XC Club Nats results

Original Men’s Top 10 Teams

1 Zap Fitness Reebok A 65

2 Boston Athletic Associa A 116

3 Asics Aggie Running Clu A 118

4 Movin' Shoes Race Team A 214

5 Boulder Running Company A 232

6 Team Run Flagstaff A 233

7 Adidas/RogueAC A 247

8 New York Athletic Club A 255

9 Bowerman Track Club 257

10 Bryn Mawr Running Club A 275

Corrected Men’s Top 10 Teams

1 Zap Fitness Reebok 61

2 Boston Athletic Associa A 103

3 Asics Aggie Running Clu A 109

4 Movin' Shoes Race Team A 189

5 Team Run Flagstaff 200

6 Boulder Running Company A 208

7 Adidas/RogueAC A 213

8 New York Athletic Club A 221

9 Bowerman Track Club A 227

10 Bryn Mawr Running Club A 243

5th and 6th flip-flopped. 5th place gets $1,000 in prize money, 6th place gets nothing.

They are actively updating results, as of this post male master's team results for 40+ are up, no other master's team results but lots of masters individual results.

Luckily the corrected women's scores do not change the order of the top 5, so at least money is not involved. Really sucks for the men's Boulder running company, being told they were 5th in final results, now presumably they will be given 6th?

I think the USATF should have to give both teams the $1000. The old fifth-place team and the correct fifth-place team.

At least they are working on getting the results up. I don't know what kind of nightmare the timing system is to deal with and I assume someone somewhere is doing their best, so I'll refrain from criticizing, but this is still an unacceptable situation.

In the official results, do you see any new names? Did the USATF board of directors write in any new runners...that weren't initially registered for the race?

polevaultpower wrote:

A very experienced and competent timer who is well-versed in Hy-Tek, could have easily thought that everything was set up perfectly for this meet, and not realized there was a problem until the race was over.

Actually I don't think an experienced scorer would use HyTek for cross country. I've used it for some high school state meets and frankly it more trouble (and way more expensive) than it's worth. For track, and swim meets, sure. Cross country, roads, etc, it pretty we'll sucks the big weenie. The only reason it's popular in high school XC is the incestuous relationship with the associations.

We used RunScore with finishlynx for club cross in 2006, handles this no problem.

I was there and at least for masters the reports didn't seem to be from HyTek, could have been dumped to something else as massaged. At one point there was a literal cut and tape, so something was done by hand.

This tells me that either the data got hosed, or the person running the scoring software didn't know how to use it. If you know what you're doing you fix the runner/team with issues and rerun, or DQ and rerun, but you don't have to hand write or use a scissors. I'll admit that HyTek can make thus hard on race day, but not THAT hard.

Having used HyTek, RunScore, RaceDirector, FinishLynx, jaguar, I can't see why the results were done the way they were.

Keith Stone wrote:

We used RunScore with finishlynx for club cross in 2006, handles this no problem.

Looks nice!

And it looks like the Masters team scores from 2014 must have been dumped in to the same program, they are in the same format...

I never knew you could put 9 on a M40/50/60 masters team. Did that change or have I just been misinformed all these years?

So it looks like ALL of the team scores are finally posted. Does anyone see any problems?

http://www.usatf.org/Events---Calendar/2014/USATF-National-Club-Cross-Country-Championships/Final-Results.aspx

looks good to me.

Appears the results are now correct and locked-in.

Still no announcement, apology, or explanation from the USATF. In fact, not even a press release on the homepage acknowledging that the meet happened.

Anyone on here know which of the men's open teams got the money for 5th place? Boulder Running Company (originally announced in 5th) or Team Run Flagstaff (5th in updated results)?

The USATF rule book says that times for LDR events should be rounded up to the next full second. The results posted do not do this. Seriously???

Tom said they got rid of some of the women's scoring teams, any idea why? I think there were 43 scoring teams before, but a bunch of them are no longer on the results

Interesting, good point. Old results:

http://www.usatf.org/usatf/files/ee/ee3de706-4d2e-4107-b7e9-9b005219bcbe.pdf

New results:

http://www.usatf.org/usatf/files/9b/9b4042a7-5d42-42fa-b601-f422dd02b15c.pdf

At first glance, I think it's a good guess that the reason has to do with A and B teams for different clubs. But no idea what.

Uniform violation.... At least one of the teams that was omitted had runners wearing different colored shirts.

HyTek is a bad program for this purpose. Keith is right, what a silly program to use. I use RaceDirector for masters X-C and its easy to do age groups and teams with people dropping down etc.

The age graded results on USATF site are so screwed up that I can't even imagine how they got posted? If you have such obviously messed up results, don't put them up on your site, especially when you are being lambasted left & right for not having your shite together. Am not much for pyrotechnics but am starting to side with those who say "Blow it all up & start anew" USATF, You'er fired!

say no to Hy Tek wrote:

HyTek is a bad program for this purpose. Keith is right, what a silly program to use. I use RaceDirector for masters X-C and its easy to do age groups and teams with people dropping down etc.

Now I need to see if my officials association has any of these other programs laying around. I hate Hy-Tek!

I wonder if the entries from the god-awful USATF online registration system only import to Hy-Tek? Although it looks like they eventually got them all into RunScore or whatever for the final masters results...

kmaclam wrote:

The age graded results on USATF site are so screwed up that I can't even imagine how they got posted? If you have such obviously messed up results, don't put them up on your site, especially when you are being lambasted left & right for not having your shite together. Am not much for pyrotechnics but am starting to side with those who say "Blow it all up & start anew" USATF, You'er fired!

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but the times on the age-graded results are literally age-adjusted times. So like Joe Sheeran ran 34:47.4 and is 57 years old. Plug that in here:

You get 93.5%. Take that percentage and plug it into the right column and choose an age for a male in his peak. You get 28:42.

Is that actually what he could run at his peak age? Is it actually relevant? That's debatable, I guess. But it's still kind of neat to think about, and it means that Joe Sheeran definitely ran the fastest race for his age out of any of the masters men (and if you extend age-grading to open and believe it means anything in that context, he ran better than all of the open men too).

Go Orange

I can understand a delay in the results equalling a delay in the press release, but you'd think they would have written one up earlier in the week and released it as soon as the results were finally done?

Full and final results went up Tuesday night, it's not Thursday night, and still nothing from the National Office, from what was probably the largest cross country meet in USATF History.

Most of the delays were with the computer/the timer/the committee chairs/not the National Office, but there's really no excuse for not having the press release out by now.

*grumble grumble grumble*

Post #100