Who does the high school rankings for MileSplit and why are they so biased to NY and east coast teams?

american flag shorts wrote:

Niles wrote:

FYI Katelyn Tuohy broke Footlocker Champ Aislin Cuffe’s course record this year by 24 seconds. Lane beat Sarah Baxter’s record by even less in a faster version of Mt. Sac. Now cues your response that Baxter is way faster than Cuffe, but I’m not buying it. Look back at a few of her races which were truly spectacular.

Cuffe was a phenomenal HS runner.

Baxter was probably the greatest female HS XC runner ever.

Breaking Baxter records >>> breaking Cuffe records.

I think Lane is probably the best in the US right now, but either way, both she and Tuohy will go down as some of the best HS XC runners of all time.

1. Baxter was NOT the greatest HS XC female. She was the best of her time for a short while, before losing at NXN.

2. Mt Sac was a very good race, no doubt. She ended up 76 seconds behind the boys winner, who is ranked #22 on the Flo 50 list. Tuohy, on a race that is longer longer (so the gap should be larger due to more time to separate) ran 60 seconds behind the Manhattan Eastern States Champ who is ranked #13 on the Flo 50 list.

3. I don't think we can say either of them will go down as some of the best of all-time, yet. I think if Tuohy wins NXN it will be the greatest individual season we have seen from a HS female in terms of her consistent impressive results, but Lane races far less so it is more difficult for me to place her name in the 'best season' category. If she strings together the next two Footlocker titles, though, she will certainly be in the conversation.

4. I think there are a lot of hesitation in CA about speed ratings, which I can certainly understand. What would Tuohy have to run at NXN in order for her to get more respect?

Niles wrote:

4. I think there are a lot of hesitation in CA about speed ratings, which I can certainly understand. What would Tuohy have to run at NXN in order for her to get more respect?

Part of the reason there is a lot of hesitation in CA about speed ratings is because only one person is in charge of making them and he's from NY. Additionally, as I've stated, on average NY runners seem able to score significantly higher speed ratings relative to the fitness they had in the previous track season. The speed ratings are inherently flawed anyway, as they become inflated by an unreasonable amount at the national meets given everyone isn't suddenly more fit in the last meet of the season.

Katelyn Tuohy has a ton of respect from the west coast. However, there is only one other girl in the country that has a legitimate shot at beating her and that girl is the reigning national champion. The way sports work is that you need to dethrone the king or queen in a head to head battle. Running fartlek workouts as you set course records is great, but it's still just an individual time trial.

To be sure, Tuohy moves more like an international class runner and if I had to bet on her or Lane making it to the Olympics I would certainly put my money on Tuohy.

I don't think there is anything Tuohy will do at NXN or Lane at FLN to put this issue to rest. However, by the time next track season is done I believe Tuohy will clearly be the bigger talent.

IDopedInHS wrote:

The reason NY has its own qualifier is to give NE teams a chance to go to NXN. Let’s face it, if NY was merged with NE, it would be NY teams going to NXN and not NE. NY has so many heavy hitters, they’re always good.

This.

And as far as speed ratings- NYers run in bad weather conditions- which often mean muddy courses and the courses are tough.

Bowdoin Park is a tough course- the first half is mostly uphill and some of the downhills are too steep.

One in the woods has a sharp right hand turn with a drop off on the curve.

States this year was flat but there was frozen ground with snow that turned to 5K of mud by the time the girls raced.

And in track- we often don't get decent weather until the middle of May- track meets in cold and wind obviously effects times and the conditions hurt training, too.

Speed work on a track in cold, windy weather effects splits and even the effectiveness of the workout.

So, track times will be slower.

runn wrote:

And in track- we often don't get decent weather until the middle of May- track meets in cold and wind obviously effects times and the conditions hurt training, too.

Speed work on a track in cold, windy weather effects splits and even the effectiveness of the workout.

So, track times will be slower.

So track and cross times are slower due to the cold weather, but the year-round slower athletes in this case are actually faster. Brilliant.

Only FYI, Baxter was running on stress fracture at NXN.

How many girls have a better record than Baxter did as a HS XC runner? I believe the only race she ever lost was her very last one and she was still in contention until the very end; it was just too flat of a course for her to beat Efraimson and Cranny that day.

I think most of your points are very true. The speed ratings at NXN are a bit different since they don't have the 'average' runner, but they do have enough that they are relatively accurate. Footlocker on the other hand is not a good race to speed rate at all due to the small field size. Speed ratings are also very useful for inside NY state since the more results that are rated the more accurate they become since each runner having a larger database of numbers. The past few years have made the out-of-state ones better since there are more reference points, and he can correct future years looking how past years played out. Tuohy has put on more great performances this season which is why I see her as the best, but I can certainly understand the whole mentality of needing to beat the former best to be the best.

Also to the location issue with where Meylen is located: I can understand the mentality that the NYer would benefit the NY team. There is also the mentality within NY that he gives Section III better numbers than others, so your point is fair, but probably a negligible difference overall. I think it does say something when you look at his predictions for NXN compared to what Milesplit ranks the teams at, his list is more accurate down the line than the other.

Not a perfect system for outside of NY, but hopefully it can expand and improve.

Niles wrote:

1. Baxter was NOT the greatest HS XC female. She was the best of her time for a short while, before losing at NXN.

In four years of XC she lost exactly one race: senior year NXN, while running with a stress fracture against what was probably the strongest HS girls field ever, topped by Efraimson and Cranny. The year before that she beat those two--along with the soon to be pro Mary Cain--on the ugliest NXN course ever. The year before that? Beat the field--including those three--to nab her first NXN win. That's on top of the fact that she rewrote the CA-SS (see: the strongest XC section in the country) record books.

There are other people in consideration, sure, but you're kidding yourself if you think Baxter isn't at the very top of the GOAT female hs XC runner conversation.

Logician wrote:

runn wrote:

And in track- we often don't get decent weather until the middle of May- track meets in cold and wind obviously effects times and the conditions hurt training, too.

Speed work on a track in cold, windy weather effects splits and even the effectiveness of the workout.

So, track times will be slower.

So track and cross times are slower due to the cold weather, but the year-round slower athletes in this case are actually faster. Brilliant.

No, but when racing head to head the runners and teams with the slower personal bests from the northeast or Midwest have often beaten the runners from Cali and the South who had faster personal bests.

coach wrote:

Logician wrote:

So track and cross times are slower due to the cold weather, but the year-round slower athletes in this case are actually faster. Brilliant.

No, but when racing head to head the runners and teams with the slower personal bests from the northeast or Midwest have often beaten the runners from Cali and the South who had faster personal bests.

You’re talking about NXN, where the conditions are completely foreign to what most kids are accustomed to, right?

Previous post got cutoff due to winning some prize in a stupid pop up ad.

Anyway, the cold and soggy courses are not at all what the CA kids are used to. It’s not that they are soft, it’s just that they live in one of the warmer and drier regions of the country. They aren’t even allowed to wear spikes during XC in CA. Think about that, how would NY kids do never being allowed to wear spikes? Horrible I’m sure because the terrain they race on sometimes requires it whereas the kids in CA never race on anything like that.

You should see the look on the CA kids’ faces at NXN when they are given spikes to wear and see others taping them on so they don’t fall off in the mud. It’s a completely new experience and a reason that many believe the national championships should not be in Portland every year, although that’s not possible because Nike needs it’s headquarters to market the event properly.

As for Meylan predicting NXN better than MileSplit, that’s not saying much at all considering MileSplit will merge results from different races on different courses and call them “rankings.” Those guys are pathetic.

What I don't get about milesplit is them tying themselves to speed rating, but then not just doing a straight 1-25 of the best speed rated teams for rankings. Why do they have 17 ranking systems? Pick one.

Bowdoin Top Time List – From MileSplit, Nov 1, 2016 – updated with more recent results. Speed ratings for both lists from Tully Runners.

Touhy / 2017 / 16:52.4 / 171.53

Touhy / 2017 / 17:10.31 / 166.56

Cuffe / 2010 / 17:16.9 / 167.4

Blood / 2004 / 17:27.3 / 166.9

Touhy / 2017 / 17:28.6 / 160.47

Chmiel / 2017 / 17:32.5 / 158.17

Neal / 2015 / 17:37.8 / 156.4

Cuffe / 2009 / 17:38.2 / 160.3

Cuffe / 2009 / 17:38.9 / 160.0

Cain / 2011 / 17:40.0 / 158.7

Ryan / 2004 / 17:40.2 / 162.6

Cain / 2012 / 17:42.6 / 157.8

Lee / 2016 / 17:44.8 / 154.07

Lawson / 2015 / 17:46.8 / 154.4

Fanning / 2011 / 17:47.4 / 158.2

Woodward Park Top Time List – From Prep Cal Track – updated with one missing result.

Baxter / 2012 / 16:39.7 / 161.8

Baxter / 2013 / 16:42.7 / 158.77

Stamps / 1996 / 16:43 / race not speed rated

Stamps / 1995 / 16:45 / race not speed rated

Lane / 2016 / 16:45 / 158.0

Trotter / 2001 / 16:55 / race not speed rated

O’Keefe / 2014 / 16:56.9 / 155.03

Baxter / 2010 / 16:56.9 / 158.0

Collins / 2014 / 16:57.0 / 155.0

M. Denner / 2017 / 16:58.7 / 151.43

O’Keefe / 2013 / 16:58.8 / 153.4

Reedy / 2012 / 16:59 / 150.3

Siraki / 2000 / 16:59 / race not speed rated

Baxter / 2013 / 17:00 / 155.0

Trotter / 2001 / 17:01 / race not speed rated

Yep, looks good.

Some information for those interested in speed ratings ...

Speed ratings are not based on a single profile of "average" runners ... they are based on a library of profiles for many races … The first article I wrote used Section 3 in NY (Central NY region) as the example ... it was the profile I developed for use in Section 3 as a starting point … I have developed separate profiles for each section and, more importantly, each race in New York … Through the years, this has expanded to most States in the US in varying degrees ... I have developed profiles for most State Meets and many important invitational races ... These profiles are one basis for deriving speed ratings.

Race profiling ignores runners as individuals ... it looks only at groups of runners ... The next (and actually most important) aspect in deriving speed ratings involves maintaining a database of speed ratings for individual runners ... Humans are variable data points (some runners are a lot more variable than others), but various methods and experience allows fitting the final times of a race to the previous speed ratings of the individuals in the race to derive the speed ratings for that particular race ... This is the main method I use to derive speed ratings in NY ... and it is becoming more common as I have expanded outside of NY.

I’m a horseplayer and speed ratings are just one factor used in handicapping races ... In my usage, speed ratings are used for betting purposes (literally), and I consider that when I derive speed ratings.

Ranking teams with speed ratings ... Speed ratings can be applied in many different ways, it is up to the individual handicapper to decide how to apply them ... Personally myself, I prefer to look at "overall" speed ratings for each individual on a particular team (overall meaning some combination seasonal average, highest, recent, median, frequency, etc).

Using the Burnt Hills boys as an example ... I can see how MileSplit has them highly ranked with the top five scorers racing at their best ... But for me, that type of race is not "typical" for them, and applying "overall" speed ratings would drop them significantly in the rankings.

Some California people complain that I over-rate the New York teams ... They don’t hear the complaints I get from New Yorkers and coaches from other States about me over-rating the California teams ... I think my speed ratings for California are quite accurate for the most part, and my own ranking scheme would place multiple CA teams high in rankings ... If I was ranking for just an NXN look however, I would include only 4 CA teams (from a power merge), and some CA teams would be left out of the 22 team ranking.

Some very high speed ratings at Foot Locker Finals seem to concern some viewers ... At first, it concerned me as well ... Were these ratings real?? ... Foot Locker is unique and unlike any other race in high school XC ... Having the top runners race in a small elite field under mostly good conditions with a national championship at stake is expected to yield exceptional results for the top finishers ... And the top runners at Foot Locker have gotten some very high speed ratings! … But what most people don’t notice is that mid-level runners are still getting speed ratings comparable to seasonal ratings or ratings entering Foot Locker ... The competition helped elevate the performance level of the top finishers, and their speed ratings are real ... although not helpful for future handicapping.

Here is a track example that illustrates what can happen in national races … Anna Rohrer was a two-time Foot Locker champion ... her 3200 meter PR entering her senior HS season was 10:14.43 ... as a senior at the Indiana State Meet in 2015, she ran all-out to break the State record in the 3200 meters and she did (10:11.20) ... a couple weeks later, she went to the Brooks PR to run the 2-Mile ... with great conditions and exceptional competition from Destiny Collins (Great Oak), Anna Rohrer ran 9:59.96 ... most other girls in that race ran "typical" race times ... This is how high speed ratings happen.

CA Boys Rule wrote:

Tism? wrote:

"There are a minimum of 10 teams from California right now ahead of New York's best, yet the knuckleheads at MileSplit only have 1 CA team ranked ahead of NY. "

Dude are you fucking retarded?

Burnt Hills is #6 in the us according to Milesplit... you buy THAT??? Match them up against any school in CA that is halfway decent and they will get destroyed. Corning and FM are even better too considering they beat them at States. Dana Hills has 8 runners ahead of the 3rd runner in any NY team and they are only the fifth best team in the state. You little NYers think you’re so special just because Bill Meylan likes to make you all feel good about yourselves. It’s a shame CA can’t get all four wildcard to NXN since that would be most fair.

.

1) if you look at meylan last week rating for burnt hills vs CA#2 roosevelt you will see they were not rated as high. CA south central race would have won NY feds according the the speed ratings given. If milespilt was following his ratings exactly then BurntHills would NOT be rated that high. So your point of connecting meylan rating to milesplit's BH #6 ranking is bogus , illogical, and not supported by data.

2) the other point about meylan ratings favoring NY runners can be easily analyzed by looking at the website. FOr 15 years he had projected the NTN/NXN finals based 100% on his published ratings. And then shown the actual result right next to it. If the ratings favored NY then there should be a easily observable result where NY failed to meet projections in the actual result. Not one datapoint but a trend - says 40NY teams vs 40CA teams predicted vs actual.

i'm too lazy, i'll look at one datapoint:2005.

(and the nybias speed ranting/California whining was going on then.... )

Royal SimiValley predicted #2,actual #6

FM predicted #2, actual #2

Saratoga predicted #6, actual #1.

Bill, the explanation is appreciated as I understand that takes a lot of time to type out. However, I still think you're way off on many of your in-season west coast rankings. Having had individuals at foot locker 4 times over the past several years is why I'm so confident you're wrong. They always have huge jumps at foot locker according to your speed ratings, yet their performances are either no better or only marginally better than what they had been doing at the bigger invitationals all year. Sometimes you've had speed rating differentials on these athletes that vary by more than 10 points, yet the performance was identical.

It makes sense that sometimes you'll get top athletes making a big jump due to not having been up against similar talent, but that's not an issue in southern california. These kids have national-caliber talent to test themselves against year-round.

Many will say that NXN proves the speed ratings are right for the California kids, but one should expect NXN to be some of their worst performances of the season due to being in such a different environment. Cold, very soft terrain, and wearing spikes for the first time all season makes for a lot of changes the nervous system is not used to. A team like FM's girls routinely overachieve relative to their fitness because they are extremely well adapted to the conditions. That is their plan and they execute it perfectly. Of course then people think many of those girls underperform in college, when the reality is they were simply better prepared for NXN relative to others with the same general fitness.

Imagine if someone in Colorado did all the speed ratings and the national championship was also at altitude. They could rank the other states lower than what their actual performances are and then justify it at the national championships because they didn't do as well as the higher ranked altitude athlete. This is what I'm seeing take place when using NXN as "proof" of the speed ratings, yet at Foot Locker the ratings often jump up significantly for CA athletes when there is no reason they should do so.

I generally agree with the ratings at Woodward Park and Balboa Park, where the CA state meet and FLN is run, respectively. It's races like Woodbridge, Orange County Championships, Mt SAC, Coolbreeze, etc. that are routinely off by 5-7 points. Look at Reed Brown last year. 188 speed rating at Woodbridge while running 14:11. Then 202 at Balboa Park. That means he'd need to have run approximately 13:29 to get a 202 at Woodbridge. It's not reasonable to think he improved his fitness almost 15 seconds a mile in that short of time. Nor is it reasonable to think Amber Trotter could have run 14:35 for a speed rating of 180 at Woodbridge. That's absurd. Equally absurd is Adam Goucher having a speed rating of 213 at footlocker, equivalent to running 12:56 at last year's Woodbridge course or 12:47 at this year's course. Come on. Get real. He ran 1:53, 4:18 and 8:55 in track. Even with altitude adjustments, that doesn't put him in the sub 13:00 range for 3 miles in high school. How does a guy run 4:16-19 per mile on a fast 3 mile course when his 1600 pr is 4:19/mile pace and his 3200 pr is about 4:29/mile pace? I'll tell you how: in a fantasy.

Taking another example, Austin Tamagno in 2014. 190 at Woodbridge. 190 at Orange County Champs. 201 at FLN. His fitness didn't change the entire season by more than 5-10 seconds max. He was extremely consistent. A 201 at Woodbridge and OCC would have been 13:31 and 14:02 respectively. Had you found some top collegiate runners to go out and run 14:02 at OCC he would have been demolished. There is no way he could have run that time even with more talent around him, such as a Sydney Gidabuday or Garrett Corcoran, who also are huge talents and couldn't ever even dream of running 14:02 at OCC in high school. If his time at FLN was truly a 201, then his mark at OCC was at least 197. The ratings in CA are routinely 5-7 points low at many of the meets.

If you're going to tell me that a 180 at Woodbridge is not the same as a 180 at FLN Orlando, then what's the point of having the speed ratings at all if the same number means different things depending on who is racing or what the course is. That makes the speed rating useless, at least in the way they are being used for rankings, which is to compare different kids who are running different courses.

I'll be brief because I'm tired on responding to people who think they understand to concept of speed ratings but don't ... It's not an easy concept to accept ... Your post is the perfect example.

Speed ratings measure how fast runners race based on their final times and their final times relative to other runners of known performance in XC (track has nothing to do with it) ... Speed ratings are determined by how fast runners run relative to other runners based on the time differences between the runners ... It all goes back to horseracing and "how many lengths separate the horses" in a race on a relative basis ... It is important to know when betting the rent money.

The short fast races on easy courses in California don't usually allow large time differences between the runners ... hence, the speed ratings at the top end could almost never get close to the ratings achieved on a full 5K course that has some difficulty ... Trying to compare top speed ratings at an extremely fast course like Woodbridge to Woodward Park can only be done directly if you understand what you are comparing ... Amber Trotter had a full 5K to open gaps on elite runners at FLN Orlando ... she could never open those gaps on elite runners at a race like Woodbridge ... How fast Amber Trotter ran at FLN was determined by how fast everybody else ran and the time differences between runners.

Austin Tamagno at FLN is another perfect example ... his seasonal speed ratings entering FLN were in the low 190s EXCEPT for a 197 at Mt. SAC (a more difficult course) ... I rated him as 197+ entering FLN because the Mt. SAC Invite is not a 5K race ... the speed ratings for the majority of the field at FLN were comparable or less than the ratings that the runners had achieved during the season ... Drew Hunter had a 202 during and got 202 at that FLN ... Grant Fisher won with a 205 (and you think that was too high for him against the first field of elite runners he facing for a championship??) ... Austin Tamagno was also facing his first field of elite runners of the season , and he improved his speed rating PR from 197 to 201 (only 12 seconds on a relative basis), and you think that's a huge increase??

Don't try to guess Amber Trotter's time at Woodbridge based on Orlando UNLESS you adjust the times for ALL runners at the Woodbridge race ... it's the "ALL runners" who will determine Amber Trotter's speed rating at Woodbridge and how many horse lengths she beat them by.