does anyone know if Mira costa and Jesuit ca will be racing the sweepstakes this year? just curious and excited
-
10
-
I looked on their team instagram page and it is not on the schedule there or athletic.net or milesplit so my guess is they pulled out. Would have liked to see them in it but I guess we will have to wait for Clovis.
10 -
Rea Sea. wrote:
ML King has 3 pretty good male transfers. Only problem is that 1 of them is going to run against girls. This is an absolute travesty to girls sports, which should be protected beyond the limits of any political agenda.
Based on the milesplit MLK roster, the male transfers that will be competing for the boys team are Prince and Smooth Watkins. 2 years ago in some random NPHS thread, someone was asking where one of them is going for high school. They went to Rancho Cucamongo last year
90 -
#364
This post was removed.
-
#365
This post was removed.
-
Speaking of Rancho Cucamonga, here are the results for their 2-miles from yesterday
20 -
Jesuit CA 2.1 mile TT
40 -
WaitForMoreData wrote:
Here is a list of Cal boys team projections, which is described in detail in the thread "HS SpeedRating based on Cal XC merge to compare teams", but briefly this is the method:
Trying to assess team relative strength based on total time or total speed rating is flawed because there is huge disparity in the pack density. So I tried to model scoring based on the pack density of past Cal state meet merges. A runner's score is based on the better of their relative marks of XC Speed Rating and 3200m (using a corrleation very similar to Tully's, but slightly tweaked to historical 3200m to Cal State meet historical data). The 1600m time is also used, but only as improvement to the above, and it is limited to improving the score by 20%. So if you have a great 1600m, but nothing really to show for 3200m or SR, you don't rate well in this system. There is no guesswork or personal adjustments. The best mark is then mapped to what place that would result in hypothetical merge. I did a large set of teams, but of course not every team. Here is the scoring of that straight projection, and I don't number them because I am not trying to say #18 is better than #20, rather just to get an idea of relative strengths of teams and find any teams that were stronger than I had previously thought. If you are thinking of another team not on this list, for comparison note that Oak Park has a 5 man team average at 3200m of 9:56, and they are #43 on this list.
###Team Scoring###
Great Oak 288.2
ML King 325.4
Buchanan 341.7
Jesuit 398
Beckman 406.7
Mira Costa 473.5
Hart 539
Vacaville 548.3
Glendora 549.3
JSerra 551
Tesoro 566.1
Matilda Torres 595.3
Millikan 626.4
Trabuco Hills 663.6
Bellarmine 666.2
Woodbridge 727.7
De La Salle 731.9
West Torrance 734.3
Crescenta Valley 734.5
Menlo 761.1
Los Altos 773.1
Saugus 797.9
Loyola 803.6
Davis 822.5
Clovis East 824.5
Redondo Union 824.5
Ayala 873.7
Palisades Charter 880.2
Ventura 887.6
Foothill Technology 892.7
Oaks Christian 911.8
College Park 917.2
Mountain View 930.1
St. Ignatius 933.4
Santiago Corona 941.4
El Toro 955.6
Poly (Riverside) 977.9
Clovis North 998.2
Dos Pueblos 1015.1
Burroughs 1065.2
Miramonte 1077.5
West Ranch 1096.3
Oak Park 1100.8
McClatchy 1203.2
Aliso Niguel 1203.7
Granada 1307.2Dana Hills NA
Did I miss any teams that could score less than 900? Roughly a sub 9:50 5 man average.
Highlighted in black are the teams that were selected to compete in the sweepstakes race. I wonder what will change come september 1st.
22 California Teams were selected for the Sweepstakes Race at Woodbridge. According to Rich Gonzalez 4 unknown teams wanted to be put into the rated race.
Looks like the ones that missed the cut, decided not to go, or wanted to be put in the rated race are as follows:
#4 Jesuit
#8 Vacaville
#15 Bellarmine
#16 Woodbridge
#17 De La Salle
#18 West Torrance
#22 Saugus
#23 Loyola
#24 Davis
#26 Redondo Union
#29 Ventura
#31 Oaks ChristianHighlighted in Black are teams that are registered to race but were put in the rated race. Curious to see how they will stack up when compared to the sweepstake teams.
40 -
Jesuit TT wrote:
Jesuit CA 2.1 mile TT
5 guys faster than their #1 last year
10 -
I will be curious what can Dana Hills do as a team. I couldn't even do a projection for them because they don't have 5 returning runners with good enough results to use my tables. Even if I extended the tables, they would be past #50. But they are Dana Hills, so big improvements or a transfer is a possibility.
10 -
Dkub wrote:
matt_c wrote:
Great Oak at 6th??? I don’t think that is an accurate statement
Great Oak had a time trial last week and they have a strong top 3, but they need work on positions 4 and 5. If those 2 step up, Great Oak will be in contention again.
There are also teams in the state that have better returning 1600 and 3200 times than Great Oak.
Lots of time for them to improve. In 2022, the beginning of the season was rough for them (especially at Bob Firman), but at the end of the season they were really strong
10 -
Are we pretending it’s the same course?
10 -
In the know now wrote:
Are we pretending it’s the same course?
what course are you talking about?
10 -
In the know now wrote:
Are we pretending it’s the same course?
No idea if it’s the same or not. This year’s Jesuit team kind of looks like Arnold Beckman. Solid top 5 (except Beckman has 2 transfers that make them 7-deep) but no clear front runner.
20 -
trailrunner86* wrote:
In the know now wrote:
Are we pretending it’s the same course?
what course are you talking about?
I think he’s talking about this year’s and last year’s Jesuit “meeting of the marauders” course
20 -
Dkub wrote:
trailrunner86* wrote:
what course are you talking about?
I think he’s talking about this year’s and last year’s Jesuit “meeting of the marauders” course
It's the same course. Walt posts the course map on his page they been running it as a time trail since 2021
11 -
trailrunner86* wrote:
Dkub wrote:
I think he’s talking about this year’s and last year’s Jesuit “meeting of the marauders” course
It's the same course. Walt posts the course map on his page they been running it as a time trail since 2021
It’s not the same course.
00 -
WaitForMoreData wrote:
I will be curious what can Dana Hills do as a team. I couldn't even do a projection for them because they don't have 5 returning runners with good enough results to use my tables. Even if I extended the tables, they would be past #50. But they are Dana Hills, so big improvements or a transfer is a possibility.
Outside of Noonan/Hunter they have:
Moersch (4:29 1600) (Sr)
Williams (4:35 1600 & 10:10 3200) (Jr)
Craven (4:50 1600) (So). People can take big jumps between freshman and sophomore year
10 -
Dkub wrote:
WaitForMoreData wrote:
I will be curious what can Dana Hills do as a team. I couldn't even do a projection for them because they don't have 5 returning runners with good enough results to use my tables. Even if I extended the tables, they would be past #50. But they are Dana Hills, so big improvements or a transfer is a possibility.
Outside of Noonan/Hunter they have:
Moersch (4:29 1600) (Sr)
Williams (4:35 1600 & 10:10 3200) (Jr)
Craven (4:50 1600) (So). People can take big jumps between freshman and sophomore year
The 4:29 is a fake time. Someone in DanaPoint posted that out here to let us know.
41 -
10
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.