With the massive talent pool in CA, this state should have way more NXN championships. Just because a few teams have won doesn't mean we should ignore the disadvantage of running a gauntlet 3 weeks in a row before NXN.
CIF-SS especially has a huge disadvantage,
CA is not the only State with a gauntlet of running. Pretty much all the Northeastern States run every week thru NXN. They just have NXR the same day as CA State meet.
League meet, county meet, districts meet, states by school size, meet of champions, NXR/FL reg.
or something similar with diff name across all the states.
Has not stopped NY, NJ, PA, Mass, CT teams and individuals from winning.
I think bigger issue for CA is could weather, footing, hills etc, although plenty have overcome this.
So it's only unfair if it doesn't affect the outcome? Isn't THAT discrimination that you only single out trans athletes that are high performers? This is just stupid....(real) boys on one side, (real) girls on the other. When you start making exceptions that's when the water gets muddy.
What makes it so unfair that she runs on the girls team? And before you say because she is a boy, why does that make it unfair? Is it because of chromosomes? What about her 'male' genitals? Or is it because of her hormones? I'm pretty certain that the second option wouldn't affect her athletic capabilities. And while chromosomes do affect it, hormones would affect her athletic capabilities much more. We know that she has been out for at least a year and a half (this is when she first started competing as a girl), though likely longer because I would expect her to be out long before she runs on a girls sports team.I would guess she's been publicly out for at least 2 years. This is more than enough time for her to have started taking estrogen. If she had, then it would explain her mediocre performance last Saturday at IEC, and we will see about her performance tomorrow at Mt Sac. If she has started taking hormones, then what argument does anyone have against her running on the girls team? Even the Olympics allows transgender athletes to compete based on the gender they identify as as long as they had been on HRT for at least 2 years.
However, you are right. I was discriminating towards high-performing transgender athletes. However, it is better to single out a smaller group of people than a larger group of people. And IMO it is better to single out an ambiguous or general group of people than to single out a single person. And just what would you consider a 'real girl'? Because to me, Abigail seems pretty genuinely female to me.
Glendora has been a really consistent performing team. (consider that woodbridge is the most competitive and mt sac is the least competitive). They show up at every big race with slight improvements for the next race.
Trying to compare Mt Sac times to Clovis by team times isn't accurate because the rosters weren't the same, but of the top 8 boys teams that ran both Mt Sac and Clovis, and of the varsity runners on those teams that ran both races, 19 ran faster at Mt Sac, 26 ran faster at Clovis. A little surprising since Mt Sac is 3 miles now, but not a 5K. It is a small sample size, but on nearly every team it was an even split.
This is not say one course "is faster", it is just try to get a quick conversion between the two like we used to have with all the historic data. Right now, my quick conversion will be zero. Each runner's difference is probably just a matter of "ran a little better on one day", and in general, great hill runners will run Mt Sac faster.
Trying to compare Mt Sac times to Clovis by team times isn't accurate because the rosters weren't the same, but of the top 8 boys teams that ran both Mt Sac and Clovis, and of the varsity runners on those teams that ran both races, 19 ran faster at Mt Sac, 26 ran faster at Clovis. A little surprising since Mt Sac is 3 miles now, but not a 5K. It is a small sample size, but on nearly every team it was an even split.
This is not say one course "is faster", it is just try to get a quick conversion between the two like we used to have with all the historic data. Right now, my quick conversion will be zero. Each runner's difference is probably just a matter of "ran a little better on one day", and in general, great hill runners will run Mt Sac faster.
I noticed this as well. Many of runners who ran on Mt Sac and Clovis ran identical times, which I found very interesting.
Lines up with my guess about Caldwell - I guessed that he would run low 14:40s to high 14:30s at the State Meet, and this seems to line up with that prediction.
Top 25 best returner boys performances so far (using my own data sets), (Woodward Park, Woodbridge, Mt Sac). The lower the number, the better.
31 - Maximo Zavaleta 37 - Olly O’Connor 38 - Mason Nguyen 41 - Hunter Hannah 47 - Noel Huato 48 - Eliah Murillo 48 - Benjamin Fernandez 49 - Cooper Stream 51 - Jace Deledonne 51 - Kyle Jakary 52 - Conor Lott 53 - Andres Lomeli 53 - Aiden Antonio 53 - Josiah Bowman 54 - Oliver Hunter 54 - Ryan Fitzpatrick 55 - Aiden Zavala 55 - Isaac Abbott 56 - Ryan Barris 56 - Kiefer Willcox 56 - Aiden Zavala 57 - Yohan Anderson 59 - Bradley Quezada 60 - Matthew Ogilvie 62 - Evan Nahuat
How does this compare to some of the past all-time great returners?
3 - Leo Young 5 - Lex Young 10 - Evan Noonan 17 - Aaron Sahlman
How does it compare to last year’s top returners? 10 - Evan Noonan 21 - Broen Holman 24 - Eli-Fitchen Young 27 - Landon Pretre 32- Aydon Stefanopolous
There is still the state meet and other important races coming up. So these numbers for the 2024 returners can still improve.
I will do a girls list tomorow so stay posted
How did you create this data set?
I took California's best performance ever, German Fernandez's 14:24 at Woodward Park. The number next to the name is how many seconds away each runner is from California's best performance ever. I used my own numbered system for course comparison. Afterwords I feel like I was being too general to Mt sac course. It should probably be 5 seconds slower than Woodward (even considering warming conditions). I feel like reason times are slower on that course is more likely because it is just not a priority.
I took California's best performance ever, German Fernandez's 14:24 at Woodward Park. The number next to the name is how many seconds away each runner is from California's best performance ever. I used my own numbered system for course comparison. Afterwords I feel like I was being too general to Mt sac course. It should probably be 5 seconds slower than Woodward (even considering warming conditions). I feel like reason times are slower on that course is more likely because it is just not a priority.
While Mt. Sac and Clovis times seem very similar, the state meet is generally noticeably faster. Everyone is peaking for the state meet, and going all-out. So even though Clovis and the state meet are the same course, I would say will over the years that runners that compete at both the new Mt Sac and the state meet will more often run faster at the state meet. If hypothetically Caldwell had run14:24 at Mt Sac, does that make it more impressive or less impressive that German's 14:24? Or is the "impressiveness" of a Mt. Sac time tied to its point in the schedule? Meaning how impressive it is compared to others on the same course, on the same day? Speed ratings lean a little into "how great it is compared to others that day" instead of purely "time X on this course means..". That's why every race at Woodward Park could be potentially speed rated differently.
Trying to compare Mt Sac times to Clovis by team times isn't accurate because the rosters weren't the same, but of the top 8 boys teams that ran both Mt Sac and Clovis, and of the varsity runners on those teams that ran both races, 19 ran faster at Mt Sac, 26 ran faster at Clovis. A little surprising since Mt Sac is 3 miles now, but not a 5K. It is a small sample size, but on nearly every team it was an even split.
This is not say one course "is faster", it is just try to get a quick conversion between the two like we used to have with all the historic data. Right now, my quick conversion will be zero. Each runner's difference is probably just a matter of "ran a little better on one day", and in general, great hill runners will run Mt Sac faster.
TullyRunners rated Clovis and Mt Sac the same this year, with 15:00 rated at 188.00.
Doesn't mean it will be exactly the same next year, but more evidence that for a quick comparison, no conversion is needed.
Not sure why Dyestat keeps ranking GO so highly. There are 3-4 teams better than them right now with actual results on paper. Bob Firman didn't do much to put confidence in their current roster without the other Brown brother and that's assuming he magically returns to being their #1/#2 runner after super long absence from injury.
It should be power rankings of current results not what they could do if everyone was healthy.
