (barring injury/illness/etc.) All seven will quite possibly not suit up for all three remaining meets, except for Natty’s. And those of that seven that do may not be going 100%, except for Natty’s.
That's the point, stuff happens. ie No Chmiel at last moment for 2023 nationals, but others stepped up.
BYU and NC St fortunately have 10 runners for 7 spots, other teams not so fortunate.
The last minute changes to top team's actual 7 runners at nats generally have more impact on team finish than say the lacctic rankings.
I will apologize and recant. When it comes to fielding the final seven, the sentimental side of keeping the senior in the starting lineup may take back seat to putting the best seven out there, if it comes to that.
That's the point, stuff happens. ie No Chmiel at last moment for 2023 nationals, but others stepped up.
BYU and NC St fortunately have 10 runners for 7 spots, other teams not so fortunate.
The last minute changes to top team's actual 7 runners at nats generally have more impact on team finish than say the lacctic rankings.
I will apologize and recant. When it comes to fielding the final seven, the sentimental side of keeping the senior in the starting lineup may take back seat to putting the best seven out there, if it comes to that.
LOL...I just laugh since you guys worry about someone's tic being 15:30 vs 15:37, when the factors that most impact the race are 1- who is actually healthy and available on race day, and 2- who bigly over/under performs their predictions. It rarely goes like the plan.
On another note the NCAA just gave us another predictive toy on their website that also ranks teams and individuals. Basis, however, is only current '25 results.
Dont know why people keep saying Oregon only really has a strong top 4. Their full team best would be
Cherotich
Cherubet
Ayyildiz
Dalia Frias
Mia Barnett
Annika Thompson
Ella Thorsett
Ali Ince
thats more than a top 4. Wouldnt you say? Frías añd Barnett are hardest to wonder about since Frías has been injured previous years añd Barnett blew up at nats last year after running 7th place at Big Ten.
Hutchins current 15:30 rating might be generous, considering her lowest cross country TiC, ever, is only 15:51. That’s a HUGE chasm down to Michalak’s latest 15:32 at Nuttycombe.
Using Natty’s 2024 as the lookup table, the difference between 15:51 and 15:30 performances is 38pnts.
