Bethlehem beat union catholic by 56 points in the merge at Bowdin and UC is #7 while Bethlehem isn't top 10???? Makes no sense.
Also, The SR for the Bowdin classic were rated the lowest I've ever seen on that course. 4-7 points lower depending on where you compare it to. Bethlehem seems to be going under the radar, but is a serious threat for a podium at NXN.
What was the weather like at Woodbridge? Colorado kids run best in cold conditions. The mud is less of a factor than the temperature. It’s not that muddy in Colorado.
Well, cross thestridereport off your list of credible ranking sites. Flower Mound behind Academy despite destroying them at Woodbridge? Ventura not even in the top 10? Buchanan ahead of Santiago? J Serra on the list at all (do they not know about Summer Wilson's exit)? Maybe they're using data from this time a year ago?
I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion so quick. Yes, Flower Mound ran well, but AA ran Liberty Bell six days prior and was down two runners. Not saying other teams were not experiencing similar things, but one race does not define a season. Will be interesting to see how Colorado State XC Championships go in a couple weeks.
What was the weather like at Woodbridge? Colorado kids run best in cold conditions. The mud is less of a factor than the temperature. It’s not that muddy in Colorado.
Did you miss NXN last year? Did you miss Desert Twilight last week? I think they demonstrated their versatility.
Very surprised that Ventura is not in the top 10 especially with 3 California teams in the top 10.
Agree. Ventura was the top team from CA at Woodbridge. I do not know how anyone could say they should be ranked far below the other CA teams in a national ranking. Makes no Sense
I’ve read that they always have some really good freshmen (from the feeder program Alta Sierra) that do really well but when they get older they don’t improve much, and that the Buchanan coach hasn’t been developing many runners.
I wonder if the JSerra coach developed a lot of runners, or does he just rely on his transfers and newcomers / freshmen?
I think all the programs mentioned struggle with the same issue. It's hard to get high level freshmen girls to keep improving. It happens, but it's challenging. Ventura is getting the attention now because they have upper class girls on their team, but they have had the same scorers for several years and not all are improving.
Engelhardt scored as a 9th grader and went from 16:04 to 15:42 to 15:37 to 15:40
True scored as a 9th grader and went from 17:48 to 17:28 to 16:38.
Curtis scored as a 9th grader and went from 16:59 to 16:58 to 16:42
Sax scored for Newbury Park as a 9th grader and went 17:07 to 16:24 while at Newbury Park and then went to 17:20 this year
Nuckolls scored as a 9th grader this year and ran 17:01
So, they've had very good 9th graders and one of the current scorers has improved quite a bit, two have been pretty consistent and one has gone backwards. Is that more development than the other teams mentioned? I'm not criticizing, saying it's better or worse, just curious if that's considered developing runners or relying on newcomers/freshmen.
These are impressive stats. I think the main focus on high level freshman who don't improve is more of that they regress- A LOT. Sure it is difficult to improve on freshman phenom times but regressing-on the same courses- by 30, 40, 60+ seconds is alarming. Were they over trained young? Are they burned out? Why such a big pull back? When this happens to most of the girls on the team, is it the program? I think your examples highlight how great Ventura is and I like how they are developing their talent.
One of your examples, Sax may not have Pr'd but going from a freshman to a senior and being within 13 seconds of your PR is impressive! I think this shows great coaching and a consistent building of an athlete. Sure there will always be a runner here or there in ANY program that is battling issues and will regress over 4 years but when you look at a program as a whole and the majority of the runners are regressing-that is noteworthy. There is something about the coaching or the program environment that is contributing to that.
Girls are very hard to train and keep from regressing because when they age unlike guys who get more physically impressive girls can regressive in their physical abilities and the adjustment can be a lot harder a lot more like what you see with guys growing 6in in jr high and taking a while to figure out how to run in their new bodies. In my opinion it also makes a big difference that most coaches are guys and don’t know what that feels like all the time and have a hard time getting there girls to get comfortable and mentally adjust even when they are physically capable one season or just a couple of months of regressing can make it hard to continue to want to run.
Cardinal Gibbons wins Great American easily over James Robinson, Webb School of Knoxville and Assumption. Kate Loescher takes the individual win in 17:26
Very surprised that Ventura is not in the top 10 especially with 3 California teams in the top 10.
I really believe that Buchanan gets ranked because they are a favorite especially with a very powerful CA running commentator. And this ranking is not based on actual season results. It’s based on what they “hope” Buchanan can pull together when everyone else is being judged on results from this season and not hopes. Keep hoping guys cause some of those runners haven’t had a PR for 2 years and have added 30-60 seconds to their Woodward times.
Ventura was the top CA team at Woodbridge. Those are actual results.
Rankings should be done based on actual performances, not hopes or what-ifs
