California xc state meet 2014 merge

Rankings | San Gabriel Valley Track and Cross Country

california xc state meet 2014 merge

These specific rankings are based on a merge of the top 11 or 12 teams in the division, using 1) – graduating six of seven from 's State Meet team, this year was always a battle. Easily #1 in the SGV overall; California (CIF Div. . They also advanced to CIF Finals, the first time since , where they finished 22nd. Get your free-forever account! Offering team management tools for coaches, meet registration for all, training tools for athletes, unlimited stats for parents & fans. CIF State Cross Country Championship Entries T-shirts, sweatshirts, patches, pins and other cross country materials will be on sale.

california xc state meet 2014 merge

Francis Lancers return the top five from a team that finished 12th in the Division 2 state meet. In track, they had seven runners clock under 10 minutes in the 3, The team from Dublin lost Anirudh Surapaneni after a fourth-place finish at state, but return its next six.

The Wolfpack lost two of the top four runners from a Division 1 championship and NXN sixth-place team. However, there is excellent depth here and this outfit has one of the best punches in the country with Jacob Korgan and Carlos Carvajal. The national champions are in the thick of another NXN title race. The Mustangs finished third in the Division I race last year and return their top four runners and five of seven.

Site Navigation

Those runners showed improvement on the track this spring in the 3, led by Raymon Ornelas at 9: The Cubs would be ranked even higher than they are if track times were the only ingredient. Loyola has seven runners that clocked 9: If that speed is translated to courses this fall, Loyola will be moving up the regional and national rankings. The Division 2 runner-up Cubs came out fifth in the merge and return three of five and five of seven.

california xc state meet 2014 merge

The Bells placed fourth in the Division I meet and return five of the top six, including the top three. These three women are at the top of my list for a reason They did something very special It was run there in and every year through That consistency is helpful for my speed rating process.

california xc state meet 2014 merge

Results with speed ratings for the Michigan State Meet are posted on this link The top five boys had speed ratings of,and The top five girls had speed ratings of,and Both teams could be challengers at NXN Nationals with those ratings. Discussion of my speed rating process is given below I expect it will be boring for most viewers, but I'm including it for those who are interested Graphical Interpretation of Cross Country Results My BS degree is in chemical engineering, and engineers use graphs and plots for all kinds of things My career as as an environmental scientist involves manipulation of large data sets of chemical and physical properties for various estimation techniques So I am comfortable with graphical solutions for data evaluation Important Note about Data Points Humans are not perfect Not only are humans imperfect, human performance is variable; some more variable than others So statistical or subjective results from imperfect-variable data will never be perfect or precise BUT the results can be accurate enough for the intended purpose That is the goal of speed ratings - to measure the relative speed of runners at different races, different venues and different dates with acceptable accuracy I graph the results of nearly all races I evaluate I maintain a library of race profiles for most races I evaluate Some are just better than others I use higher quality race profiles to help derive speed ratings whenever possible.

Michigan State Meet - Graphical Evaluation In my speed rating process, the graphical profile of the Michigan State Meet needs to be compared to existing race profiles of known speed in my library so I can approximate a race adjustment for the State Meet based on known adjustments from other races Using just any race for comparison will NOT work Experience has shown that using races of approximate equal overall quality general works if applied properly, and that the best comparisons commonly come from the same race from previous years.

Michigan used four divisions at States in and are still using four divisions with approximately the same number of runners in each division The graph below includes merged results from the Michigan State Meets inand for the top runners: The straight red lines are my eye-determined manual placement of time comparisons that's how I do it I devised my process to read the difference at the Y-axis based on population segments of the races As can be seen, the top runners are ignored Dathan Ritzenhein and Grant Fisher's speed rating is determined by how fast they ran relative to other runners, and NOT by how fast they ran relative to the course.

California CIF Cross Country State Championships

Michigan and Michigan look very similar in terms of speed In contrast, the graph shows Michigan running about 9 seconds slower than Michigan I like multiples of three since 3 seconds equals one speed rating point.

In addition to the merged results for both boys and girls, I also look at graphs of individual division races.

california xc state meet 2014 merge

My race profiles for Michiganand have established race adjustments: Michigan Boys - 75 seconds Michigan Boys - 69 seconds Michigan Boys - 81 maybe 84 seconds with some uncertainty That is the amount of time I add to the actual final race times to determine the speed rating Note that the recent Michigan race adjustments above include a separate method of determination using known speed ratings of individual runners from a database and statistical correlation with final times I don't have that for Michiganso I'm relying strictly on a graphical solution with Michigan I looked at other years as well.

Overall - Michigan had a race adjustment of about 78 seconds or it was about 3 seconds faster than If somebody wants to argue it was 3 seconds faster or slower than my number, I would not complain because it is well within any margin of error.

  • CIF State Cross Country Championships
  • Category Archives: Rankings

I also looked at other States I also tried the Washington State Meet because I thought the Washington course might be a good comparison to the Michigan International Speedway actual site of the Michigan State course Here is the graphical comparison: