I'm really interested in seeing how A. Armstrong does at Foot Locker Nationals. Ranked 16th and gets the big win at FLW with Incredible turn-over at the finish of Mt SAC shows he's in great shape. I think Adam Barnard's gutsy race and Olin Hacker's runner-up finish at NXN showed we are really looking pretty solid with preps across the nation with a big dance Saturday to highlight a great 2014.

Once again, thanks Doug for the research and rankings! Would like to understand your approach to rankings - what is rationale for ranking Ostberg 4th behind 2 runners that have both lost this season, w/ Ostberg undefeated in marquee events (Manhattan Invite, New Englands, FL NE) and easily winning FL NE despite 2 weeks off from injury? Realize your ranking published before NXN (Tanner champ) and FL West (Maton 3rd). Thanks!

Hey just wondering what happened to Mikey Brannigan? I know he had a not so great race at FL Northeast but he still some good performances this year. Shouldn't he at least be on the bubble?

Fixed! Sorry ... Josh. There was a kid a few years ago named Austin Collins and I keep tripping on that one.

Yeah that kid ranked 22nd named Austin Collins, is actually me and my name is Josh not Austin

watchout, on , said:

Well, we agree that individual and team rankings are different animals.

Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:

NOTE: The following is in regards to my opinion on developing individual rankings only. Individual and team rankings are different animals IMO.

BorderClash is an exception to the rule because it is an All Star contest that falls in the middle of a busy post-season schedule. It is not a championship meet, and it's place in the schedule - which varies for different athletes - doesn't always allow it to be a focus for the athletes. Usually, I think you can almost always throw out BorderClash results when considering individual rankings IF you are talking about national title contenders. There are exceptions - Maton vs. Dressel vs. Hardy last year for example all seemed to be going at it - that's based on the combination of the 2 mile split times posted in the results and watching the video of the race (although, unfortunately, the video was only stationary cameras that year so we just got small bits of the race). So, last year, I think it's perfectly reasonable to consider the BC results for those three against eachother, but that definitely isn't always the case.

I don't think you can "throw out" results from a meet like State, NXN/FLN Regional or NXN/FLN National. BorderClash, despite it being a meet in November, just isn't the same. It's a fun experience and a state "rivalry", but it is in the middle of a crowded post-season schedule for those racing NXN-NW and looking towards either NXN or FLW (which is usually a good amount of the top WA/OR athletes).

Early/Mid/Late season Invitationals, though? For individuals, it's hard to justify throwing any of those out in terms of head to head order of finish but for caliber-of-performance comparisons or team rankings that might differ.

Dual meets, generally I think you can safely throw those out.

watchout, on , said:

Then your rankings risk being viewed as arbitrary. How is the ranker to know how hard a runner could have gone but didn't or more importantly how is a ranker to know what a runner has a sub-par performance and simply says "I wasn't going all out"? The rankings are either based on what actually happened in a given period of time or they are not. I certainly can accept rankings from someone whose knowledge, insight and intelligence I trust that are based on what happened plus what the ranker thinks would happen. But that's a very different animal than rankings based solely on performance. At that point you've crossed the line from interpreting history to predicting the future. That's not bad, but it is different.

dkap, on , said:

I'd disagree with that - you only have to look back at last year to see race favorites not take the race seriously (both Wilmot and Anderson). Anderson and Dressel were almost always neck and neck (their close rivalry being discussed earlier this year), and we saw the week before at state what it was like when Anderson was going all out: he not only stuck with every move Hardy and Dressel made, but took it another step to break away with a big move a little after 1.5 miles in and held on to the finish; Wilmot, when at his best, did the same thing; Dressel and Hardy raced the same way. That happened once again at state this year, Dressel made a BIG move (much bigger than Hardy's last year) a little earlier in the race - Anderson, that time, wasn't able to reel him in until a little after the 4k mark but ended up with a stronger finish than last year to break away for the win. None of that happened at BC last year: Dressel tried to break away early, while Maton and Hardy tried to reel him in while Anderson and Wilmot were content to run mid pack. Maton caught up with Dressel around 3k or 2 miles IIRC and Hardy closed the gap a little, but Anderson and Wilmot didn't move to the front of the chase pack until the last half mile or so -- when they were 20 seconds behind the leaders. That's far from their usual race, and makes perfect sense if you are treating the race like a very controlled effort (re: not gunning for the individual title).

Individual rankings in cross country are completely different than team rankings in football, and all-star competitions are not necessarily the same thing as invitationals or championships (or regular or post-season games).

It's fine if you want to consider BC results in your rankings. I don't have a problem with that. I just wouldn't have them included in mine (at least, not for the three guys in question this year, nor the NC/GH/CC guys last year).

dkap, on , said:

I think there is a notable difference between (and these are just some of the ways you can look at it):
1. "Who has the most spotless record"
2. "Who has been the most impressive this year"
3. "Who has had the greatest performance this year"
4. "Who is the best runner this year"
5. "Who is the fastest runner this year"
6. "Who is the best runner lately"
7. "Who is the fastest runner lately"
and
8. "Who would win the race if all the top athletes toed the line tomorrow"

Not all of those things need to factor in EVERY single race with EXACTLY the same consideration for each, while still considering more than just "who has been" or "who is the fastest"... in fact, I'd say only the first one needs to take ALL races into consideration.

Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:

I suspect most of the snow at Bowdoin Park will melt by Saturday, but some of the ground may get a bit soft in a few areas.

Any rankings I post anyways reflect performance during the current season ... I used Cheserek as an exception because his less than all-out performances were still as good or better than his national competition.

watchout, on , said:

Dressel obviously believed BorderClash was important, and I'd go so far as to say that Maton and Anderson are the first runners in the history of the event who were favorites to win and felt otherwise. (Quotes to the contrary notwithstanding.) I don't believe you can pick and choose which races you deem unimportant when ranking the top athletes. If a football team rests key guys in an early season non-conference game, do you think the rankings committee would be forgiving of the loss? A blemish on the record is exactly that.

As far as the bolded part, haven't we established that the rankings are a reflection of what the athletes have done so far this year, rather than an attempt to say who is fastest? That's the inconsistency I'm seeing.

Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:

Joe and I don't always agree, but that's exactly my sentiment.

Dan

Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:

I understand your point, but I don't think it has to be an "all or nothing" kind of approach.

Let's take, for example, dual meets. They are part of the season for a great many teams around the nation. If a runner doesn't win there, but won a week before at a major invite against the same runners, should that runner be penalized in the rankings for not taking the dual meet seriously?

Not all athletes (or teams) are going to take the same approach to the season. Some focus on one or two meets at the end of the year. Some focus on big mid-season showdowns. Some try to run their best every race, some train through meets. Some hold back and save themselves in certain races, some think they have to try to be Prefontaine every week.

Ranking individuals is tough because there are a whole lot of variables that should be considered. Obviously, head to head results is the biggest factor there because gauging how good winning individual performances is a whole different ballgame than gauging winning team performances (assuming the team in question doesn't sweep the meet).

To be clear on my position regarding the individual rankings for WA/OR athletes: I think what happens head to head matters most, particularly at State and NXR/NXN/FLW/FLN, HOWEVER I don't think BC is quite the same and doesn't necessarily say much about the runners (and therefore, shouldn't always be taken into consideration in rankings). Some runners do take the meet seriously, and I think it's perfectly fine to take those runner's performances into consideration, but I don't think other runners should be penalized for not taking the meet seriously when it doesn't fit into their plans for their season. The tricky part is usually trying to figure out who took the meet seriously and who didn't... if you have race video, splits, and/or interviews to go off of, it's not hard to figure out as long as you have background knowledge to put things in perspective as well (which is why, when in doubt, I'd just discount BC results all together when talking about potential national champions).

Bill Meylan, on , said:

Very good point. That's one reason why I'm glad I don't do individual rankings: they are completely different than team rankings in that you usually don't know how much faster winners might or might not have been able to run, so ranking two runners that didn't race head to head is a MUCH harder thing to do.

Can't wait to see what happens over the next few weekends, should be some great racing!

This was the Northwest Regional; they survived. We'll be fine at Bowdoin.

As far as the rankings go if you say that your rankings are a reflection of what the athlete has actually DONE this season but then make an exception and say "I know he wasn't going all out" you violate your own rule. On the other hand if you ignore the fact that a clearly superior runner did not DO it (yet) this season you risk looking foolish. Ain't an easy choice.

dkap, on , said:

What do you mean?

I expressed my opinion that BorderClash doesn't really say who the best runner in the NW is.
I then explained why I think Fisher's argument for #1 is significantly different than Dressel's (or Anderson's or Maton's).
I pointed out that we have one race where two of the three runners at BorderClash pushed themselves to their limits, and expressed my opinion that that is what should be considered in any individual rankings.
I then re-iterated my opinion that what was essentially a meaningless meet for at least 2 of the 3 shouldn't be the prime factor in rankings, as it didn't really say anything about who is better than who.
And, finally, I explained my take on what some of the top individuals in WA/OR face in regards to BC and why they might place differing importance on the meet.

Not all runners treat every race equally. I wouldn't expect ALL rankings to take every race equally (some will, obviously, but others won't - and that's ok! different takes on the same information isn't a bad thing).

I don't see how I'm being inconsistent if I place more importance on some meets than others, or pointing out that there are multiple ways you can approach rankings.

RunJeff, on , said:

He can make his case in less than 15 hours!

Jack Yearian from bellarmine prep should be top 30

Doug - agree with you except that Alex didn't push last Friday and I think he doesn't yet know where his limit is. So does he push a little more on Saturday to explore his limit before Foot Locker? Nice problem to have.

I'm guessing that Alex probably figures he's made his mark at Wickham and may not push as hard, and just win. Then again, if he gets ahead of his pace from last Friday, maybe he'll try to drive that time down further. He's having an amazing season.

Thanks for updating the rankings. Alex Ostberg's 14:58 at Wickham is 34 seconds faster than Donn Cabral's winning time in 2007. Will he take it lower at New Englands on Saturday?

Mountain View looked great at the Tracy Walters Invitational. Definitely surprised me. Great performance by both the guys and girls of Mountain View.

North Central seemed to lack a bit, but Tanner Anderson made it look easy. They do tend to start the season off slow, but this isn't what I am used to seeing from them at their own meet.

Kamiakin looked good, except their number 2 (Cameron Glade?) was back quite a bit. I heard he is coming back from injury, so that would make sense. If he runs up as their number 2, I see this being the end of North Central's state title streak.

Unranked Mountain View (ID) beats #7 North Central, #11 Kamiakin, #33 Central Valley, #54 Eastlake, and others at Tracy Walters Invite in Spokane (WA). Scoring was different as the meet scored 8 runners with each team running 10 in varsity. If scoring was like normal meets both Mountain View AND Kamiakin would've beaten NC (but all 3 teams looked good).

Don't Forget Marcus Wheeler, Senior @ Corona Del Sol HS, Chandler, Arizona. He was 3rd at Div I State in 2013 behind his two teammates, who have graduated. Ran 15:42 this past Saturday @ Chandler Invite. Keep up the great work. http://az.milesplit....ults/317074/raw

yep

Well that explains things. Is Logos going to Bob Firman?

levimwintz, on , said:

I do appreciate you sticking up for your guy. Tell us more about him. How has he gotten so much better in a short time?

levimwintz, on , said:

Doug already said that he just missed the top 100 barely and if the rankings came out this week that he would've made the top 100.

Regarding the Dressel/track thing ... xc and track are two separate sports and Dressel is definitely better at xc than track.

Just saying he has beaten 3 of the guys you listed in this top 100....including Dressel this past track season.

levimwintz -- I think Paul Ryan would have made the list if it had come out 2-3 days later and I had seen what he did at the Troy Invitational on Aug. 28 (14:48 and a 1:40 improvement over last year!). Ryan did have some nice track times that were in the same range as the guys in the 90s on my list. What I thought was missing was something really good from last cross country season that showed some dominance at 5K. He blew up at his state meet and didn't run in the championship race at NXN NW. Trust me, after what he did last week he's on the radar.

Why isn't Paul Ryan out of Idaho on the list! He is a 1:54, 4:14, and 9:09 last spring as a junior!