Just wondering why Valby's rating does not include the Championships but all the other runners' ratings do at this point?
Thanks
That is simple. She has 2 cross country performances that were rated higher than her nationals rating. The program uses an athletes top two XC races and potentially a track time if the XC ratings are not as good as the track rating.
Per Bijan, one of the races is your 'most important'. All the other runners have D1 championships as one of the races now. Hence asking for clarification.
That is simple. She has 2 cross country performances that were rated higher than her nationals rating. The program uses an athletes top two XC races and potentially a track time if the XC ratings are not as good as the track rating.
The flaw is once the fast ratings are in they are in. Are we to believe she could have actually run 19:05-10 on the OSU course and that was a real bad day for her? Or maybe the other ratings are just too fast fro reasons I have previoulsy postulated? It seems like the AL ladies also got ratings for Nationals slower than those SEC ratings.
Alabama scores now factor in nationals as well.
It just looks like Valby's is manual adjustment or something.
Regardless of what their rating now is, look at ratings of conference vs NCAA Championship.
Looking at ACC, SEC, PAC 12 - all the SEC ladies are rated far slower at NCAA, while ACC are almost unchanged. So, even tho it appears Tuohy used everything she had for the first time at NCAA, her rating is the same as when she cruised at ACC? But all the SEC ladies had bad days and if they reran Tuohy would have been left in the dust by Valby and battled it out with Olemomoi for 2nd?
That is simple. She has 2 cross country performances that were rated higher than her nationals rating. The program uses an athletes top two XC races and potentially a track time if the XC ratings are not as good as the track rating.
Per Bijan, one of the races is your 'most important'. All the other runners have D1 championships as one of the races now. Hence asking for clarification.
There is a number next to each race called importance which is determined automatically based on how many other runners the participants raced that season (this tracks how interegional the race is - if it’s all the same group of people racing all season that will not score high on this metric).
That number is the “importance” used to pick the most important race and the best race. Because importance is messy, I call similar importance scores the same. So everyone has one factor that is their “pr” and one factor that is their “close to most important race pr.”
Regardless of what their rating now is, look at ratings of conference vs NCAA Championship.
Looking at ACC, SEC, PAC 12 - all the SEC ladies are rated far slower at NCAA, while ACC are almost unchanged. So, even tho it appears Tuohy used everything she had for the first time at NCAA, her rating is the same as when she cruised at ACC? But all the SEC ladies had bad days and if they reran Tuohy would have been left in the dust by Valby and battled it out with Olemomoi for 2nd?
I have an idea on how to detect when top runners should be scores separately from the field. I will implement this when I have time - I’ve been a bit busy with my real job (and a this weekend marathon).
There is a number next to each race called importance which is determined automatically based on how many other runners the participants raced that season (this tracks how interegional the race is - if it’s all the same group of people racing all season that will not score high on this metric).
That number is the “importance” used to pick the most important race and the best race. Because importance is messy, I call similar importance scores the same. So everyone has one factor that is their “pr” and one factor that is their “close to most important race pr.”
Nothing on lacctic is manually adjusted.
Ok thanks for the explanation. You have Valby's most ' important' race, the championship - a 7.7 - contributing zero % to her score, and two lesser important races, Barrios a 6.6 and SEC a 7.1, making up the whole score. Seems like a gap.
I have an idea on how to detect when top runners should be scores separately from the field. I will implement this when I have time - I’ve been a bit busy with my real job (and a this weekend marathon).
One thought could be to weight the track pb more heavily when a runner is consistently winning but the TiC is way slower than track 5k. This could indicate a faster runner like Tuohy who is doing 'just enough to win'. Just a suggestion.
Regardless of what their rating now is, look at ratings of conference vs NCAA Championship.
Looking at ACC, SEC, PAC 12 - all the SEC ladies are rated far slower at NCAA, while ACC are almost unchanged. So, even tho it appears Tuohy used everything she had for the first time at NCAA, her rating is the same as when she cruised at ACC? But all the SEC ladies had bad days and if they reran Tuohy would have been left in the dust by Valby and battled it out with Olemomoi for 2nd?