Tom Keyes, on , said:

QFE

BTW. The race temp will be about 25 to 30 degrees.

If F-M doesn't win I will eat my guitar.

Heracles, on , said:

Great Oak. There is only one tree. I believe that is part of the reason it is considered "Great"...

I do agree that the speed ratings for Nike South were slower than deserved. I believe Watchout thought the course was different than it really was. It was a great meet though. Texas got to see our 2014 team in action early...

Doug

watchout, on , said:

Feels good to look at stats and figures again . Haven't really been looking at things much this season, but recently I have started looking at some things since Nationals is coming soon.


I'll post some thoughts of mine from some quick dabbling:

I'm not too sure what the consensus is on NY right now, but I think FM and Aurora are probably at least near (if not stronger) than the 2012 teams (which finished 1st and 4th). Saratoga looks weaker to me only because they don't have a solid front runner this year. I would be surprised if both NY teams weren't in the top 10, and in fact I think FM will finish first (hold on with Great Oak and California).

Carroll--- I won't predict a podium finish for either side. Their boys are reminiscent of last year (very strong top 4, really far back #5--- we saw what happens when one of said top 4 finishes way off mark), and their girls 4-5, are slightly too far back.


The Woodland girls are really good, but I always feel they never excel on a course like Portland Meadows. They obviously had a really poor race at State, so here's to hoping they show another solid performance like the one at NXN South at Nationals.

New Braunfels is pretty good. They had an offrace at state and still managed to lose by only 6 points--- their depth is not too bad, and their #1-2 are actually really good. I'm a little surprised seeing some ratings having Paige somewhat low. I think there is some course/condition inflation's going around here, which is a problem. I feel like if any Texas athletes are being underrated (the same old gripe that everyone chips in on, xx being underrated!), it is most definitely the girls. I'll also spit it out, I think Great Oaks is a solid team and all, but I do think in general the California teams are overrated. I know we don't have much of comparison seeing as only Strake Jesuit ran at Stanford (very late September), and that Great Oaks ran without a valuable top 5 runner at Nike South (but to ignore Braunfels holding back #2 and #3 would also be unfair, though this was early October), but besides that, I'm still not convinced Great Oaks #4 and #5 is part of a team that will win nationals--- nor am I saying Braunfels > Great Oak. I think Great Oak will be in the top 5, while Braunfels will be trying their best to hit top 12.

I think FLSouth gave a slightly better idea that maybe some things are being overlooked. When I saw Paige was only an Honorable mention in the individual lists I knew something was wrong.

watchout, on , said:

Thanks for the explanation.

Heracles, on , said:

Heracles! Welcome back.

I posted the ratings on the NXN South Preview thread: http://www.runnerspa...ndpost&p=920017

Can you link me your speed ratings on NXN South for boys & girls?

drarcher, on , said:

My rankings have never been about what happens in ONE race*, which is what the Nike South Invitational was.

Great Oak's championship-weighted, season weighted, Nike South, and CIF-SS Finals ratings (in that order):

141.1 141.6 Destiny Collins 10 Great Oak CA 134.8 140.7
138.2 138.8 Haley Dorris 12 Great Oak CA 128.4 137.6
132.2 132.4 Ashley Helbig 12 Great Oak CA FALSE 132.0
126.0 126.0 Desiree Stinger 10 Great Oak CA 108.9 126.0
122.6 122.6 Kiyena Beatty 9 Great Oak CA 104.7 122.6
118.4 119.1 Christian Calain 12 Great Oak CA FALSE 117.7
110.0 110.0 Evelyn Mandel 9 Great Oak CA FALSE FALSE
106.2 107.4 Maiya Larsen 11 Great Oak CA FALSE 105.1
105.8 105.8 Taylor Walker 10 Great Oak CA 103.4 FALSE
101.8 101.8 Emily Clause 10 Great Oak CA 108.8 FALSE


("FALSE" means they didn't run at the race)

So... #3 Ashley Helbig didn't run at Nike South, nor did #6 Christian Calain or #7 Evelyn Mandel (or #8 Maiya Larsen)
Which means that Great Oak ran who is currently (in my rankings at least) their #1, #2, #4, #5, #9 runners at Nike South.
Several of those runners have improved SIGNIFICANTLY. In these ratings, 1 point ~ 3 seconds on an "average" 5k course (such as a dry Portland Meadows). So #1 has improved by ~18 seconds, #2 by ~27, #3 infinitely (since she didn't run at Nike South), #4 by ~51 seconds, and #5 by ~54 seconds.
That's a HUGE improvement, kudos to the Great Oak coaches and athletes for making that happen! (although part of that is probably the difference between running on a course they've never seen, versus one they see a couple times every year and as such are much more prepared to run better in comparison)


SO#3 Southlake Carroll for comparison (the additional column being NXN-South, and TX State instead of CIF-SS Finals obviously):

129.1 130.1 Antigone Archer 10 Southlake Carroll TX 124.5 129.4 128.2
123.7 125.8 Samantha Young 12 Southlake Carroll TX 126.5 119.0 124.8
122.1 123.2 Katie Burnham 12 Southlake Carroll TX 111.9 118.9 122.9
95.9 102.2 Kayli Jones 10 Southlake Carroll TX 75.0 74.0 102.2
90.9 95.8 Arianna Lopez 9 Southlake Carroll TX 96.7 76.3 94.8
90.8 110.5 Moriah Dadson 12 Southlake Carroll TX 114.1 105.9 69.7
84.2 85.4 Haley McFadden 10 Southlake Carroll TX 83.7 80.5 85.2

Southlake Carroll ran their entire top 7 at Nike South.
While some runners have improved (notably, #4 Kayli Jones, #3 Katie Burnahm, and also #1 Antigone Archer), others haven't run as well (#2 Samantha Young and #5 Arianna Lopez about where they were, while #6 Moriah Dadson - who scored for them at Nike South, hasn't run as well and isn't in their top-5 anymore)

SO#2 The Woodlands for comparison (the additional column being NXN-South, and TX State instead of CIF-SS Finals obviously):

133.4 134.4 Madi McLellan 12 The Woodlands TX 127.4 FALSE 132.9
119.2 120.7 Kara Zuspan 12 The Woodlands TX 117.1 120.7 117.3
114.0 117.4 Abbey Piontek 11 The Woodlands TX 114.6 102.3 117.4
107.9 111.7 Ashley Jansen 12 The Woodlands TX 113.6 103.3 108.3
100.6 102.1 Meghan Brown 11 The Woodlands TX 103.7 FALSE 99.9
94.1 108.1 Lindsay Creasman 9 The Woodlands TX 76.8 86.7 91.5
91.3 99.3 Lauren Porter 12 The Woodlands TX 89.8 91.6 87.1


Once again, The Woodlands ran their entire top 7 at Nike South.
Once again, much less improvement since that race compared to Great Oak.
#1 Madi McLellan ran a bit better at NXN-South than she did at Nike South, and #2 Kara Zuspan ran better at TX State but not Nike South.
But on the flip side, #4 Ashley Jansen didn't run better at either races, nor did #5 Meghan Brown.




Taking only ONE race into account, it would make it seem like the Texas schools are just as good as the #1 ranked team in the nation.
However, on closer inspection of how the teams have progressed, and how the athletes have run in other races, makes it clear that Great Oak is better than they showed at Nike South (and so is Southlake Carroll, though to a lesser extent) while The Woodlands has pretty much been around the same level.




One race in early October should never dictate rankings in late November. Great Oak is #1 because of what they have done lately; Southlake Carroll and The Woodlands haven't been as good lately, and as such aren't as highly ranked nationally.



*Of course, some races take on greater weighting than others - if you don't run well at your State, NXN Regional or NXN National races, then you'll get penalized, and likewise if you haven't run as well in the last 3 weeks as you had previously then you'll also get penalized (to a lesser degree). I try to follow head-to-head results once you get to meets like State, NXR and NXN, but I also try not to go strictly by them - which is why you can sometimes see a team finish, say, 14th at NXN and after winning their NXN Regional, and still stay ahead of a team that finished 12th at NXN but second at the same NXN Regional - if the teams were close enough at NXN and the difference between them, when taking the rest of their races into account, was large enough to justify a change in the rankings.

Looking at the results it looks like Great Oaks still ran 4 of their top 5 and their top 3 so I'm not sure how much of a difference not having their 4, 6, and 7 runners makes? But that is not my point anyways.

My point is it is the only comparison we have of a team outside of the south like Great Oaks running with south teams. You have a team like Southlake Carroll who was right behind Great Oaks then and wins a state championship not even on the list? Or the Woodlands who was runner up at Nike South Regional and not on the list. I am just curious how that is? You have 12 other California teams on the list which means you have somehow justified that all those teams are better than two teams that were highly competitive with your number 1 overall. Not trying to argue, I just keep reading "the south is down" and don't see the justification for that thought based on real races. I was hoping you could help me understand.