One more try:
Could you explain what your "retroactive agreement" is?
One more try:
Could you explain what your "retroactive agreement" is?
There's a list of all the runners registered for FootLocker South from VA. McGorty and Chase are on that list, posing a tough race for Chantilly and Braddock. They have solid squads, but will they be able to do it without that number 1?
Also, don't count out Midlothian HS from Virginia to make a run at an At-Large bid. Not too far behind Chantilly at the VHSL AAA State Meet, losing by only 15 points. Take out McGorty from that equation and Midlothian wins by 32. They could definitely be in contention.
sub4 old timer wrote:
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.
Then what would you call 2009? or 2007?
Yes, 2010 was the fastest year - it also had the best weather. Any years that ran significantly slower than 2009 and especially 2010 are doing so because of bad weather. Look at the results from Indiana's state meets and Pre-State meets... many of them are similar to 2009 and 2010 NXN-MW. "Great conditions" generally leads to a rating of about 14:48-14:52 on that course, and if there are hay bales at NXN-MW then maybe add another couple seconds but not any more than that.
By the way, for whatever it is worth... wind speed during the meet according to wunderground and my ratings for that year:
2007: 0-5 mph (rated ~15:02)
2008: 15-20 mph (rated ~15:10)
2009: 5-10 mph (rated ~14:59)
2010: 10-15 mph (rated ~14:53)
2011: 20-25 mph (rated ~15:32)
2012: 20-25 mph (rated ~15:10 or 15:16 for boys and 15:17 or 15:19 for girls)
SW vs Calif wrote:
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.
NY girls and MW boys have also gotten their #3/4 teams in a couple times.
Absolutely agree with the idea of reworking the regions, though mine would be a bit different, because I'd focus more on accessibility than region population :)
Another CA Guy wrote:
One more try:
Could you explain what your "retroactive agreement" is?
agreement?
Well, a retroactive agreement would be an agreement that happens post-facto.
As for "retroactive adjustments", I made a significant post on that already. Perhaps you should go back and read it if you're still confused.
VHSL Dos wrote:
http://va.milesplit.com/articles/96464-foot-locker-south-va-entrantsThere's a list of all the runners registered for FootLocker South from VA. McGorty and Chase are on that list, posing a tough race for Chantilly and Braddock. They have solid squads, but will they be able to do it without that number 1?
Also, don't count out Midlothian HS from Virginia to make a run at an At-Large bid. Not too far behind Chantilly at the VHSL AAA State Meet, losing by only 15 points. Take out McGorty from that equation and Midlothian wins by 32. They could definitely be in contention.
Yeah, I don't think many teams can qualify or finish top 3 in any region without their #1 runners... those that can are the extreme exceptions (meaning teams like North Central WA, Southlake Carroll TX, Christian Brothers NJ, etc.) ... essentially, teams with VERY strong packs beyond their scoring 5 and not reliant on a front runner to put themselves in a position to qualify.
Chantilly's #6 was 1:55 behind McGorty. To lose 1:55 in a regional race, you'd better be a VERY clear top two team... and with St. Xavier having beaten them already (Great American), and Midlothian right with them at state, I wouldn't say that was the case. And they never even raced the next few best teams. And of the teams they did face at Great American? Broughton was 1:58 behind, Blacksburg was 2:02 behind them and ran better at VA State, Tatnall 2:13, St. Pius X 2:19, Lexington 2:32 ... throw in Brentwood, Daniel, Belen Jesuit, Colonial, and Cabell Midland and that is at least 12 teams that should be right with them or ahead of them.
Lake Braddock's #6 was 2:39 behind Chase. There is less depth on the girls side in the Southeast this year, though, and they are a clear top 3 team in the region, so they might stand a better chance. I'd say Tatnall and Assumption are clear #1-2 without Chase running, though, and so it's a question of how many - if any - teams can slip in between them. Lake Braddock was still better than the next best Virginia team without Chase, though not by a lot... and there are other teams beyond Virginia that will be shooting for a top four finish, so they'll be cutting it close. Don't be surprised if they slip out of the top 10 as well, though, and if Estero or Mountain Brook are running... it's just not going to happen.
If Xavier Prep gets bid - they are SW#4 I don't know how they will do at Nationals. Their number one runner Sara Fakler is registered for Footlocker.
watchout wrote:
Then what would you call 2009? or 2007?
I didn't have data from 2007 handy. I'd call 2009 part of the "normal" from which 2010 was anomalous. Maybe anomalous for having great conditions, but that apparently wasn't true in all the other 2008-2012 years. I'm not sure I'm getting your point, my point was basically same as your next:
watchout wrote:
Yes, 2010 was the fastest year - it also had the best weather. Any years that ran significantly slower than 2009 and especially 2010 are doing so because of bad weather. Look at the results from Indiana's state meets and Pre-State meets... many of them are similar to 2009 and 2010 NXN-MW. "Great conditions" generally leads to a rating of about 14:48-14:52 on that course, and if there are hay bales at NXN-MW then maybe add another couple seconds but not any more than that.
By the way, for whatever it is worth... wind speed during the meet according to wunderground and my ratings for that year:
2007: 0-5 mph (rated ~15:02)
2008: 15-20 mph (rated ~15:10)
2009: 5-10 mph (rated ~14:59)
2010: 10-15 mph (rated ~14:53)
2011: 20-25 mph (rated ~15:32)
2012: 20-25 mph (rated ~15:10 or 15:16 for boys and 15:17 or 15:19 for girls)
I'm surprised 2010 was windier than 2009, although it was faster (both boys and girls) than 2008 or 2011. Of course there can be big local differences in wind. Earlier in the day of this year's race, in Terre Haute it didn't feel windy at all. Then got to course and was struck by how bad it was. Wind direction can matter. Usually I say wind hurts from 3 directions and only helps from one - but this year the long start and straights (the only really long straightaways, and on the highest, most wind-prone part of course) were straight into the wind.
There were hay bales, but that's true every year, and no big deal (except for the occasional individual who goes down and then gets landed on...)
sub4 old timer wrote:
watchout wrote:Then what would you call 2009? or 2007?
I didn't have data from 2007 handy. I'd call 2009 part of the "normal" from which 2010 was anomalous. Maybe anomalous for having great conditions, but that apparently wasn't true in all the other 2008-2012 years. I'm not sure I'm getting your point, my point was basically same as your next:
watchout wrote:
Yes, 2010 was the fastest year - it also had the best weather. Any years that ran significantly slower than 2009 and especially 2010 are doing so because of bad weather. Look at the results from Indiana's state meets and Pre-State meets... many of them are similar to 2009 and 2010 NXN-MW. "Great conditions" generally leads to a rating of about 14:48-14:52 on that course, and if there are hay bales at NXN-MW then maybe add another couple seconds but not any more than that.
By the way, for whatever it is worth... wind speed during the meet according to wunderground and my ratings for that year:
2007: 0-5 mph (rated ~15:02)
2008: 15-20 mph (rated ~15:10)
2009: 5-10 mph (rated ~14:59)
2010: 10-15 mph (rated ~14:53)
2011: 20-25 mph (rated ~15:32)
2012: 20-25 mph (rated ~15:10 or 15:16 for boys and 15:17 or 15:19 for girls)
I'm surprised 2010 was windier than 2009, although it was faster (both boys and girls) than 2008 or 2011. Of course there can be big local differences in wind. Earlier in the day of this year's race, in Terre Haute it didn't feel windy at all. Then got to course and was struck by how bad it was. Wind direction can matter. Usually I say wind hurts from 3 directions and only helps from one - but this year the long start and straights (the only really long straightaways, and on the highest, most wind-prone part of course) were straight into the wind.
There were hay bales, but that's true every year, and no big deal (except for the occasional individual who goes down and then gets landed on...)
Good point re: wind at the course, rather than at Terre Haute. Of course, all those wind readings were from the weather station in Terre Haute (wherever it's located), and doesn't necessarily represent what it was like at the course. Just posted them to give an idea.
Milesplit has an interesting feature comparing races from one year to the next. Even though 2009-2012 are the only complete and therefore accurate years on there, I think this goes to show how 2010 wasn't so anomalous:
2009 vs. 2010:
http://in.milesplit.com/meets/78203/compare/59428Regarding the hay bales, I made that point to explain why the Indiana State meet and Pre-State meets are faster than the fastest NXN-MW race to date (14:48-14:52 being great conditions for the course sans the hay bales, so great conditions at NXN-MW including the hay bales is going to be not substantially different as that's the only change to the course).
The point I was making was that 2007, 2009 and 2010 all ran faster than 2012, meaning that 2010 wasn't so anomalous but that 2011 certainly was.
Ann Sung wrote:
If Xavier Prep gets bid - they are SW#4 I don't know how they will do at Nationals. Their number one runner Sara Fakler is registered for Footlocker.
That's obviously a question that will have to be answered by the time the NXN committee selects the teams, but I'm guessing Fakler registered for FLW because she didn't make it to NXN and would probably run with her team at NXN if they were invited.
McGorty and Chase are also on the NXN SE start lists. I have to think that both are running NXN, otherwise their teams are pretty well screwed.
yepp wrote:
McGorty and Chase are also on the NXN SE start lists. I have to think that both are running NXN, otherwise their teams are pretty well screwed.
Agreed; hope they do run NXN, it would be nice to see a third SE boys team - especially if they are all competitive in Portland.
watchout wrote:
Milesplit has an interesting feature comparing races from one year to the next. Even though 2009-2012 are the only complete and therefore accurate years on there, I think this goes to show how 2010 wasn't so anomalous:
2009 vs. 2010:
http://in.milesplit.com/meets/78203/compare/59428The point I was making was that 2007, 2009 and 2010 all ran faster than 2012, meaning that 2010 wasn't so anomalous but that 2011 certainly was.
Cool milesplit feature, thanks. (When I look up raw data, I get bigger differences down around 50th-100th).
2011 was definitely a slow year, no arguments. I think this year was almost as slow, definitely not as fast as 2010
Here's a compilation of some data on auto qualifiers and potential at large teams.
Meylan NXN Regional speed ratings / Watchout NXN Regional speed ratings / Bloom national/regional rankings (11-20) / MileSplit national ranking (11-20)
Northwest
Couer d'Alene - 124.4 / 129.0 / 18/1 / 15
Camas - 123.6 / 127.8 / 24/2 / 23
Glacier Peak - 117.2 / 121.8 / nr/3 / hm
South Eugene - 117.2 / 121.8 / nr/4 / hm
Midwest
Carmel - 122.6 / 123.8 / 4/1 / 7
Naperville North - 122.2 / 123.4 / 9/2 / 25
New Trier - 123.8 / 125.0 / 25/5 / hm
Mason - 119.8 / 120.8 / nr/6 / hm
Heartland
Wayzata - 121.8 / 123.2 / 19/1 / 16
Eagen - 113.2 / 114.8 / nr/2 / hm
Dowling Catholic - 112.2 / 113.6 / nr/3 / hm
Arrowhead - 112.4 / 113.6 / nr/4 / hm
Southwest
Davis - 127.2 / 129.6 / 12/1 / 18
Fort Collins - 125.0 / 127.4 / 14/2 / 21
Pine Creek - 126.6 / 129.0 / 20/3 / 22
Xavier Prep - 123.8 / 126.2 / 21/4 / hm
South
Southlake Carroll - 132.2 / 132.6 / 8/1 / 5
Woodlands - 121.6 / 121.8 / nr/2 / hm
Kingwood - 120.8 / 120.8 / nr/3 / hm
College Park - 113.0 / 112.6 / nr/4 / nr
For the five regions already contested, it seems reasonably clear that only New Trier, Pine Creek and Xavier Prep have a shot at the at large slots.
Bloom and MileSplit are in agreement with their national rankings suggesting that the remaining auto qualifiers will be:
NY - FM and Saratoga
NE - Pennsbury and Unionville
SE - Tatnall and Assumption
CA - Great Oak and Simi Valley
Bloom's rankings suggest that the four at larges should be:
Holy Names, Lake Braddock, Voorhees and Pine Creek.
His other nationally ranked teams from these regions include:
Xavier Prep and East Aurora.
MileSplits' rankings suggest that the four at larges should be:
Lake Braddock, Holy Names, La Costa Canyon and Estero.
The other nationally ranked teams from these regions include:
Buchanan, Pine Creek and Mountain Brook.
Bloom has regional rankings, which include La Costa Canyon at #3 and Buchanan at #5 in CA, and Estero at #8 and Mountain Brook at #10 in the SE.
After their national rankings, MileSplit only has honorable mentions, which point to dozens and dozens of teams and separates none.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not see Unionville as an entrant for NXN-NE. Right now, I have Barrington and Voorhees with 5 points of each other for second place on the girls side.
MileSplit Guy wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not see Unionville as an entrant for NXN-NE. Right now, I have Barrington and Voorhees with 5 points of each other for second place on the girls side.
Nor Pennsbury? Too bad, seems like Pennsylvania teams rarely make the trip except for Germantown Friends and the West Chester Henderson boys.
I'm guessing Lower Bucks is 3A#3 Central Bucks East? That would be the top PA girls entrant.
Lower Bucks is Pennsbury. If they run well, they will be very tough. Unfortunately, I don't see the Unionville runner who easily won the state registered anywhere this weekend.
Another CA Guy wrote:
(Great compilation of speed ratings, followed by polls)
Thanks for the info, great stuff.
All taken with a grain of salt, but I trust the speed ratings more than the polls; also note that Bloom's rankings were before any regionals (unless a new ranking is out that I haven't seen). It's tough to rank teams that never compete against each other. Being from the MW, I don't see how Naperville North (who weren't far behind highly ranked Carmel, and ran about same average time at NXN-MW) were so far back in MileSplit's rankings. But at least they get to go and prove their mettle at NXN. New Trier was actually ahead of Carmel and NN on time (hence decent speed ratings), but is/was way back in those polls. Their team structure (strong top 3, decent but lagging 4-5) hurts them more in "smaller" meets (i.e., regional vs national).
The NXN rule states that the participants on the team that run at regionals are also the participants who will run at the national meet. Holding to that would preclude an athlete from skipping NXNSE for FL and then expecting to run at nationals. However, what if a team only runs 6 and leaves a place open for that FL runner?
Regardless of what the rule is, I want to be there to watch when the NXNSE staff screws over the #3 team for an at-large bid to a team that didn't run as a team in a TEAM based event. Absolute manipulation of the rules by these coaches if they try it.
You're welcome.
Bloom's most recent rankings from 11-20 are included in my compilation.
Guess we can keep our fingers crossed that "missing" teams appear on the starting line. Apparently, at least one team ran at NXN-S that wasn't on the posted list.