The original claim was that speed ratings have not kept up with historical precedent. My point is that speed ratings are an independent rating system that measure from the mid pack. They aren't a measure of "the fastest time", but rather how many deviations in front or behind the mid pack (the baseline) any given runner is on any course on any day.
The original claim is essentially saying that "the mid pack" (the baseline) is incorrect. But that isn't true, people just got faster as a whole.
There are some legitimate weaknesses to speed ratings like creating a baseline for a course, or having a sample size too small, or accounting for skew (the baseline of an nxn race is obviously going to be way higher than a local invite) but the original claim didnt address these items and rather claimed that the "historical precedent" was unaccounted for.
Your strawman is to reduce the conversation to "who has the fastest time". But speed ratings inherently aren't about the fastest time - rather the deviations from the mid pack. This is why I used examples that show the juxtaposition.
If you exclusively want to go off time to rank runners, fine. It makes no difference to me, but thats still not what speed ratings are.
If you want to actually engage in a good faith conversation, then we can discuss it, but I'm not arguing with someone who's just going to strawman.
The original claim was that speed ratings have not kept up with historical precedent. My point is that speed ratings are an independent rating system that measure from the mid pack. They aren't a measure of "the fastest time", but rather how many deviations in front or behind the mid pack (the baseline) any given runner is on any course on any day.
The original claim is essentially saying that "the mid pack" (the baseline) is incorrect. But that isn't true, people just got faster as a whole.
There are some legitimate weaknesses to speed ratings like creating a baseline for a course, or having a sample size too small, or accounting for skew (the baseline of an nxn race is obviously going to be way higher than a local invite) but the original claim didnt address these items and rather claimed that the "historical precedent" was unaccounted for.
Your strawman is to reduce the conversation to "who has the fastest time". But speed ratings inherently aren't about the fastest time - rather the deviations from the mid pack. This is why I used examples that show the juxtaposition.
If you exclusively want to go off time to rank runners, fine. It makes no difference to me, but thats still not what speed ratings are.
If you want to actually engage in a good faith conversation, then we can discuss it, but I'm not arguing with someone who's just going to strawman.
They dont want to engage in a good faith conversation. They saw a tool/metric and made an assumption as to what it was measuring. Instead of admitting they were wrong they double down and call it a bad metric.
Its ok to not find speed rating to be a useful tool, but its not a bad tool just because its not doing what you want it to do. Its like calling a fork a bad tool because it wasn't made to eat tomato soup with.
People underestimate Rocky and people will see that Howie is one of the top 10 coaches in the country. The boys would have done the same if the committee didn't screw them for the third year in a row.
Prediction for girls teams 1. Mountain Vista CO 2. Bethlehem NY 3. Trabuco Hills CA 4. Buchanan CA 5. Flower Mound TX 6. Air Academy CO 7. JSerra CA 8. Fossil Ridge CO 9. Lone Peak UT 10. Union Catholic NJ 11. Cardinal Gibbons NC 12. Wayzata MN 13. Rocky Mountain ID 14. Brentwood TN 15. Downers Grove IL 16. Romeo MI 17. Carmel IN 18. Lincoln OR 19. Southlake Carroll TX 20. Johnston IA 21. Champlain Valley Union VT 22. Shenendehowa NY
Prediction for girls teams 1. Mountain Vista CO 2. Bethlehem NY 3. Trabuco Hills CA 4. Buchanan CA 5. Flower Mound TX 6. Air Academy CO 7. JSerra CA 8. Fossil Ridge CO 9. Lone Peak UT 10. Union Catholic NJ 11. Cardinal Gibbons NC 12. Wayzata MN 13. Rocky Mountain ID 14. Brentwood TN 15. Downers Grove IL 16. Romeo MI 17. Carmel IN 18. Lincoln OR 19. Southlake Carroll TX 20. Johnston IA 21. Champlain Valley Union VT 22. Shenendehowa NY
If the course is indeed rainy and muddy, I’d rank CA teams/individuals way, way lower.
With the exception of Sarah Baxter, historically, they have greatly underperformed when racing in wet, muddy conditions. Likely due to it being unfamiliar. NY teams generally thrive.
Rainy courses become more interesting by leveling the field a bit. Not sure what kind of courses athletes from UT and CO are accustomed to (ie Hedengren, Ritzenhein)
Prediction for girls teams 1. Mountain Vista CO 2. Bethlehem NY 3. Trabuco Hills CA 4. Buchanan CA 5. Flower Mound TX 6. Air Academy CO 7. JSerra CA 8. Fossil Ridge CO 9. Lone Peak UT 10. Union Catholic NJ 11. Cardinal Gibbons NC 12. Wayzata MN 13. Rocky Mountain ID 14. Brentwood TN 15. Downers Grove IL 16. Romeo MI 17. Carmel IN 18. Lincoln OR 19. Southlake Carroll TX 20. Johnston IA 21. Champlain Valley Union VT 22. Shenendehowa NY
If the course is indeed rainy and muddy, I’d rank CA teams/individuals way, way lower.
With the exception of Sarah Baxter, historically, they have greatly underperformed when racing in wet, muddy conditions. Likely due to it being unfamiliar. NY teams generally thrive.
Rainy courses become more interesting by leveling the field a bit. Not sure what kind of courses athletes from UT and CO are accustomed to (ie Hedengren, Ritzenhein)
Holly Barker and Jaelyn Williams did great last year for CA and Hanne Thomsen has lots of experience on the course. Williams unfortunately didn't qualify and Thomsen seems a bit below where she was at last year, but Barker seems to be peaking at the right time. Top 10 seems like a pretty solid guess for her, but I wouldn't be surprised if she was top 5. Abigail Errington seems to thrive on more hilly courses like Barker and may also surprise in the mud. I would love to see Sadie challenge, but she really didn't seem like herself at the state meet. Rylee Blade's form seems perfect for the mud, but she was pretty far back last year. Braelyn Combe has improved a lot from last year and had a stellar performance at state, but she is still 20 seconds back of her teammate Blade.
Prediction for girls teams 1. Mountain Vista CO 2. Bethlehem NY 3. Trabuco Hills CA 4. Buchanan CA 5. Flower Mound TX 6. Air Academy CO 7. JSerra CA 8. Fossil Ridge CO 9. Lone Peak UT 10. Union Catholic NJ 11. Cardinal Gibbons NC 12. Wayzata MN 13. Rocky Mountain ID 14. Brentwood TN 15. Downers Grove IL 16. Romeo MI 17. Carmel IN 18. Lincoln OR 19. Southlake Carroll TX 20. Johnston IA 21. Champlain Valley Union VT 22. Shenendehowa NY
If the course is indeed rainy and muddy, I’d rank CA teams/individuals way, way lower.
With the exception of Sarah Baxter, historically, they have greatly underperformed when racing in wet, muddy conditions. Likely due to it being unfamiliar. NY teams generally thrive.
Rainy courses become more interesting by leveling the field a bit. Not sure what kind of courses athletes from UT and CO are accustomed to (ie Hedengren, Ritzenhein)
Mariah Castillo - 2017 - 3rd in CA merge well back of Lane, 3rd in NXN
Prediction for girls teams 1. Mountain Vista CO 2. Bethlehem NY 3. Trabuco Hills CA 4. Buchanan CA 5. Flower Mound TX 6. Air Academy CO 7. JSerra CA 8. Fossil Ridge CO 9. Lone Peak UT 10. Union Catholic NJ 11. Cardinal Gibbons NC 12. Wayzata MN 13. Rocky Mountain ID 14. Brentwood TN 15. Downers Grove IL 16. Romeo MI 17. Carmel IN 18. Lincoln OR 19. Southlake Carroll TX 20. Johnston IA 21. Champlain Valley Union VT 22. Shenendehowa NY
It seems Airport Lounge is making the point that the girls who are signed to NIL deals get highlighted by the running media while the girls that have not signed NIL deals do not get highlighted as much. This despite performances that can be very similar, or in some cases where the non NIL athlete has had greater performances. I have certainly noticed this, and it is also apparent during live race coverage where certain athletes seem to be the announcer favorites.
It seems Airport Lounge is making the point that the girls who are signed to NIL deals get highlighted by the running media while the girls that have not signed NIL deals do not get highlighted as much. This despite performances that can be very similar, or in some cases where the non NIL athlete has had greater performances. I have certainly noticed this, and it is also apparent during live race coverage where certain athletes seem to be the announcer favorites.
It's the other way around. Girls that get media exposure get NIL deals.
Addy Ritzenhein doesn't get media exposure because she got an NIL deal. She got media exposure by winning NXN and having a famous last name. That's what got her an NIL deal.
Get well known first, get NIL deal second. That's how it works.
It seems Airport Lounge is making the point that the girls who are signed to NIL deals get highlighted by the running media while the girls that have not signed NIL deals do not get highlighted as much. This despite performances that can be very similar, or in some cases where the non NIL athlete has had greater performances. I have certainly noticed this, and it is also apparent during live race coverage where certain athletes seem to be the announcer favorites.
It's the other way around. Girls that get media exposure get NIL deals.
Addy Ritzenhein doesn't get media exposure because she got an NIL deal. She got media exposure by winning NXN and having a famous last name. That's what got her an NIL deal.
Get well known first, get NIL deal second. That's how it works.
I also want to share let's not sleep on Zariel Macchia... she is our 2 x USA U20 Cross Country Champion... that's no joke, and it's her first NXN but course suits her perfectly.
Who is an example of someone ignored by the media, because they don't have an NIL?
Also this is a Nike event. It's perfectly in Nike's rights to put Nike kids at press tables. If it's Nike NIL that this issue is about.
Nike does not, however, deny the race to non Nike athletes. (Which can happen at a pro event like Pre) This race is not sanctioned by any hs sports, governing body. No one is required to attend.
Prediction for girls teams 1. Mountain Vista CO 2. Bethlehem NY 3. Trabuco Hills CA 4. Buchanan CA 5. Flower Mound TX 6. Air Academy CO 7. JSerra CA 8. Fossil Ridge CO 9. Lone Peak UT 10. Union Catholic NJ 11. Cardinal Gibbons NC 12. Wayzata MN 13. Rocky Mountain ID 14. Brentwood TN 15. Downers Grove IL 16. Romeo MI 17. Carmel IN 18. Lincoln OR 19. Southlake Carroll TX 20. Johnston IA 21. Champlain Valley Union VT 22. Shenendehowa NY
I also want to share let's not sleep on Zariel Macchia... she is our 2 x USA U20 Cross Country Champion... that's no joke, and it's her first NXN but course suits her perfectly.
It's great that she has made those U20 teams, but she will 90% likely be 30-45 seconds off the leaders in about 15th place unless she has a dramatic pb.
I also want to share let's not sleep on Zariel Macchia... she is our 2 x USA U20 Cross Country Champion... that's no joke, and it's her first NXN but course suits her perfectly.
It's great that she has made those U20 teams, but she will 90% likely be 30-45 seconds off the leaders in about 15th place unless she has a dramatic pb.
Dramatic PB? She has the 3rd fastest PR (16:13) in the field.
It's great that she has made those U20 teams, but she will 90% likely be 30-45 seconds off the leaders in about 15th place unless she has a dramatic pb.
Dramatic PB? She has the 3rd fastest PR (16:13) in the field.
From what course? Time usually not relevant comparing different courses.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.