Surprised that Claire Graves isn't at least on the bubble given that she finished just 4 seconds behind Williams at Woodbridge and 3 seconds behind Ortega at Great Cow.
Time based ranking. While I understand courses vary, maybe a bit of a stretch to say the times are pointless? Not looking for an argument, just trying to understand what went into the top 30 if 7 of the top 20 runners with the fastest times are excluded.
It's an ok baseline to start from but there are too many variables in cross country to only use times for rankings.
Actually Graves IS on the bubble. I think this got pushed into the forum just a little before I was done with it.
Ok great - I actually commented on the article before it went to the forum. Graves is only a soph and has already shown a lot of improvement this season. She's on a trajectory to be a national contender in the next couple of years.
Doug, thank you for the explanation. It sounds like you put some good time into this. Over the course of the season, I imagine things get clearer as you gather more data. It will be interesting to see how some of these runners perform at Griak this weekend. Some fast girls in both the Gold and Maroon race.
Exactly. So many big races this weekend -- including Griak -- that this picture should become much clearer by Sunday. Anna French, the Hasz twins, can they beat Samantha Ortega from Saugus? Lots to sort out there.
I understand some other girls have run times that put them high on lists ... but I'm more interested in whether they've beaten anyone on this top 30 list.
I'll be honest with you guys. When I found out she was running for Heritage and she stopped to tie her shoes twice and still almost broke a course record ... I thought wow...maybe I should just insert her at No. 1.
But I talked to her new coach on Monday. He doesn't think she took any sort of rest period after World Juniors. That, combined with a massive adjustment to a new life (and whatever led to it, which I have no idea of), makes me feel like maybe she's not that 9:12 girl right now. She could surely get back to that at some point, but I'm not convinced she's going to blow the doors off everybody this fall. So that's why I decided to go a bit conservative with her. Saturday will reveal more when she runs at the DC XC Invite.
In the preseason I identified 100 of the top girls. The intervening weeks have showed that I missed a couple who were deserving, but I started by looking at what all of them have done so far... who they've beaten and who they've lost to.
Although we do gather top times for rankings, I'm more interested in what a top time means historically on that course. Because not everything is exactly 3 miles or 5K, etc.
I took input from the editors of DyeStatCAL and DyeStatIL on how they see the top individuals in the states they cover.
I ordered most everyone by their accomplishments so far -- winning big invitationals, beating other top runners, etc. Some people haven't raced yet and so I gave them the benefit of the doubt and kept them where they were or bumped them down just a few spots.
I look at several criteria. Recent success. Past history. Proven track times. But it's also still an opinion of where things are right now.
I will be honest and say one source I do touch base with is Bill Meylan and his speed ratings (tullyrunners.com). I'm not sure if I believe in them 100 percent, but I sometimes use them to break deadlocks when I feel a few names are more or less equal.
I welcome the questions and hope it leads to worthwhile discussion.
Doug, thank you for the explanation. It sounds like you put some good time into this. Over the course of the season, I imagine things get clearer as you gather more data. It will be interesting to see how some of these runners perform at Griak this weekend. Some fast girls in both the Gold and Maroon race.
Just look at the top 20 on National Milesplit, #6Kettel, #8Hurley, #10Ilse, #13Florsheim, #15Hofstad,#16 Frazier, #18Platek, #19 Endsley. I just looked at 5K and did this quick so there may be an error or two but a bunch are not in your top 30. This is fine if you have another method other than the times (course variation) but just curious.
Which Milesplit lists are you looking at? Their time rankings database or the thought out subjective rankings? Time based rankings for XC are basically pointless.
Time based ranking. While I understand courses vary, maybe a bit of a stretch to say the times are pointless? Not looking for an argument, just trying to understand what went into the top 30 if 7 of the top 20 runners with the fastest times are excluded.
Surprised that Claire Graves isn't at least on the bubble given that she finished just 4 seconds behind Williams at Woodbridge and 3 seconds behind Ortega at Great Cow.
Actually Graves IS on the bubble. I think this got pushed into the forum just a little before I was done with it.
Prohibition of Jewelry Lifted in High School Track and Field
Effective with the 2015 high school track and field season, the prohibition of jewelry will be eliminated. This was one of several rules changes recommended by the National Federation of S...
I assume you're referring to not using video to coach during a meet and also the rule stating coaches can't use walkie talkies or cell phones or the like to communicate with each other during a meet. I never understand why a PV coach texting a sprint coach about what pizzaria to take the team after the meet violates rules lol.
The rule prohibiting the use of video during a meet was repealed last year. It is permitted anywhere on the meet site but may not be used to review an official's decision or to communicate with an athlete during a race or trial (no watching videos while you are running, guys).
I wonder if this came about because of the near-ubiquitousness of GPS watches and the blurred distinction between equipment and assistance? If that becomes harder to define, then so does the difference between watches and jewelry.
Dan
I assume you're referring to not using video to coach during a meet and also the rule stating coaches can't use walkie talkies or cell phones or the like to communicate with each other during a meet. I never understand why a PV coach texting a sprint coach about what pizzaria to take the team after the meet violates rules lol.
Watches were already legal before this change except in NJ (and if there were other states that prohibited them).
Changing the discus rule to no longer require the thrower to be in control is indeed strange. If the discus why not the shot and the hammer?
Agree. Will we now start to see out of control discus newbies flailing themselves out of the back of the ring thinking that it will help? And why not the same rule for shot putters who spin?
I do believe that some gangly jav thrower or high jumper will eventually get his jav stuck in his necklace or bracelet or wrap his bracelet around a HJ standard but that's between him and his coach ... officials are now finally free from being fashion police and can officiate like they should.
Watches were already legal before this change except in NJ (and if there were other states that prohibited them).
That's what I was saying.
Watches were okay in most states, but outside electronic assistance (or whatever the wording) was generally a no-no. With GPS, watches now fit that bill. It has become much tougher to define what is competition equipment. Admittedly, it's a weak connection between that aspect of watches and jewelry.
Gotta love a rule change that absolutely no one will object to. Well, maybe some coaches of overly expressive athletes.
I wonder if this came about because of the near-ubiquitousness of GPS watches and the blurred distinction between equipment and assistance? If that becomes harder to define, then so does the difference between watches and jewelry.
In theory but each state association can do what they want. For years watches were okay according to the NFHS rulebook but not in New Jersey where the state association regarded them as jewelry.
In Washington state we've never considered watches jewelry (thank god, even though I'm not personally for wearing a watch when racing, but it shouldn't be illegal). I was just curious if xc athletes could start racing in earing, necklaces, Livestrong bracelets, etc in 2014 or 2015.
In theory but each state association can do what they want. For years watches were okay according to the NFHS rulebook but not in New Jersey where the state association regarded them as jewelry.
runhappy, on , said:
It's an ok baseline to start from but there are too many variables in cross country to only use times for rankings.
DougB, on , said:
Ok great - I actually commented on the article before it went to the forum. Graves is only a soph and has already shown a lot of improvement this season. She's on a trajectory to be a national contender in the next couple of years.
runhappy, on , said:
Exactly. So many big races this weekend -- including Griak -- that this picture should become much clearer by Sunday. Anna French, the Hasz twins, can they beat Samantha Ortega from Saugus? Lots to sort out there.
I understand some other girls have run times that put them high on lists ... but I'm more interested in whether they've beaten anyone on this top 30 list.
GeorgieTheK, on , said:
I'll be honest with you guys. When I found out she was running for Heritage and she stopped to tie her shoes twice and still almost broke a course record ... I thought wow...maybe I should just insert her at No. 1.
But I talked to her new coach on Monday. He doesn't think she took any sort of rest period after World Juniors. That, combined with a massive adjustment to a new life (and whatever led to it, which I have no idea of), makes me feel like maybe she's not that 9:12 girl right now. She could surely get back to that at some point, but I'm not convinced she's going to blow the doors off everybody this fall. So that's why I decided to go a bit conservative with her. Saturday will reveal more when she runs at the DC XC Invite.
cerutty fan, on , said:
Methinks they underestimate her.
In the preseason I identified 100 of the top girls. The intervening weeks have showed that I missed a couple who were deserving, but I started by looking at what all of them have done so far... who they've beaten and who they've lost to.
Although we do gather top times for rankings, I'm more interested in what a top time means historically on that course. Because not everything is exactly 3 miles or 5K, etc.
I took input from the editors of DyeStatCAL and DyeStatIL on how they see the top individuals in the states they cover.
I ordered most everyone by their accomplishments so far -- winning big invitationals, beating other top runners, etc. Some people haven't raced yet and so I gave them the benefit of the doubt and kept them where they were or bumped them down just a few spots.
I look at several criteria. Recent success. Past history. Proven track times. But it's also still an opinion of where things are right now.
I will be honest and say one source I do touch base with is Bill Meylan and his speed ratings (tullyrunners.com). I'm not sure if I believe in them 100 percent, but I sometimes use them to break deadlocks when I feel a few names are more or less equal.
I welcome the questions and hope it leads to worthwhile discussion.
runhappy, on , said:
Which Milesplit lists are you looking at? Their time rankings database or the thought out subjective rankings? Time based rankings for XC are basically pointless.
Scott Joerger, on , said:
Actually Graves IS on the bubble. I think this got pushed into the forum just a little before I was done with it.
DontStopPre, on , said:
The rule prohibiting the use of video during a meet was repealed last year. It is permitted anywhere on the meet site but may not be used to review an official's decision or to communicate with an athlete during a race or trial (no watching videos while you are running, guys).
dkap, on , said:
I wonder if this came about because of the near-ubiquitousness of GPS watches and the blurred distinction between equipment and assistance? If that becomes harder to define, then so does the difference between watches and jewelry.
Dan
I assume you're referring to not using video to coach during a meet and also the rule stating coaches can't use walkie talkies or cell phones or the like to communicate with each other during a meet. I never understand why a PV coach texting a sprint coach about what pizzaria to take the team after the meet violates rules lol.
Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:
Changing the discus rule to no longer require the thrower to be in control is indeed strange. If the discus why not the shot and the hammer?
Agree. Will we now start to see out of control discus newbies flailing themselves out of the back of the ring thinking that it will help? And why not the same rule for shot putters who spin?
I do believe that some gangly jav thrower or high jumper will eventually get his jav stuck in his necklace or bracelet or wrap his bracelet around a HJ standard but that's between him and his coach ... officials are now finally free from being fashion police and can officiate like they should.
Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:
That's what I was saying.
Watches were okay in most states, but outside electronic assistance (or whatever the wording) was generally a no-no. With GPS, watches now fit that bill. It has become much tougher to define what is competition equipment. Admittedly, it's a weak connection between that aspect of watches and jewelry.
Dan
Changing the discus rule to no longer require the thrower to be in control is indeed strange. If the discus why not the shot and the hammer?
I wonder if this came about because of the near-ubiquitousness of GPS watches and the blurred distinction between equipment and assistance? If that becomes harder to define, then so does the difference between watches and jewelry.
Dan
Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:
In Washington state we've never considered watches jewelry (thank god, even though I'm not personally for wearing a watch when racing, but it shouldn't be illegal). I was just curious if xc athletes could start racing in earing, necklaces, Livestrong bracelets, etc in 2014 or 2015.
DontStopPre, on , said:
In theory but each state association can do what they want. For years watches were okay according to the NFHS rulebook but not in New Jersey where the state association regarded them as jewelry.