Girls Northeast.....

[Hilltownxc]

Hilton girls ran in the Greece Police league 5k again this summer

results:

http://www.yellowjacketracing.com/GPAL%205K%20Overall%20Results%202006.htm

Greenwich, Burnt Hills and Toga have run some very good road races too this summer. Any other girls teams running in road races?

[DynamicDanielle]

Nice early season effort. It looks like Hilton has found 5th (and a 6th!).

[NYrunner]

found results from the 2005 race to compare

http://www.yellowjacketracing.com/GPALOverall5K2005.htm

[DynamicDanielle]

found results from the 2005 race to compare

http://www.yellowjacketracing.com/GPALOverall5K2005.htm

Wow! I thought Saratoga was going to at least have the top#5 in the state. Now I'm doubting that. It looks like Crochetti and Ritchie are really stepping up---Ashley Jones as their 6th? Hilton will be very strong at NTN.

[kk.]

The times seem spread out?

[NYrunner]

The times seem spread out?
They do but I looked at this summer's results and see that Sawyer was almost a minute a head of Griggs 2005 time and Griggs was one of the best runners in the country, shattering records on many well known courses including Molly Huddle's Mcquaid record. Not only did Sawyer crush the time of Griggs but Schultz was 30 seconds faster and Herman was only 24 seconds back.

It looks like they have a much better 1-2-3 then last year and that 1-2-3 went 8-12-13 at NTN....That could mean 3 top 10 girls at NTN.

I would guess Hilton's two new girls have not run 5k's before so those times are pretty good for a start.

Does anyone know if they ran in racing shoes? If not that could make a big difference.

[DynamicDanielle]

Does anyone know if they ran in racing shoes? If not that could make a big difference.

I would guess not---but honestly I don't think that is going to make a huge difference in times.

Still last year Ashley Jones ran 20+ seconds slower and Coach Szczepanik worked his magic and coached her to a top 25 NY Class AA and top 35 NTN finish. This year he's got an even faster Ashley and five girls ahead of her (she was their #5 in 2005) to work with. I think we'll see big things from Hilton throughout the season.

[Hilltownxc]

I would guess not---but honestly I don't think that is going to make a huge difference in times.

Still last year Ashley Jones ran 20+ seconds slower and Coach Szczepanik worked his magic and coached her to a top 25 NY Class AA and top 35 NTN finish. This year he's got an even faster Ashley and five girls ahead of her (she was their #5 in 2005) to work with. I think we'll see big things from Hilton throughout the season.
I was there and at least the top couple girls had trainers on...didn't notice what the other girls were using.

Based on what I hear/see they will be stronger 1-2-3 this year and about even 4-5 as last year (meaning better then when they won NTN). They will be tough to beat.

[HINKLO]

Allison wore trainers. I saw first hand. She is in amazing shape right now.

[NYrunner]

2005 State meet(Toga's best team race):

Toga's top 5:
2 Hannah Davidson-10 Saratoga Springs 17:32.6 154.1
3 Lindsey Ferguson-12 Saratoga Springs 17:39.7 151.8
11 Ashley Campbell-12 Saratoga Springs 18:47.6 129.1
13 Cassie Goutos-8 Saratoga Springs 18:49.7 128.4
17 Kaitlin O'Sullivan-11 Saratoga Springs 19:02.0 124.3

1-3 gap: 1:15
1-5 gap: 1:30

This year's top 5 at Jailhouse Rock:
10 Davidson, Hannah F 16 16:54 Saratoga
21 Goutos, Cassandra F 14 18:05 Saratoga
24 O'Sullivan, Kaitlin F 17 18:18 Saratoga
31 Bellon, Brianne F 14 18:36 Saratoga
36 McElroy, Alysha F 16 18:56 Saratoga
37 Ochse, Liz F 16 19:03 Saratoga
40 Ochse, Abby F 16 19:25 Saratoga
51 Mendez, Julianna F 15 20:34 Saratoga

1-3 gap: 1:24
1-5 gap: 2:02

I would say Toga's girls are well within reach of the 2005 team that got 2nd at NTN.....not there yet but I think they will be....

Great American
3 Lindsey Ferguson 06 Saratoga Springs, S 17:58.70
5 Hannah Davidson 09 Saratoga Springs, S 18:15.50
16 Ashley Campbell 06 Saratoga Springs, S 19:02.10
21 Kipling Hill 06 Saratoga Springs, S 19:12.5
23 Brianne Bellon 08 Saratoga Springs, S 19:15.60

Saratoga's time gaps were very similar all year and every race you can see that the #3 girl was way behind time wise, but not in points. Thinking Toga will be weak b/c of the time difference between Ferguson 2005 and Goutos (likely #2 in 2006) this year is just wrong.

At state (above) the point gap between Ferguson and #3 was 8 points despite a time gap of 67 seconds. The point gap between #3 and #5 was 6 points with only a :14 second gap. In each meet Toga was in last year the results reflected this same situation. There is not that much of a point difference between Ferguson '05 and Goutos '06 despite the large gap in time.

Not sure why Toga is #15?

[DynamicDanielle]

2005 State meet(Toga's best team race):

Toga's top 5:
2 Hannah Davidson-10 Saratoga Springs 17:32.6 154.1
3 Lindsey Ferguson-12 Saratoga Springs 17:39.7 151.8
11 Ashley Campbell-12 Saratoga Springs 18:47.6 129.1
13 Cassie Goutos-8 Saratoga Springs 18:49.7 128.4
17 Kaitlin O'Sullivan-11 Saratoga Springs 19:02.0 124.3

1-3 gap: 1:15
1-5 gap: 1:30

This year's top 5 at Jailhouse Rock:
10 Davidson, Hannah F 16 16:54 Saratoga
21 Goutos, Cassandra F 14 18:05 Saratoga
24 O'Sullivan, Kaitlin F 17 18:18 Saratoga
31 Bellon, Brianne F 14 18:36 Saratoga
36 McElroy, Alysha F 16 18:56 Saratoga
37 Ochse, Liz F 16 19:03 Saratoga
40 Ochse, Abby F 16 19:25 Saratoga
51 Mendez, Julianna F 15 20:34 Saratoga

1-3 gap: 1:24
1-5 gap: 2:02

I would say Toga's girls are well within reach of the 2005 team that got 2nd at NTN.....not there yet but I think they will be....

Great American
3 Lindsey Ferguson 06 Saratoga Springs, S 17:58.70
5 Hannah Davidson 09 Saratoga Springs, S 18:15.50
16 Ashley Campbell 06 Saratoga Springs, S 19:02.10
21 Kipling Hill 06 Saratoga Springs, S 19:12.5
23 Brianne Bellon 08 Saratoga Springs, S 19:15.60

Saratoga's time gaps were very similar all year and every race you can see that the #3 girl was way behind time wise, but not in points. Thinking Toga will be weak b/c of the time difference between Ferguson 2005 and Goutos (likely #2 in 2006) this year is just wrong.

At state (above) the point gap between Ferguson and #3 was 8 points despite a time gap of 67 seconds. The point gap between #3 and #5 was 6 points with only a :14 second gap. In each meet Toga was in last year the results reflected this same situation. There is not that much of a point difference between Ferguson '05 and Goutos '06 despite the large gap in time.

Not sure why Toga is #15?

I'm not sure why you're so upset about the Saratoga ranking. If they are a better team than they are ranked then they will show that over the course of the season and move up. This is really not worth obsessing over for Saratoga (or really any team I would think but we're talking about Saratoga right now). Rankings in general are subjective and pre-season rankings especially so. Let's all take a deep cleansing breath and get back to training.

As far as your arguement/logic it would probably be more relevant to look at the point spread from NTN or Federations perhaps rather than the NYSPHSAA where many of the top teams were not in the race because they were smaller schools or in tough sections where they couldn't get out. However Federations 2005 are not as reflective of that larger team scenario as Hilton, who would have done significant Saratoga displacement, opted out of the race.

[NYrunner]

Think of it this way:

Toga's top 5 at State which was their best race:

2 Hannah Davidson-10 Saratoga Springs 17:32.6 154.1
3 Lindsey Ferguson-12 Saratoga Springs 17:39.7 151.8
11 Ashley Campbell-12 Saratoga Springs 18:47.6 129.1
13 Cassie Goutos-8 Saratoga Springs 18:49.7 128.4
17 Kaitlin O'Sullivan-11 Saratoga Springs 19:02.0 124.3

What could their current top 5 run in that race?
Davidson-17:32-same
Goutos---18:40-only 10 seconds faster
O'Sullivan-18:45-only 17 seconds faster
Bellon----18:50-ran 19:15 at Great American
Alysha M.-19:00-ran 19:18.0 (127.0 speed rating) at 2004 state meet on slower course.
These times are well within the Toga girls potential.

Plug those estimated times into state race 2005 and take out Toga seniors to see what current team would have done at that meet:
1 Aislinn Ryan-12 Warwick 17:23.9 157.0
2 Hannah Davidson-10 Saratoga Springs 17:32.6 154.1
3 Shelby Greany-9 Suffern 17:47.8 149.1
4 Kara McKenna-12 Suffern 17:56.0 146.3
5 Caroline Schultz-11 Hilton 18:06.1 143.0
6 Allison Sawyer-11 Hilton 18:06.4 142.9
7 Amanda Griggs-12 Hilton 18:21.4 137.9
8 Cassie Goutos Saratoga Springs 18:40.0 132.0
9 Kristen Taylor-12 Fayetteville-Manlius18:43.9 130.4
10Shelby Herman-10 Hilton 18:44.2 130.3
11Kaitlin O’Sullivan Saratoga Springs 18:45.0 130.0
12Suejin Ahn-10 Ward Melville 18:49.2 128.6
13Brianne Bellon Saratoga Springs 18:50.0 128.0
14MacKenzie Carter-8 Fayetteville-Manlius18:51.7 127.8
15Tori Pennings-10 Warwick 18:54.6 126.8
16Ashley Jones-10 Hilton 18:55.2 126.6
17Alysha McElroy Saratoga Springs 19:00.0 125.0

Hilton 44
Toga 51

This was Hilton's best race of season and they went on to win NTN....Current Toga's potential is close to 2005....

[NYrunner]

I'm not sure why you're so upset about the Saratoga ranking. If they are a better team than they are ranked then they will show that over the course of the season and move up. This is really not worth obsessing over for Saratoga (or really any team I would think but we're talking about Saratoga right now). Rankings in general are subjective and pre-season rankings especially so. Let's all take a deep cleansing breath and get back to training.

As far as your arguement/logic it would probably be more relevant to look at the point spread from NTN or Federations perhaps rather than the NYSPHSAA where many of the top teams were not in the race because they were smaller schools or in tough sections where they couldn't get out. However Federations 2005 are not as reflective of that larger team scenario as Hilton, who would have done significant Saratoga displacement, opted out of the race.
Feds and NTN fall into same situation as NYS class champs. Time gaps are much bigger then point gaps. I am not angry about it but I just like to show how I came up with my predictions.

I am a big supporter of NYS running and just want it clear that Toga is being underestimated. They will have to prove it when the season starts.

The experts have them:
NE #5, USA #15

I have them:
NE #2, USA #4

Just showing why I disagree by so much......I would think you agree with me though....Most of the rankings, even in season, are based on non-head-to-head comp so I hope the rankings people put in the same "obsession" as me considering what is on the line....

[NYrunner]

How many NE teams could match these speed ratings in their best team effort this season?
144
140
131
118
114
129.6 average

I think Hilton, Toga, Greenwich, Colts Neck, B-ville could and maybe Radnor.

[kk.]

It looks like Warwick will be the first time several of the top NE girls teams face each other. Can anyone confirm which teams will be going?

So far I have heard Hilton, Greenwich, Bronxville and possibly Radnor. Does anyone know for sure that Radnor will be going and any other teams?

[DynamicDanielle]

How many NE teams could match these speed ratings in their best team effort this season?
144
140
131
118
114
129.6 average

I think Hilton, Toga, Greenwich, Colts Neck, B-ville could and maybe Radnor.

My guess of "best possible case scenario" speedratings for Saratoga would be:

150-155 (Davidson)
125-130 (Goutos & O'Sullivan)
120-125 (Bellon & McElroy)
115-Ochse, Ochse, Lowe

That's not bad--but if the other Northeast teams are as good as their fans think they are it won't get them by Hilton, Colts Neck, Greenwich or Bronxville. Perhaps #5 in the Northeast is not such an inaccurate rank.

[DynamicDanielle]

That's about 131 average... but a little misleading, since Davidson is their only runner faster than that. Their depth could come into play, though, since they're pretty insulated against the random bad race by somebody (except Davidson).

I think this year especially being so far back at #2-3 will be a problem. Admittedly Cassie & Kaitlin are better than some Saratoga #2-3 have been but those were in years where there were few teams with a powerful front runner let alone a powerful duo or trio. Colts Neck has the potential of an amazing duo in Jackucewicz and Higgins, and Hilton has the trio of power in Sawyer, Schultz, and Herman (and believe it or not the implication of more depth than Saratoga). Both of these teams will be very tough for Saratoga to get by with the race of their lives.

[tengomiedo243]

I think this year especially being so far back at #2-3 will be a problem. Admittedly Cassie & Kaitlin are better than some Saratoga #2-3 have been but those were in years where there were few teams with a powerful front runner let alone a powerful duo or trio. Colts Neck has the potential of an amazing duo in Jackucewicz and Higgins, and Hilton has the trio of power in Sawyer, Schultz, and Herman (and believe it or not the implication of more depth than Saratoga). Both of these teams will be very tough for Saratoga to get by with the race of their lives.

Not to mention that if Bronxville's girls live up to their expectations they could have 3 or 4 from their pack finishing ahead of a few of the Saratoga girls (Miers, Flannery, possibly Clarke and especially Connor). And, if the new girls at Bronxville (especially little Hudson) prove to be as good as they've been talked up to be, Bronxville's depth could be enough to overcome their lack of a really competitive frontrunner (like Jackucewicz and Higgins for CN and Sawyer, Schultz, and Herman for Hilton) and put them ahead of Saratoga.

[NYrunner]

Colts Neck's best team race:
NJ MOC
3 Briana Jackucewicz FR Colts Neck 18:20 145.3 145
7 Ashley Higginson JR Colts Neck 18:26 143.3 143
40 Allison Donaghy SO Colts Neck 19:52 114.7 115
51 Erin Donaghy SO Colts Neck 20:02 111.3 111
68 Kristen O'Dowd JR Colts Neck 20:18 106.0 106

anyone know how these girls did in track?


I think Colts Neck can hit these speed ratings (or faster):
144
140
131
118
114
129.6 average
They need their 3-5 to be in the 121 range and they will be higher assuming top 2 are as good or better as last year.

[NYrunner]

2 Sorrell, Kelly 11 Lyman CT 19:38.6 142.1 142
10 Troy, Dana 11 Lyman CT 20:18.4 128.9 129
30 Ports, Sarah 11 Lyman CT 20:44.9 120.0 120
48 Fitton, Katie 9 Lyman CT 21:08.3 112.2 112
115 Troy, Samantha 11 Lyman CT 22:13.5 90.5 91

This is another team that I think can hit:

144
140
131
118
114

Lyman Memorial, Ct.--if they have been able to get that #5 to improve about a minute (or found someone to replace her) I think they are capable of these types of speed ratings.


6 Ives, Eliza JR Bromfield 19:24 126.0 126
10 Jones, Emily FR Bromfield 19:41 120.3 120
15 Lee, Liz SO Bromfield 19:54 116.0 116
24 Ives, Jenny FR Bromfield 20:11 110.3 110
25 Reedich, Lisa FR Bromfield 20:15 109.0 109
30 Cardosi, Taylor SO Bromfield 20:18 108.0 108
50 Long, Kat SO Bromfield 20:49 97.7 98

Emily Jones has improved a ton (10:46 3200) so we could see her in the 140 range so if their top returner is with her that gives them a very good chance of hitting:
144
140
131
118
114

They have top 7 back and their 3-7 are with in reach of 118-125 range.

[DynamicDanielle]

No offense but I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this. In some of your examples girls are looking at needing a 30+ second improvement to reach your targets. There isn't anything magical about an average speedrating of 130 that guarantees you win NTN etc. How you get to that average is much more important than what it is. Frontrunners can pull speedrating averages way up (and push team time averages down) and often those teams get beat. How about if we all take a step back from the keyboard and wait until at least a few of these teams run at least a single race. Then we can discuss where teams actually are rather than talking about hypotheticals that may just put needless pressure on kids.

[NYrunner]

No offense but I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this. In some of your examples girls are looking at needing a 30+ second improvement to reach your targets. There isn't anything magical about an average speedrating of 130 that guarantees you win NTN etc. How you get to that average is much more important than what it is. Frontrunners can pull speedrating averages way up (and push team time averages down) and often those teams get beat. How about if we all take a step back from the keyboard and wait until at least a few of these teams run at least a single race. Then we can discuss where teams actually are rather than talking about hypotheticals that may just put needless pressure on kids.
I was waiting for some one to ask.
Why are these numbers important?

144 Kristen Stevens
140 Jenn Ennis
131 Lauren Penney
118 Ashley Cromartie
114 Sarah Tencza

This is the top 5 of Roxbury that smashed the Holmdel team time record at NJ MOC last year. They were a top 10 team in the USA and this was easily their best race. I just wanted to point out how many teams in the NE this year will be at that level (30 second improvement is the "normal" improvement for a runner if they are healthy so that is well within reach of just about any runner and I am talking about end of year best race not early season races).

I am not saying this stuff is a guarantee but just pointing out the teams that could reach this target.

What if the top 7-8 teams in the NE hit these marks? Roxbury was 9th at 2004 and 2005 NTN (expected to finish higher then 9th with these speed ratings) and I think we could (possibly) see 6-8 teams at the Roxbury level.

Mr. Bloom had Roxbury USA #6 going into NTN because of the MOC race. I think it is important for the NTN people to see why we need to lift the roof off of the 4 team max a region can send to NTN....I bet the 2-3 NE teams that get left home this fall that could potentially go top 10 NTN will agree with me.....What if Saratoga is one of those teams?

[DynamicDanielle]

Mr. Bloom had Roxbury USA #6 going into NTN because of the MOC race. I think it is important for the NTN people to see why we need to lift the roof off of the 4 team max a region can send to NTN....I bet the 2-3 NE teams that get left home this fall that could potentially go top 10 NTN will agree with me.....What if Saratoga is one of those teams?

Why would it be any different if Saratoga ends up 4th or 5th in the region (likely possibility actually) than if Bronxville, Radnor etc whoever do? I don't think it would. Sure talented teams sometimes get left home based on selection processes but they are what they are everyone is subjected to the same thing. If Saratoga is 5th in the NE then they definitely will not go to NTN if they are 4th they may not depending on how strong other teams ranked 3rd and 4th in their regions are.

Let's extend your logic to the Girls FL Championship. Perhaps since the West did so well they should have gotten to send 15 girls instead of 10. Perhaps since the Northeast was last they should only be allowed to send 5 would that be fair? Using your logic yes it would be.

[sisyphus]

The difference is 1) Footlocker does not invite wild cards and 2) Footlocker qualifies head to head to nationals and 3) Footlocker is an individual contest (Individuals are far harder to rank than teams). What this means is that regions are already being compared against each other in NTN and are not in Footlocker qualifying. Since NTN ranks teams instead of racing them and crosses over regions, I don't see why they don't just switch to a Bloomlike top 20-25 and invite those teams regardless of region. The entire purpose of regional qualifying is to facilitate qualifying races. If there is no qualifying race, there is no reason to invite by region. Why on Earth anyone would want to leave a top ten team home so a borderline top 20 team could go to NTN is beyond me. Comparing NTN to NIN or NON would make more sense than comparing it to Footlocker. All those meets lack a head to head qualifier and all qualify based on a standard rather than regional bias. Would the NON DMR, 4x mile or 4x8 be better if each region got two teams rather than accepting the best qualifying times?

[kk.]

It is so that the meet doesn't turn into NE, NW, CA "Nationals" with a few random teams from other regions in there.

[sisyphus]

It is so that the meet doesn't turn into NE, NW, CA "Nationals" with a few random teams from other regions in there.

So you're saying "nationals" make more sense when every region is represented instead of having the 20 best teams in the nation. That makes sense. I'll make sure to write off NON as a "National" meet. Same thing with USATF xc and track championships. Anyone from USATF reading this? Hopefully they'll realize the error of their ways and get in line with the more enightened of the sport before it's too late.

[kk.]

No I was saying that if you just invited the top 20 teams in the rankings it could turn into just an invite for the strongest regions. Taking just the top 20 ranked teams could leave out some good teams that were under rated.

In 2005 these top 15 teams would have been left out:
Roosevelt Girls - finished 11th (ranked 22nd)
Chapel Hill Guys - finished 12th (ranked 25th)
Episcopal Girls - finished 14th (not ranked)
West Valley Girls - finished 15th (ranked 24th)
*Naperville North Girls were ranked 20th.. so they would have been very close to being left out and finished 4th.

Now lets look at 2004..
Eisenhower Guys - finished 9th (not ranked)
Bethlehem Girls - finished 13th (ranked 21st)
Carroll Guys - finished 14th (not ranked)
*Fremont Girls were ranked 20th.. so they would have been very close to being left out and finished 5th

So you would leave out a top 10 finisher.. along with 6 other top 15 teams. Not to mention being very close to leaving out 2 top 5 teams.

As a side note.. one thing NY was upset about in 2004 was the girls teams left out because of the tight race at Feds and how dominant Saratoga was.. well if we went by top 20 rankings.. no NY girls team would have gone other than Saratoga.

EDIT: I am taking the California teams out of it because their state meet happens after the rankings came out. There were 2 CA teams on the list.

[polyxc]

For better or worse, it looks like NTN wants to have representatives from all parts of the country, whether or not they are the "better" than other teams who ae left home.

I guess that is their perogative, since they are paying the bills.

[sisyphus]

As much as I like to hammer on the NTN rankings in the hopes of keeping them honest, they ARE better than Bloom's rankings. Using his rankings as a basis for which teams would be left out is a fallacy. Further, the teams you mentioned that overachieved would have undoubtedly been pushed back by teams not invited in the last two years and also would move up on the invite list when teams not eligible to compete (Clarkston etc) were removed. Go back to your list, remove the teams that couldn't go, then add in teams like Colt's Neck from last year and Bay Shore the year before and tell me which method leaves more top ten teams out. As I said before, the only reason anyone does regional based qualifying is when they race head to head for it. It is unheard of to leave out a higher ranked qualifier at a national meet when head to head regional races don't exist. Look at NCAA track. Before regional meets, no regards to region when qualifying. After regional meets, qualifiers by region as well as national auto bids.

[kk.]

Further, the teams you mentioned that overachieved would have undoubtedly been pushed back by teams not invited in the last two years and also would move up on the invite list when teams not eligible to compete (Clarkston etc) were removed. Go back to your list, remove the teams that couldn't go, then add in teams like Colt's Neck from last year and Bay Shore the year before and tell me which method leaves more top ten teams out.

A couple of the teams would have been bumped up to the top 20 ranking if you take out teams that couldn't go.. but not much of a difference. More top ten teams? Well your method left out a top ten (Eisenhower) while the current one left out no top 10 ranked teams.. not even any top 15 (there is one I am not sure of but I think they didn't accept the bid). You might believe that a team could have been top 10 but there is no way to show that and I am trying to just use actualy numbers.

You said yourself that the NTN rankings are better than Bloom's so I don't understand what top 20 ranking you would rather have the teams come from.

[NYrunner]

It is so that the meet doesn't turn into NE, NW, CA "Nationals" with a few random teams from other regions in there.
Easy solution:

1 Auto bid per region and 12 at-large(extend cap to 5 or 6 or no max at all).

OR

Turn the regions into the same as FootLocker and do 3 auto bids (12 total) and 8 at-large(extend cap to 5 or 6 or no max at all).

The current system doesn't give the rankings committee much room to work with. They need to compare #3 and #4 of 8 different regions and they probably never ran head-to-head or vs. similar opponents or same course. From those 16 teams they can hand out a total of 4 at-large bids. The NE, SE and California are only eligible for the final 2 at-large bids so obviously NTN is worried about them taking too many at large bids. They give two out before these other regions are selected? That makes no sense at all....

I don't know if or when any changes would happen but I just wanted to point out we might have 1-3 girls teams in the NE with top 10 potential not get invited. They might actually be ranked top 10 USA by then and not go.

They should have got rid of the 4-max rule and added in some more at large bids. 25 teams would be perfect! More money spent by NIKE but also more NIKE lovers to spread the word on how awesome NIKE is......

[sisyphus]

A couple of the teams would have been bumped up to the top 20 ranking if you take out teams that couldn't go.. but not much of a difference. More top ten teams? Well your method left out a top ten (Eisenhower) while the current one left out no top 10 ranked teams.. not even any top 15 (there is one I am not sure of but I think they didn't accept the bid). You might believe that a team could have been top 10 but there is no way to show that and I am trying to just use actualy numbers.

You said yourself that the NTN rankings are better than Bloom's so I don't understand what top 20 ranking you would rather have the teams come from.

Eisenhower. #9 nationally before the state meet; about the best 1-2 in the country and a 70 second spread. Anyone who does their homework saw that coming. They were ten seconds behind Ferris on a team time average. You CAN NOT find me a race where losing by 50 seconds on team time would move a team 20 places behind the other team. NO thiking person would have ommitted Eisenhower from the top 20 in 2004. This is why I say that Bloom's rankings should not be used for a national ranking if one were to choose invitations from there. Also, I'm not going to reargure Newton North in 2004 or Bay Shore giels in 2004, but you simply can't run the numbers and claim they wouldn't have been top 10 at NTN. I like the line of reasoning though. "I think these teams would have been top 10 in a national meet with the best invited teams because in a national meet without the best, they placed top ten." It's a great twist on circular reasoning. And you might want to decide what your argument is 1) A national meet should be equally represented amongst arbitrarily chosen regions regardless quality or 2) Equally divided regional selection produces higher quality fields than choosing a field without geographical prejudice. Once again, you should really contact USATF, NCAA and NON and insist they stop their selection of qualifiers based on merit rather than geography. It's truly a revolutionary idea.

[sisyphus]

NYrunner-

I like solution #1. One auto bid is certainly a fair compromise.
BTW- I hope you keep your rankings coming throughout the season. I'm looking forward to seeing them up against the "experts" at NTN.

[NYrunner]

NYrunner-

I like solution #1. One auto bid is certainly a fair compromise.
BTW- I hope you keep your rankings coming throughout the season. I'm looking forward to seeing them up against the "experts" at NTN.
It will be tough to beat Mr. Cuffe b/c I know he is right on with his NYS boys rankings and has much more experience then me....(Maybe each Monday I'll post my weekly rankings and then 78champ can add them to his/her sig?:D )

On the girls side-- I follow them much more closely then the boys (much like Mr. Meylan's coverage of NYS). Plus, the girls are much easier to rank b/c there is such large gaps between the top half dozen teams or so and the rest of the region....

When the season starts many of the top boys/girls teams will run head-to-head (mostly at Warwick Valley, Manhattan, Brown and then the state meets) so my rankings by then will be very similar (I would guess) to Mr. Cuffe's committee.

I think (and hope) Mr. Cuffe will ask Mr. Meylan for some help on the girls side. My boys rankings, Mr. Cuffe's and Mr. Meylan's were all very similar but the NTN official girls rankings had 4 teams that myself and Mr. Meylan did not have any where near the top 10 (bayshore is always good so they are always a threat but the other 3 seem like they are over-rated at this point). I used Mr. Meylan's speed ratings from 2005 and added in track improvements and tranfers to come up with my rankings.

The first month(up to Sept. 30th) the boys side will be a guessing game with not many big meets and highly ranked teams from all over who won't race head-to-head until Manhattan.

[kk.]

Eisenhower. #9 nationally before the state meet; about the best 1-2 in the country and a 70 second spread. Anyone who does their homework saw that coming. They were ten seconds behind Ferris on a team time average. You CAN NOT find me a race where losing by 50 seconds on team time would move a team 20 places behind the other team. NO thiking person would have ommitted Eisenhower from the top 20 in 2004. This is why I say that Bloom's rankings should not be used for a national ranking if one were to choose invitations from there.

Rankings Before NTN 2004..
1.Fayetteville-Manlius NY (1)
2.York Elmhurst IL (2)
3.Ferris Spokane WA (5)
4.The Woodlands TX (3)
5.Royal Simi Valley CA (4)
6.Jesuit Portland OR (6)
7.Christian Bros Academy NJ (12)
8.Cedar Cliff PA (7)
9.Marshall MN (11)
10.Dana Hills CA (14)
11.Liberty MO (8)
12.Mountain View Orem UT (10)
13.Hoover AL (23)
14.Albuquerque Academy NM (NR)
15.Shawnee Mission NW KS (15)
16.Mead Spokane WA (16)
17.Lockport NY (9)
18.Madison West WI (17)
19.Los Alamos NM (18)
20.Northridge IN (19)
21.Fort Collins CO (21)
22.Denver South CO (22)
23.Milford MI (NR)
24.Morris Hills NJ (NR)
25.Winter Park FL (NR)

notice.. no Eisenhower

Again I ask.. if you agree that using Bloom's rankings to choose the top 20 teams to go to NTN, then what rankings are you talking about???

I don't see why they don't just switch to a Bloomlike top 20-25 and invite those teams regardless of region.

A Bloomlike top 20-25? How much more "Bloomlike" can you get than his own rankings. I don't understand how you can say we should use a Bloomlike ranking and just choose the top 20 and then go on to say Bloom's rankings are horrible and we shouldn't use them. Who else is available that NTN would actually use?

And do not attack me and say that no thinking person would have omitted Eisenhower. You were the one who said to use a Bloomlike top 20 and that is exactly what I did. I was never arguing where teams should be ranked or anything like that, just using the rankings and showing what teams would have been left out.

[kk.]

Also, I'm not going to reargure Newton North in 2004 or Bay Shore giels in 2004, but you simply can't run the numbers and claim they wouldn't have been top 10 at NTN. I like the line of reasoning though. "I think these teams would have been top 10 in a national meet with the best invited teams because in a national meet without the best, they placed top ten."

Where did I ever claim that any team was top 10 in the nation. I was talking about NTN and using their place at the race. I was saying top 10 at NTN not top 10 best team in the nation. Actually I have no idea where you get this idea from. I went back and read over what I wrote and I had made sure to continually say things like "finisher" (for where they were at NTN) and "ranked" for where they were in Bloom's rankings before NTN.

About Bay Shore and Newton North.. Please tell me where I said they would not have been top 10 at NTN. I was only trying to show what teams that actually went to NTN would have been left out using the different method. My purpose was only to show that this way wouldn't solve any problems it would still leave out top teams. Yes maybe your way might allow the NE to get 5+ bids this year and it could get a couple of teams that you believe would have done well into the race. But it would also leave out other teams that would have done well and possibly entire regions of the nation altogether.


It's a great twist on circular reasoning. And you might want to decide what your argument is 1) A national meet should be equally represented amongst arbitrarily chosen regions regardless quality or 2) Equally divided regional selection produces higher quality fields than choosing a field without geographical prejudice.

My only argument here has been that you shouldn't just choose the top 20 from the national rankings and have them go. I have been pretty clear on that. You had said that was what you would prefer.. and I was simply replying with why it doesn't seem like a great idea to me.

If you really want my opinion on what I think would be the best system then here it is. Have regional races where the top 2 teams automatically qualify and then a committee selects a group of at large bids. I would want the number of at large bids to increase and for regions to be eligible for more than just two at large. But I do not think that regionals are a real possiblity right now so my opinion doesn't look possible.

Once again, you should really contact USATF, NCAA and NON and insist they stop their selection of qualifiers based on merit rather than geography. It's truly a revolutionary idea.

NCAA cross country has 9 regions where the top 2 teams automatically qualify from their regional meet, then there are 13 at large teams. Sounds pretty similar to ours with larger numbers.. we have 8 regions where the top 2 automatically go and there are 4 at large teams. The only thing we don't have yet is regional races and more bids.

Now onto track.. National championships that are individual championships are a bit different than team national championships. NTN and NCAA xc both have to go through a selection process to choose which teams are invited. USATF, NON and NCAA track have qualifying times to hit in which you are eligible. There is a huge difference between these systems and you cannot do that for a national team championship. You would need to use another team national championship as an example (like I did for NCAA xc) and not a completely different type of championship.

[sisyphus]

kk-

My mistake for overestimating your reading comprehension skills. Have a friend read the thread - preferably one who's been in the sport for several years as well -and have him explain it to you. Just one correction. NCAA cross DOES NOT have "selection". They qualify head to head. What I said from the beginning was that if you qualify head to head it makes sense to qualify regionally. A ranking system negates the reasons for regional qualification just like track's qualification does. This is why NTN is more like track than cross in qualification terms. Have your friend explain this too. I'm done.

[DynamicDanielle]

kk-

My mistake for overestimating your reading comprehension skills. Have a friend read the thread - preferably one who's been in the sport for several years as well -and have him explain it to you. Just one correction. NCAA cross DOES NOT have "selection". They qualify head to head. What I said from the beginning was that if you qualify head to head it makes sense to qualify regionally. A ranking system negates the reasons for regional qualification just like track's qualification does. This is why NTN is more like track than cross in qualification terms. Have your friend explain this too. I'm done.

Ok not to interrupt your name calling or anything :rolleyes:
NCAA (at least D1 which I'm familiar with) uses a somewhat interesting qualification--the top 2 teams in each region go automatically. (This qualifies 18 teams) Then you go down the regional lists and push teams in based on who they have beaten. (This qualifies another 13) This does not always ensure that more qualified teams are not left at home as teams get points by beating other teams. Look at who was picked and who was left home on the women's side and how they fared at pre-nats. Basically teams who were in the race with Villanova at Pre-Nats benefitted greatly (but if you look at the results there were other teams in the other race that would have likely beaten Villanova and Georgetown also had they had the opportunity to race them.)

[kk.]

kk-

My mistake for overestimating your reading comprehension skills. Have a friend read the thread - preferably one who's been in the sport for several years as well -and have him explain it to you.

I have no idea what your problem is. I have been very respectful and you continually just try and bash instead of having a normal conversation.

Just one correction. NCAA cross DOES NOT have "selection". They qualify head to head. What I said from the beginning was that if you qualify head to head it makes sense to qualify regionally.

You were right when you first used the word selection. The NCAA does have a committee that determines the at large bids. They try to base their at large bids off of how those teams did against other qualifiers and top teams.

Since that is college, teams travel more and would face a lot of the top teams during the year, but in high school most teams won't be facing other teams outside of a region of the country. That is one reason for separating into qualifying regions even though we do not yet have an actual regional race.

Their may not be a regional race for NTN but the committee still trys to rank teams based off of head to head competition when it is available. Your idea of just having a national ranking instead of regional would create even more of a problem because you would be trying to compare teams from the other side of the country that never faced each other head to head.

A ranking system negates the reasons for regional qualification just like track's qualification does. This is why NTN is more like track than cross in qualification terms. Have your friend explain this too. I'm done.

Cross country is nothing at all like track. In track it is easy to qualify based on time but in cross country you cannot do that. Different courses, different conditions, you know all that. NTN is not at all like track in qualifying terms. You do not hit a certain time and qualify, you get judged against the competition and qualify based on that. Teams aren't hitting a magical time that gets them qualified for NTN.

You are attacking me for not responding to one part of your posts.. which seems kind of odd because you don't repond to almost everything I write and I don't expect you to. I'm sorry if I don't respond to every single thing you said.. My posts are long enough as it is and I need to cut it off somewhere.

EDIT: I just checked back and I actually did respond to your argument against having regions in my very first post replying to you:

It is so that the meet doesn't turn into NE, NW, CA "Nationals" with a few random teams from other regions in there.

If you just choose the teams you believe are top 20, some regions would probably be overlooked just because of their history of being considered weaker even though that is not always the case.

[NYrunner]

I guess Toga is going to some new meets this year. Looks like they are going to wait until Manhattan (Oct. 14) to go up against the other top teams....

[NYrunner]

http://www.dyestat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36813

NE #8 Southern Regional is ranked 15th in NJ and NE#10 Hopewell is ranked 10th in NJ.....The NJ rankings are done by 10 NJ people voting....NTN people have these two NJ teams 2-3 in NJ? NJ people have them 15, 10.

[NYrunner]

NJ gets all they can out of that course.

It is easy to make the NJ schedule.

I noticed that Colts Neck ran at Holmdel on:

10/18/2005 County meet
10/29/2005 Shore Conference
11/5/2005 sectionals
11/12/2005 Groups
11/19/2005 MOC

It should be easy to gage the NJ teams with a schedule like this. I actually like this type of schedule. It would be nice to see the NYS teams run a few races at Bowdoin Park during the year to get ready for Feds....

How often do the NJ teams run that course? Colts Neck runs it a lot but what about the teams outside of their county?

[OldArgScot]

I guess Toga is going to some new meets this year. Looks like they are going to wait until Manhattan (Oct. 14) to go up against the other top teams....

I checked Saratoga's schedule as it is shown on their linked "highschoolsports.net" listing (linked from the high school's website), and this is what comes up:

Saratoga Springs High School
Coed Varsity Cross Country 2006 - 2007
Day Date Place Opponent Facility Time
Friday 09/08 Home Time Trials 3:00PM
Tuesday 09/12 Away Burnt Hills-ballston Lake Cent 4:00PM
Tuesday 09/19 Away Averill Park Central High School 4:00PM
Thursday 09/21 Away Spike Shoe Invitational @ Penn State TBA
Friday 09/22 Away Spike Shoe Invitational @ Penn State TBA
Saturday 09/23 Away Spike Shoe Invitational @ Penn State TBA
Tuesday 09/26 Away Bethlehem Central High School 4:00PM
Friday 09/29 Away E J Herman Invitational @ Utica TBA
Saturday 09/30 Away E J Herman Invitational @ Utica TBA
Tuesday 10/10 Away Guilderland High School 4:00PM
Tuesday 10/17 Away Shaker High School 4:00PM
Saturday 10/28 Home SCC @Saratoga State Park 1:00PM

It doesn't show Manhattan (and doesn't list the obvious beyond Suburban Council Champs), so maybe there are other errors here, but it is different as NYrunner said.

[NYrunner]

I checked Saratoga's schedule as it is shown on their linked "highschoolsports.net" listing (linked from the high school's website), and this is what comes up:

Saratoga Springs High School
Coed Varsity Cross Country 2006 - 2007
Day Date Place Opponent Facility Time
Friday 09/08 Home Time Trials 3:00PM
Tuesday 09/12 Away Burnt Hills-ballston Lake Cent 4:00PM
Tuesday 09/19 Away Averill Park Central High School 4:00PM
Thursday 09/21 Away Spike Shoe Invitational @ Penn State TBA
Friday 09/22 Away Spike Shoe Invitational @ Penn State TBA
Saturday 09/23 Away Spike Shoe Invitational @ Penn State TBA
Tuesday 09/26 Away Bethlehem Central High School 4:00PM
Friday 09/29 Away E J Herman Invitational @ Utica TBA
Saturday 09/30 Away E J Herman Invitational @ Utica TBA
Tuesday 10/10 Away Guilderland High School 4:00PM
Tuesday 10/17 Away Shaker High School 4:00PM
Saturday 10/28 Home SCC @Saratoga State Park 1:00PM

It doesn't show Manhattan (and doesn't list the obvious beyond Suburban Council Champs), so maybe there are other errors here, but it is different as NYrunner said.
Now I am hearing they might be scratching Manhattan so that schedule is possibly right. They have two 9th graders that could be 2-3 girls so maybe they don't want to over-race these girls. Or, think of this, section II girls are going to be as deep as ever so maybe they are focusing more on dual meets since the comp in many of their duals will be as good as some invites or even better. Who knows but they will be right in the mix come November....

[kk.]

That would be really strange. I can't see them not going to Manhattan. Are their any good teams going to that race at Penn State?

[hopCNs]

Colts Neck girls are running the Spiked Shoe at Penn State.

[kk.]

So that should be a pretty big weekend for the NE. Collegiate, Shen and Warwick guys at GA facing some other NTN ranked teams.. and Saratoga and Colts Neck girls at Spiked Shoe.

[GirlsXC_coach]

Team results from Shaker Invitational. Not sure if any of the other teams are ranked, but I know that Colonie is (for now, anyway).

Holy Names 61
Colonie 82
Queensbury 84
Shenendehowa ?? maybe in the 90s.
Shaker ?? around 110

Shen had one of their best (if not their #1) girl in the freshman race, which she won easily. They also had a 7th-grader take 2nd in that race.

King from Scotia won the individual race, followed by Seguine (Columbia).

Any links to results??

[NYrunner]

Team results from Shaker Invitational. Not sure if any of the other teams are ranked, but I know that Colonie is (for now, anyway).

Holy Names 61
Colonie 82
Queensbury 84
Shenendehowa ?? maybe in the 90s.
Shaker ?? around 110

Shen had one of their best (if not their #1) girl in the freshman race, which she won easily. They also had a 7th-grader take 2nd in that race.

King from Scotia won the individual race, followed by Seguine (Columbia).
what Shen girl won the frosh? Was it Cara Jancezko?

[NYrunner]

Yeah. Lizzie Predmore (Zach's little sister) was 2nd.
What do you estimate the difference in their score?

[NYrunner]

Hmmm... they had a clump in the high teens... their #5 was probably low to mid 20s at worst. Figure 15 points. Put them ahead of Colonie, but not Holy Names.
Their #1 returner won the frosh race and #2 returner won the jv. race....Would have dropped a solid 20 points with them in there and maybe more.....#5 was 26 and top girl would have likely been top 5 and maybe even top 3 so actually maybe closer to 23 points less not to mention the girl in the jv race......

http://www.section2harrier.com/xc06shakerinvy.htm#Girls

[NYrunner]

Don't know about that... Janeczko was between Chelsea Trant (same class) and Seri Gordon last year; that would put her in the back half of the top 10 today. Can't say it's likely she'd have been top-5.

Their JV winner was 20+ seconds away from being a scorer, had Janeczko run with the varsity.
did the jv girl run her best? Based on last year's sectional race she is their #2 returner but time wise she would have been #7 I think. Janeczko would have to have been over 67 seconds behind winner to be worse then 5th. Is she that far back?

Based on last year she(and most of the top 10 girls in this race) was only about :25-:45 seconds behind the King girls. The two girls you mention were 71 and 84 seconds back while there was other girls that were behind those two, last year, that were much closer to King so I would guess (total guess) that this young Shen talent would be within 67 seconds....

Just trying to get a gage of how good they really are.

First race with a girls top ten Northeast team in it.....did Colonie rest any girls? I would guess their top girl was around 115-117 for speed rating.

[NYrunner]

Not sure if Mr. Meylan will speed rate this race but here is my guess of what they might look like:

1King, Jillian Scotia High Scho 6:03.4 18:24.39 138.8
2Seguine, Brina 12 Columbia High Sc 6:11.2 18:48.13 131
3Hardwick, Claire 11 Holy Names High 6:17.8 19:08.10 124.3
4Sprague, Cara 12 Queensbury 6:20.8 19:17.20 121
5Recchia, Lauren 9 Holy Names High 6:25.4 19:31.17 116.3
6Trant, Chelsea 09 Niskayuna High S 6:26.8 19:35.44 114.9
7Mock, Katlin 11 Colonie High School 6:27.3 19:36.99 114.4
8McTague, Emily 11 Niskayuna High S 6:30.1 19:45.49 111.8
9Mueller, Morgan 9 Queensbury 6:30.4 19:46.45 111.5
10Gordon, Seri 12 Shaker High School 6:30.9 19:48.00 111

Hopefully I'm close....I think it might be a little higher then I came up with.

[kk.]

1 King, Jillian Scotia High Scho 18:24.39 134.9 135
2 Seguine, Brina 12 Columbia High Sc 18:48.13 127.0 127
3 Hardwick, Claire 11 Holy Names High 19:08.10 120.3 120
4 Sprague, Cara 12 Queensbury 19:17.20 117.3 117
5 Recchia, Lauren 9 Holy Names High 19:31.17 112.6 113
6 Trant, Chelsea 09 Niskayuna High S 19:35.44 111.2 111
7 Mock, Katlin 11 Colonie High School 19:36.99 110.7 111
8 McTague, Emily 11 Niskayuna High S 19:45.49 107.8 108
9 Mueller, Morgan 9 Queensbury 19:46.45 107.5 108
10 Gordon, Seri 12 Shaker High School 19:48.00 107.0 107

about 4 points off

[NYrunner]

1 King, Jillian Scotia High Scho 18:24.39 134.9 135
2 Seguine, Brina 12 Columbia High Sc 18:48.13 127.0 127
3 Hardwick, Claire 11 Holy Names High 19:08.10 120.3 120
4 Sprague, Cara 12 Queensbury 19:17.20 117.3 117
5 Recchia, Lauren 9 Holy Names High 19:31.17 112.6 113
6 Trant, Chelsea 09 Niskayuna High S 19:35.44 111.2 111
7 Mock, Katlin 11 Colonie High School 19:36.99 110.7 111
8 McTague, Emily 11 Niskayuna High S 19:45.49 107.8 108
9 Mueller, Morgan 9 Queensbury 19:46.45 107.5 108
10 Gordon, Seri 12 Shaker High School 19:48.00 107.0 107

about 4 points off
Wow that is much lower then I expected....I thought my guess was conservative since King ran such a fast time and the boys race didn't seem to be overly fast.....not good news for Colonie's chances of staying top 10 NE....

[NYrunner]

Radnor girls win as expected but Chambersburg (Pa #2 and my preseason #10) take 5th. Chambersburg was missing their #2 girl according to the write up so that cost them about 45 points and the win.

It says Radnor had 4 in top 10 and top two took 3-4 so if their 3-4 girls took 9-10 that is 26 points but they scored 79 and didn't seem like a lot of comp....I would guess they were missing someone b/c that means their #5 was at best 53rd. Any info on their team?

I hear Radnor was missing one of the runners so that could mean they would have been down in the 40 point range....

[DynamicDanielle]

Normally I wouldn't put too much emphasis on dual meets because different teams use them in different ways but I think the Saratoga vs Burnt Hills dual tomorrow will be interesting to watch. I think Burnt Hills is probably better than they are being given credit for (I'm not sure they are top 10 NE though there are a lot of strong teams this year) and I think Saratoga will struggle a little more than some outsiders predict. I think it will be close (but I'd go with Saratoga for the win. However, if Burnt Hills manages to pull it out how will that change the Northeast rankings?

[GirlsXC_coach]

Normally I wouldn't put too much emphasis on dual meets because different teams use them in different ways but I think the Saratoga vs Burnt Hills dual tomorrow will be interesting to watch. I think Burnt Hills is probably better than they are being given credit for (I'm not sure they are top 10 NE though there are a lot of strong teams this year) and I think Saratoga will struggle a little more than some outsiders predict. I think it will be close (but I'd go with Saratoga for the win. However, if Burnt Hills manages to pull it out how will that change the Northeast rankings?

It probably won't change the rankings ... scoring is different in dual meets and invitationals. I doubt the people who rank the NE would put alot of emphasis on it. It is definitely a meet to watch - wish I could be there.

[BlueFlameBeanie]

Radnor girls win as expected but Chambersburg (Pa #2 and my preseason #10) take 5th. Chambersburg was missing their #2 girl according to the write up so that cost them about 45 points and the win.

It says Radnor had 4 in top 10 and top two took 3-4 so if their 3-4 girls took 9-10 that is 26 points but they scored 79 and didn't seem like a lot of comp....I would guess they were missing someone b/c that means their #5 was at best 53rd. Any info on their team?

I hear Radnor was missing one of the runners so that could mean they would have been down in the 40 point range....
Yeah Radnor was missing a key runner due to injuries, and the girl who ran as #5 at Cantaur, is also not all the way up to speed. It was a great first meet, especially for their two new girls, (a freshman and a Washington transfer) the placings were 3,4,7,8 and 58. for a grand total of 79, to the closest team's score of 104 (Governor Mifflin).

[GirlsXC_coach]

Yeah Radnor was missing a key runner due to injuries, and the girl who ran as #5 at Cantaur, is also not all the way up to speed. It was a great first meet, especially for their two new girls, (a freshman and a Washington transfer) the placings were 3,4,7,8 and 58. for a grand total of 79, to the closest team's score of 104 (Governor Mifflin).

I imagine Shannon Holm (the #5) will be up with the other 4 girls and Julie Farley (the injured runner) to be as well. Radnor 2006 seems to be a true pack team ... kind of reminds me of Bronxville 2005

[NYrunner]

I imagine Shannon Holm (the #5) will be up with the other 4 girls and Julie Farley (the injured runner) to be as well. Radnor 2006 seems to be a true pack team ... kind of reminds me of Bronxville 2005
Yeah their 1-4 gap was like 17 seconds.....I would guess their speed ratings were in the 117-123 range...but that is just a guess.

[NYrunner]

any info on the Toga-burnt hills dual?

I see Burnt Hills had a race on Saturday.
Meaghan Gregory B.H 18:34.5
Sam Roecker B.H 19:02.5
Molly Pezzulo B.H 20:17.1
Lizzie Olsen B.H 20:48.2
Carolyn Herkenham B.H 20:55.6
Lauren Mullins B.H 21:31.4

If Meaghan was around 135 speed rating then their top 5 would have been about:

135
126
101
91
88
They may have been not running all out since I hear they had a big dual with Toga yesterday?

[DynamicDanielle]

The Saratoga dual meet is today

[GirlsXC_coach]

The Saratoga dual meet is today

Any results from their dual with Burnt Hills?

[DynamicDanielle]

Saratoga over Burnt Hills & Columbia on the Girls side
*Nice race for Meaghan Gregory she split up Saratoga's top 2
*Saratoga put ?8 in the top 12 but they need to close the gap between 3 and 4-5. Something to work on I guess.

Burnt Hills over Saratoga & Columbia on the Boys side

[NYrunner]

http://tullyrunners.com/XC2006/OddsNEnds.htm

From tullyrunners site:

"The Saratoga Girls opened their 2006 XC season with an impressive performance in defeating Burnt Hills and Columbia in a dual meet at Saratoga Park "(results from the Schenectady Daily Gazette):

Saratoga Springs 21, Burnt Hills 40
Saratoga Springs 17, Columbia 46
(at Saratoga Spa State Park)
Speed Rating
1 Hannah Davidson 11 Saratoga 17:14.0 150.3 150
2 Meaghan Gregory 10 Burnt Hills 17:55.0 136.7 137
3 Kaitlin O'Sullivan 12 Saratoga 18:09.0 132.0 132
4 Cassie Goutos 9 Saratoga 18:19.0 128.7 129
5 Brina Seguine 12 Columbia 18:24.0 127.0 127
6 Sam Roecker 10 Burnt Hills 18:31.0 124.7 125
7 Alysha McElroy 12 Saratoga 18:52.0 117.7 118
8 Liz Ochse 12 Saratoga 18:54.0 117.0 117
9 Abby Ochse 12 Saratoga 18:56.0 116.3 116
10 Katelyn Lowe 11 Saratoga 19:22.0 107.7 108

[BMeylan]

... how exactly do you speed-rate a race where you only know the top-10 finishers / times - given that it's the first XC race of the season for 7 of them? Just curious...
Saratoga Park is used frequently for high school races and has been relatively consistent in speed for a number of years ... The speed ratings for the Saratoga girl's dual meet were approximated by applying the average course correction for Saratoga Park under normal fast conditions ... It assumes the regular Saratoga course was run ... The resulting ratings are then checked by comparison with prior performances of each of the individual runners ... Since the comparison appears reasonable, the approximated ratings are adequate for the purpose. Also, the Saratoga girls have already run several road races.

[NYrunner]

This being the case... how exactly do you speed-rate a race where you only know the top-10 finishers / times - given that it's the first XC race of the season for 7 of them? Just curious...
when a course is run many times you can get the "normal speed ratings" based on normal conditions. Last year's SCC race was in fast(normal) conditions. This dual meet was clearly in fast conditions based on times. If 17:15 is usually 150ish in normal conditions then it is a safe bet that the speed ratings are close.

[NYrunner]

Just for comparison:
Hilton's Mcquaid invite speed ratings (smashed CR for team time) Oct. 1, 2005
Amanda Griggs 12 Hilton (NY) 16:53 153.3
Caroline Schultz 11 Hilton (NY) 17:55 132.7
Allison Sawyer 11 Hilton (NY) 18:03 130.0
Shelby Herman 10 Hilton (NY) 18:16 125.7
Ashley Jones 10 Hilton (NY) 18:38 118.4

Toga's dual meet speed ratings Sept. 12, 2006 (3 weeks earlier)
Hannah Davidson 11 Saratoga 17:14.0 150.3 (-9 sec)
Kaitlin O'Sullivan 12 Saratoga 18:09.0 132.0 (-2 sec)
Cassie Goutos 9 Saratoga 18:19.0 128.7 (-4 sec)
Alysha McElroy 12 Saratoga 18:52.0 117.7 (-24 sec)
Liz Ochse 12 Saratoga 18:54.0 117.0 (-4 sec)
Abby Ochse 12 Saratoga 18:56.0 116.3

Top 5 (based on speed rating) would have been :43 behind Hilton at Mcquaid. That was a huge race for Hilton. They broke the CR for team time by about 80 seconds at a huge invite. Toga was very close, in speed rating, to one of Hilton's best races.

Think of it like this: Toga would have beat the Mcquaid(40 year old meet with 6 varsity races each year) CR team time by close to :40 seconds and that was a dual meet performance.

And they are ranked #5 NE?

[kk.]

It looks like some of the Sarartoga girls have improved a lot since last cross country season and it is only the first duel meet.

Wow.. I just looked at the speed ratings from NTN last year and Saratoga is already very close to the level of the top 3 team performances at NTN. Very little drop off from last year, if any. Unless teams around the nation are a lot stronger than last year, Saratoga seems to be very under rated in the preseason rankings.

[NYrunner]

It looks like some of the Sarartoga girls have improved a lot since last cross country season and it is only the first duel meet.

Wow.. I just looked at the speed ratings from NTN last year and Saratoga is already very close to the level of the top 3 team performances at NTN. Very little drop off from last year, if any. Unless teams around the nation are a lot stronger than last year, Saratoga seems to be very under rated in the preseason rankings.
I would guess they move to #4 NE in next rankings. I expect Radnor to drop to 5th.

[DynamicDanielle]

Just for comparison:
Hilton's Mcquaid invite speed ratings (smashed CR for team time) Oct. 1, 2005
Amanda Griggs 12 Hilton (NY) 16:53 153.3
Caroline Schultz 11 Hilton (NY) 17:55 132.7
Allison Sawyer 11 Hilton (NY) 18:03 130.0
Shelby Herman 10 Hilton (NY) 18:16 125.7
Ashley Jones 10 Hilton (NY) 18:38 118.4

Toga's dual meet speed ratings Sept. 12, 2006 (3 weeks earlier)
Hannah Davidson 11 Saratoga 17:14.0 150.3 (-9 sec)
Kaitlin O'Sullivan 12 Saratoga 18:09.0 132.0 (-2 sec)
Cassie Goutos 9 Saratoga 18:19.0 128.7 (-4 sec)
Alysha McElroy 12 Saratoga 18:52.0 117.7 (-24 sec)
Liz Ochse 12 Saratoga 18:54.0 117.0 (-4 sec)
Abby Ochse 12 Saratoga 18:56.0 116.3

Top 5 (based on speed rating) would have been :43 behind Hilton at Mcquaid. That was a huge race for Hilton. They broke the CR for team time by about 80 seconds at a huge invite. Toga was very close, in speed rating, to one of Hilton's best races.

Think of it like this: Toga would have beat the Mcquaid(40 year old meet with 6 varsity races each year) CR team time by close to :40 seconds and that was a dual meet performance.

And they are ranked #5 NE?

:rolleyes: I think someone is getting a little overzealous here. A significant strength that Hilton had last year (and I suspect will have again this year) was in the strength of their 4th and 5th runners(and perhaps their 6th this year--will they put their 6th in front of Saratoga's 4th?) This is well illustrated in your example when you compare runner to runner Hilton 2005 and Saratoga 2006. The greatest gap (nearly 70% of the total gap) occurs in the comparison of the 4-5 runners on each team. Unfortunately that area is also where the most point discrepancies will occur. To be nationally competitive (note nationally competitive not win NTN) Saratoga needs to close the gap from their 3rd to their 4th. This will be their challenge for the season. Unfortunately this is not a challenge I'm sure they will accomplish.

[sisyphus]

I can't understand the anti Saratoga bandwagon this year. I'm not from New York, and maybe there's something I'm not getting, but I can't imagine them missing NTN this year. The team doesn't seem to know how to fail, at least as far as being a top 3 is concerned. I'll guess they go top 2 at Feds and at worst take a #3 or #4 bid to NTN. The only thing I see keeping them out is some inane comparison to a Cali or NW team for the final wildcard spot.

[NYrunner]

:rolleyes: I think someone is getting a little overzealous here. A significant strength that Hilton had last year (and I suspect will have again this year) was in the strength of their 4th and 5th runners(and perhaps their 6th this year--will they put their 6th in front of Saratoga's 4th?) This is well illustrated in your example when you compare runner to runner Hilton 2005 and Saratoga 2006. The greatest gap (nearly 70% of the total gap) occurs in the comparison of the 4-5 runners on each team. Unfortunately that area is also where the most point discrepancies will occur. To be nationally competitive (note nationally competitive not win NTN) Saratoga needs to close the gap from their 3rd to their 4th. This will be their challenge for the season. Unfortunately this is not a challenge I'm sure they will accomplish.
hey if it were not for speed ratings people might actually believe that Toga is not a national type of team. But those speed ratings would have put them in the 150 pt range at last year's NTN. That would be good for top 5 at Nationals so if the first dual meet of the year results in speed ratings that put them top 5 USA I think they can compete nationally. I don't know if they will beat Hilton but no other team in the NE has, to this date, hit those type of speed ratings.

Saratoga's strength is also their 4-5. Maybe Hilton has a better 4-5 but very few other teams in the country can say they have a better 4-5 then Toga. Plus Toga has a #3 at 130ish at beginning of season which will be one of the top #3's in the country. Toga's 4-5 were very close to Radnor's top girls in speed rating and as you mentioned those toga girls are way behind their top girls and yet they would have been right behind the current NE#4 teams #1 girl.

Just remembered that Roxbury averaged about 129 speed rating when they smashed the Holmdel CR last year.
Kristen Stevens SR Roxbury 18:25 143.7
Jenn Ennis SR Roxbury 18:36 140.0
Lauren Penney SO Roxbury 19:04 130.7
Ashley Cromartie SO Roxbury 19:43 117.7
Sarah Tencza SR Roxbury 19:54 114.0

Toga's average was 129 in their first dual meet. I am pretty sure the rankings people (Bloom/Cuffe) will notice that this Toga team is better then many people thought (not me as I have had them NE#2 and USA #4 in my rankings since last fall).

If the committee is willing to move them up/down b/c of dual meets then expect Toga to quickly rise to top 2 NE. The fact that toga is only running two invites this whole season means that is the only way to gage them.

[DynamicDanielle]

I can't understand the anti Saratoga bandwagon this year. I'm not from New York, and maybe there's something I'm not getting, but I can't imagine them missing NTN this year. The team doesn't seem to know how to fail, at least as far as being a top 3 is concerned. I'll guess they go top 2 at Feds and at worst take a #3 or #4 bid to NTN. The only thing I see keeping them out is some inane comparison to a Cali or NW team for the final wildcard spot.

I don't understand the "anti-Saratoga bandwagon" either and haven't for years. However, I think there is a distinct difference between recognizing that this years team will likely not be as strong as prior years teams and that with the recent emergence of talent and depth in the girls Northeast they may not be in the top 4 in the Northeast and jumping on the "bandwagon". I'd love to see Saratoga's 4-5 move up with their 3rd and see them win Feds (perhaps a somewhat hollow victory if Hilton wins NYSPHSAA the weekend before and then opts out to rest for NTN but you can only race those who come to the line), crack the top 3 at NTN etc. But as a realist I can see that this will be difficult this year. I think there is a big difference between predicting they will not finish in the top 4 in the region and slinging personal attacks (often largely based on rumors/hearsay as they are posted by people who have never spent a day on the Saratoga team, or even spoken to the Kranicks or current girls on the team) against the character of the coaches and their athletes. Clearly I think the former is acceptable and the latter is not. Suspecting a team (or individual) will not win and rooting against them are two very different things. Last year I realized that Saratoga could be very vulnerable to Hilton, yet I was hoping for their success. Going into NTN it actually looked more likely for Saratoga to win as Hilton's top runner was on crutches the day before the race and they did not seem to have the depth to cover for her and be the same team. But as we all recall Amanda Griggs abandoned her crutches and ran an adrenaline charged I'm sure, race to ensure the team victory.

[DynamicDanielle]

hey if it were not for speed ratings people might actually believe that Toga is not a national type of team. But those speed ratings would have put them in the 150 pt range at last year's NTN. That would be good for top 5 at Nationals so if the first dual meet of the year results in speed ratings that put them top 5 USA I think they can compete nationally. I don't know if they will beat Hilton but no other team in the NE has, to this date, hit those type of speed ratings.

Saratoga's strength is also their 4-5. Maybe Hilton has a better 4-5 but very few other teams in the country can say they have a better 4-5 then Toga. Plus Toga has a #3 at 130ish at beginning of season which will be one of the top #3's in the country. Toga's 4-5 were very close to Radnor's top girls in speed rating and as you mentioned those toga girls are way behind their top girls and yet they would have been right behind the current NE#4 teams #1 girl.


If the committee is willing to move them up/down b/c of dual meets then expect Toga to quickly rise to top 2 NE. The fact that toga is only running two invites this whole season means that is the only way to gage them.

Where did you find speedratings for Radnor's race? If their top 2 are in the 115-120 range then yes Saratoga's 4-5 would be with them but somehow I'm doubting that (and if that is the case then Radnor may have difficulty staying in top 10 if they do not improve over the season).

As for another team with better speed ratings on the Saratoga course take a look at how Greenwich performs in their pre-season invite on the same course this afternoon. I could see them being more impressive if they are really as back to their original form and beyond as everyone is claiming.

As far as Saratoga's abbreviated season it was the decision of the coaches and team that it was the right approach for them in 2006. They realize that it may hurt them in the NTN rankings because they will not run head to head with the top teams (and that is suggested as a criteria). However they may run against Colts Neck at Penn State and of course they will see most of the top NY teams somehow through the season. From what I understand Manhattan may still be an option depending on how things shake out.

[kk.]

:rolleyes: I think someone is getting a little overzealous here. A significant strength that Hilton had last year (and I suspect will have again this year) was in the strength of their 4th and 5th runners(and perhaps their 6th this year--will they put their 6th in front of Saratoga's 4th?) This is well illustrated in your example when you compare runner to runner Hilton 2005 and Saratoga 2006. The greatest gap (nearly 70% of the total gap) occurs in the comparison of the 4-5 runners on each team. Unfortunately that area is also where the most point discrepancies will occur. To be nationally competitive (note nationally competitive not win NTN) Saratoga needs to close the gap from their 3rd to their 4th. This will be their challenge for the season. Unfortunately this is not a challenge I'm sure they will accomplish.

To be nationally competitive they need to close the gap between their 3rd and 4th?!? I think you need to look at more teams than just the winner of NTN. Check out this speed rating comparison..

A B C
147 161 150
130 135 132
130 119 129
122 118 118
120 109 117

How would you rank these teams in a national race? I think I would go A C B and the gap between A C isn't that big.

A is Naperville at NTN (4th place), B is Yankton at NTN (5th place), and C is of course Saratoga in duel meet in early September.

Notice how the 5th place team at NTN had a big gap between 2-3 and had a much weaker 5th than Saratoga. Now can you please explain to me how suddenly performance that is roughly around top 5 at NTN last year would mean that this year that team would need to close the gap to even be nationally competitive.. which would imply probably trying to get into the top 15 or even just 25.

[78Champ]

Where did you find speedratings for Radnor's race?

He made them up.

JW

[NYrunner]

He made them up.

JW
want to bet on that? I'll bet a million dollars that their top 4 girls were between 113-120.

[xzique]

If there's one thing I learned in since about 1988 is to never, eeeeever count out the Saratoga's girls team. There's been more than one time when people thought they were in for a down year and then at the end of the year there they were in the top 3 in the nation. I think when it comes down to it, I don't need speed rating and comparing times when it comes to Saratoga. I just need to look at their history to know that they'll be one of the top teams in the nation.

[78Champ]

want to bet on that? I'll bet a million dollars that their top 4 girls were between 113-120.

Doesn't mean you didn't make it up. Could be a lucky guess. ;)

JW

[NYrunner]

Doesn't mean you didn't make it up. Could be a lucky guess. ;)

JW
I actually guessed they would be 117-123 range for their top 4. Even if I was right and it was 117-123 that would still put them well behind Toga. I would bet that their speed ratings were in the 113-120 range though;)

[got miles?]

Mr. Meylan's speed ratings for the Saratoga dual meet might even be a little low because the entire path up to the doghouse and the 2 mile mark was changed from hardpack to loose rocks....it's definitely worth a few seconds....as well as taking away from the most beautiful part of the course...

definitely a great start for Saratoga, especially without Bri Bellon listed...

[NYrunner]

http://www.dyestat.com/3us/6xc/ntn/1ne/rank-week1.htm

not sure about some things on the first rankings in season....

Holy Names moves to #8 with their win at Shaker while Colonie drops to #10. Greenwich is still not ranked so I will assume their race yesterday was not counted.

Speed ratings for 3 sec. II teams so far:
Shaker invite for Holy Names and Colonie and Greenwich running as team at SSP:
HN-120-113-100-99-97
C--111-107-105-92-88
G--115-114-111-111-109

With most of their team taking it easy in the race Greenwich still has much better team speed ratings then two teams in their section that are ranked top 10 NE....about 3 minutes a head of Colonie. If the NE people look at the Speed ratings at all then they must not have included Greenwich's performance.(which is understandable since it was posted same day)

I would predict Greenwich's speed ratings will look like this in their first all-out performance:
150s
130s
125
120
115

Saratoga averaged 129 speed rating in a dual meet while the #8 NE team averaged 106 in an invite. That is 23 pts per girl or 69 seconds per girl or 5:45 total time more. That is a pretty big gap from #4 to #8....gap between Toga and NE #10 is about 7:15 in team time or about 90 seconds per girl.

Are there no other teams closer to Toga then 5:45?

[scott c]

Okay, it's one thing to screw up and put Southern in the girls Top 10 off an assumption back in August, but that was two weeks ago and they are still in the top 10.

This process is delving into farcical territory. Granted, it will all come out in the wash, but this isn't the same as a screwed up newspaper (or website) ranking. This is a process that rewards teams with a pretty awesome experience, if the people in charge of that decision can't do the research necessary, there is a serious problem.

Southern lost a freaking dual meet this week. Having spoken with the coach, I can say that he is embarrassed to be put into the top ten in the entire Northeast because of one runner. Jill Smith does not run cross country, and even if she did, Southern would be a stretch for the Northeast Top 10 at this point.

The coach and I both assumed the mistake would be corrected the second time around.

We were wrong.

[sisyphus]

This process is delving into farcical territory. .

Actually it delved there a couple years ago. Now it's growing roots.

[polyxc]

I am hoping Tom Cuffe will be a big improvement. It is still early.

[NYrunner]

I am hoping Tom Cuffe will be a big improvement. It is still early.
I wonder how much "power" the editor has or are they just the person that does the write-ups?

[NYrunner]

Mackenzie Carter FM 19:56 127.3
Jessica Hauser FM 20:41 112.3
Meaghan Anklin FM 20:48 110.0
Katie Caputo FM 20:55 107.7
Molly Malone FM 20:59 106.3

solid speed ratings for the FM girls. better then a couple teams ranked in NE.

Wildcat invite (my home section, section V's champ course...very hard and very muddy)
Hilton 32
HFL 54

[spartanxc]

Guilderland Invy

Burnt Hills 53
Colonie 83

Burnt Hills did this without Pezullo who ran frosh.

[NYrunner]

http://www.mwcsd.org/files/42602/2006%20Wildcat%20Invitational%20Results.xls

many races (including jv/modified) so course was really torn up by the time the big schools ran which always happens on wet courses since the big schools run later all the time.




Burnt Hills vs Colonie
http://www.section2harrier.com/xc06guilderlandinvy.htm

[NYrunner]

www.tullyrunners.com has speed ratings for Wildcat invite up

people must keep in mind that this course is not normal and most kids run no where near their potential. Just look at how low the speed ratings were at the 2003 state meet hosted on same course:

http://tullyrunners.com/Xc2003/NYStatesGirls.htm#Girls%20Class%20A

Very low speed ratings and slow times. This course kills many runners. There are tons of girls/guys in the race that ran no where near their speed ratings from last year. Basically only Liz Deir hit a solid speed rating compared to last year. When the course is in bad condition it really messes things up. just look at the girls compared to last year: several new girls that I could not find Speed ratings for from last year but the difference is huge. 20 pts =1 full minute

1 LIZ DEIR HFL 18:49.0 149.7 150
2 ALLISON SAWYER HILTON 19:22.0 138.7 139
3 CAROLINE SCHULTZ HILTON 20:00.0 126.0 126(149 at FLNE)
4 SHELBY HERMAN HILTON 20:13.0 121.7 122 (130 at NTN)
5 MEG VANHOUTEN HFL 20:57.0 107.0 107
6 KATE CUFARI SUTHERLAND 21:08.0 103.3 103(120 at state)
7 BRIANNA DEMING THOMAS 21:20.0 99.3 99(119 at county meet)
8 JESSIE BRUNETT HFL 21:24.0 98.0 98
9 JEANNIE SAUTER CANANDAIGUA 21:25.0 97.7 98(133 speed rating at State)
10 SARAH RITCHIE HILTON 21:27.0 97.0 97
11 JULIE DAHIKEMPER MERCY 21:29.0 96.3 96
12 FLORENCE WILLIAMS SUTHERLAND 21:38.0 93.3 93(113 at county meet)
13 ASHLEY JONES HILTON 21:43.0 91.7 92(127 at state)
14 JODI ROBINSON RUSH-HENRIETTA 21:46.0 90.7 91
15 LINDSAY CROTTI HILTON 21:52.0 88.7 89
16 ASHLEY COCUZZI WEBSTER SCHROEDER 21:55.0 87.7 88(99 at county meet)
17 MINDY SAWNOR ATHENA 22:02.0 85.3 85(107 at county meet)
18 KAYCEE RATCLIFFE PENFIELD 22:05.0 84.3 84
19 BECKY GRAVENSTEDE HFL 22:06.0 84.0 84
20 JANINE SEBER VICTOR 22:06.0 84.0 84(108 at state)
23 JENNA BAUER SPENCERPORT 22:36 74.0 74(121 at state)

Basically every girl on the list (besides Deir) was no where near their speed ratings from last year. This course eats people up when it is muddy.

I could post similar stuff for the boys too.

[kk.]

The speed ratings probably get screwed up when the race is that muddy and spread out.

[BMeylan]

Basically every girl on the list (besides Deir) was no where near their speed ratings from last year. This course eats people up when it is muddy

Comparing an early season rating to last year's best rating can be incredibly misleading! Many of the girls actually had very good comparative ratings ... here is a partial list with this year's Wildcat Invite rating and last year's early season ratings (last year's is in parentheses):

1 LIZ DEIR HFL - 150 - (135-136)
2 ALLISON SAWYER HILTON - 139 - (125-130)
3 CAROLINE SCHULTZ HILTON - 126.0 - (127)
4 SHELBY HERMAN HILTON - 122 - (119-123)
5 MEG VANHOUTEN HFL - 107 - (89-100)
6 KATE CUFARI SUTHERLAND - 103 - (106)
7 BRIANNA DEMING THOMAS - 99 - (106)
11 JULIE DAHLKEMPER MERCY - 96 - (96-100)
16 ASHLEY COCUZZI WEBSTER SCHROEDER - 88 - (91)
17 MINDY SAWNOR ATHENA - 85 - (82)

For three of the top five runners (Deir, Sawyer, VanHouten), it was their best early season rating ever by a lot ... Herman and Schultz were about the same as last year ... Yes, some of the girls did not have a great race, but for many it was their first race of the season (and tough muddy conditions can make it look worse).

[DynamicDanielle]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something......I thought that speed ratings worked off of calculating deviance from the mean (working on the assumption that the average runners across all races are equal--an assumption I'm not sure always holds). If that is the case then the poor conditions should be factored into that making speed ratings mores comparable than comparing times. Obviously Liz Deir ran very well and should be a serious contender for Footlocker Regionals.

[spartanxc]

Lots of movement in the rankings this week upcoming I think. 3 top teams have not run yet (Bronxville, Radnor and Bromfield) that I know of yet. Some of this is my gut feeling and some is speed rating based. I also have a hard time ranking teams who have injured runners. If they miss a meet they should keep their ranking, but more than that they should get bumped and earn it back when the runner comes back. Let me know what you think

1 - Hilton - Great job at B/ville
2 - Toga - Nice run at Spiked Shoe with O'sullivan having an off day
3 - Greenwich - all of the questions (mine included) have been answered
4 - Bronxville
5 - Radnor
6 - Bromfield
7 - Burnt Hills - solid win at Manchester speed rating avg. 115
8 - Colts Neck - With Bri, I would move them up 1 or 2 spots, but she has missed two meets
9 - FM - speed rating of 112 avg last weekend
10 - East Aurora - speed rating of 110 this weekend

Thougts? Who did I miss?

[CoachK]

Thougts? Who did I miss?
North Kingstown, RI ?
5th in Race of Champions at Great American

[NYrunner]

Lots of movement in the rankings this week upcoming I think. 3 top teams have not run yet (Bronxville, Radnor and Bromfield) that I know of yet. Some of this is my gut feeling and some is speed rating based. I also have a hard time ranking teams who have injured runners. If they miss a meet they should keep their ranking, but more than that they should get bumped and earn it back when the runner comes back. Let me know what you think

1 - Hilton - Great job at B/ville
2 - Toga - Nice run at Spiked Shoe with O'sullivan having an off day
3 - Greenwich - all of the questions (mine included) have been answered
4 - Bronxville
5 - Radnor
6 - Bromfield
7 - Burnt Hills - solid win at Manchester speed rating avg. 115
8 - Colts Neck - With Bri, I would move them up 1 or 2 spots, but she has missed two meets
9 - FM - speed rating of 112 avg last weekend
10 - East Aurora - speed rating of 110 this weekend

Thougts? Who did I miss?
Radnor has run several invites and has a solid pack but no front runners (compared to all the other top NE teams).

This is pretty much what I would have for my top 10....I think Colts Neck could be up at 6 but that is about all I would change. I don't know if Lyman Memorial has run though and they should be pretty good....

This was Mr. Meylan's pre-season top 10:
1 Hilton
2 Saratoga
3 Radnor
4 Bronxville
5 Colts Neck
5 Greenwich
7 Bromfield
7 Fayetteville-Manlius
9 Suffern
9 East Aurora

Mine was(or just find a post by 78champ):
Hilton
Toga
CN
Bronxville
Greenwich
Radnor
Bromfield
Lyman Memorial
Burnt hills
Chambersburg
We did pretty well.

[spartanxc]

Lots of movement in the rankings this week upcoming I think. 2 top teams have not run yet (Bronxville, and Bromfield) that I know of yet. Some of this is my gut feeling and some is speed rating based. I also have a hard time ranking teams who have injured runners. If they miss a meet they should keep their ranking, but more than that they should get bumped and earn it back when the runner comes back. Let me know what you think

1 - Hilton - Great job at B/ville
2 - Toga - Nice run at Spiked Shoe with O'sullivan having an off day
3 - Greenwich - all of the questions (mine included) have been answered
4 - Bronxville
5 - Radnor
6 - Bromfield
7 - Burnt Hills - solid win at Manchester speed rating avg. 115
8 - FM - speed rating of 112 avg last weekend
9 - East Aurora - speed rating of 110 this weekend
10 - ?

Thougts? Who did I miss? I removed Colts Neck after seeing their speed ratings. Even with Bri you can't have your 3-5 under 100 at an invy. CoachK, we'll see about North Kingstown when the speed ratings come out for GA.

[DynamicDanielle]

North Kingstown Speed Ratings:
105
97
94
92
75

If Jackucewicz returns to Colts Neck and is up with her teammate then you may have trouble keeping them out of the NE top 10.

Has Bromfield raced yet?

[spartanxc]

1 - Hilton - Great job at B/ville
2 - Toga - Nice run at Spiked Shoe with O'sullivan having an off day
3 - Greenwich - all of the questions (mine included) have been answered
4 - Bronxville
5 - Radnor
6 - Bromfield
7 - Burnt Hills - solid win at Manchester speed rating avg. 115
8 - FM - speed rating of 112 avg last weekend
9 - East Aurora - speed rating of 110 this weekend
10 - Colts Neck (I agree with DynamicDanielle that if Bri runs they should stay in, but without her...)

Danielle - I don't believe Bromfield has run yet. What do you think of this list?

[DynamicDanielle]

It will be interesting to see how Bronxville (who didn't appear that impressive this weekend) matches up with Colts Neck. Speedratings for Baldwinsville would also be helpful I'm not sure Greenwich shouldn't overtake Saratoga too.

[CoachK]

North Kingstown Speed Ratings:
105
97
94
92
75
If I'm reading this correctly, is this saying that Great American was extremely weak this year? (I know it was weak but this seems to indicate even more than I thought.)

Also, not that it changes the race, but I think NK was missing one of their top 3-4 runners at Great American, which would be important as that 75 rating would become the 6th runner.

[NYrunner]

If I'm reading this correctly, is this saying that Great American was extremely weak this year? (I know it was weak but this seems to indicate even more than I thought.)

Also, not that it changes the race, but I think NK was missing one of their top 3-4 runners at Great American, which would be important as that 75 rating would become the 6th runner.
I didn't see speed ratings for the girls Great American race?

[polyxc]

7 - Burnt Hills - solid win at Manchester speed rating avg. 115

QFT

Burnt Hills was very impressive at Manchester!

[NYrunner]

Girls NE top 10 is starting to look like NYS top 10.....

[kk.]

We still have Radnor and Bromfield in there to stop NY.. I guess we'll have to wait til Manhattan to kick them out. ;)

[NYrunner]

We still have Radnor and Bromfield in there to stop NY.. I guess we'll have to wait til Manhattan to kick them out. ;)
Burnt Hills girls kicked some butt at Manchester and that had some of the top New England teams I believe.

Burnt Hills is probably the 5th best team in NYS and I would put Holy Names, FM and East Aurora right behind them if not as good.

Non-NYS teams:

Colts Neck will improve and I would expect they are training through the season with their aim set on Manhattan and then a big Holmdel time at MOC. They improved a lot the last few weeks last fall so I am thinking they will do the same this year(wonder if we should keep our eye on Roxbury with their new runner looking very good).

Radnor will be at Warwick this week so we will see how their pack measures up to Hilton and Greenwich.

Does anyone know if Lyman Memorial has run anything yet?

[polyxc]

Does anyone know if Lyman Memorial has run anything yet?
They ran at the Windham Invitational. Unfortunately, the course was not well marked, and all the leaders took the wrong course. :(

Lyman Memorial won the race, but the times are misleading.

[NYrunner]

They ran at the Windham Invitational. Unfortunately, the course was not well marked, and all the leaders took the wrong course. :(

Lyman Memorial won the race, but the times are misleading.
when is their next big race?

[xcdiva1784]

when is their next big race?

They have Greater Hartford on Saturday. The Glastonbury girls are also running that meet. After that it should be Wickham Invitational which has most of CT running and several out of state schools.

[correr de milla del norte]

[QUOTE=DynamicDanielle]North Kingstown Speed Ratings:
105
97
94
92
75
QUOTE]

NK didnt run well at GA. That was the first race of teh season for crawford and was having some shin trouble. Erin Brennan ended up in the med tent for 3 hours after the race and they also raced without Siobhan Breagy (2:11 800, 4:45 1500..) She dominated the race before they went to GA but was scheduled to make an official visit that day.

As a teamate of theirs I would say it was very sub par meet. If it wasnt for the 5th place finish it would show just how incomplete they ran. Wait until the brown invite.....;)

[Joe Lanzalotto]

Colts Neck will improve and I would expect they are training through the season with their aim set on Manhattan and then a big Holmdel time at MOC. They improved a lot the last few weeks last fall so I am thinking they will do the same this year(wonder if we should keep our eye on Roxbury with their new runner looking very good).

You'll see CN this Friday at their own invitational against Bronxville, Pope John, Red Bank Catholic, Padua (DE) and Assumption (KY). Bri is running, but I don't know how race ready she yet.

BTW, the boys side has a pretty strong field too in addition to Forys and CN.

http://www.coltsnecktrack.com/nbjsc_pre.htm

Lots of people here in New Jersey have taken Roxbury lightly. That would be a mistake.

[NYrunner]

Assuming 17:29 was a 162 speed rating (which would put the winner right behind Marie Lawrence at last year's Footlocker race) that would put Episcopal's girls at:
14 Katie Traylor 08 Episcopal HS, Jacks 19:37.4 119
19 Laura Steel 09 Episcopal HS, Jacks 19:45.6 116
29 Hadley Ferguson 07 Episcopal HS, Jacks 20:06.9 109
41 Maggie Traylor 09 Episcopal HS, Jacks 20:29.6 101
62 Leslie Blackshear 08 Episcopal HS, Jacks 20:58.9 91

That would be near the bottom of the NE top 10 and maybe not even top 10.

Unranked Greenwich's ratings from Baldwinsville(2nd to Hilton)
145-124-112-112-111
SE #2 Episcopal(this performance won the GA that featured almost all the SE ranked teams)
119-116-109-101-91

Greenwich looks like about :40 seconds per girl faster then one of the top SE teams. People might claim Episcopal can run faster but the same could be said about Greenwich. Caitlin Lane has hit near 160 speed ratings and Emily Fung has hit 130s many times.

[BMeylan]

Assuming 17:29 was a 162 speed rating (which would put the winner right behind Marie Lawrence at last year's Footlocker race) ...

The girl's race at Great American is difficult to rate (lack of NE girls teams of known ability, change of venue and quality from North Carolina, hot humid weather) ... BUT Kathy Kroeger's 17:29 was sensational to say the least! ... My best guess (based on typical boy's correlation with girl's for this type of race and limited data for a few individual girls) puts Kathy Kroeger's rating at 166-168 minimum (similar to Aislinn Ryan in 2004 at Great American).

[NYrunner]

The girl's race at Great American is difficult to rate (lack of NE girls teams of known ability, change of venue and quality from North Carolina, hot humid weather) ... BUT Kathy Kroeger's 17:29 was sensational to say the least! ... My best guess (based on typical boy's correlation with girl's for this type of race and limited data for a few individual girls) puts Kathy Kroeger's rating at 166-168 minimum (similar to Aislinn Ryan in 2004 at Great American).
Thanks Bill!

So if we add about 5 pts(winner at 167) that would be around:
124-121-114-106-96
NE #9 Burnt Hills at Manchester
139-127-112-103-97

This shows a close race with Burnt Hills coming out on top. The fact that there are two teams in sec. II NYS that are way better then Burnt Hills is scary....There are about 6 teams in the range of BH just in NYS(FM, Bayshore, Holy Names, Burnt Hills, Shen, East Aurora and maybe some others) not to mention Hilton, Toga, Greenwich and Bronxville. Throw in Bromfield, Radnor, CN and maybe some other top NJ teams and we will see how the SE teams measure up to our NE girls on Oct. 14th.

Based on the SE wrap up this week the top SE teams are coming to Manhattan.
They are ranked:
ER-SE#1, USA#5
Midlothian-SE#2, USA#11
Episcopal-SE#3, USA#20
Tatnul-SE#4, USA#23

SE #4 Tatnul was missing #1 girl(assuming winner at 167):
13 Juliet Bottorff 10 Tatnall School, Wil 19:29.7 127
31 Jenna McCartan 07 Tatnall School, Wil 20:18.1 111
50 Joanie Castagno 07 Tatnall School, Wil 20:46.7 102
71 Annie Castagno 07 Tatnall School, Wil 21:08.6 95
Even with their top girl running :30 seconds a head of their #2 that would put them behind Burnt Hills or about even.

Burnt Hills is very good but well behind the top NE teams(and unranked nationally) but they are clearly in the same range as the top SE teams (excluding ER).

I just wanted to point this out to show how strong the NE is and how under-rated many of the teams are.

[kk.]

Wow.. didn't realize the SE had such good teams this year.. it'll be interesting to see how they do against the NE

[spartanxc]

NYrunner and others,

Suppose we put Burnt Hills head to head on speed ratings against Episcopal and Tatnul, would it be fair to say that they are close/even with Episcopal and ahead of Tatnul by a little bit? There has been a fair amount of discussion that the speed ratings from Manchester,where Burnt Hills ran last weekend, were a little low.

Could Burnt Hills sneak into the top 25?

Should they?

When do the rankings come out?

[NYrunner]

NYrunner and others,

Suppose we put Burnt Hills head to head on speed ratings against Episcopal and Tatnul, would it be fair to say that they are close/even with Episcopal and ahead of Tatnul by a little bit? There has been a fair amount of discussion that the speed ratings from Manchester,where Burnt Hills ran last weekend, were a little low.

Could Burnt Hills sneak into the top 25?

Should they?

When do the rankings come out?
Harrier rankings likely won't come out until after Manhattan. So that gives teams about 3 weeks to get ready for a race that could see about 10 Nationally ranked teams in it. Perfect place for any non ranked team to knock off some ranked teams. Plus, Manhattan has shown to be a very important tool in Mr. Bloom's mid-October Harrier rankings.

USA#1,5,8,11,14,16,20,23 will be there from what I hear plus Bronxville(preseason #13), Bromfield (preseason #24) and Greenwich (should be ranked top 10).

Last year Hilton and Toga went in as the clear favorites to go 1-2 but this year there will be so much more depth that it is up for grabs. Manhattan will be the race of the year for girls XC....Maybe even better then NTN since it has so many great teams on a shorter course, plus many elite individuals that will effect the scoring.

[DynamicDanielle]

NYrunner and others,

Suppose we put Burnt Hills head to head on speed ratings against Episcopal and Tatnul, would it be fair to say that they are close/even with Episcopal and ahead of Tatnul by a little bit? There has been a fair amount of discussion that the speed ratings from Manchester,where Burnt Hills ran last weekend, were a little low.

Could Burnt Hills sneak into the top 25?

Should they?

When do the rankings come out?

I'm not sure it should work this way, but I'm guessing their dual meet record may trip them up. It's not really fair but probably they should have planned to race the teams that were close to them in the league. It wouldn't surprise me to see them beat the same team at suburbans or in the sectionals merge but the fact that in their only head to head competition they lost may be a problem.

[spartanxc]

Danielle,

Which team are you talking about with Burnt Hills losing to head to head? Do you think they look at dual meet results for National rankings? Burnt Hills is a young team and often does not run freshman on varsity in dual meets. That would be a bummer if that hurt them in rankings.

[NYrunner]

I noticed that Roxbury ran 20:15 average on a 5k...the team ranked tied for 2nd in NJ ran 20:41 ave. at same invite in different race. Was Monsignor Donavan missing any girls? Roxbury has a very good top 3 so we'll have to keep an eye on their 4-5....

[NYrunner]

Bronxville will be going head-to-head with Colts neck today....hopefully someone will post results when they are up? Both teams have been missing top girls so far so we'll see if either team is complete....

[NYrunner]

Hilton
Greenwich
Radnor
Holy Names
Bayshore
Shen
Queensbury

[runfast]

Radnor beat Hilton today by 17 points....

Greenwich won their race.

[runfast]

could be wrong just saw this on other thread....
Org. results were missing a Hilton runner. Hilton won. (From what I have been told.)



we will have to wait and see

[kk.]

Colonie seems to just keep moving back in the NE and NY. Today CNS (NY AA #6) beat Colonie pretty easily 26-41.. but the score makes it look closer.. CNS's #5 runner was less than 7 seconds behind Colonie's #2.

[NYrunner]

Radnor beat Hilton today by 17 points....

Greenwich won their race.
I hear Hilton won by like 10-12?

[runningforthegold]

Hilton did win. The original score reported was incorrect

[NYrunner]

FM girls, like their boys, went out way too hard in my opinion and most of their girls died pretty bad. With 1.25 miles to go they had like 7 in top 14 and no where near that by the end....If they work on evening out their pace I could see some big improvements from their boys and girls....

[psaltejohn]

http://www.finishright.com/XC/06/GIRLS.txt (Warwick Girls race results)

There is a mistake in the Girls 2 race results. They list Hilton's #3 as an 18:08 which repeats the time of the girl who finished before her. To get the correct times, erase her 8:08 and move every time up one (Hilton #3 = 18:16, Radnor #1 = 18:39, Radnor 2 & 3 ~ 18:46 - they finished together, etc.).

This error reflects the error made in the chute by the scorers who simply did not score Hilton's #3 in the initial tally and awarded the race to Radnor. The Radnor girls celebrated and were congratulated by the Hilton coach and team - and then the results were posted and the girls noticed Shelby wasn't listed. Switching out a seventh place finish for a thirty-third meant Hilton jumped from a distant second to a first place finish by nine points.

When the correction was announced minutes later, the Radnor girls were disappointed (duh) but congratulated their friends from Hilton. The teams know each other well because of the week they spent together at the Lake Placid Olympic Training Center this summer. Shannon Holm of Radnor started a Party Line made up of Hilton and Radnor girls which soon grew to more than 50 runners, all dancing through the team tents, singing and laughing. They hope to dance again in Portland.

Film at 11.

[breakthebarrier]

Carmel girls had a nice race only lost to warwick by a point on a tie breaker after the scoring incident occured, but they beat greenwich

[runningforthegold]

You might be looking at the emerging new # 1 gilrs team. Check out the speed ratings from Roosevelt's race yesterday.

Girls Invitational:
1 Walker, Marika Eleanor Roosevelt 18:25.33 140.6 141
2 Bottorff, Juliet Tatnall 18:28.70 139.4 139
3 Rivers, Teshika Eleanor Roosevelt 18:34.93 137.4 137
6 Lockhart, Dominiqu Eleanor Roosevelt 19:01.39 128.5 129
16 Redman, Jennifer Eleanor Roosevelt 19:37.11 116.6 117
18 Arrington, Tyreka Eleanor Roosevelt 19:42.61 114.8 115
45 View, Brittany Eleanor Roosevelt 20:50.79 92.1 92

[runningforthegold]

Carmel girls had a nice race only lost to warwick by a point on a tie breaker after the scoring incident occured, but they beat greenwich


Carmel did beat them but remember that Ashley Fung usually their # 4 finished 7th for them yesterday. Don't expect that to occur again

[kk.]

ER: 141, 137, 129, 117, 115
Hilton: 140, 138, 136, 113, 106
Saratoga: 154, 128, 124, 117, 117
Radnor: 134, 126, 123, 119, 107


Eleanor Roosevelt fits in right with the top NE teams They probably have a slight edge but the teams are all pretty close.

[DynamicDanielle]

You might be looking at the emerging new # 1 gilrs team. Check out the speed ratings from Roosevelt's race yesterday.

Girls Invitational:
1 Walker, Marika Eleanor Roosevelt 18:25.33 140.6 141
2 Bottorff, Juliet Tatnall 18:28.70 139.4 139
3 Rivers, Teshika Eleanor Roosevelt 18:34.93 137.4 137
6 Lockhart, Dominiqu Eleanor Roosevelt 19:01.39 128.5 129
16 Redman, Jennifer Eleanor Roosevelt 19:37.11 116.6 117
18 Arrington, Tyreka Eleanor Roosevelt 19:42.61 114.8 115
45 View, Brittany Eleanor Roosevelt 20:50.79 92.1 92

Given the speedratings they do look impressive. The Morgantown girls must have had off races at Penn State because when I initially looked at the results I thought ER and Saratoga compared pretty favorably comparing both teams to Morgantown. However, given the speedratings I'd give a strong edge to ER. Saratoga really needs someone (or a few someones) to close the gap to their very nice front runner. The problem is that some teams (ie Hilton, ER there are others I'm sure) will put three in 10-15 seconds in front of Saratoga's second and then they have a gap back to their third. They have a nice 4-7 pack but they really need someone to be within a minute of Davidson which we haven't seen yet.

[polyxc]

http://www.coolrunning.com/results/06/ma/Sep30_Boston_1_set6.shtml

Speed Ratings - my calculation. Mr. Meylan, would you care to do your own calculation?

1 Emily Jones Bromfield 18:26 135
4 Eliza Ives Bromfield 19:05 120
5 Liz Lee Bromfield 19:31 112
11 Lisa Reedich Bromfield 19:50 105
24 Kat Long Bromfield 20:19 96




1 Emily Jones Bromfield 18:26 1
2 Jenna Davidner Oliver Ames 18:48 2
3 Emily Landis Hamilton Wenham 18:53 3
4 Eliza Ives Bromfield 19:05 4
5 Liz Lee Bromfield 19:31 5
6 Alyse Roco Canton 19:35 6
7 Meg Looney Bishop Feehan 19:38 7
8 Jessica Pickett Oliver Ames 19:40 8
9 Rebecca Kimball Weston 19:45
10 Julie Binney Oliver Ames 19:46 9
11 Lisa Reedich Bromfield 19:50 10
24 Kat Long Bromfield 20:19 22
35 Ellen Huber Bromfield 20:43 30
48 Margaret Cardenas Bromfield 21:04 42


1 Bromfield 42 1 4 5 10 22 30 42
Average: 19:26.20
2 Oliver Ames 87 2 8 9 28 40 68 84
Average: 19:58.20
3 Bishop Feehan 121 7 19 21 29 45 46 109
Average: 20:23.80
4 Hamilton Wenham 143 3 12 26 33 69 77 80
Average: 20:26.40
5 Hopkinton 177 13 15 37 52 60 71 93
Average: 20:50.60
6 Marian 243 20 43 56 58 66 100 116
Average: 21:20.20
7 Winchester 251 14 36 39 67 95
Average: 21:17.00
8 Seekonk 271 32 47 50 59 83 139 140
Average: 21:29.20
9 Newburyport 275 31 38 61 70 75 112 115
Average: 21:31.40
10 Somerset 280 41 44 49 55 91 158 213
Average: 21:32.20
11 Rockland 296 17 18 65 97 99 186
Average: 21:32.20
12 Holliston 397 23 51 63 96 164 203 207
Average: 22:07.80

...

[polyxc]

Given the speedratings they do look impressive. The Morgantown girls must have had off races at Penn State because when I initially looked at the results I thought ER and Saratoga compared pretty favorably comparing both teams to Morgantown. However, given the speedratings I'd give a strong edge to ER. Saratoga really needs someone (or a few someones) to close the gap to their very nice front runner. The problem is that some teams (ie Hilton, ER there are others I'm sure) will put three in 10-15 seconds in front of Saratoga's second and then they have a gap back to their third. They have a nice 4-7 pack but they really need someone to be within a minute of Davidson which we haven't seen yet.
That must be a really slow course if a 18:25 gets a 141 speed rating.

[finishstrong]

Carmel did beat them but remember that Ashley Fung usually their # 4 finished 7th for them yesterday. Don't expect that to occur again


while that may be true, ranks are based on the results, not just the assumed position of a runner finishing.

[runningforthegold]

while that may be true, ranks are based on the results, not just the assumed position of a runner finishing.

I agree with you . I was just pointing that out.

I also strongly feel that when you have races with 200 runners in it, that is enough. To creat a merge of three races aggregating 600 runners in not at all replicating anything we will ever see, because there are no races that large. It is important when you have 3 or 4 races with small numbers like 75 - 80.

[OldArgScot]

Carmel did beat them but remember that Ashley Fung usually their # 4 finished 7th for them yesterday. Don't expect that to occur again

(not to minimize the performances of Radnor, Carmel or Warwick - which were all great) I think that some of the Greenwich girls may have been a little off, but regardless, I did also notice that in the Div I JV race, Greenwich 8th-grader Cady Kuzmich won with a 19:53.1, which put her as overall 4th fastest time for the team, just ahead of Chelsea Borbolla. Regardless of how she finished, it definitely shows that they have some depth and runners who can step up if, God forbid, any injuries strike their varsity runners. This is just FYI stuff, and, again, I don't mean to take anything away from the other teams that did well here - which shows the fantastic depth and strength of the NE girls competition.

[polyxc]

1 Emily Jones Bromfield 18:26 137.3 137
4 Eliza Ives Bromfield 19:05 124.3 124
5 Liz Lee Bromfield 19:31 115.7 116
11 Lisa Reedich Bromfield 19:50 109.3 109
24 Kat Long Bromfield 20:19 99.7 100
35 Ellen Huber Bromfield 20:43 91.7 92
48 Margaret Cardenas Bromfield 21:04 84.7 85

Thanks Mr. Meylan!

[NYrunner]

Based off of the last two weekends:

Top 10+
Hilton
Toga
Radnor
Greenwich
Bromfield
Colts Neck (with Bri)
FM
Burnt Hills
East Aurora
Warwick Valley
Carmel
Queensbury
Shenendehowa


4-13 are very close.
Several NYS girls teams had by far their best performances at the Warwick Valley invite.

[polyxc]

Assuming 17:29 was a 162 speed rating (which would put the winner right behind Marie Lawrence at last year's Footlocker race) that would put Episcopal's girls at:
14 Katie Traylor 08 Episcopal HS, Jacks 19:37.4 119
19 Laura Steel 09 Episcopal HS, Jacks 19:45.6 116
29 Hadley Ferguson 07 Episcopal HS, Jacks 20:06.9 109
41 Maggie Traylor 09 Episcopal HS, Jacks 20:29.6 101
62 Leslie Blackshear 08 Episcopal HS, Jacks 20:58.9 91
...

NYrunner, where did you find the Great American Speed Ratings?

[polyxc]

Based off of the last two weekends:

Top 10+
Hilton
Toga
Radnor
Greenwich
Bromfield
Colts Neck (with Bri)
FM
Burnt Hills
East Aurora
Warwick Valley
Carmel
Queensbury
Shenendehowa


4-13 are very close.
Several NYS girls teams had by far their best performances at the Warwick Valley invite.

I think Hanover NH should be on that list, near the bottom. They weren't that far behind Burnt Hills at the Manchester Invitational.

[OldArgScot]

If you go off of Bill Meylan's latest individual rankings (10/3) based on speed ratings, (http://www.tullyrunners.com/RankStateGirls.htm)
Saratoga is looking awfully tough - especially if you look at No's 4-7 for Saratoga compared with Hilton's. Those Saratoga girls are likely to place well for scoring purposes at Eastern States.

[polyxc]

that's a very good point, OldArgScot,

[Joe Lanzalotto]

Based off of the last two weekends:

Top 10+
Hilton
Toga
Radnor
Greenwich
Bromfield
Colts Neck (with Bri)
FM
Burnt Hills
East Aurora
Warwick Valley
Carmel
Queensbury
Shenendehowa


4-13 are very close.
Several NYS girls teams had by far their best performances at the Warwick Valley invite.

How do you get Colt's Neck in 6th only with Bri after they beat a good Pope John team, Assumption and then #5 Bronxville without Bri?

[spartanxc]

I believe it is too far into the season to rank a team in the top 10 based on someone who has yet to run. A team's potential is what gets them ranked in the preseason and their performance is what gets them ranked during the season. This list looks pretty good otherwise.

Top 10+
Hilton
Toga
Radnor
Greenwich
Bromfield
FM
Burnt Hills
East Aurora
Warwick Valley
Carmel
Queensbury
Shenendehowa

[Joe Lanzalotto]

Note that Bronxville appears nowhere on that list. They were way over-rated at #5.

That is not my point. The issue is that their ranking should not be dependent on one runner who has not competed yet being there (as Spartan says). I think they belong in the top ten without Bri. I mean, how do they go from being #7, win against anyone, then fall out of the top ten (again, as Spartan says with his top ten listing).

[spartanxc]

Joe,

My rankings are based off of head to head with a look at speed ratings thrown in there. Colts Neck, I believe averaged around a 112 speed rating. That is a good average, but their #1 really helps the average alot. They may be a team in the #12-15 NE range at this point. If Bri comes back strong, they will definetly move up the rankings.

[OldArgScot]

FYI - "The Saratogian" newspaper has a good hometown story on Saratoga's Hannah Davidson in today's edition. I won't copy it here, but here's the link which should last for awhile:
http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17280158&BRD=1169&PAG=740&dept_id=349537&rfi=6
There's also a little on the other girls, and a little on Chris Allen on the boys side.

[finishstrong]

do keep in mind the spiked shoe invite where colts neck was blown away by saratoga. that might have accounted for their drop to NE #7, and i believe that this ranking includes the fact that they are anticipating the return of their missing runner. though i think the fact that the runner has not yet returned is turning some heads in the ranking process.

[NYrunner]

Based off of the last two weekends:

Top 10
Hilton
Toga
Radnor
Greenwich
Bromfield
Colts Neck (with Bri)
FM
Burnt Hills
East Aurora
Warwick Valley



4-13 are very close.
Several NYS girls teams had by far their best performances at the Warwick Valley invite.
I was close
Hilton XC Club (Hilton)
Radnor XC Club (Radnor)
Saratoga Springs XC Club (Saratoga Springs)
Greenwich XC Club (Greenwich)
Colts Neck XC Club (Colts Neck)
Manlius XC Club (Fayetteville Manlius)
Bromfield XC Club (Bromfield)
Burnt Hills XC Club (Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake)
Aurora XC Club (East Aurora)
Kingstown XC Club (North Kingstown)

[NYrunner]

Roxbury has resurfaced as a contender in the NE thanks to adding in a very talented track runner/ex-soccer player. Ed Grant has them ranked #1 in NJ.

[spartanxc]

The new rankings show a change without any team having run a meet this past weekend. How is that explained? FM, BH, and E. Aurora are very close. Avg. times from McQuaid.

FM 18:45
BH 18:49
EA 18:53

Why did Burnt Hills drop if they were #6 2 weeks ago and they won their division at McQuaid and Manchester? I believe they could flip flop with FM, but should not be behind EA. Rankings are fun :)

[hopCNs]

Roxbury has resurfaced as a contender in the NE thanks to adding in a very talented track runner/ex-soccer player. Ed Grant has them ranked #1 in NJ.

Roxbury is a VERY good team, especially up front. However, I'm not sure how big of a contender they will be in the loaded NE region this year. Ed Grant's rankings are the only rankings with them at #1 (most NJ polls are ordered 1. CN, 2. Cherry Hill East, 3. Roxbury) and it should be noted that Roxbury's 5th came in at 21:08 (a PB). They definitely belong on the radar and the good news for Roxbury is that they will return their entire top 5 next year . . .

[NYrunner]

Girls top 10? My guess
Saratoga
Hilton
Radnor
FM
Greenwich
Colts Neck
Warwick
Carmel
Bromfield
Burnt Hills

[spartanxc]

Based on their performance which was very close to FM at McQuaid and their recent performance at the BH Invy, I believe that BH should be a little closer to FM. I still don't believe BH has run their full varsity in the same race. The young girls seem to often race freshman. I'm not sure though.

My opinion.

Saratoga
Hilton
Radnor
FM
Greenwich
Burnt Hills
Colts Neck
Warwick
Carmel
East Aurora

[GirlsXC_coach]

Girls top 10? My guess
Saratoga
Hilton
Radnor
FM
Greenwich
Colts Neck
Warwick
Carmel
Bromfield
Burnt Hills

Do you think NE will get a wildcard bid? My instinct says they still deserve one ... But SE was impressive!!

[NYrunner]

Do you think NE will get a wildcard bid? My instinct says they still deserve one ... But SE was impressive!!
The NE girls performed very well with Toga and Hilton both besting the Manhattan speed ratings of Hilton from last year but the SE teams just ran huge times. This just shows that there were 4 top 10 USA teams in the field and more talent then NTN. Last year there was more depth in Easterns then NTN and this year there was way more depth. Nearly as many girls ran 120 or higher in Eastern champs race then both NTN races combined. Last year the NE dominated NTN and it looks like this year the SE girls will join the NE in dominating NTN. Both regions should get an-atlarge bid and one will likely get a 2nd with HL getting the other in my opinion.

[OldArgScot]

Courtesy of "The Saratogian" and reporter Jeff Reynolds, here is a look at another good NE girls team, from NY Section 2's Suburban Council, Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake (excerpted; for the part on Burnt Hills boys, go to the original article: http://www.saratogian.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17342727&BRD=1169&PAG=740&dept_id=349537&rfi=6)

0/18/2006
Burnt Hills X-C Grabbing the Headlines
JEFF REYNOLDS, The Saratogian

BURNT HILLS -- In the ultra-competitive culture of cross country racing in the Suburban Council, it should not seem strange the boys and girls squads from Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake have gone through this fall with little fanfare.
Teams like Shenendehowa and Saratoga Springs, with their long histories of excellence, usually dominate the spotlight when it comes to elite cross country running, overshadowing the accomplishments of the rest of the league.

But with the Nov. 3 Section II and the Nov. 11 New York State championships fast approaching, both Spartan teams think they have the talent to grab some headlines of their own.

The girls team is now the state's top-ranked Class A squad and cruised to victory Saturday in the Division III race of the Burnt Hills Invitational Saturday at Saratoga Spa State Park. That victory also vaulted Burnt Hills into the regional rankings, where they now sit ninth. Class AA No. 2 Saratoga Springs is currently third and Class C No. 1 Greenwich fourth.

Coach Shaun Zepf's team has been among the state's best Class A teams all year and took over the top spot thanks to placing six girls in the top twelve spots Saturday, including sophomore Meaghan Gregory's second-place finish.

Sophomore Sam Roecker finished third, followed by Martha Brown (eighth), Carolyn Herkenham (ninth), Rachel Cyrus (10th) and Lizzie Olsen (12th) for the Spartans, who beat Bethlehem by 20 points. Burnt Hills stayed in town for its annual home meet rather than traveling to the Manhattan Invitational in New York City.

'It was nice, we love running at Saratoga, even though it wasn't tremendous competition,' said Zepf, whose team is made up of primarily underclassmen. 'So to run as good as we did was pretty impressive.'

Gregory and Roecker have been a formidable one-two punch against most teams this fall, but the rest of the team has held up their end of the bargain as well. In Suburban Council dual meets, the Spartans are 7-2, their only losses coming against Colonie and Saratoga.

That success has come against some of the state's best Class AA teams. In fact, eight of the Class AA teams in the league are ranked in the latest girls cross country poll.

Zepf said his team's status among the top teams in the northeast region is not a shock to him.

'I saw it coming at the start of the season, if we kept all our girls healthy,' said Zepf, in his third year coaching at Burnt Hills.

That didn't happen, though, and Zepf has yet to start his top five runners in the same race. Still, the results have been stellar.

'It's kind of nice what these kids have accomplished,' Zepf said. 'It's nice to get that respect.

'We don't live and die by the rankings, but at the same time it is fun.'

[Greg Beal]

The NE girls performed very well with Toga and Hilton both besting the Manhattan speed ratings of Hilton from last year but the SE teams just ran huge times. This just shows that there were 4 top 10 USA teams in the field and more talent then NTN. Last year there was more depth in Easterns then NTN and this year there was way more depth. Nearly as many girls ran 120 or higher in Eastern champs race then both NTN races combined. Last year the NE dominated NTN and it looks like this year the SE girls will join the NE in dominating NTN. Both regions should get an-atlarge bid and one will likely get a 2nd with HL getting the other in my opinion.

Both the SE and NE teams ran great at Manhattan. I'm not sure, though, that it's time to hand those two regions all the top spots at NTN. Corona del Mar's Stanford times convert via South Tahoe to a victory at Manhattan, about 20 points in front of Midlothian. Several other CA and NW teams seem to be right behind CdM.

[NYrunner]

Both the SE and NE teams ran great at Manhattan. I'm not sure, though, that it's time to hand those two regions all the top spots at NTN. Corona del Mar's Stanford times convert via South Tahoe to a victory at Manhattan, about 20 points in front of Midlothian. Several other CA and NW teams seem to be right behind CdM.
Not sure about that. CDM doesn't look better then last year's team do they? That team scored 203 points at NTN and the only girl on that team that ran well is gone. By the way if you added Hilton's and Toga's score from NTN 2005 together it would be 197 so scoring 10 girls from these teams would result in a win over that CDM team that was suppose to be better. I just wanted to point that out b/c we were hearing about how awesome CDM was all last year and then over 200 pts. at NTN?

No offense to CDM but if the 4 top teams from Manhattan all ran better then Hilton did last year and CDM is not even as good(or is equal to) as the team that scored more then Hilton/TOga combined last year at NTN I think the conversions might be off for CDM at Manhattan. I think Meylan said their speed ratings were similar to Roosevelts (ER) before Manhattan. That would be about where Hilton finished, maybe closer to Toga (190) but not as good as ER or Midlothian in my opinion.

[Greg Beal]

I'll agree that CdM ran poorly at NTN last year. No question about that. That's the reason paper comparisons are a little silly. Running the races is what matters. Until then, though, we only have paper. Here's the comparison for Manhattan:

South Tahoe ran at Manhattan and Stanford. CdM ran in the same race at Stanford.

Four S.T. girls finished at Manhattan:
Stanford / Manhattan (in seconds)
1104 / 885
1123 / 923
1132 / 941
1197 / 985

That produces .819 x Stanford = Manhattan. Using the conversion:

Corona del Mar (projected at Manhattan)
6. 14:28
8. 14:31
33. 15:16
40. 15:21
51. 15:33

That puts CdM ahead of Midlothian, without counting either individual scoring drop-outs for CdM nor the points Midlothian would gain if CdM were included.

Using Watchout's Stanford and Jim Danner speed ratings to convert Saugus and West Valley, AK to Stanford, and then using the conversion above places both teams near the front at Manhattan, with Saugus joining CdM with a lower score than Midlothian.

I'm certain that other conversions and comparisons will produce different results. The point is, none of this is quite so clear cut as you would have it. When and if the girls run against each other, we'll find out if our predictions have any meaning.

[GirlsXC_coach]

I'll agree that CdM ran poorly at NTN last year. No question about that. That's the reason paper comparisons are a little silly. Running the races is what matters. Until then, though, we only have paper. Here's the comparison for Manhattan:

South Tahoe ran at Manhattan and Stanford. CdM ran in the same race at Stanford.

Four S.T. girls finished at Manhattan:
Stanford / Manhattan (in seconds)
1104 / 885
1123 / 923
1132 / 941
1197 / 985

That produces .819 x Stanford = Manhattan. Using the conversion:

Corona del Mar (projected at Manhattan)
6. 14:28
8. 14:31
33. 15:16
40. 15:21
51. 15:33

That puts CdM ahead of Midlothian, without counting either individual scoring drop-outs for CdM nor the points Midlothian would gain if CdM were included.

Using Watchout's Stanford and Jim Danner speed ratings to convert Saugus and West Valley, AK to Stanford, and then using the conversion above places both teams near the front at Manhattan, with Saugus joining CdM with a lower score than Midlothian.

I'm certain that other conversions and comparisons will produce different results. The point is, none of this is quite so clear cut as you would have it. When and if the girls run against each other, we'll find out if our predictions have any meaning.

What if South Tahoe ran really poorly at Standford and really well at Manhattan??? I mean I see your point - but conversions like this are very difficult to make.

Obviously the opposite could be true (S.T. ran poorly at Manhattan but really well at Standford) - Then CdM is off the charts ... but again those conversions are too difficult based on only one team.

[Greg Beal]

What if South Tahoe ran really poorly at Standford and really well at Manhattan??? I mean I see your point - but conversions like this are very difficult to make.

Obviously the opposite could be true (S.T. ran poorly at Manhattan but really well at Standford) - Then CdM is off the charts ... but again those conversions are too difficult based on only one team.

Absolutely. I'm not going to do it right now, but one could use the CdM Stanford speed ratings and plug those in. In another thread, someone used Clovis results and a double conversion and put CdM in fourth at Manhattan.

If someone could come up with "accurate" speed ratings for Woodbridge, let's see how Saugus compares with everyone else. That race may be the fastest any team has run this year.

In any case, it should be a great race at NTN, whoever finally qualifies.

[watchout]

What if South Tahoe ran really poorly at Standford and really well at Manhattan??? I mean I see your point - but conversions like this are very difficult to make.

Obviously the opposite could be true (S.T. ran poorly at Manhattan but really well at Standford) - Then CdM is off the charts ... but again those conversions are too difficult based on only one team.

If 1 team isn't enough (and I completely agree), how about based on about 6 different (boys) teams? Not all raced at Manhattan, but 7 different teams from 3 different races - 3 from Great American, 3 (including 2 of the same) from Warwick - I didn't check Shaker, but I'm assuming they would fall in line as well), and 1 from Clovis (which, using 8 different teams, is only 3 seconds slower than Stanford) - and I have conversions to each of those races, and all of those conversions fall right in line (within only 2 or 3 seconds in each Team/race's case)

the conversion I got:

Stanford - 13 / 1.2 = Manhattan.

Using that...

Stanford:
1 4 753 Sarah Cummings SR SS 17:40 = 1060 seconds
2 5 751 Shelby Buckley JR SS 17:44 = 1064 seconds
3 18 754 Allison Damon JR SS 18:38 = 1118 seconds
4 22 752 Laura Builder SO SS 18:44 = 1124 seconds
5 31 757 Hilary May SR SS 18:59 = 1139 seconds

1060 - 12 = 1048 / 1.2 = 873.4 = 14:33.4 (145.9 SR - 6.5 place)
1064 - 12 = 1052 / 1.2 = 876.7 = 14:36.7 (144.8 SR - 7.5 place)
1118 - 12 = 1106 / 1.2 = 921.7 = 15:21.7 (129.8 SR - 36.5 place)
1124 - 12 = 1112 / 1.2 = 926.7 = 15:26.7 (128.1 SR - 39.5 place)
1139 - 12 = 1127 / 1.2 = 939.2 = 15:39.2 (123.9 SR - 55.5 place)

They would score 145.5 ... a mere 2 points or so ahead of Midlothian.

That seems reasonable, correct? It's well researched (7 different teams concur in the statistics), and it doesn't put any team a humungous amount ahead...

[sisyphus]

Just remember that with the .819 Stanford conversion, you are putting Gregg and the kid from Seattle around 12:06 for VCP. In the end, all stats must meet a common sense qualifier. I think you will find adding 15 seconds to Stanford before using that .819 multiplier will serve you better.

Edit: Watchout, your formula puts Gregg at 12:19, that seems to work pretty well. Good work!

[watchout]

Just remember that with the .819 Stanford conversion, you are putting Gregg and the kid from Seattle around 12:06 for VCP. In the end, all stats must meet a common sense qualifier. I think you will find adding 15 seconds to Stanford before using that .819 multiplier will serve you better.

Edit: Watchout, your formula puts Gregg at 12:19, that seems to work pretty well. Good work!

Maybe I'm just bad at math, but I got him at 12:09.2 using that... he did run extremely well, but I was thinking more along the lines of 12:13 at best (I see Max OMDM, aka "The kid from Seattle", around 12:15ish...

and this is the same conversion that put Stanford in the mid 12:40's.. which wasn't received too welcomely.

[sisyphus]

Maybe I'm just bad at math, but I got him at 12:09.2 using that... he did run extremely well, but I was thinking more along the lines of 12:13 at best (I see Max OMDM, aka "The kid from Seattle", around 12:15ish...

and this is the same conversion that put Stanford in the mid 12:40's.. which wasn't received too welcomely.


My bad, I must be typing too quickly on excel. You are right as to the conversions and Gregg's time. I'm still going with Stanford +15 /1.22. Or Woodward/1.22 I'm certainly not going to tell you to go do your research though. It's obvious you have :D

[watchout]

My bad, I must be typing too quickly on excel. You are right as to the conversions and Gregg's time. I'm still going with Stanford +15 /1.22. Or Woodward/1.22 I'm certainly not going to tell you to go do your research though. It's obvious you have :D

thanks, I only expect that out of the Taylors of Utah :D

I agree that it's not right on, but that's what the numbers say and I can't exactly go back on them, as it's what I'm basing my entire system on... if I give in here, I can't exactly not do the same at other times.

IMO, add about 4-6 seconds and it should work very well. So CdM is close to the lead... should be taken as #1 or #2 IMO.

[sisyphus]

Just for the record, I doubt there's a team in the country that could run with CdM or Saugus on Mt. Sac or Morley.

[NYrunner]

Just for the record, I doubt there's a team in the country that could run with CdM or Saugus on Mt. Sac or Morley.
what were conditions at Orange County champs? CDM ran a minute slower then last year--has the course been changed?-- (again we all remember how that CDM team compared to the NE teams at NTN) and Hilton got 4th at Manhattan even though they ran almost 80 seconds faster. Hilton averaged 15:37ish last year and 15:20ish this year. The course ran about 15 seconds fast so that puts this current Hilton team a head of where they were at Manhattan last year and a 14 point loss to Toga. The difference was 3 great SE teams knocking them back and beating them both. CDM, in comparison the same weekend, ran a minute slower then the CDM team of 2005 that was crushed by Hilton/Toga. On paper Toga (missing #3) and Hilton look as good as last year at this point with two SE teams a head of them.

Looking at it this way, CDM is at best as good as last year at this point assuming the county champs ran :12 seconds slower then 2005 and the top 4 teams at Manhattan were better then Hilton at Manhattan in 2005 assuming the course ran 15 seconds fast.

So with two big assumptions that both favor CDM they would likely be 4th-5th at Manhattan. There is no real way to say they would have beaten Midlothian. That would just be based on an assumption that CDM is better. I hope we don't have to wait until NTN to see that I am right b/c that would mean that certain regions will lose bids they deserve. Last year the NW girls got bids they did not deserve and, like everyone expected, NTN proved that true.

CDM is a very strong team/program but can people stop assuming that the west coast kids would come over here and crush what ever the east coast kids do? NTN the last two years has proven exactly the opposite and I would bet money a NE girls team wins NTN or a HL team or maybe a SE team if they can handle the weather. It will not be a West coast team. Odds are no west coast team will be top 5 at NTN in girls race.

(All these conversions make no sense. If Episcopal stayed home after beating midlothian at GA then people on here would be plugging them into Manhattan based on how they ran vs. Midlothian at GA and it would come out to a win and Episcopal got 9th).

[sisyphus]

NY Runner,

You quoted me so I want to make sure you understood what I'm saying. I agree based on my time conversions that CdM would have been around 200 points at Manhattan. However, the Cali courses like Mt Sac and Morley field are different beasts. I think the Cali teams would have HUGE home field advantages on those courses - Footlocker and Kinney have proven this for years. However, those teams are neutralized on courses like NTN.

[NYrunner]

NY Runner,

You quoted me so I want to make sure you understood what I'm saying. I agree based on my time conversions that CdM would have been around 200 points at Manhattan. However, the Cali courses like Mt Sac and Morley field are different beasts. I think the Cali teams would have HUGE home field advantages on those courses - Footlocker and Kinney have proven this for years. However, those teams are neutralized on courses like NTN.
I understand that and that is why I get so frustrated hearing everyone claiming how fast their teams would run at VCP when they have never run there. If Hilton/Toga ran at Mt. Sac. then CDM would likely win maybe even by a solid margin but if CDM came over to Bowdoin or VCP I would bet heavily on the NE(mainly NY) teams. NTN will always be in Oregon in December and no matter how ofter a southern Cali teams runs insane times in sunny, hot, humid conditions they will not be ready for NTN. It was almost cold enough to snow last year. It was close.

So do they pick teams from Southern Cali that are running close to CDM or teams in the NE that are running close to HIlton/Toga for at-large bids? These two powerful regions are only eligible for 2 at-large bids so if the NE were to get 2 Cali could get none.

[OldArgScot]

what were conditions at Orange County champs? CDM ran a minute slower then last year--has the course been changed?--

NYrunner - About the OC Championships, the course is supposedly the same for the past 7 years (I wasn't there last weekend, but the I've excerpted something about this from today's Irvine World News about the meet [author Brent Shaver]; this link will take you to the front page - got to pages 27-29
http://epaper.ocregister.com/Default/Client.asp?enter=true&skin=OCW&Daily=OCWIrvineWorldNews
The weather Saturday was real nice, in the 60s and sunny - pretty perfect for running. The course is actually mostly paved, and there is a good hill - although not like "Poop-Out Hill" at Mt. SAC. Christine Babcock of Woodbridge(Irvine) and the Trabuco Hills boys broke records, and this short article addresses that:

CROSS COUNTRY RUNNERS GETTING BETTER AND BETTER
It seems times are getting faster and faster each year at the Orange County Championships. Since the current course was established in 1999 big time records have been broken in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Newport Harbor’s Whitney Blue set the girls individual record in 2004 at 17:07 and then Corona del Mar’s Annie St. Geme (16:55) and Woodbridge’s Christine Babcock (17:01) each went under that in 2005. Babcock shattered the mark this season with a time of 16:36. This year’s Trabuco Hills boys team took a minute off the team time record set in 2004. Expect to see the times continue to drop. “I see that happening,” former Foothill Coach and Orange County Championships race director Jeff Farr said. “You see more kids enjoy running and picking up the sport. For boys and girls the competitive level keeps increasing. You are starting to see club programs feed into the high schools. And that is starting to happen all around. “Before you would only see that happen in soccer and basketball and baseball. But it is starting to become a reality in this sport.”

I imagine if you compare CDM'stimes at the OCC and Mt. SAC you'll get a good idea of how they're doing right now.

[NYrunner]

NYrunner - About the OC Championships, the course is supposedly the same for the past 7 years (I wasn't there last weekend, but the I've excerpted something about this from today's Irvine World News about the meet [author Brent Shaver]; this link will take you to the front page - got to pages 27-29
http://epaper.ocregister.com/Default/Client.asp?enter=true&skin=OCW&Daily=OCWIrvineWorldNews
The weather Saturday was real nice, in the 60s and sunny - pretty perfect for running. The course is actually mostly paved, and there is a good hill - although not like "Poop-Out Hill" at Mt. SAC. Christine Babcock of Woodbridge(Irvine) and the Trabuco Hills boys broke records, and this short article addresses that:

CROSS COUNTRY RUNNERS GETTING BETTER AND BETTER
It seems times are getting faster and faster each year at the Orange County Championships. Since the current course was established in 1999 big time records have been broken in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Newport Harbor’s Whitney Blue set the girls individual record in 2004 at 17:07 and then Corona del Mar’s Annie St. Geme (16:55) and Woodbridge’s Christine Babcock (17:01) each went under that in 2005. Babcock shattered the mark this season with a time of 16:36. This year’s Trabuco Hills boys team took a minute off the team time record set in 2004. Expect to see the times continue to drop. “I see that happening,” former Foothill Coach and Orange County Championships race director Jeff Farr said. “You see more kids enjoy running and picking up the sport. For boys and girls the competitive level keeps increasing. You are starting to see club programs feed into the high schools. And that is starting to happen all around. “Before you would only see that happen in soccer and basketball and baseball. But it is starting to become a reality in this sport.”

I imagine if you compare CDM'stimes at the OCC and Mt. SAC you'll get a good idea of how they're doing right now.
If this is true that the course is the same and the weather was nice and times were considered really fast then CDM might not even be as good as last year's CDM. I would guess they are at the same level as last year b/c part of the time difference was the fact that their top girl was off the charts last year so they probably have a slightly stronger #4-5 but not nearly as powerful #1.

Toga and Hilton will most likely be ranked #1-2 in the NE and you have Radnor, Greenwich, Colts Neck and now FM close to where Hilton/Toga were last year(and this year) at Manhattan. That is 6 very strong teams close to or above where Hilton/Toga 2005 were at this point of the season and CDM equal to or worse then where they were last year at this point(again I would say equal to). I just think that the post Manhattan write up was based on the thought that the NE (and SE) would shoot up the rankings and make it hard for the Cali teams to get at-large bids. It was clearly a defense of the West Coast teams and attack on the east coast teams b/c the East coast teams looked so good.

Maybe it will have to be settled at NTN. Cali vs. NE? That will be the only time these teams will run head-to-head. The problem with that is the committee needs to sort things out before that meet.

At this point I think the HL and SE look great for an at-large and the NE for 2 at-large. That likely won't happen though. The NE (to keep with the tradition of NTN) will have to leave at least one team home while a less-deserving team takes their place. It is almost a 100% guarantee with the current system that that will happen each year. The NE is even deeper then Manhattan showed. FM had a jv. girl run fast enough to shoot them past Tatnal and right behind Hilton. Also Toga and Greenwich's #3 girls did not finish in top 5 for either team. Toga's is recovering from being sick and I think Greenwich's girl just had an off day. Throw in Radnor and Colts NEck and that is 4 teams that are close to Hilton/Toga at this point in the season.

How good is the NE after getting their butts kicked by two SE teams?

When people judge the girls Eastern champ race they need to realize that the field was, by far, the best field ever assembled for a girls HS xc race. Far stronger and deeper then either NTN. There was about 60-70% more runners over 116 speed rating compared to the year before at Manhattan. It had almost twice as many girls over 120 speed rating as the two NTN races had.

Even if you ignore speed ratings and just look at times it works out like this:
2006 ran about 15 seconds faster so if you add 15 seconds to the 2006 times to compare to 2005 you see 66 girls between 14:15-15:45 while 2005 (15 seconds slower) only saw 41 girls between 14:30-16:00. That is 25 more girls in the same time gap.

51st place was 16:19 in 2005 and that same effort in 2006(- :15 sec.)=16:04 would have got you 87th. Looking at the numbers you can see that Hilton and Toga ran almost the same in 2006 as 2005 but the addition of so many strong teams bumped them back.

The SE teams are looking pretty freakin good right now.

What is the point? I feel someone needs to point out just how strong the performances were by the top teams at Manhattan(girls Easterns). No team in the country has run a race that puts them a head of Midlothian and maybe a couple have run better then any of the top 4 teams at Manhattan.

The NE top teams, Toga and Hilton, are at same spot as last year and they went on to a 1-2 finish at NTN. The SE top two teams are even better then Hilton, Toga right now so clearly they will be contenders for the win at NTN. The NE #3-6 teams are all very close to Hilton/Toga who will both be strong contenders at NTN. CDM has not shown they are any better then last year and that team scored a very distant 6th place and 203 points. It appears the SE and HL have the strongest 1-2 punch and the NE is by far the deepest region.

Midlothian, ER, Toga and Hilton are all top 10 teams without question but I am afraid that some people analyzing Manhattan results are down playing the strength of the teams there to further other teams prospects of getting a bid. I think this weekend's results combined with the current Super 25 show the at-large situation as 1 HL, 1 SE, and 2 NE.

[mdtrackfan]

The SE teams are looking pretty freakin good right now.

What is the point? I feel someone needs to point out just how strong the performances were by the top teams at Manhattan(girls Easterns). No team in the country has run a race that puts them a head of Midlothian and maybe a couple have run better then any of the top 4 teams at Manhattan.

The NE top teams, Toga and Hilton, are at same spot as last year and they went on to a 1-2 finish at NTN. The SE top two teams are even better then Hilton, Toga right now so clearly they will be contenders for the win at NTN. The NE #3-6 teams are all very close to Hilton/Toga who will both be strong contenders at NTN. CDM has not shown they are any better then last year and that team scored a very distant 6th place and 203 points. It appears the SE and HL have the strongest 1-2 punch and the NE is by far the deepest region.

Midlothian, ER, Toga and Hilton are all top 10 teams without question but I am afraid that some people analyzing Manhattan results are down playing the strength of the teams there to further other teams prospects of getting a bid. I think this weekend's results combined with the current Super 25 show the at-large situation as 1 HL, 1 SE, and 2 NE.

Not to take away anything from the other regions, but can we forget about Episcopal in the SE? Although they had a poor showing placing 9th place at Manhattan, is the NTN ranking system set up so that if a team has a poor performance at a meet they are automatically ruled out for consideration? What happens if for the rest of the season the girl who was running as their #2 runner before who finished #7 for them returns back to her usual team running position? Also if anyone saw the video from Manhattan I didn't realize that the girl who got knocked down meters before the finish line and passed by almost 10 girls was from Episcopal...just food for thought.

[KenA55]

HL 3-4 and maybe beyond are right with HL's 1-2, very little dropoff.

[stunnarunna]

mdtrackfan "What happens if for the rest of the season the girl who was running as their #2 runner before who finished #7 for them returns back to her usual team running position?"

what about if a girl running top 5 is suspiciously out for a month and returns back to her usual team running position? thats rumored to be the current situation at saratoga as well.

[DynamicDanielle]

mdtrackfan "What happens if for the rest of the season the girl who was running as their #2 runner before who finished #7 for them returns back to her usual team running position?"

what about if a girl running top 5 is suspiciously out for a month and returns back to her usual team running position? thats rumored to be the current situation at saratoga as well.

Expecting Kaitlin O'Sullivan to jump back into the top 5 on the Saratoga team when she returns is a little unfair to her. Expecting her to return as their #2 is unrealistic. Obviously it would help Saratoga, although even if Kaitlin had been in the Girls Eastern States race and finished a few places in front of Cassie Saratoga still wouldn't have beaten Midlothian.

[GirlsXC_coach]

Anyone catch the article by Radnor Senior Hannah Granger? Posted on the front page of Dyestat ...

http://www.dyestat.com/?pg=reg1pa061024RadnorFeature

[GirlsXC_coach]

Foothills Council Championships - 10-23-2006
at Saratoga State Park

Girls:
1 Jillian King 11 02-A Scotia-Glenville 17:27.11 146.0 146
2 Caroline King 12 02-A Scotia-Glenville 17:57.12 136.0 136
3 Cara Sprague 12 02-A Queensbury 18:06.76 132.7 133
4 Morgan Muller 9 02-A Queensbury 18:43.87 120.4 120
5 Jackie Brambley 12 02-A Queensbury 18:52.25 117.6 118
6 Gina Cristaldi 10 02-B Hudson Falls 19:13.14 110.6 111
7 Emily Smith 12 02-A Queensbury 19:29.26 105.2 105
8 Samantha Hickock 12 02-A Glens Falls 19:33.70 103.8 104
9 Juliann Lajoie 10 02-A Queensbury 19:43.40 100.5 101
10 Kristen Lajoie 9 02-A Queensbury 19:50.86 98.0 98
11 Keri McEntee 12 02-A S Glens Falls 19:52.54 97.5 97
12 Alex Kuhl 11 02-B Broadalbin-Perth 19:58.77 95.4 95
13 Shannon Mulshine 11 02-A Queensbury 19:59.97 95.0 95
14 Nicole Wojciechowski 10 02-B Broadalbin-Perth 20:09.07 92.0 92
15 Amanda Schermerhorn 10 02-A Scotia-Glenville 20:14.77 90.1 90

[OldArgScot]

Here is some Greenwich news:
(results from Finish Right
http://www.finishright.com/XC/06/WASXC06.HTM

WASAREN LEAGUE XC CHAMPIONSHIPS - 10/26/2006
SPA STATE PARK
RESULTS/TIMING WWW.FINISHRIGHT.COM
Event 6 Girls 5k Run CC VARSITY
================================================== ================================
Name Year School Avg Mile Finals Points
================================================== ================================
1 Lane, Caitlin 11 Greenwich 5:33 17:13 1
2 Fung, Emily 11 Greenwich 5:48 17:59 2
3 Lane, Brittany 9 Greenwich 5:58 18:31 3
4 Borbolla, Chelesea 12 Greenwich 6:01 18:39 4
5 Kuzmich, Cady 8 Greenwich 6:08 19:03 5
6 Fung, Ashley 11 Greenwich 6:14 19:22 6
7 D'Ambro, Emma 10 Hoosic Valley 6:22 19:45 7
8 Wysocki, Rachel 10 Schuylerville 6:23 19:49
9 Henderson, Britney 10 Greenwich 6:29 20:08 8
10 Stevens, Molly 10 Hoosic Valley 6:31 20:15 9
11 O'Keefe, Brittania 11 Greenwich 6:36 20:30
(I assume that's for the usual Spa 3.04-3.05 miles, not 5K, right?)

Some quotes from the Glens Falls Post-Star:
"We had only run once here this year and that was the preseason meet, so we didn't run hard," Caitlin Lane said. "We really wanted to come out and run fast and post a good team time. Personally, I wanted to push the first two miles. I felt really good at two miles ... and I knew what I had to do to reach 17 minutes."

"They were good times today," said Greenwich coach Steve Patrick. "It kind of sets us up nicely for next week here at sectionals. The goal for the girls today was to relax and run a time."


And lastly, check out the speed ratings at tullyrunners.com.
http://www.tullyrunners.com/XC2006/Ratings_Misc.htm

[ab123]

How did North Kingstown RI win Brown over an excellent field, running the 6th fastest ever, and beating Saratoga's time from 2005, and still not get moved up the ntn rankings at all?
>>not to mention they all finished in a row. talk about a low gap time.

[hopCNs]

Colts Neck won the Shore Conference meet today with 53 points, with a record-breaking team average of 18:28 (old record 18:46). Ashley Higginson tied the course record of 17:32 followed by Bri J in 17:44. Things are looking up for CN as they head into championship season.

Right behind Colts Neck in the team race was Monsignor Donovan with 56 points. Mon Don had some transfer students that recently became eligible to run under the NJSIAA rules. They're a good young team and bring another power to the Northeast.

[GirlsXC_coach]

Colts Neck won the Shore Conference meet today with 53 points, with a record-breaking team average of 18:28 (old record 18:46). Ashley Higginson tied the course record of 17:32 followed by Bri J in 17:44. Things are looking up for CN as they head into championship season.

Right behind Colts Neck in the team race was Monsignor Donovan with 56 points. Mon Don had some transfer students that recently became eligible to run under the NJSIAA rules. They're a good young team and bring another power to the Northeast.

Is there a link to the results?

[Joe Lanzalotto]

Is there a link to the results?

Not yet.

[xxcc]

How did North Kingstown RI win Brown over an excellent field, running the 6th fastest ever, and beating Saratoga's time from 2005, and still not get moved up the ntn rankings at all?
>>not to mention they all finished in a row. talk about a low gap time.

Check your math: The cumulative times listed for the Brown Championship race are based on 7 runners.m

North Kingston is now #8 just ahead of Saratoga in 2005 and 6 sec. behind Bromfield 2006.

If you only use 5 runners Bromfield would be 35 sec. up on NK. It looks as though Bromfields weak 5th runner was their downfall.

The conditions in 2005 were also much worse than 2006, Saratoga was a much better team than the times would indicate on that day.

The teams ranked ahead of NK in the Northeast are very good, can't see NK being any better than where they are now.

[SCTNF]

Is there a link to the results?

SCTNF.com (http://www.sctnf.com)

[DynamicDanielle]

Am I the only one missing the humor on Tom Cuffe's weekend recap? Also I'd be guessing that Greenwich and Saratoga won't even "battle" much less "war" at sectionals as Saratoga is Class AA and Greenwich is Class C so they won't race. Saratoga will have Shenendehowa and Columbia to keep them honest but Greenwich will likely grab places 1-7 in Class C unless one of their runners has a really off race. Admittedly you can compare times and if Greenwich is ahead in the merge that's great for Greenwich but I'd doubt it's their focus for tomorrow. I'm sure they and their coaches know that they will get another chance at Saratoga and that second chance will come at the Federation Meet.

[hopCNs]

Colts Neck ran well again this week at Sectionals. Bri J and Ashley Higginson both beat the old course record by a minute running 1-2 in 18:11. Colts Neck wins with 47 points and an 18:59 average. They were resting their usual #5 & #6 girls.

Central Jesey GROUP 4 Results (Thompson Park 5k)
1 Brianna Jackucewicz SO Colts Neck 5:51 18:11 1
2 Ashley Higginson SR Colts Neck 5:51 18:11 2
3 Amanda Marino SR Jackson 5:55 18:23 3
4 Katie Kellner W Wind-P South 5:59 18:34 4
11 Allison Donaghy JR Colts Neck 6:13 19:17 11
14 Erin Donaghy JR Colts Neck 6:16 19:26 14
19 Morgan Clark SO Colts Neck 6:23 19:50 19


1 Colts Neck 47 1 2 11 14 19 29 33
Total Time: 1:34:55.00
Average: 18:59.00
2 Jackson 107 3 13 20 26 45 50 78
Total Time: 1:38:35.00
Average: 19:43.00
3 Howell 134 8 18 25 41 42 109
Total Time: 1:40:04.00
Average: 20:00.80

[spartanxc]

Burnt Hills should get back into the rankings this week. They were bumped out last week after running 4 of their top 7 in the freshman race at Suburbans. They still beat a very strong Shen team without them. Their speed ratings put them ahead of FM on this past weekend at sectionals by a very slight margin. 122.6 - 122.2 average. They beat East Aurora by time average at McQuaid, so I think they should get sandwiched somewhere between FM and East Aurora.

[DynamicDanielle]

Burnt Hills should get back into the rankings this week. They were bumped out last week after running 4 of their top 7 in the freshman race at Suburbans. They still beat a very strong Shen team without them. Their speed ratings put them ahead of FM on this past weekend at sectionals by a very slight margin. 122.6 - 122.2 average. They beat East Aurora by time average at McQuaid, so I think they should get sandwiched somewhere between FM and East Aurora.

-Weren't you the one a week ago that said speed rating comparisons weren't helpful? I'd definitely agree that comparing average speedratings can be very deceptive.
-Shen actually ran much better at Sectionals than Suburbans as well (and had an edge on BH in the merge at Sectionals). I'd say one can't include BH in the NE top 10 without including Shen.

1. 74 SARATOGA SPRINGS (18:11.6 90:57.7)
========================================
1 1 HANNAH DAVIDSON 11 17:04.3
2 7 CASSIE GOUTOS 9 17:54.6
3 16 ALYSHA MC ELROY 12 18:31.1
4 22 BRIANNE BELLON 9 18:41.3
5 28 LIZ OCHSE 12 18:46.6
6 ( 34) ABBY OCHSE 12 18:55.9
7 ( 37) KATELYN LOWE 10 19:03.0

2. 123 SHENENEDEHOWA (18:37.6 93:07.9)
========================================
1 6 CARA JANECZKO 9 17:49.1
2 25 MEREDITH PEABODY 10 18:44.5
3 26 CHRISTINE SLOAT 12 18:45.3
4 31 TRICIA WARDWELL 12 18:51.4
5 35 LINDSAY BONK 11 18:57.8
6 ( 42) KATIE RUSCH 11 19:12.0
7 ( 48) MJ ANDERSON 11 19:17.3

3. 125 BURNT HILLS-BALLSTON LAKE (18:32.6 92:42.8)
========================================
1 4 MEAGHAN GREGORY 10 17:43.7
2 5 SAM ROECKER 10 17:46.6
3 29 RACHEL CYRUS 9 18:47.5
4 43 MOLLY PEZULLO 8 19:12.3
5 44 MARTHA BROWN 11 19:12.9
6 ( 46) ALYSSA DRAPEAU 7 19:14.5
7 ( 64) RACHEL STALKER 8 19:35.3

4. 148 COLONIE (18:45.8 93:48.7)
========================================
1 8 MIKALA ANSON 10 17:55.4
2 21 SHANNON FINNEGAN 12 18:36.7
3 27 KAITLIN MOCK 11 18:46.0
4 40 NAYAMKA ROBERTS-SMITH 10 19:09.7
5 52 JESSICA SHERRY 10 19:21.0
6 ( 56) KATELYN CHOINIERE 10 19:27.0
7 ( 57) GABRIELLE RODRIGUEZ 10 19:27.5

5. 175 QUEENSBURY (18:54.9 94:34.2)
========================================
1 13 CARA SPRAGUE 12 18:10.7
2 19 MORGAN MULLER 9 18:33.8
3 36 JACQUIE BRAMBLEY 12 19:02.0
4 47 EMILY SMITH 12 19:15.3
5 60 BRITTANY HARRISON 11 19:32.5
6 ( 78) KIRSTEN LAJOIE 9 19:45.6
7 ( 95) JULIANNA LAJOIE 10 19:58.9

[BMeylan]

Colts Neck NJ is definitely a team to be watched in their next two races ... especially with two elite runners in Brianna Jackucewicz and Ashley Higginson (and I suspect those two can go faster than they did in their sectional group race).

NJSIAA CENTRAL SECTIONAL GROUP IV GIRL'S
Thompson Park - 11/4/2006
1 Brianna Jackucewicz - SO - Colts Neck - 18:11 - 143.3 - 143
2 Ashley Higginson ----- SR - Colts Neck - 18:11 - 143.3 - 143
11 Allison Donaghy ------ JR - Colts Neck - 19:17 - 121.3 - 121
14 Erin Donaghy -------- JR - Colts Neck - 19:26 - 118.3 - 118
19 Morgan Clark -------- SO - Colts Neck - 19:50 - 110.3 - 110
29 Allison Linnell -------- JR - Colts Neck - 20:12 - 103.0 - 103
33 Stephanie Olenik ---- SO - Colts Neck - 20:20 - 100.3 - 100

[spartanxc]

Danielle,

I did say that rankings are hard to do using speed ratings, but sometimes they are all we have. I believe that Shen should be ranked, especially if BH is. BH had the better team average than Shen and was beaten by 2 points in the merge by them. BH has beaten them twice head to head this year and been more consistent.

[ab123]

RI State Meet

Results

North Kingstown girls (currently NE NTN #9), (New England #1)
3 Allie Stasiuk NK 19:16.33
4 Siobhan Breagy NK 19:18.48
5 Erin Brennan NK 19:20.54
6 Mary Najarian NK 19:21.70
10 Caitlin Crawford NK 19:36.42
22 Alexa Mazur NK 20:15.66
28 Katie Lynch NK 20:38.94

Sweeps meet in 28 points.

they're not getting the attention they deserve. 20 second gap time, with the order somewhat different then usual (crawford is usually 1 or 2). It looks like they pack ran through it.

[Runner234]

Colts Neck NJ is definitely a team to be watched in their next two races ... especially with two elite runners in Brianna Jackucewicz and Ashley Higginson (and I suspect those two can go faster than they did in their sectional group race).

NJSIAA CENTRAL SECTIONAL GROUP IV GIRL'S
Thompson Park - 11/4/2006
1 Brianna Jackucewicz - SO - Colts Neck - 18:11 - 143.3 - 143
2 Ashley Higginson ----- SR - Colts Neck - 18:11 - 143.3 - 143
11 Allison Donaghy ------ JR - Colts Neck - 19:17 - 121.3 - 121
14 Erin Donaghy -------- JR - Colts Neck - 19:26 - 118.3 - 118
19 Morgan Clark -------- SO - Colts Neck - 19:50 - 110.3 - 110
29 Allison Linnell -------- JR - Colts Neck - 20:12 - 103.0 - 103
33 Stephanie Olenik ---- SO - Colts Neck - 20:20 - 100.3 - 100

In addition, in this race the paper stated that Colts Neck held out 2 girls from their top 6 to allow the 7th, 8th and 9th girls to race each other in order to determine who would be the 7th girl in the state meet. The two girls who were held out, Ali Flott and Kristen O'Dowd, had speed-ratings of 127 and 108 respectively at the Manhattan Invitational.

[kk.]

FM girls over hilton by a couple points...


.. this should mix things up

[UpstateRunner]

.. this should mix things up

Is that FTW? Or for second behind 'toga?

[wirelessone]

Is that FTW? Or for second behind 'toga?

FTW! also won the merge. FM GIRLS #1 NE? There's a dyestat story.

[sisyphus]

Should FM girls pull a Hilton?

[kk.]

Should FM girls pull a Hilton?

I knew this would come up.

Last year it was obvious that Hilton and Saratoga would both go to NTN and both had a good chance to place high. They both had already done well at other meets during the year and it wouldn't have depended on feds.

FM upset them today. They showed they were capable but had never actually done good enough to really deserve a bid until today. They still will need to prove themselves again and Feds should be a close race between a few teams that are fighting for a bid, not just two teams that are gaurunteed one.

[sisyphus]

As I recall, Hilton had a runner with a stress fracture before Feds last year. I would think there was a good chance that they were not "guaranteed" a top 2 finish had they gone. Had they finished outside the top three, they might have lost the bid. For different reasons, FM is in a similar position. As New York faithful are quick to point out, the STATE meet is over and done with. Feds is more of an invitational. I would think FM should be no more likely to lose a spot by bypassing Feds than Ferris' boys are if they skip borderclash. Yeah I understand that's an individual thing but the point is, regular season state finals are, shall we say, finalized. If someone on the committee would like to chime in on this, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[ChirpyBoy]

I don't really think the FM girls will skip Feds.

[kk.]

As I recall, Hilton had a runner with a stress fracture before Feds last year. I would think there was a good chance that they were not "guaranteed" a top 2 finish had they gone. Had they finished outside the top three, they might have lost the bid. For different reasons, FM is in a similar position. As New York faithful are quick to point out, the STATE meet is over and done with. Feds is more of an invitational. I would think FM should be no more likely to lose a spot by bypassing Feds than Ferris' boys are if they skip borderclash. Yeah I understand that's an individual thing but the point is, regular season state finals are, shall we say, finalized. If someone on the committee would like to chime in on this, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

She was also injured at states and NTN... remember how those turned out

[sisyphus]

She was also injured at states and NTN... remember how those turned out


So what you're saying is she was as healthy the day of Feds as the week before and TWO week after. OK, if you say so.

[kk.]

So what you're saying is she was as healthy the day of Feds as the week before and TWO week after. OK, if you say so.

Yeah that's exactly what I said :rolleyes:

She was injured at states (which btw is a week before feds) and was on crutches the day of NTN. I was not implying anything about how her health would have compared, only saying that she is a tough girl and was able to do amazing things even with an injury and there is no way you can know how she would have done at feds.

[sisyphus]

State is the week before Feds,and NTN two weeks after. Reread the post.

[spartanxc]

Based off of this weekends results, there should be a big shake up in the rankings.

Here's my shot at it. Please add in thoughts and opinions...

1. FM
2. Hilton
3. Toga
4. Radnor ( They could be anywhere in the top 6, so I put them here. very hard to tell)
5. East Aurora
6. Burnt Hills
7. Colts Neck (May move up when we see speed ratings from this weekend)
8. Shenendehowa
9. Hanover (won New Englands)
10. Voorhees or Cherry Hill (2nd and 3rd to Colts Neck at Holmdel on avg. time)

[sisyphus]

Very good guess with Hanover. This would be the third year in a row the New England champion was ranked 9th after beating a #7 or higher team decisively.

[spartanxc]

Two things about Hanover. 1. I believe N. Kingstown was overrated and 2. I know it was a long time ago, but they lost to a Burnt Hills team at Manchester that did not run their current 3,4, and 5 on that day. I would have put them higher, but I struggled to put them ahead of BH. Shen ran almost Identical to BH last week at their sectionals. I think last years New England champ should have been much higher, but this years is a little more of a question mark.

[sisyphus]

Just something to keep in mind. The average of all the girls team's from Rhode Island was 30 seconds per runner slower than on the same course last week. It was decidedly slower this week. Georgia Griffin and Hanover are different runners than early in the season. If you look at Brown, times tend toward 20 seconds slower on the NE course. When taking that into account, I think Hanover moves up some. However, if head to head is more important than late season peaking, you can't put Hanover ahead of Burnt Hills. Once again, regionals would eliminate the need for the guessing.

[hopCNs]

Based off of this weekends results, there should be a big shake up in the rankings.

Here's my shot at it. Please add in thoughts and opinions...

1. FM
2. Hilton
3. Toga
4. Radnor ( They could be anywhere in the top 6, so I put them here. very hard to tell)
5. East Aurora
6. Burnt Hills
7. Colts Neck (May move up when we see speed ratings from this weekend)
8. Shenendehowa
9. Hanover (won New Englands)
10. Voorhees or Cherry Hill (2nd and 3rd to Colts Neck at Holmdel on avg. time)


Colts Neck should move up to at least #5 on your list. All 12 NJ Group races had slower than normal times overall. Apparently it was about 70 degrees and sunny on the course, which took its toll on a lot of runners (numerous kids collapsed during the races).

Also what's everyone's opinion on Radnor? They didn't dominate their state race (only won by 21 points) and (correct me if I'm wrong) the only big race they ran was getting 2nd to Hilton at Warwick VERY early in the season. They haven't really beat any ranked teams or shown enough improvement to warrent a trip to NTN. I think moving them to #6 with the way all the other teams in the NE are performing is fair.

[ZackCampbell]

Hanover ran a 18:38.34 team average on the 5k speedway that is the New Hampshire Meet of Champions course.

[kk.]

State is the week before Feds,and NTN two weeks after. Reread the post.

Yes I know.. I was saying she was injured both before and after Feds.

[GirlsXC_coach]

Yes I know.. I was saying she was injured both before and after Feds.

Actually Amanda Griggs was sick for States and injured herself at Footlocker NE. Yesterday Amanda finished 24th at the Mountain Regionals - 2nd on her team, Northern Arizona. Aislynn Ryan finishe 11th for Colorado.

[OldArgScot]

Here's some info on Greenwich's race from today's Glens Falls Post-Star (there are also some Queensbury, Saratoga, and Ticonderoga info with quotes). Great stuff about Bronxville making up some shirts before the race.

Queensbury boys, Greenwich girls win states
Caitlin Lane tops in Class C race
Published on 11/12/2006

By WILL SPRINGSTEAD
springstead@poststar.com

WARWICK -- Dear Bronxville girls cross country team:

Thanks for the extra incentive. What are you going to do with those shirts now?

Sincerely,

The Greenwich girls cross country team

Greenwich, fueled by knowing that Bronxville had T-shirts made indicating it would beat the Witches, produced the lowest team score of the day Saturday at the State Cross Country Championships at Sanfordville Elementary School.

The Witches won Class C with 29 points, with Bronxville (Section I) placing second with 46. They were one of two local teams that won state titles, as the Queensbury boys defended their title in Class A by scoring 44 points, 15 better than Section V's Victor. Individually, Greenwich's Caitlin Lane won her race, while three local runners -- Saratoga Springs' Hannah Davidson, Queensbury's Matt Flint and Ticonderoga's Lee Berube -- placed second.

On Friday, a local newspaper reported Bronxville had shirts made that said, "Bewitch the Witches, Part 2," referring to Bronxville's win over Greenwich two years ago at the state championships. What Bronxville didn't know was that the grandparents of Greenwich runners Caitlin and Brittney Lane live in the area and saw the story.

One phone call later, Greenwich had its extra incentive.

"We said we're going to put a hex on them," Greenwich coach Steve Patrick said.

It worked. Caitlin Lane ran uncontested on the lead the whole race, covering the 3.1 miles in 17 minutes, 55.8 seconds. Emily Fung, having recovered from both a cold the week before and a stomach bug a couple of days before, finished second in 18:42.5, while Brittney Lane was eighth overall (fifth in terms of team points) in 19:09.2.

The Witches really won the race on the strength of their next two finishers, as Cady Kuzmich finished 20th overall (10th in team points) and Ashley Fung was 21st (11th in team points). Just for good measure, Chelsea Borbolla placed 22nd overall, not figuring in the team scoring, which takes the top five, but sending a message, as they were all in before Bronxville's fourth runner.

After finishing third and fifth in previous state meets, Caitlin Lane earned her first win.

"It's really exciting to win," Lane said, "and it's awesome, with these girls again, to win the title."

"It felt pretty good," Emily Fung said. "I can't kick that well at the finish, so I thought I better distance myself in front of the other girls so they couldn't pass me. We wanted to go out and prove we should be rated sixth in the Northeast."

"I've been a wreck for a few days," Patrick said, referring to Fung's stomach woes and his nerves, "but it came together. Hopefully, it will come together even better next weekend at the Federation meet."

Queensbury's Flint finished in 15:38.7, missing first place by a second and a half. With the exception of Queensbury's second finisher, Joel Loke (14th overall, 16:12.8), all the times were slower than when the Spartans ran here in the Warwick Valley Invitational in October. But Queensbury coach Kevin Sullivan said there were reasons.

"The course is a lot softer, the heat and I think they discovered that the course was 65 meters short at the invitational, so they moved back the starting line and finish line," Sullivan said. "But they ran great."

Sullivan said the victory truly was a team effort, noting that Loke picked up for the usual second finisher Kevin Mulcahy (16:24.2), and that Sheldon Reeves (16:49.2), Brian Gallagher (16:52.3) and Sean Gallagher (16:59.6) also ran harder at certain times when they saw their teammates needed it.

"We've trained since June for this," Loke said. "There are three or four exact spots we run to in practice that we'd go an extra two yards and say, 'No shortcuts at states.'"

In the Class AA girls race, Saratoga Springs was trying for its seventh consecutive state championship. Most people figured it would be a close race between Section V's Hilton and the Blue Streaks, but Fayetteville-Manlius (Section III) surprised both squads, winning with 67 points. Hilton was second with 71, and Saratoga was third with 73.

Davidson finished in 17:41.5, five seconds behind winner Allison Sawyer of Hilton.

"We've been to this meet 17 times and won 14, so we're still doing pretty well," Saratoga Springs coach Linda Kranick said. "Not our best day, we've had better ones, but one race doesn't make a season. Getting out of Section II is the hardest part."

In the Class D boys race, first-time state entrant North Warren placed fifth and Ticonderoga finished seventh. Berube was outkicked by Candor's Christian Thompson in the final 50 meters; with Thompson winning in 15:31.9 to Berube's 15:32.6 -- the fifth- and sixth-fastest times of the day.

"I tried my hardest, but my legs felt stiff at the very end," Berube said. "I'm a little bit disappointed, but I guess I'm OK with it. I've still got Feds and the FootLocker Northeast Regional."

For athletes running as individuals, Queensbury's Cara Sprague was the top local finisher, placing sixth in the Class A girls race in 18:25.3. Saratoga Springs' Chris Allen was 15th (15:58.6) in the Class AA boys race.

[kk.]

Actually Amanda Griggs was sick for States and injured herself at Footlocker NE. Yesterday Amanda finished 24th at the Mountain Regionals - 2nd on her team, Northern Arizona. Aislynn Ryan finishe 11th for Colorado.


"Hilton team mate Amanda Griggs finished 11th (18:21.4) nursing a sore shin"

http://tullyrunners.com/XC2005/NYS_PhotosGirls.htm

[GirlsXC_coach]

As I recall, Hilton had a runner with a stress fracture before Feds last year.

Sore shins - not stress fracture. She was not injured. She was sick.

[sisyphus]

Sore shins - not stress fracture. She was not injured. She was sick.


My bad on the original post; hindsight had me combining the issues. I did not quote the shin issue above, however. I accept your word. Out of curiosity, if everyone had been 100% -sans sickness or injuries- would you still have skipped Feds? It makes sense either way, just wondering.

[Meggoooo]

Two things about Hanover. 1. I believe N. Kingstown was overrated and 2. I know it was a long time ago, but they lost to a Burnt Hills team at Manchester that did not run their current 3,4, and 5 on that day. I would have put them higher, but I struggled to put them ahead of BH. Shen ran almost Identical to BH last week at their sectionals. I think last years New England champ should have been much higher, but this years is a little more of a question mark.

alright, Kingstown was highly overrated.....agreed. however, stating hanover's loss to BH is not legit. hanover did not have their #3 runner on that day, and their #4 runner ran sick. using a meet that happened earlier in the season is a poor indicator of how the two teams would match up. no bias or anything, but i think hanover is better. at NE, their top 6 runners were under 20, with their 7th runner beating runner's in many teams top five. at MOC, all 7 runners were under 19:20 with a team average of 18:38. their depth is unbelievable. hanover is a completely different team than they were back in september; stronger and faster; using early season meet results is just useless.

[spartanxc]

I agree that it was a long time ago(too long ago to use for comparison, but what else do we have?) that Hanover faced BH, and it sounds like neither team was at full strength then. BH beat them by a 26 sec avg and did not have their 3,4, and 5. The top 5 teams at NYS champs were VERY close on the merge. In dual meet scoring BH beats FM 27-28. I agree that Hanover is good, but not ahead of BH. Should Hanover bump ahead of Shen? Colts Neck? Please give me your list.

[GirlsXC_coach]

Tatnall recieved an at-Large bid. They finished 5th at Manhattan behind Midlo, ER, Saratoga and Hilton, but ahead of FM. Had FM ran that JV girl that won in record fashion FM would have been between Hilton and Tatnall.

Does this mean that there should be three NY schools?

[sisyphus]

It really means the at large process is silly. But yes, NY deserves at least three bids if by deserves one means those teams would be top 15 contenders at NTN.

[sisyphus]

As of 11-12

1) FM
2) 'Toga
3) Hilton
(Above three in any order really)
4)Radnor
5)Burnt Hills
6) Aurora
7)HAnover
8)Greenwich
9) Colts Neck (probably better but not the way they ran at states)
10) North kingstown

[BROWN POTATO]

As of 11-12

1) FM
2) 'Toga
3) Hilton
(Above three in any order really)
4)Radnor
5)Burnt Hills
6) Aurora
7)HAnover
8)Greenwich
9) Colts Neck (probably better but not the way they ran at states)
10) North kingstown

Why do you feel CN they ran bad at states.
In merged results for the NJ group meet, they win by 96 points.

[sisyphus]

Why do you feel CN they ran bad at states.
In merged results for the NJ group meet, they win by 96 points.

80 seconds from 2-3 with three scorers over 20 minutes leaves a lot of room for the best teams in the region to pack in displacers. Once again, I doubt this will be the case at their MOC. However, from the weekend's results, they don't look as strong as the teams ahead of them.

[TelemarkSki24]

everyone on these boards needs to realize that the hershey PA course is 5k and hilly and the field was ACTUALLY strong this year. The times are not inflated and with the radnor girls have running on both Warwick AND Hershey, they can legitametly take there time down at least 20 secs. Which would result in a WIN in the NY state meet. Colts Neck has 3,4,5 runners running in the 20s! WHAT is THAT!? and they are #4 NE? Marc Bloom has to look again at his rankings. And understand that if you leave these girls home for NTN, you will be making one of the biggest mistakes of the year.

PA IS A COMPETITVE STATE! STOP USING POLITICS TO DICTATE NTN RANKINGS!

[NYrunner]

everyone on these boards needs to realize that the hershey PA course is 5k and hilly and the field was ACTUALLY strong this year. The times are not inflated and with the radnor girls have running on both Warwick AND Hershey, they can legitametly take there time down at least 20 secs. Which would result in a WIN in the NY state meet. Colts Neck has 3,4,5 runners running in the 20s! WHAT is THAT!? and they are #4 NE? Marc Bloom has to look again at his rankings. And understand that if you leave these girls home for NTN, you will be making one of the biggest mistakes of the year.

PA IS A COMPETITVE STATE! STOP USING POLITICS TO DICTATE NTN RANKINGS!

Hilton, FM and Toga ran some pretty amazing times on a tough course. It is a little short of 5k I think (10 seconds or so) but very tough.

Radnor ran :18 per girl behind Hilton at Warwick(same course as state) and that was not considered a good race by Hilton. Hilton has improved a lot since then and Toga and FM are right there with them. The 10th best team at this weekend's Fed meet would prob. be 3rd or better at Pa state meet. Radnor nipped some team at state champs that is not even on the radar for NE top 10.

1 Radnor (1) 81 9 12 15 18 27 36 147 19:17 44
2 Emmaus (11) 102 10 16 22 24 30 41 128 19:26 44

Each position, 1-5, was close with Radnor slightly a head at each position. I think it is pretty clear that FM, Toga and Hilton are the top 3 NE teams. If all 3 run well at Feds expect them to go to NTN and I think Radnor too (since they are ranked USA #6). You know Bloom will be pulling for Colts Neck so any thing that happens that can give him an excuse to bump them a head of Radnor and some NYS teams he'll jump on (since it is his home town).

[Joe Lanzalotto]

Easy to pick on the one race where Colt's Neck did not have 3 under 20:00 and the rest nearby. Before Saturday, their top three, once Bri got healthy and conditioned, were consistently under 20:00 with their third near 19:00. At the sectionals, they averaged 18:59 (admittedly not a hilly course).

If you do not know, Holmdel is a nasty course and the conditions Saturday were not great. Even Tauro and Higginson ran only 18:06 and 18:10.

As for Bloom, do you really believe that he would be so transparent as to favor the "home team"? Our impression is that he bends over backwards to avoid doing just that.

Not saying that the teams that you are talking about aren't deserving, just that you cannot dismiss CN.

Fire away!

[TelemarkSki24]

The 10th best team at this weekend's Fed meet would prob. be 3rd or better at Pa state meet. Radnor nipped some team at state champs that is not even on the radar for NE top 10.

1 Radnor (1) 81 9 12 15 18 27 36 147 19:17 44
2 Emmaus (11) 102 10 16 22 24 30 41 128 19:26 44

Each position, 1-5, was close with Radnor slightly a head at each position. I think it is pretty clear that FM, Toga and Hilton are the top 3 NE teams. If all 3 run well at Feds expect them to go to NTN and I think Radnor too (since they are ranked USA #6). You know Bloom will be pulling for Colts Neck so any thing that happens that can give him an excuse to bump them a head of Radnor and some NYS teams he'll jump on (since it is his home town).

Emmaus is an EXTREMEMLY underrated team. Radnor lost to Hilton by only 9 pts. There is no data to back up the arguement against radnor's PA state race. Why would Radnor's top 5 run 10-15 secs slower at the the state race 2 MONTHS AFTER the warwick race?

Im pretty sure the PA course is slower and to an amount that would bump them up on the comparison of the NY teams.

[TelemarkSki24]

Also, I personally have run on the Warwick Course and it is not as hard as the NY teams are making it sound. Its a fair course, but I would hardly call it a very tough course.

[TelemarkSki24]

have you run both? im going to guess not. You dont know how hard/easy the PA course is. I HAVE run the NY state course.

[TelemarkSki24]

its because kids from NY don't think that PA has individual talent. maybe there is actually kids that can beat the kids from NY? "OH NO! THATS BLASPHEMY!" get your facts straight, and start respecting PA.

[TelemarkSki24]

It took me a while to actually look at this, but I just compared Henderson's speed ratings at PA states to the NY state meet.

Henderson
191
184
183
168
165

Smithtown
188
185
182
169
165

After looking at this, I realize that Smithtown is ranked 4th in the Northeast, while Henderson is barely, if at all, on the radar. Maybe it was just a bad race for Smithtown, I don't know. But I think it shows that PA may be a tiny bit underrated this year and could certainly go toe to toe with some NY teams. We'll know more after Feds.

And yes, I know, NY is much deeper this year, I'm not trying to say otherwise.

Still don't believe PA?

[DynamicDanielle]

Hilton, FM and Toga ran some pretty amazing times on a tough course. It is a little short of 5k I think (10 seconds or so) but very tough.

Radnor ran :18 per girl behind Hilton at Warwick(same course as state) and that was not considered a good race by Hilton. Hilton has improved a lot since then and Toga and FM are right there with them. The 10th best team at this weekend's Fed meet would prob. be 3rd or better at Pa state meet. Radnor nipped some team at state champs that is not even on the radar for NE top 10.

1 Radnor (1) 81 9 12 15 18 27 36 147 19:17 44
2 Emmaus (11) 102 10 16 22 24 30 41 128 19:26 44

Each position, 1-5, was close with Radnor slightly a head at each position. I think it is pretty clear that FM, Toga and Hilton are the top 3 NE teams. If all 3 run well at Feds expect them to go to NTN and I think Radnor too (since they are ranked USA #6). You know Bloom will be pulling for Colts Neck so any thing that happens that can give him an excuse to bump them a head of Radnor and some NYS teams he'll jump on (since it is his home town).

I'd be very surprised if more than 1 at large came from the Girls Northeast region. I'm guessing that the Northeast will receive their auto-bids and no at larges. My guess for NE teams would be NY Feds Champ + Colts Neck (unless the second NY team is less than 5 points behind).

[usatf44]

Nope, I've only run VCP. But I'll wager a fair amount that the PA guys don't run 15:0x there. Or sub-15:20, for that matter. Which means the PA course can't be the monster some people are making it out to be.

I think you will find, The PA Hershey Parkland course seperate the elite runners from the field because if you have the speed to go out fast on it's fast first mile without lossing your legs and you have the strength and hill training to attack the last 2 miles you can post a great time (see below). But it will eat up the average runner. VCP starts fast also but the hills in the last two miles are not as tough.

PA AA Girls
1 Gibson 17:59
2 Seymour 18:01
3 Zarger 18:44

PA AAA Girls
1 Spence 18:07
2 Crofford 18:22

PA AA Boys
1 Zarzeczny 15:37
2 Dunkelberger 15:54

PA AAA Boys 1mile 2mile
1 Weller 15:04 4:35 9:31
2 Springer 15:06 4:35 9:33
3 Dawson 15:17 4:33 9:30
4 Aldrich 15:29
5 McNally 15:29
6 Panulla 15:38

The times for other than AAA Boys where not that fast and fell significantly after the elite. Keep in mind the AAA Boys has 3 of the top 9 FLNE and Alderrich and McNally are under estimated. You are likely looking at 5 of the top 15 FLNE in the PA AAA Boys 1 through 5.

The times for Hershey Parkland are tough to gauge after only one year. The Boys AAA Individual talent may be the PA best ever and included a runner from a national elite team on a mision. The FLNE should give us a good indication with 4 of the top 5 boys from PA there and a number of girls.

[usatf44]

Beating kids from New York is one thing. Beating the meet record at FLNE is quite another. And yeah, I don't think any PA kids will do the latter this year.

We will see the FLNE Boys field will be great this year from all over the NE and only Dawson and Murdock look like they have NTN in the way.

[sisyphus]

I'd be very surprised if more than 1 at large came from the Girls Northeast region. I'm guessing that the Northeast will receive their auto-bids and no at larges. My guess for NE teams would be NY Feds Champ + Colts Neck (unless the second NY team is less than 5 points behind).

I'll go with two Feds teams plus Radnor. Colt's Neck will have to match Roxbury 2005 at Holmdel or be very close to them to get a bid.

[NYrunner]

I'd be very surprised if more than 1 at large came from the Girls Northeast region. I'm guessing that the Northeast will receive their auto-bids and no at larges. My guess for NE teams would be NY Feds Champ + Colts Neck (unless the second NY team is less than 5 points behind).

We won't know until after Feds for Auto and then we have to wait and see how the Cali teams do to figure out the at-large. My guess is Toga and Hilton run closer to potential and distance themselves from the field tomorrow. There is no fair way of bumping them behind Radnor(Hilton beat by :18 seconds PER GIRL head to head in small field so it was only 9 points) or Colts Neck (check Manhattan results both Hilton(terrible day for them) and Toga(below average day for them) beat CN and GA champ Episcopal, FM did very well without #3 girl at Manhattan who ran in jv race and would have put them at 210 points if she ran in Easterns and would have put them a head of SE at-large team Tatnall...check it out http://www.armoryfoundation.org/meets/MXCI/2006/gvars.htm )

Truth is Radnor ran against one of the 3 top NYS teams and finished :18 PER GIRL behind that team when that team ran bad.
At Warwick:Hilton 18:41 ave.--Radnor 18:59 ave.
At Manhattan: Midlothian (USA #2)15:09, ER 15:15, Toga 15:15, Hilton 15:20

Radnor got their high ranking b/c of their proximity to Hilton at Warwick. The results were messed up and had Radnor at like 18:51ish for a while but the real gap is almost 20 seconds per girl.

The NYS teams have been inconsistent but they have beaten all NE comp outside of NYS they have faced. Oh and remember CN vs. Toga in Pa back in September?

The only way that CN could possibly jump in front of any NYS team would be for most of them to have terrible days at Feds and CN to be near Holmdel course record.

Maybe it sucks to see the same girls NE teams go every year but it will likely be Hilton and Toga again with either Radnor or CN(if run very well at MOC) getting an at-large. Plus I want to see what the two defending champs can do this year at NTN.

[gofast11]

Also, I personally have run on the Warwick Course and it is not as hard as the NY teams are making it sound. Its a fair course, but I would hardly call it a very tough course.

Warwick is NOT a tough course. It should run about 50 seconds faster than a place like Bowdoin Park

[gofast11]

have you run both? im going to guess not. You dont know how hard/easy the PA course is. I HAVE run the NY state course.

The PA state meet course is likely harder than Warwick but not harder than VCP

[gofast11]

I'll go with two Feds teams plus Radnor. Colt's Neck will have to match Roxbury 2005 at Holmdel or be very close to them to get a bid.

Agree. I do not see anyway that Colts Neck deserves a bid for this year. I do not see them getting close to Roxbury's performance from last season

[NYrunner]

Agree. I do not see anyway that Colts Neck deserves a bid for this year. I do not see them getting close to Roxbury's performance from last season

If conditions are fast their top 2 would run so much faster then Roxbury's average of 19:10ish so it might bring their average down near the 19:10-19:15 range.

What if CN top two are under 18:00? Then the other 3 could average around 20:00 and the team average would be in that 19:10-19:15 range. I don't think having a #3 two minutes behind #1 girl can earn a team a bid but if it is based mainly off their total time they will look much better then they are.

I think CN will have to have their 3-4-5 in the 19:30-19:45 range to get a shot at a bid.

I think their shot at NTN depends on the weather as funny as that sounds...

[DynamicDanielle]

Warwick is NOT a tough course. It should run about 50 seconds faster than a place like Bowdoin Park

You may have a point there.....but for whatever reason few of the NY girls (Allison Sawyer would be a notable exception with a very smart race) ran as well as expected on Saturday.

Aislinn Ryan's Warwick course record is 16:55
Her best Bowdoin time is 17:40

I'd optimistically hope that the Girls winner will be under 18 tomorrow but I don't see anyone getting Nicole Blood's course record (17:27)

[runningforthegold]

It will be very hard for any girl to break 18:00 tomorrow. The record is totally out of the question, even with great course conditions. 2004 was was a very rare day for NYS girls cross country racing

[dyoung]

As far as Radnor, their coach didn't want them to blow the title by going out hot on the flats (like defending AA champ Carly Seymour did).
Emmaus stats at Paul Short: http://mirror.milesplit.com/meet/results/38344

[s2fan]

We won't know until after Feds for Auto and then we have to wait and see how the Cali teams do to figure out the at-large. My guess is Toga and Hilton run closer to potential and distance themselves from the field tomorrow. There is no fair way of bumping them behind Radnor(Hilton beat by :18 seconds PER GIRL head to head in small field so it was only 9 points) or Colts Neck (check Manhattan results both Hilton(terrible day for them) and Toga(below average day for them) beat CN and GA champ Episcopal, FM did very well without #3 girl at Manhattan who ran in jv race and would have put them at 210 points if she ran in Easterns and would have put them a head of SE at-large team Tatnall...check it out http://www.armoryfoundation.org/meets/MXCI/2006/gvars.htm )

Truth is Radnor ran against one of the 3 top NYS teams and finished :18 PER GIRL behind that team when that team ran bad.
At Warwick:Hilton 18:41 ave.--Radnor 18:59 ave.
At Manhattan: Midlothian (USA #2)15:09, ER 15:15, Toga 15:15, Hilton 15:20

Radnor got their high ranking b/c of their proximity to Hilton at Warwick. The results were messed up and had Radnor at like 18:51ish for a while but the real gap is almost 20 seconds per girl.



Radnors numbers from PA state meet - only satatoga has 5th runner at 120 level. Perhaps Radnor only ranked 3rd due to h2h loss to Hilton.



2 Liz Milewski, Sr* Radnor 136
8 Hannah Granger, Sr* Radnor 126
11 Kelyn Freedman, Fr* Radnor 124
24 Shannon Holm, Sr* Radnor 120
25 June Farley, Sr* Radnor 120

they only lost by 9 @ warwick and were missing #5 above in those results.

here is a case where the traveling thing backfires.

they look dead even with the 3 teams that finished dead even last week.