{"comments":{"900096":{"pb_id":"51677","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900096","comment_id":"900096","member_id":"51677","comment":"

<\/a>watchout, on , said:<\/p>

\nI'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say...
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nBasically I'm just quibbling, but the point is: It's XC, don't read TOO much into times, even on well tested courses. You know that already, obviously, that's what make your\/Tully's speed ratings so great,even though of course they have some limitations. If you assume some shifts in the distribution of times is completely legit because the times are on well-tested courses, whereas you assume others are not legit (or only accept shifts toward slower), then it's hard to know whether you're consistently correcting for course bias.
\n
\nIt's a tough racket! That's part of what makes it fun - and why we can appreciate your efforts even while we attempt to "correct" what we see as a bias. As I said, I don't have Cali info, so if you can tell me that times are basically steady except for the top few teams\/individuals, that would address my question.
\n
\nAs for York, when they run 4 guys tying for 1st with the same time, you can bet they weren't going all out. We'll see how it shakes out at State and NXN-midwest. Unfortunately, at least from the perspective of trying to compare across regions, IL teams rarely compete out of state. The one instance that comes to mind this year was the Naperville North girls, and they had their worst performance of the year there, by any measure.
\n
\nI predict State meet in IL won't be as blazing fast this year as last. Why? Lots of rain this week, and forecast for next. Not during the meet, but enough to soften the course a bit. We'll see.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 3:23pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"ILDistanceFan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=51677","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/ILDistanceFan.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1272024"},"900095":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900095","comment_id":"900095","member_id":"43715","comment":"

<\/a>Keith Chann, on , said:<\/p>

\nInteresting to see that Great Oak jumped into the rankings this week. They had, unquestionably, their worst race of the season and entered the rankings this week which I can only determine was based on their result from Mt. SAC Inv. I am not suggesting that GO should not be ranked based on their previous results but, it does seem odd that this is the week they enter the top 25.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nIt also helped significantly that I re-evaluated Nike South (and the rest of the Texas meets). That also helped the Texas girls (Southlake Carroll would have jumped significantly simply because they finally got one of their frontrunners back)
\n
\nNike South was 4 weeks ago. So not an absolute help (even if they ran their best there, it would be tempered by whatever they ran at Inland Empire or Mt. SAC), but definitely a big help.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 3:12pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"900093":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900093","comment_id":"900093","member_id":"43715","comment":"

<\/a>ILDistanceFan, on , said:<\/p>

\nTo paraphrase Syndrome (The Incredibles"): "When everyone is fast, noone is fast."
\n
\nI find this an interesting discussion, particularly from someone who derives (or has derived) speed ratings that are "course neutral." I don't have all the Cali meet info in front of me, but one of several scenarios could be unfolding. Tell me which is most likely:
\n
\n1. 100th (or 200th) place in each meet\/class\/division, for both boys and girls, is about the same as it ever was, on only slightly improved. But the winners are breaking records. And the best times\/runners are concentrated among a few teams. This scenario gives the strongest support to the idea that this is a great year in Cali XC for both boys and girls. Courses are running about the same, but a few people\/teams are excelling.
\n
\n2. 100th (or 200th) place is significantly faster (say 15sec) for boys, but not for girls; and a few teams are especially responsible. This would suggest the courses are running the same but boys are having a great year, spread across all teams and individuals. A bit weird for such even improvement across the state, but possible. And much more likely to happen in one gender than in both.
\n
\n3. 100th\/200th place for both boys and girls is significantly faster than usual, almost across the board. This suggests either "something is in the water" (or in the weather - great training weather? great racing weather?) or, more likely the course is running fast this year.
\n
\nWhy would a "well-tested" course run fast? There are many possibilities. The combination of dampness and usage can be critical. A course used as often as Mt Sac can be flattened into a highway under some conditions, or churned to mud under others - the latter being less likely in SoCal than in Illinois (let alone Portland Meadows).
\n
\nBeing from Illinois (which I think is very under-rated in your current rankings, but that's another story), I look at Detweiller (3m course) times over the years. There are good years and bad, but if you look at 100th place at State meet, while it's pretty consistent there is variation. In last 11 years, the fastest 100th place boy in the large school division is 15:24 (twice), lowest is 15:57 (average= 15:38, std dev=11s). Were these fluctuations in racing population, or course? Well, let's look at another group running same course over same period: the girls (average=18:40, std dev= 20s for girls). The correlation between 100th place for girls and boys is 0.92. This suggest something in common is driving the time variation. The most likely variable is the course (and\/or weather -- take them both in combination). Surges in sport popularity or competitiveness might contribute, but weather's contribution has been obvious some years, and subtle but discernible others.
\n
\nThat doesn't mean course\/weather is the only factor. For 1st place the boy-girl correlation over same 11 years is only 0.49 - so, course contributes, but individual variation does too, naturally. And some years are better for boys (2008 was relatively fast for boys much less for girls), other years better for girls (2012 was by far fastest ever for girls, only = fastest for boys).
\n
\nThe discrepancy between genders (or between divisions\/classes) is a better sign that one group just happens to be having a good year. A year when all groups\/genders get better, deep through the results, suggest the course is running fast.
\n
\nIsn't that just they type of analysis your speed ratings are supposed to account for?
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\n
\nI'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say... so I'll respond as best as I can.
\n
\nIndeed, course conditions (most notably weather, such as rain leading up to the meet leaving a course wet or muddy, wind at the meet, a heatwave, extreme heat, etc.) can and most definitely do effect how fast a course runs. That's why the NXN-MW and NXN National courses have been pretty inconsistent. That has nothing to do with how well the course runs in good conditions, though, which is the case in all the examples I've brought up this year (specifically, Mt. SAC and Detweiller in this conversation). This isn't the first time it's happened, and not the first time very good teams have competed in good conditions either. So the point remains, doesn't it? Teams are running fast. They are proving how good they are by running fast. This can be seen by a quick look at All-Time lists, particularly on well-tested courses. And it's backed up by athletes running similarly fast on other courses, both well-tested and not. Hence why California (and other states) have had several highly ranked teams. Illinois and Midwest teams have been running well, but when put in a historical context (how good are the marks they've been running, really? not just who they have race and\/or beaten), teams from other states have been doing better. Thus, teams from other states have been ranked higher. In York's case, as I said, they haven't really run many races lately, and with their WSS race not being all that impressive, it shouldn't be surprising that they've dropped a few spots - especially when the teams they are ranked near have a similar All-Time standing on well tested courses.
\n
\nIs Mt. SAC, and other California courses, faster than year than in the past? I don't see how - good weather, but that's not exactly uncommon. No course changes at Mt. SAC, minor on other courses that shouldn't effect how slow the course is (still basically flat, still the same distance). When the only difference is that runners are running faster, the only answer is that the runners ARE faster. Sure, if you graph out the races or look at how times at a specific finishing position compare, the graph shows that the races are faster than in the past - but that's why I don't use race graphing as my primary rating tool: it can downgrade performances on the same course in the same conditions with the same race tactics (in other words, identical situation beyond athletic capability of the athletes in the meet) if only the athletes are a little better this year. An increase in the of quality of the field doesn't lessen the caliber of performance at the meet, and so you shouldn't treat it as such. A perfect example is Utah last year - times were notably better across the board, but the conditions were pretty similar to the past, and the course wasn't changed - so did the course run significantly faster, or was it just that the athletes were that much better? If you look first and foremost at graphing the race to rate the performance, then the athletes would get a lower rating than in the past; if you look at what the athletes have done to that point (raced on other courses, and give credit to the runners running fast rather than the course running fast despite similar conditions), the ratings would be the same for an equal performance in previous years. Graphing the course would have suggested Utah wouldn't have dominated the NXN-Southwest meet - yet they did, having 3 teams in the top 5 and 6 in the top 10 on the boys side, and 3 in the top 6 and 5 in the top 10 on the girls. Their best-ever year.
\n
\nGive credit to the kids, not the course. The kids are the ones running the race. Running better times in similar conditions means they are better, not that the course is faster.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 3:01pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"900090":{"pb_id":"48488","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900090","comment_id":"900090","member_id":"48488","comment":"Interesting to see that Great Oak jumped into the rankings this week. They had, unquestionably, their worst race of the season and entered the rankings this week which I can only determine was based on their result from Mt. SAC Inv. I am not suggesting that GO should not be ranked based on their previous results but, it does seem odd that this is the week they enter the top 25.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 2:54pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"Keith Chann","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=48488","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/Keith-Chann.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1272068"},"900085":{"pb_id":"51677","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"900085","comment_id":"900085","member_id":"51677","comment":"

<\/a>watchout, on , said:<\/p>

\nMt. SAC is extremely well tested, has been around forever, and yet these teams continue to run All-Time marks on it. They [CA teams] aren't overhyped - they are very good. That's just a fact.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nTo paraphrase Syndrome (The Incredibles"): "When everyone is fast, noone is fast."
\n
\nI find this an interesting discussion, particularly from someone who derives (or has derived) speed ratings that are "course neutral." I don't have all the Cali meet info in front of me, but one of several scenarios could be unfolding. Tell me which is most likely:
\n
\n1. 100th (or 200th) place in each meet\/class\/division, for both boys and girls, is about the same as it ever was, on only slightly improved. But the winners are breaking records. And the best times\/runners are concentrated among a few teams. This scenario gives the strongest support to the idea that this is a great year in Cali XC for both boys and girls. Courses are running about the same, but a few people\/teams are excelling.
\n
\n2. 100th (or 200th) place is significantly faster (say 15sec) for boys, but not for girls; and a few teams are especially responsible. This would suggest the courses are running the same but boys are having a great year, spread across all teams and individuals. A bit weird for such even improvement across the state, but possible. And much more likely to happen in one gender than in both.
\n
\n3. 100th\/200th place for both boys and girls is significantly faster than usual, almost across the board. This suggests either "something is in the water" (or in the weather - great training weather? great racing weather?) or, more likely the course is running fast this year.
\n
\nWhy would a "well-tested" course run fast? There are many possibilities. The combination of dampness and usage can be critical. A course used as often as Mt Sac can be flattened into a highway under some conditions, or churned to mud under others - the latter being less likely in SoCal than in Illinois (let alone Portland Meadows).
\n
\nBeing from Illinois (which I think is very under-rated in your current rankings, but that's another story), I look at Detweiller (3m course) times over the years. There are good years and bad, but if you look at 100th place at State meet, while it's pretty consistent there is variation. In last 11 years, the fastest 100th place boy in the large school division is 15:24 (twice), lowest is 15:57 (average= 15:38, std dev=11s). Were these fluctuations in racing population, or course? Well, let's look at another group running same course over same period: the girls (average=18:40, std dev= 20s for girls). The correlation between 100th place for girls and boys is 0.92. This suggest something in common is driving the time variation. The most likely variable is the course (and\/or weather -- take them both in combination). Surges in sport popularity or competitiveness might contribute, but weather's contribution has been obvious some years, and subtle but discernible others.
\n
\nThat doesn't mean course\/weather is the only factor. For 1st place the boy-girl correlation over same 11 years is only 0.49 - so, course contributes, but individual variation does too, naturally. And some years are better for boys (2008 was relatively fast for boys much less for girls), other years better for girls (2012 was by far fastest ever for girls, only = fastest for boys).
\n
\nThe discrepancy between genders (or between divisions\/classes) is a better sign that one group just happens to be having a good year. A year when all groups\/genders get better, deep through the results, suggest the course is running fast.
\n
\nIsn't that just they type of analysis your speed ratings are supposed to account for?","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 2:37pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"ILDistanceFan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=51677","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/ILDistanceFan.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1272024"},"899555":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899555","comment_id":"899555","member_id":"43715","comment":"

<\/a>Michiganfan, on , said:<\/p>

\nI know first hand that Brea ran without two of their varsity runners. They had their regular 5 guys run and rested their 6 and 7 guys. My son runs for Brea. That's a fact.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nInteresting. The results included everyone I had for Brea Olinda's top-7 previously. Who was it that sat out? Jeff Sipple and Chris DeDio were the only ones that I've been keeping track of that weren't in the results. You could make a case for Sipple being their #7, but I think DiMaggio Orozco passed him up and Trevor Lunde was faster than him at Clovis as well.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 5:51am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"899518":{"pb_id":"50324","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899518","comment_id":"899518","member_id":"50324","comment":"

<\/a>Keith Chann, on , said:<\/p>

\nBrea was not without 2 top runners. They ran the full varsity squad.
\nGreat Oak was not 6th at Mt SAC
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nI know first hand that Brea ran without two of their varsity runners. They had their regular 5 guys run and rested their 6 and 7 guys. My son runs for Brea. That's a fact.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 5:37am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"Michiganfan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=50324","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=50324","pb_wally_id":"1206004"},"899516":{"pb_id":"50627","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899516","comment_id":"899516","member_id":"50627","comment":"

<\/a>watchout, on , said:<\/p>

\nAh. Well, in cases like this, I think it's probably best to go with whatever the official results say (I realize it's important to give teams credit for their actual finishing place, but the rankings aren't done by team finish at invites and the official results are what should be commented on for saying where they finished in the meet). Has meet management corrected the results elsewhere, so that we can also update the commentary?
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nNo, I don't think it will be possible to correct all the results, it would be too time consuming with 124 races to rescore.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 5:12am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"cerutty fan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=50627","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=50627","pb_wally_id":"1212787"},"899477":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899477","comment_id":"899477","member_id":"43715","comment":"Ah. Well, in cases like this, I think it's probably best to go with whatever the official results say (I realize it's important to give teams credit for their actual finishing place, but the rankings aren't done by team finish at invites and the official results are what should be commented on for saying where they finished in the meet). Has meet management corrected the results elsewhere, so that we can also update the commentary?","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 4:54am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"899463":{"pb_id":"50627","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899463","comment_id":"899463","member_id":"50627","comment":"

<\/a>watchout, on , said:<\/p>

\nGreat Oak was sixth in the Division 1\/2 Team Sweepstakes race at Mt. SAC: http:\/\/events.mtsac....\/2013\/hs\/73.pdf<\/a>
\n
\nComments regarding what the teams did get abbreviated (shortened); as a result, the teams at Mt. SAC this week (or Manhattan last week) are probably in the elite race (Team Sweepstakes for Mt. SAC, Eastern States for Manhattan) unless otherwise noted. Hence Brea Olinda's comment about winning the D3 Sweepstakes race, or Loyola winning the Individual Sweepstakes race.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nGreat Oak was actually 7th, 1 point behind Dos Pueblos. Scoring mixup put GO's Giba at 36th, but was actually 37th.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 4:50am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"cerutty fan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=50627","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=50627","pb_wally_id":"1212787"},"899440":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899440","comment_id":"899440","member_id":"43715","comment":"Great Oak was sixth in the Division 1\/2 Team Sweepstakes race at Mt. SAC: http:\/\/events.mtsac....\/2013\/hs\/73.pdf<\/a>
\n
\nComments regarding what the teams did get abbreviated (shortened); as a result, the teams at Mt. SAC this week (or Manhattan last week) are probably in the elite race (Team Sweepstakes for Mt. SAC, Eastern States for Manhattan) unless otherwise noted. Hence Brea Olinda's comment about winning the D3 Sweepstakes race, or Loyola winning the Individual Sweepstakes race.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 4:17am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"899439":{"pb_id":"48488","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899439","comment_id":"899439","member_id":"48488","comment":"Brea was not without 2 top runners. They ran the full varsity squad.
\nGreat Oak was not 6th at Mt SAC","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 4:12am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"Keith Chann","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=48488","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/Keith-Chann.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1272068"},"899271":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899271","comment_id":"899271","member_id":"43715","comment":"

<\/a>Mike Newman, on , said:<\/p>

\nCalifornia is not that good. It's just a fact. Way too much hype.
\n
\nShocked that York dropped that low. All they do is win.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nTheir front runners were definitely off at WSS, their last good effort. Aside from that race, only regionals in the last 4 weeks. I expect they'll move back up in the next couple weeks due to racing again at their Sectional and State meets.
\n
\nEDIT: By the way, food for thought...
\n
\nI think Warren is probably around #25-35 All-Time at Mt. SAC last weekend (20 seconds off of the #14 team, though I don't know exact times beyond that when including the CIF-SS meet and any other meets aside from the big invite). York is #31 All-Time at Detweiller from the Peoria ND meet (30 seconds off the #14 team). If we can agree that SoCal has been about on par with the whole of Illinois (at the top), that would suggest (though in a very limited capacity) that the two teams should be pretty similar, right?
\n
\nEDIT2: a comparison of Illinois and SoCal boys teams @ NXN during the regional era -
\n
\nSoCal: 3 Top-3 finishes; 7 Top-10 finishes; 13 teams w\/ sub-330 score; 20 teams qualified, top 12 averaging 242.25 points
\nIllinois: 3 Top-3 finishes; 7 Top-10 finishes; 12 teams w\/ sub-330 score; 12 teams qualified, averaging 248.58 points
\n
\n
\nEDIT3: Also, if you were thinking that Detweiller is more thoroughly tested by Illinois teams than Mt. SAC is SoCal teams, consider this -
\n
\nMt. SAC is the site of the CIF-SS Finals, CIF-SS Prelims, Mt. SAC Invite (whose only real rival is Manhattan), and a smaller invite (San Gabriel Challenge). To put it in perspective, imagine Detweiller being the site of EVERY Sectional race in Illinois. And I'm willing to bet Mt. SAC gets more "out of state" competition adding to it at it's invite than the Peoria meets (which do get a few teams from Indiana and Iowa, I do realize... but Mt. SAC also gets teams from the SDS, SJS, CS, CCS, Nevada, and Arizona). There are about 550 schools in the CIF-SS, and about 500 in Illinois. 320 teams in the CIF-SS Prelims, 80 in the CIF-SS Finals. All 80 racing in peak shape, struggling to get to the California State meet. And many teams at the Mt. SAC are in peak form as well, since it's only a couple weeks before the run-up to state starts (similar to the Palatine Invite in Illinois).
\n
\nMt. SAC is extremely well tested, has been around forever, and yet these teams continue to run All-Time marks on it. They aren't overhyped - they are very good. That's just a fact.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 12:31am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"899255":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899255","comment_id":"899255","member_id":"43715","comment":"

<\/a>Michiganfan, on , said:<\/p>

\nBrea Olinda had fastest at Mt Sac this past weekend. They beat Arcadia. Brea ran 1:16:39 and Arcadia ran 1:16:56 and this is without Brea's normal 2 varsity runners. Go Wildcats.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nVery good day for Brea Olinda, which is why they moved up so far in the rankings.
\n
\nArcadia managed to move up despite having a slower team time, because the runners that were significantly "off" at Mt. SAC (DLR in particular) ran well enough at Clovis 3 weeks ago. That won't be such a strong factor in the next update, so they might drop back down again - should still be top-5, but probably back at #4 or so... not a lot separating that group of teams.","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 12:28am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"899254":{"pb_id":"43715","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899254","comment_id":"899254","member_id":"43715","comment":"

<\/a>DontStopPre, on , said:<\/p>

\nI'm curious how Kamiakin moved up so much from winning the MCC? I do think they belong being ranked high but based on Sunfair Invite weeks ago (3?) not based on MCC. Or does it take a while for results like Sunfair to kick in? Thanks for doing the rankings.
<\/div><\/div>
\n
\nThe rankings are based on how the athletes have done in the last 3 weeks, the last 4 weeks, the last 5 weeks (etc.). The three biggest reasons for Kamiakin's rise in the rankings this week:
\n
\nCameron Glade, Keegan McCormick, and Daniel Sanchez, all running well at MCC
\n
\nSnyder and especially Kraal didn't have such good days, but they both ran well at Sunfair (4 weeks ago) so that doesn't hurt them too much. Though since it's 3+ weeks ago, those results will become less and less of a factor with each passing week - so they'll have to bounce back at Eastern Regional for them to remain as highly ranked next week, and especially at State (since State\/NXR\/NXN get extra weighting).","date_added":"Nov 1st 2013, 12:23am","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-43715.jpg","pb_title":"watchout","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=43715","pb_wally_id":"1073498"},"899239":{"pb_id":"42240","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899239","comment_id":"899239","member_id":"42240","comment":"California is not that good. It's just a fact. Way too much hype.
\n
\nShocked that York dropped that low. All they do is win.","date_added":"Oct 31st 2013, 10:14pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":{"wally_id":"1019712","email_settings":"4294967295","email":"newman.dyestatil@gmail.com","address":"ILXCTF","gender":"u","member_id":"42240","member_name":"ILXCTF - Mike Newman","avatar_location":"av-42240.jpg","avatar_type":"upload","avatar":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-42240.jpg"},"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-42240.jpg","pb_title":"ILXCTF - Mike Newman","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=42240","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/ILXCTF.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1019712"},"899187":{"pb_id":"45158","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899187","comment_id":"899187","member_id":"45158","comment":"Nice touch with the team logos!","date_added":"Oct 31st 2013, 8:00pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"DontStopPre","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=45158","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=45158","pb_wally_id":"1182171"},"899169":{"pb_id":"50324","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899169","comment_id":"899169","member_id":"50324","comment":"Brea Olinda had fastest at Mt Sac this past weekend. They beat Arcadia. Brea ran 1:16:39 and Arcadia ran 1:16:56 and this is without Brea's normal 2 varsity runners. Go Wildcats.","date_added":"Oct 31st 2013, 7:13pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"Michiganfan","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=50324","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=50324","pb_wally_id":"1206004"},"899133":{"pb_id":"44418","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899133","comment_id":"899133","member_id":"44418","comment":"I'll let Watchout speak to this but I don't think all of these rankings are necessarily established by the most recent result. Certainly some are. Arcadia moving up to No. 2 for instance has to be based largely on Mt. SAC - but cerutty fan just reminded me that the Apaches weren't even the fastest at that meet.
\n
\nThe comment at the right of each team typically refers to its most recent achievement.","date_added":"Oct 31st 2013, 6:24pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":{"wally_id":"1082747","email_settings":"4294967295","email":"dbind4@aol.com","address":"DougB","gender":"u","member_id":"44418","member_name":"DougB","avatar_location":"av-44418.jpg","avatar_type":"upload","avatar":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-44418.jpg"},"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/forum\/uploads\/av-44418.jpg","pb_title":"DougB","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=44418","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/DougB.runnerspace.com\/","pb_wally_id":"1082747"},"899131":{"pb_id":"45158","pb_type":"members","likes":"0","parent_id":"0","pid":"899131","comment_id":"899131","member_id":"45158","comment":"I'm curious how Kamiakin moved up so much from winning the MCC? I do think they belong being ranked high but based on Sunfair Invite weeks ago (3?) not based on MCC. Or does it take a while for results like Sunfair to kick in? Thanks for doing the rankings.","date_added":"Oct 31st 2013, 6:07pm","nest":0,"liked":false,"member":[],"can_delete":false,"item_id":193296,"item_type":"news","pb_image":"i\/no_avatar.png","pb_title":"DontStopPre","pb_url":"profile.php?member_id=45158","pb_url_dns":"https:\/\/www.runnerspace.com\/profile.php?member_id=45158","pb_wally_id":"1182171"}},"last_id":"899131","url":"comments.php?item_type=news&item_id=193296&item_url=gprofile.php?mgroup_id=44531"}