Super interesting. Is there a ready to access resource that shows the average speed rating for teams that got at large invites to NXN the last couple years? Are you using NCAA altitude conversions for Idaho 3200s?
Super interesting. Is there a ready to access resource that shows the average speed rating for teams that got at large invites to NXN the last couple years? Are you using NCAA altitude conversions for Idaho 3200s?
You would need to go through and crunch the data yourself or use something like Claude to do it. I think the generally accepted number is about 180 but I could be wrong on that.
For altitude, I'm just using finalsurge as that's what a bunch of meets use for the adjustment. I think on a large enough set of data it's close enough that it works. There will always be outliers to the positive and negative but it works in the grand scheme of things.
I think I am just about done. I wish I had some crazy insight but I think my rankings are very similar to some of the "tier" lists that have already been shared.
I'll share my way-too-early top 10 and then some honorable mention/dark horses
Mead(WA), Rocky Mountain (ID), Curtis(WA), Gig Harbor (WA), Skyline (WA), Bozeman (MT), Helena (MT), Bishop Blanchet (WA), South Eugene (OR)
I'll probably continue to refine this during the summer. I will also work on a girl's top teams as well.
I would be really surprised if any other team broke into the top 5 other than those listed. Jesuit is probably the weakest coming back but I think they will reload and be threats to contend for a top spot. CDA has the potential to be a top-2 team as well, the NW returns some strong teams.
The honorable mentioned list is Washington heavy because of my Washington bias and I ran a separate 4a/3a Washington prediction so I just threw some of the teams I looked at into my "simulator".
Someone asked about if the NW could be a strong region nationally this coming year. I don't have the knowledge to predict if we have any top 10 teams/individuals and with "trackflation" times it is hard to tell; however this was probably the hardest year to work out which teams were the top 3.We have a lot of strong teams and I'm sure there will be some surprises. I hope everyone has a great summer and is hungry for success this fall!
If you think I missed a team or if I am way-off on something, let me know. I am sure there are crazy incoming freshman, transfers, etc. that I haven't heard of yet. Washington is more my "expertise" than ID/OR/MT but I think I am getting better.
Rocky has a transfer but he's not eligible to compete. Jack Davis is returning from his hiatus. Eagle's Kyle Pelham (9:47 in the fall) had a personal loss that impacted his season pretty negatively but he's still around. He just didn't run fast in the spring. Both of those guys should factor into your equations if you didn't include them.
not eligible to compete during the season but I’m sure he will be eligible during the NXR championship race.
CDA will win NXR if they are healthy and have a good race. They had some guys sick last year at NXR
Rocky has a transfer but he's not eligible to compete. Jack Davis is returning from his hiatus. Eagle's Kyle Pelham (9:47 in the fall) had a personal loss that impacted his season pretty negatively but he's still around. He just didn't run fast in the spring. Both of those guys should factor into your equations if you didn't include them.
not eligible to compete during the season but I’m sure he will be eligible during the NXR championship race.
CDA will win NXR if they are healthy and have a good race. They had some guys sick last year at NXR
Sure, he'll be able to race there, but he won't get to race in a single varsity section all year and didn't race track or run at all during the spring. He's probably not going to be a big factor for them next fall. He should be as a junior.
Super interesting. Is there a ready to access resource that shows the average speed rating for teams that got at large invites to NXN the last couple years? Are you using NCAA altitude conversions for Idaho 3200s?
You would need to go through and crunch the data yourself or use something like Claude to do it. I think the generally accepted number is about 180 but I could be wrong on that.
The rule of thumb pre covid was 171 average gets your team to auto q for NXN unless in a particularly strong region. These days I think it's closer to 173-174, and you need ~176-177 to get an at large.
For reference at NXR the first team out of auto qualifying for NXN since covid has been:
You would need to go through and crunch the data yourself or use something like Claude to do it. I think the generally accepted number is about 180 but I could be wrong on that.
The rule of thumb pre covid was 171 average gets your team to auto q for NXN unless in a particularly strong region. These days I think it's closer to 173-174, and you need ~176-177 to get an at large.
For reference at NXR the first team out of auto qualifying for NXN since covid has been:
2022- Rocky Mountain 177.4 avg
2023- Franklin (got an at-large) 177.0 avg
2024- Rocky Mountain 174.2 avg
2025- Mead 176.4
Though that 171 rule is clearly outdated as it now only applies to New York pretty much.
I think it's clear off this that all those 3rd place teams but '24 Rocky deserved an at large.
Also those speed rating averages are just from the NXR meet, not bests from the season- so keep that in mind.
The rule of thumb pre covid was 171 average gets your team to auto q for NXN unless in a particularly strong region. These days I think it's closer to 173-174, and you need ~176-177 to get an at large.
For reference at NXR the first team out of auto qualifying for NXN since covid has been:
2022- Rocky Mountain 177.4 avg
2023- Franklin (got an at-large) 177.0 avg
2024- Rocky Mountain 174.2 avg
2025- Mead 176.4
Though that 171 rule is clearly outdated as it now only applies to New York pretty much.
I think it's clear off this that all those 3rd place teams but '24 Rocky deserved an at large.
Also those speed rating averages are just from the NXR meet, not bests from the season- so keep that in mind.
If I get really, really bored I'll compile the average speed ratings of the 2nd-4th place marks for each kid and post it. That will give a closer idea of what each kid is actually performing at consistently.
AI is a cool tool. Data could be a little off but probably close enough to get pointed in the right direction.
1. 184.8 2. 183.8 (Hvall only has one mark to use, so excluded) 3. 182.2 4. CDA's is wonky because they race so sparingly so the data is trash. 5. 176.0 6. 174.0 7. 173.6 8. 173.6 9. 173.0 10. 174.2
AI is a cool tool. Data could be a little off but probably close enough to get pointed in the right direction.
1. 184.8 2. 183.8 (Hvall only has one mark to use, so excluded) 3. 182.2 4. CDA's is wonky because they race so sparingly so the data is trash. 5. 176.0 6. 174.0 7. 173.6 8. 173.6 9. 173.0 10. 174.2
Heyyyy alright. Who needs speed ratings when I can spend a few hours in Google Sheets and get a similar result? LOL
AI is a cool tool. Data could be a little off but probably close enough to get pointed in the right direction.
1. 184.8 2. 183.8 (Hvall only has one mark to use, so excluded) 3. 182.2 4. CDA's is wonky because they race so sparingly so the data is trash. 5. 176.0 6. 174.0 7. 173.6 8. 173.6 9. 173.0 10. 174.2
Heyyyy alright. Who needs speed ratings when I can spend a few hours in Google Sheets and get a similar result? LOL
right... I guess the speed ratings are nice from getting a consistent scoring method, but I spent 10 minutes scraping the data for the teams, 5 minutes setting up the prompt in Claude, and then 10 minutes later I spent 10 minutes glancing over the data.
For those missing the context, the above data is using the 2nd-4th best scores from Tullyrunners track speed ratings, adjusting for altitude for marks above 1500' using final surge. So throw out the absolute best performance, then use a consistent data model to get an average score for the top 5 for performances that they repeated during the course of the season. There's probably some additional prompting I could do like if the 2nd performance is within a point of the first, the first one doesn't get thrown out and a bad data point for the 4th performance comes in.