Statistics
22,968 total views | Who I Am...Started keeping a blog on my running to get back into shape after a long layoff. http://runningover50togetfit.blogspot.com/ Latest Blogs
Wall - 2 followersLatest NewsNo articles found
| VideosYou can link to any video on RunnerSpace and put it in your video box on your profile! |
Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:
Re-read the posts, I clearly said IF Nike knew.
I agree that Nike shouldn't uninvite a team they already invite. My comments (which I thought was obvious, given the context) were in regards to when NXN is going through the process of confirming/inviting the teams, not after they have already sent out the invites.
watchout, on , said:
I thought CA did a power merge of the fastest 16-20 teams and took the top two as auto qualifiers. If that's what you have set up as your process, that's what you do. Sometimes something like this will happen. If Nike gets into the business of excluding teams based on who they project to run or not run, Nike is opening a can of worms they may not want. I like it that they set their criteria and stuck to those criteria.
cerutty fan, on , said:
You don't have to agree with the decision, but I think it should be respected. His parents have given him incredible support and guidance since he started as a club runner and clearly the path they have traveled together has led to some incredible accomplishments, with the best undoubtedly yet to come.
In the following interview, http://usa.milesplit.../3#.VH4FHYdH2Rt where he has had essentially no time to deliberate with his team, coaches or parents, and doesn't even know if the team had qualified, he does in fact state he'd be going to NXN with his team next if we qualified, or FL West if not.
I understand the sentiment of others who feel we gamed the system or screwed over other teams like Kamiakin, Burbank, or Great Oak, but I'm hoping you guys can understand the position Austin is put in by NXN and FL having competing races. He can't make everyone happy. Fortunately, his coaches, his teammates, and his parents are happy with his decision and support him 100%. Hopefully that's enough to keep him happy too; he's a special talent and it'd be a shame to see him lose his passion for the sport.
Without Austin, we are still projected at 17th of the 22 teams that have qualified. http://usa.milesplit...ls#.VHwkJYdH2Rs I can assure you we will do our absolute best to represent CA with pride.
Just for the record, I don't have a problem with Tamagno's decision - he ran the state championship meet, and has no obligation to compete at any post season meet he doesn't want to. I also don't have a problem with anything you guys did as long as you communicated Tamagno's intentions to Nike when it was decided. My only issue is if Nike is inviting teams based on a lineup that they know is not going to be present at the national meet (and while I understand ORXC's comparison to relay teams, I feel like Nike can and should do better, particularly since in California Nike actually selects the teams rather than the teams all racing eachother head-to-head, and additionally because in XC two scoring alternates - the #6 and #7 runners - are already competing in the meet and we know just how much the team finish would change if you exclude up to two runners).
To compare it to another situation, what if Kamiakin and Summit had reversed their scoring at NXN-NW - Kamiakin then being the NW#2 team if Maton doesn't run. Then, consider if Maton had ran with his teammates but intended to run FLN and was only helping his team to qualify - Summit would have won NXN-NW, and Kamiakin would again be third, but Nike would have known that those teams aren't the same as the ones that would be competing at Nationals. In that situation, is it ok for Maton to ditch his team but Nike still invite Summit but not Kamiakin? Should Nike be allowing that, encouraging future athletes and teams to do the same - run at NXR, but skip out on NXN after qualifying because they prefer a competing national meet? Maybe next time, it'll be two or three front runners that decide they'd rather run FLN than as a team at NXN, and yet Nike will still invite a team that's missing their top 2-3 runners and wouldn't have qualified without them.
Brea Olinda will still do fine at the meet - Meylan already posted his projections and I will probably have Brea around the same place as well - but other teams that could have done better will be missing from the meet.
tl;dr:
If Tamagno wants to run FLN rather than NXN, there is nothing wrong with that decision.
If Maton wants to run FLN rather than NXN, there is nothing wrong with that decision.
Both are unfortunate from the perspective of NXN and having the national team championship mean something, but the athletes aren't doing anything wrong.
If Nike chooses to include teams that they know are going to be missing runners and allowing teams to qualify using better lineups than they'll be sending to their event, then that is Nike shooting themselves in the foot by denying other deserving athletes and teams the opportunity to compete in their meet when they are actively supporting that meet.
DougB, on , said:
So yes... there is a serious possibility of Brea gaming the system here.
The team that is screwed because of this is Kamiakin WA, which was the next team on the bubble, not Great Oak.
Whether or not that's true, Great Oak finishing 3rd in their region rather than 4th might have changed votes based on the strength of the rest of their season. We can't really say for sure who would or wouldn't have been invited had Tamagno not been included.
Scott Joerger, on , said:
I'm not trying to solve it here, but the problem isn't one kids judgement, it's two conflicting events. That's the point.
Yes it is a matter of the athlete's judgment since the two events conflict. Whether you consider that right or wrong is not the issue: the events conflict and they are going to stay that way since again, the offer was made and declined.
Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:
Yes I'm bringing it up. Clearly having two national championships is a factor at the root of the problem. At the end of my post I also say I don't think it will happen anytime soon (if ever). I also wasn't blaming one company or the other.
I'm not trying to solve it here, but the problem isn't one kids judgement, it's two conflicting events. That's the point.
Scott Joerger, on , said:
Keep in mind that Brea Olinda is a top-10, maybe top-5, CA team without Austin Tamagno. However, it's pretty clear that they would not likely have made the NXN cut without him.
There two are major problems contributing to this situation (already beaten to death on these boards):
1. There is no unified national championship.
Footlocker has a long tradition and I don't blame Austin for wanting to go after that title. NXN is a great event which is building it's own tradition. Doesn't Foot Locker sell a gazillion Nikes? It would seem that these two could get together and make one supermeet.
Seriously? You're bringing this up? The the 10,000th time: it was OFFERED; Footlocker said no.
DougB, on , said:
http://usa.milesplit...no#.VH4AYTHF8To
He doesn't say which he'll be doing in that interview, only that it's unfortunate FL West and NXN are on the same day. It's a decision he has been dreading since this summer. He was really upset on the car ride home, trying to figure out how to make everyone happy and knowing that it would be impossible to do so. The final decision was not made until he got home and spoke with his parents. By then, we had already accepted the spot. There was never any "gaming the system" on our part.
You don't have to agree with the decision, but I think it should be respected. His parents have given him incredible support and guidance since he started as a club runner and clearly the path they have traveled together has led to some incredible accomplishments, with the best undoubtedly yet to come.
In the following interview, http://usa.milesplit.../3#.VH4FHYdH2Rt where he has had essentially no time to deliberate with his team, coaches or parents, and doesn't even know if the team had qualified, he does in fact state he'd be going to NXN with his team next if we qualified, or FL West if not.
I understand the sentiment of others who feel we gamed the system or screwed over other teams like Kamiakin, Burbank, or Great Oak, but I'm hoping you guys can understand the position Austin is put in by NXN and FL having competing races. He can't make everyone happy. Fortunately, his coaches, his teammates, and his parents are happy with his decision and support him 100%. Hopefully that's enough to keep him happy too; he's a special talent and it'd be a shame to see him lose his passion for the sport.
Without Austin, we are still projected at 17th of the 22 teams that have qualified. http://usa.milesplit...ls#.VHwkJYdH2Rs I can assure you we will do our absolute best to represent CA with pride.
watchout, on , said:
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 who is the best runner 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).
Mid season invites, though? For individuals, it's hard to justify throwing any of those out in terms of head to head results but for caliber-of-performance comparisons or team rankings that might differ.
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:
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).
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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:
Fisher did run the 3rd fastest time ever (14:52.5) at the Michigan State course which has been used since 1996 ... I can understand not over-extending yourself trying to break Dathan Ritzenhein's course record (14:10.4) since that mark is one of the premier performances in high school XC history ... I assume Fisher's 14:52.5 time took some effort, but I have no idea how much.
I would make Grant Fisher the favorite in any high school XC race held tomorrow ... But I would not rank him above guys he has not beaten this season when those guys have turned in better XC performances .... I would give Grant Fisher the benefit-of-the-doubt in current ranking IF he was in the same position as Edward Cheserek as a HS senior ... As a junior, Cheserek turned in multiple XC performances at higher level than any of his senior-year competition ... That's not the case with Fisher ... I could understand ranking Fisher #1 right now if considering a combination of XC and track, but this is 2014 XC ranking.
Definitely looking forward to this weekend's NXN and Footlocker regional races ... Bowdoin Park is expecting 4-8 inches of snow from Wed-Thur!!
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:
Dan
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.
It's a difficult job you have for sure. However, I would encourage you to dig a bit deeper. Your statement is inaccurate. Please see results for Section XI Divisional races.
Seaverfan, on , said:
If AF thrashes the #3 and #6 teams at states (although apparently it would be an indirect thrashing on one of them) then I would agree that AF could move back ahead of F-M in the NEXT ranking.
You fail to acknowledge the difference between a rating and a ranking.
A rating can and should take all information available and acts more as a predictive tool.
A ranking should acknowledge the snapshot of where a team is at a particular moment in the season and shouldn't serve as a predictive tool.
If you want to rate AF as #1 right now, I can't argue -- it's your rating system.
But if you want to RANK them as #1 BEFORE Wednesday -- sorry you're just wrong.
Right now F-M has performed better than AF and P.S. right now Cherry Hill East has performed better than Don Bosco and should be ranked higher although still might rate lower.
Either way I appreciate your hard and exhaustive work. I just think there's a difference that you don't seem to acknowledge.
And yes I think head to head trumps any rating or ranking. As Bill Parcells once said, you are what your record says you are.
AF is RANKED #1 because they have (IMO) run better than FM, and NOT because I think they will run better (although I do think there's a good chance they will continue to run better, since it's not like FM isn't running great).
You say that I could "rate" but not "rank" American Fork as #1 - WHY? Is it because they haven't run at VCP, or is it because they haven't raced a Top-10 ranked team?
BTW, did you know that AF beat CBA in 2012 (running 11 seconds/man faster), when CBA was just as fast at VCP as they were last year? And did you know that AF ran 15 seconds per man faster this year than their 2012 team did at their region meet (both @ AF)? Yes, I can play that "look at what they did in previous years" game as well.
FM isn't ranked behind AF based only on the strength of what FM has done, but rather because of what both AF and FM have done. BOTH have been extremely impressive this year, both are very strong programs, both returned great teams from last year, and both are undefeated this year. I don't see any reason (aside from regional bias, I suppose) as to why one team HAS to be ranked ahead of the other - they BOTH have done something to earn the top spot, I just give AF a slight edge so far.
If AF thrashes the #3 and #6 teams at states (although apparently it would be an indirect thrashing on one of them) then I would agree that AF could move back ahead of F-M in the NEXT ranking.
You fail to acknowledge the difference between a rating and a ranking.
A rating can and should take all information available and acts more as a predictive tool.
A ranking should acknowledge the snapshot of where a team is at a particular moment in the season and shouldn't serve as a predictive tool.
If you want to rate AF as #1 right now, I can't argue -- it's your rating system.
But if you want to RANK them as #1 BEFORE Wednesday -- sorry you're just wrong.
Right now F-M has performed better than AF and P.S. right now Cherry Hill East has performed better than Don Bosco and should be ranked higher although still might rate lower.
Either way I appreciate your hard and exhaustive work. I just think there's a difference that you don't seem to acknowledge.
And yes I think head to head trumps any rating or ranking. As Bill Parcells once said, you are what your record says you are.
billatc, on , said:
Quick question,- surprised that Cherry Hill East is not getting more consideration despite beating Bosco handily in NYC. I am guessing its a lack of quality performances behind that as well as a 4/5 that is a bit too gapped from their 3rd runner. Will be interesting to see if the lack of racing will work to their advantage at the end of the season.
Yeah, I have Coach Woods being ~8 seconds slower than Holmdel. Good to see we are pretty much in agreement.
And yes, you nailed it in regards to Cherry Hill East as well.
Quick question,- surprised that Cherry Hill East is not getting more consideration despite beating Bosco handily in NYC. I am guessing its a lack of quality performances behind that as well as a 4/5 that is a bit too gapped from their 3rd runner. Will be interesting to see if the lack of racing will work to their advantage at the end of the season.
Seaverfan, on , said:
No matter -- Last year's results are still a non sequitor. Once American Fork leaves UT (they haven't raced outside of the state as far as I know) then we can find out how good they are. F-M thrashed, thrashed FOUR teams in the current top 10.
F-M right now is clearly #1 in the nation.
And the closest team anyone has been to AF was the 24-87 margin back to US#28 Desert Hills at Nebo - they've thrashed everyone they've raced to date.
You are right, FM has beaten more elite teams so far this year. AF's big chance is next Wednesday at Utah State, where they race US#3 Davis for the first time this year, and have US#6 Timpanogos racing in a different classification as well. I'm sure we can agree that IF beating highly ranked teams means as much as your post suggests, AF beating 2 other Top 6 teams including the #3 team is just as impressive if not more impressive than beating 3 other teams in the top 9 with the closest team ranked US#5.
Seaverfan, on , said:
What Gig Harbor did to CBA last year is a non sequitor since the CBA record was not set last year but was set the year CBA went on to win the National championships.
Fortunately it will come out in the wash (or now on the golf course) but for F-M not to be ranked #1 now under Any Set of circumstances is silly (Unless American Fork just demolished a course record on the Northwest's oldest and most raced course).
Paul Schwartz
I absolutely agree, it doesn't matter what Gig Harbor did to CBA last year. What matters is how good AF is this year, and how good FM is this year, and simple measures such as team times on Course A gives an incomplete and flawed look at how good a team has been this year.
GeorgieTheK, on , said:
Who the hell runs at Nebo? Or Westlake?
If this is your logic, then the rankings are a farce.
I never said that any course has ever had any team ever compete on it. Point to where I did? I said that running a course record on Course X only shows how that team (roughly) compares to teams from years past that have run on that course (and only on that day).
GeorgieTheK, on , said:
Take a look at the performances by FM this year. Not just Manhattan - which was the greatest race by a hs team ever. But all the other ones have results which show them to be as good as the top teams in every year going back for the past 10-15 years.
I have. Have you taken a look at all of the performances by AF this year? BOTH teams look to be as good as national champions from years past.
GeorgieTheK, on , said:
Point to where I ever said otherwise.
GeorgieTheK, on , said:
I realize that FM didn't come "out of the blue"; most of the summer, I had figured that they were going to be my preseason US#1. It's not like American Fork has come out of the blue either - they have been one of the 3 most successful teams at NXN over the last 7 years, behind only North Central WA and Arcadia CA. Last year, they finished a whole 14 points behind FM, and though they graduated more varsity runners they reloaded from a very strong JV group.
Both programs have been very good. Both programs are running incredible this year. I haven't - and wouldn't - disagree with any of your points that FM is looking like one of the best teams ever; the rankings aren't about how good FM is, it's about how FM compares to AF - which is also looking like one of the best teams ever.
King999, on , said:
Because, as I said, that is only a tool to describe how the team compares to other teams that have run on that course. It says nothing (by itself) about how that team compares to teams from the rest of the nation, that has never run on the course.
King999, on , said:
Absolutely. That's why I don't use aggregate times and compare them across venues when doing my rankings.
King999, on , said:
Yes, it was a great race. I never said otherwise.
King999, on , said:
Absolutely agree that comparing teams from different years, days, and conditions is flawed. That's one of the many reasons why I don't look at single team performances as the base my rankings.
No matter -- Last year's results are still a non sequitor. Once American Fork leaves UT (they haven't raced outside of the state as far as I know) then we can find out how good they are. F-M thrashed, thrashed FOUR teams in the current top 10.
F-M right now is clearly #1 in the nation.
With that said, I think there is something to be said for growing the sport to the average fan by having standard distances.