NXN At-Large bids? Who get?

Of course it would be appealing to Nike to have Sean McGorty at NXN, but it would be more appealing to have the best teams at NXN. The meet will already have a significant share of the top individuals in the nation, and Nike isn't going to break their own rules (have to finish third or fourth to be eligible for an at-large invite, and the #4 team can't be invited before the #3 team) just so that they can get a kid - who is already choosing another meet over their meet - to compete there.

I would think - and hope - that the at-large invites will go to the best four remaining teams.

There's no way Chantilly goes if they don't run McGorty. Lake Braddock may qualify without Chase, but there's no margin for error.

Understand that all of my estimates are based on NXN -> NXR -> State comparisons (both looking at single-season and multiple-season statistical trends). In other words, how fast I view the California state meet at the end of the season is influenced by how the kids run at both NXN and the CA State meet. Likewise, how fast the SDS Section is estimated to be is being influenced by how the kids run at both CA State and the SDS Section meet.

I believe the key differences to what sstoz does and what I do is that he doesn't adjust for year-to-year differences at the CA State meet, but rather takes the running MEDIAN difference between the courses over the years. I adjust the CA State times each year separately and take the AVERAGE difference between the courses over the years, while also looking at the individual yearly differences. We both take out the statistical outliers, and I assume we do so in similar if not the same process (remove all data points not within 2 standard deviations of the median, recalculate and repeat as necessary until there are no more outliers remaining).

As for everyone going all out at CIF Section Finals... I think that's mostly true, but not always true. I've been told plenty of times before to realize that some teams are focusing on the state meet, not the sectional meet, and that they wont always let their individual runners go all-out and rather take more of a pack running strategy to ensure that their team qualifies for state. Not every team is going to do that, but there are plenty that do. Sarah Baxter was not the only runner in all of the sectional races that wasn't running full-bore the whole way.

Different teams/athletes are going to have different goals for the season. While for the majority of teams/athletes, that goal is to make it to state, for others the goal is to run their best at state and beyond, and sometimes they'll feel that to do so means they don't want to run max efforts for 3-4 weeks in a row. Others will take different approaches and try to run as hard as they can for those 3-4 weeks.

To bring the discussion about Xavier Prep and CA teams over to this thread, where it really belongs, I'm not sure how comparing your and Meylan's 200 levels for CA State is pertinent. We were discussing what 18:24 at CA State means, and rather than compare your ratings with those I lifted directly from Tully Runners for 2006-2011 (133, 132, 131, 131, 129, 130), you trotted out the 200 levels and showed that you and Meylan were fairly close. Unfortunately, you're not close around 18:24, which is what matters when trying to compare XP's 91:18 performance at NXN-SW with projected and real performances at CA State.

For those who haven't looked at the Fort Collins thread, my argument is that Great Oak and Simi Valley are well in front of Xavier Prep, while LCC, Saugus, St. Francis, Buchanan and Davis, CA seem to be at about the same level.

Watchout has stated that if the third CA team doesn't run under 91:00 then he'd take XP "in a heartbeat."

At his lowest rating for CA State, Meylan has XP's 91:18 as being slower than a 92:30 at Woodward.

To deal with reality rather than ratings, only five CA girls teams in history have run under 91:00 at Woodward - four from Saugus and Mira Costa in 2010. I don't think XP's fourth place performance at NXN-SW is remotely close to a 91:00 at Woodward. Only 22 teams have run under 92:30 at Woodward, and I think on a very good day the 2012 XP team might approach that level.

Did you explain what a "retroactive adjustment" is? Or how you could have one for the 2012 SD Finals prior to the 2012 CA State (and, I guess, NXN)?

Are they having NXN in Orlando this year or 2013 ???

I brought up the 200.0 marks because that's where our estimates are usually the closest, and because that's where the multipler is based on (and it's easier to discuss than listing out all the different ratings for all the different times that might be relevant).

Yes, the faster the course and the slower the time, the greater the difference there will be between my ratings and Meylan's ratings. I never denied that, it's your misunderstanding of the differences between our systems that keeps bringing us back to that point.

What matters is talking about equivalent performances. If the NXN-SW course runs about the same as the California State course (it hasn't in any other year, but this year it appears to as long as the California State meet course runs about the same as it usually does), then we don't need to do much converting at all - the times will pretty much speak for themselves.

To deal with reality rather than ratings... Xavier Prep has run the #4 All-Time mark at Toka Sticks and aside from state has been running better all year than their NXN#8 team from last year that beat every single California team and had a faster team time than even Simi Valley, which ran 92:25 in a year when the state meet course didn't even run all too fast (if it was ~5 seconds slow, as I have it pegged, at the 200.0 mark that means Simi Valley probably would have been around 91:55 last year). Also, to talk about reality, Xavier Prep hasn't been beat by a single California team all year including CA#1 Great Oak, highly regarded Davis, Redondo Union, Serrano, Colony, and La Costa Canyon.

Another CA Guy wrote:

Did you explain what a "retroactive adjustment" is? Or how you could have one for the 2012 SD Finals prior to the 2012 CA State (and, I guess, NXN)?

It would be pretty pointless to only try to rate performances after the season is over, don't you think?

By the way, a comparison for you...

Here are the results of the past two years at NXN between the SW and CA girls teams, and what team times they ran at the regional.

2011 -

6. Fort Collins CO 205 (95:01 / ran 92:52.0 @ NXN-SW)

8. Xavier Prep AZ 224 (95:36 / ran 94:01.74 @ NXN-SW)

10. Redondo Union CA 262 (96:15 / ran 92:19 @ CA State)

11. Simi Valley CA 287 (95:45 / ran 92:25 @ CA State)

12. Saugus CA 325 (97:06 / ran 91:52 @ CA State)

13. La Costa Canyon CA 332 (97:26 / ran 92:02 @ CA State)

2010 -

3. Saugus CA 117 (99:30.70 / ran 89:25 @ CA State)

6. Fort Collins CO 247 (101:51.90 / ran 93:56.96 @ NXN-SW)

13. Great Oak CA 325 (103:34.40 / ran 91:29 @ CA State)

14. Mira Costa CA 326 (103:34.90 / ran 90:44 @ CA State)

15. Monarch CO 353 (103:58.50 / ran 94:33.01 @ NXN-SW)

16. La Costa Canyon CA 354 (104:04.40 / ran 91:05 @ CA State)

And Xavier Prep ran 91:18 this year... granted, I think we can both agree that this year's NXN-SW course ran a bit faster than usual (better temperature, and spikes were allowed this year when they weren't in previous years, plus the region is even stronger by a good amount than it was already)... but you'd have to be really biased to think that the Southwest course didn't run slower than Woodward in the past. Teams were running 3 minutes slower at SW before running with/beating their California counterparts each of the two years ago, and 2 minutes slower at SW before beating their California counterparts last year when the CA course was a bit slower than usual)

watchout wrote:

2011 -

6. Fort Collins CO 205 (95:01 / ran 92:52.0 @ NXN-SW)

8. Xavier Prep AZ 224 (95:36 / ran 94:01.74 @ NXN-SW)

10. Redondo Union CA 262 (96:15 / ran 92:19 @ CA State)

11. Simi Valley CA 287 (95:45 / ran 92:25 @ CA State)

12. Saugus CA 325 (97:06 / ran 91:52 @ CA State)

13. La Costa Canyon CA 332 (97:26 / ran 92:02 @ CA State)

2010 -

3. Saugus CA 117 (99:30.70 / ran 89:25 @ CA State)

6. Fort Collins CO 247 (101:51.90 / ran 93:56.96 @ NXN-SW)

13. Great Oak CA 325 (103:34.40 / ran 91:29 @ CA State)

14. Mira Costa CA 326 (103:34.90 / ran 90:44 @ CA State)

15. Monarch CO 353 (103:58.50 / ran 94:33.01 @ NXN-SW)

16. La Costa Canyon CA 354 (104:04.40 / ran 91:05 @ CA State)

Agree with Watchout here. Unless Calif teams really step it up this weekend, Xavier has a better argument for at-large selection. Calif teams have mostly underperformed at NXN in last couple years (considering they've gotten 2 at-large bids each year on girls side, and 2+1 for boys).

Also keep in mind NY will almost certainly grab a girls at-large (unless either Holy Names or Saratoga blows up this weekend). Add into the mix New Trier from the Midwest (4th at NXN last year; 3rd in their region this year, with faster cumulative time than 1st & 2nd). That region has over-performed at Nationals last 2 years.

2011:

4. New Trier, IL 182 (94:50/ ran 96:25 at NXN-MW)

5. Carmel, IN 195 (95:20/ ran 96:20 at NXN-MW)

2010: (NXN-MW faster course/weather all around, boys & girls)

7. Carmel, IN 260 (1:02:44, 94:00 at NXN-MW)

8. Palatine, IL 262 (1:03:34, 93:40 at NXN-MW)

This year:

2012 at NXN-MW

1. Carmel, IN 91 (AUTO Q 95:50 at NXN-MW)

2. Naperville N, IL 107 (AUTO Q 95:53 at NXN-MW

3. New Trier, IL (125 (at-large? 95:30 at NXN-MW)

Southeast and Northeast yet to run, too...

Note on the Midwest: The course obviously ran very slow last year, and 2010 was a pretty standard year, while this year ran somewhere in between (where in between is the real question)...

In the end, I think it'll come down to about 6 girls teams and 7 boys teams for the four spots.

Girls: NY#3 and SW#3 looking very solid, then SW#4, MW#3, CA#3, and possibly SE#3. As long as weather is decent, times for three of those four teams (SW/SE/CA) should be very comparable.

Boys: A real crap shoot... none of the teams so far have flawless resumes that shout "GET THIS TEAM IN THE MEET". NW#3, MW#3, possibly SW#3/4 are all in it I think, and add in CA#3/4 and NE#3 (since Chantilly will be without McGorty).

watchout wrote:

Note on the Midwest: The course obviously ran very slow last year, and 2010 was a pretty standard year, while this year ran somewhere in between (where in between is the real question)...

In the end, I think it'll come down to about 6 girls teams and 7 boys teams for the four spots.

Girls: NY#3 and SW#3 looking very solid, then SW#4, MW#3, CA#3, and possibly SE#3. As long as weather is decent, times for three of those four teams (SW/SE/CA) should be very comparable.

Boys: A real crap shoot... none of the teams so far have flawless resumes that shout "GET THIS TEAM IN THE MEET". NW#3, MW#3, possibly SW#3/4 are all in it I think, and add in CA#3/4 and NE#3 (since Chantilly will be without McGorty).

I'm a bit less sure of the boys MW#3 than the girls MW#3. In both cases you've got top teams (York for boys, Carmel for girls), but the girls #3 was closer in points and actually ahead on time vs Carmel; boys team is a good team, but was considerably back in pts and time, not only from York but also form #2 (Carmel boys, who I think are first time qualifiers).

watchout wrote:

Note on the Midwest: The course obviously ran very slow last year, and 2010 was a pretty standard year, while this year ran somewhere in between (where in between is the real question)...

It was MUCH closer to 2011 than to 2010. Last year was cold and windy. This year was warm and windier. The two were pretty comparable. This year, the wind shifted directions, but was dead-against long start/finish straights. Seemed to die down a bit later in the day, perhaps less effect on boys than girls races, but that's just personal observation.

Oh, I agree, New Trier would be a stronger team at NXN than St. Xavier OH. It's just that there aren't really any standouts on the boys side so far, and will probably not be at least four that stand out after this weekend.

sub4 old timer wrote:

watchout wrote:

Note on the Midwest: The course obviously ran very slow last year, and 2010 was a pretty standard year, while this year ran somewhere in between (where in between is the real question)...

It was MUCH closer to 2011 than to 2010. Last year was cold and windy. This year was warm and windier. The two were pretty comparable. This year, the wind shifted directions, but was dead-against long start/finish straights. Seemed to die down a bit later in the day, perhaps less effect on boys than girls races, but that's just personal observation.

Definitely agree with that as well.

For reference... I have 2010 rated at 200.0 ~ 14:53, and 2011 rated at ~ 15:32. The consensus that I've seen/heard was about halfway between (~15:10 for guys, ~15:16 for girls), though I could see something closer to ~15:16 and 15:19.

sub 4 wrote:

It was MUCH closer to 2011 than to 2010....

watchout wrote:

Definitely agree with that as well.

For reference... I have 2010 rated at 200.0 ~ 14:53, and 2011 rated at ~ 15:32. The consensus that I've seen/heard was about halfway between (~15:10 for guys, ~15:16 for girls), though I could see something closer to ~15:16 and 15:19.

2010 was the anomalous year (out of last 5 yrs). That year, boys posted fastest times for 1st, 10th, 25th, 50th, and 100th -- 20 seconds faster than next fastest year for boys 100th place, including 23 sec faster than this year.

For girls, 2010 was fastest for 10th, 25th, and 50th place, and 19 seconds faster than 100th place girl any other year -- until this year. This year, 25th place girls was still 25 sec slower than 2010, but 100th place was actually 5 sec faster than 2010 (this was strong & very deep year for girls, teams and individuals).

I don't know if 2010 was the only year with good weather (calm winds). It's unlikely there were any course changes - it's a dedicated xc course, nothing else happens there.

Re the discrepancy b/w boys and girls: I think York (and briefly, Neuqua Valley) inspired great boys participation in MW; recent success by girls teams seems to have done likewise on their side. So girls side catching up to boys in depth. Plus a couple of the feeder states (notably IL) had exceptionally good years on the girls side.

The at-large bid process of NXN is a joke sometimes. Last year Rush-Henrietta was 1 point from beating FM at states and then ends up #3 at NXR and gets left home.

watchout wrote:

Girls: NY#3 and SW#3 looking very solid, then SW#4, MW#3, CA#3, and possibly SE#3.

By top 5 ratings, SW#4 and MW#3 are about equal (you have SW#4 with 0.10 lead, 125.02 to 124.92 for MW#3; Meylan (TullyRunners.com, for those who don't know) has slight lead for MW#3, 123.88 to 123.82 for SW#4). We'll see where the CA & SE teams come in...

XCisKing49 wrote:

The at-large bid process of NXN is a joke sometimes. Last year Rush-Henrietta was 1 point from beating FM at states and then ends up #3 at NXR and gets left home.

For the record, I agree with you that R-H deserved a bid over at least one of the 2 at-large CA teams. And I agree that the process is, shall we say, fraught with complications. But the alternatives are to accept ONLY the top 2 from each region, so R-H still would have been left behind. Or, to accept top 3 from each region; and then people would howl about some strong region deserving more than some weak region. Besides, I'm sure the extra 70 competitors would bankrupt Nike ;-)

Doing mostly auto-bids plus a few at-large seems a reasonable compromise. It's just that the at-large are extremely difficult to pick, when the vast majority of the teams have no out-of-state competitions versus the other competing teams.

I would be in favor of limiting at-large to only 3rd place teams (this would only affect CA, the only region to ever receive 2 at-larges, to my knowledge). I would also be in favor of re-configuring the regions to more evenly represent populations. That means:

*NY joins the NE (sorry NE-ers, either toughen up or watch NY suck up all the bids year after year)

*PA & NJ join a newly formed mid-atlantic, taking up some of the SE region.

*Heartland and NW combine, but with NE & KS joining SW, along with OK

Of course, that creates travel complications for some teams. And while it evenly divides population, it may not evenly divide xc performance -- but that's a bit more fluid, hopefully.