Upload a Photo Upload a Video Add a News article Write a Blog Add a Comment
Blog Feed News Feed Video Feed All Feeds

Folders

 

 

National Team Rankings - 10/2 Girls - XC - DyeStat

Published by
DyeStat.com   Oct 2nd 2014, 8:16pm
Comments

Greak Oak rises to the top spot

by Rob Monroe



Girls Top 40, Oct. 2

1. Great Oak CA (3): 1st Nike Pre-Nationals OR; 1st Woodbridge CA; Idle


2. Carmel IN (2): 1st Culver IN; Idle; Idle


3. Desert Vista AZ (5): 2nd Nike Pre-Nationals OR; 2nd Woodbridge CA; Idle


4. Saugus CA (10): 1st Griak MN; 3rd Woodbridge CA; 1st Great Cow CA


5. Davis UT (14): 1st Bob Firman ID; Idle; 1st BYU UT


6. Blacksburg VA (4): Idle; 1st Adidas Challenge NC; 1st Knights Crossing VA


7. Fayetteville-Manlius NY (1): 2nd McQuaid NY; Idle; 1st V-V-S NY


8. Monarch CO (39): Idle; Idle; 1st Liberty Bell D1 CO


9. Avon IN (13): Idle; 1st Flashrock IN; 1st Ben Davis IN


10. Birmingham Seaholm MI (16): 1st Oakland Co. MI; 1st Jackson MI; 1st MSU Spartan MI


11. Hinsdale Central IL (62): Idle; 2nd Flashrock IN; 1st First to the Finish IL


12. Buchanan CA (19): 2nd Hank Roldan CA; 4th Woodbridge CA; Idle


13. Davis Sr. CA (9): 1st Stanford CA; 1st Carondalet CA; Ed Sias CA


14. Saratoga Springs NY (7): 1st Queensbury NY; Idle; 1st Shaker NY


15. Elmira District NY (15): 1st McQuaid NY; Idle; Idle


16. Capistrano Valley CA (30): Dana Hills CA; 6th Woodbridge CA; Laguna Hills CA


17. American Fork UT (49): 2nd Bob Firman ID; Idle; 2nd BYU UT


18. Simi Valley CA (22): Idle; 5th Woodbridge CA; Idle


19. Camas WA (NR): 8th Nike Pre-Nationals OR; 1st Sundodger WA; Capital WA


20. Redondo Union CA (27): 6th Nike Pre-Nationals OR; 10th Woodbridge CA; 2nd Great Cow CA


21. Cherry Creek CO (12): 1st Dave Sanders CO; Idle; 2nd Liberty Bell D1 CO


22. Palos Verdes CA (58): 3rd Nike Pre-Nationals OR; Idle; Idle


23. Summit OR (75): 4th Nike Pre-Nationals OR; 1st NW Classic OR; 1st Ash Creek OR


24. Campolindo CA (45): 3rd Stanford CA; 7th Carondelet CA; Ed Sias CA


25. Tolland CT (33): 1st Ocean State RI; Idle; 1st Windham CT


26. Glenbard West IL (21): Idle; 1st Richard Spring IL; 1st Harvey Braus IL


27. Wayzata MN (23): 2nd Griak MN; Idle; 4th Mayo MN


28. Smithson Valley TX (NR): 1st Islander Splash TX; 1st Ricardo Romo TX; Idle


29. Bella Vista CA (59): 2nd Stanford CA; Idle; Idle


30. Shenendehowa NY (53): 3rd McQuaid NY; Idle; 8th Shaker NY


31. Corning NY (29): 4th McQuaid NY; 1st Pre-State NY; Idle


32. Issaquah WA (NR): Idle; 1st South Whidbey WA; Capital WA


33. Sunset OR (NR): 5th Nike Pre-Nationals OR; Idle; 1st Canby OR


34. Arroyo Grande CA (36): 7th Nike Pre-Nationals OR; Mt. Carmel CA; Idle


35. Naperville North IL (18): 3rd Griak MN; Idle; 2nd First to the Finish IL


36. Pine Creek CO (NR): 1st Rim Rock KS; Idle; 2nd Liberty Bell D2 CO


37. Arcadia CA (NR): 5th Stanford CA; 7th Woodbridge CA; Idle


38. Palatine IL (86): 1st Palatine IL; 2nd Richard Spring IL; Idle


39. Unionville PA (11): Idle; Idle; Cherokee Challenge NJ


40. Oakton VA (26): 14th Nike Pre-Nationals OR; Idle; 3rd Knights Crossing VA

More news

19 comment(s)
watchout

Greg Beal, on , said:

Bill Meylan on a Sept 23 race run by FM - "Fayetteville-Manlius (Boys & Girls) posts highest National Team speed ratings of the season"

1 1 Annika Avery SR 1 Fayetteville-Manlius 17:21.8 5:54 140.73 141
2 2 Jenna Farrell JR 1 Fayetteville-Manlius 17:22.8 5:54 140.40 140
3 3 Samantha Levy JR 2 Fayetteville-Manlius 17:28.8 5:56 138.40 138
4 4 Sophia Ryan FR 1 Fayetteville-Manlius 17:37.1 5:59 135.63 136
7 7 Olivia Ryan SR 3 Fayetteville-Manlius 18:26.6 6:16 119.13 119
9 9 Reilly Madsen SO 2 Fayetteville-Manlius 18:37.9 6:19 115.37 115
10 10 Mackenzie Pierie SR 4 Fayetteville-Manlius 18:39.9 6:20 114.70 115
11 Jessica Howe SR 5 Fayetteville-Manlius 18:41.1 6:21 114.30 114
12 Palmer Madsen FR 3 Fayetteville-Manlius 18:56.2 6:26 109.27 109

I guess this effort might have affected their McQuaid performances four days later. Odd that they would take an eight-team league meet (I guess that's what it was) more seriously than McQuaid.


Who knows. Maybe they just weren't too concerned about how they raced at McQuaid, and thought a hard race in their league meet would better prepare them for later races this season. Either way, it's FM, they are plenty talented, and I'm sure they'll bounce back with another strong performance soon enough.
Greg Beal

watchout, on , said:

I don't know if FM is plagued with injuries or what. Maybe they just had a bad day, or trained too hard during the week and/or overlooked their opponents because they're more concerned about later races.


Bill Meylan on a Sept 23 race run by FM - "Fayetteville-Manlius (Boys & Girls) posts highest National Team speed ratings of the season"

1 1 Annika Avery SR 1 Fayetteville-Manlius 17:21.8 5:54 140.73 141
2 2 Jenna Farrell JR 1 Fayetteville-Manlius 17:22.8 5:54 140.40 140
3 3 Samantha Levy JR 2 Fayetteville-Manlius 17:28.8 5:56 138.40 138
4 4 Sophia Ryan FR 1 Fayetteville-Manlius 17:37.1 5:59 135.63 136
7 7 Olivia Ryan SR 3 Fayetteville-Manlius 18:26.6 6:16 119.13 119
9 9 Reilly Madsen SO 2 Fayetteville-Manlius 18:37.9 6:19 115.37 115
10 10 Mackenzie Pierie SR 4 Fayetteville-Manlius 18:39.9 6:20 114.70 115
11 Jessica Howe SR 5 Fayetteville-Manlius 18:41.1 6:21 114.30 114
12 Palmer Madsen FR 3 Fayetteville-Manlius 18:56.2 6:26 109.27 109

I guess this effort might have affected their McQuaid performances four days later. Odd that they would take an eight-team league meet (I guess that's what it was) more seriously than McQuaid.
Greg Beal
Noticed this result for the FLRunners Race of Champions in Florida on Tully Runners. Don't know if this team will be a factor this year but with 7th and 6th grade sisters at #1 and #3 and another 7th grader at #4, they may only get better:

flrunners.com Invitational FL
Girls ROC - Top Team
1 Yared, Tsion 7 Pine Crest HS 18:33.07 132.98 133
6 Montgomery, Julia 11 Pine Crest HS 19:08.59 121.14 121
22 Yared, Mahdere 6 Pine Crest HS 19:44.00 109.33 109
50 Schwartz, Amanda 7 Pine Crest HS 20:48.22 87.93 88
60 Jovanovic, Katherine 10 Pine Crest HS 21:04.15 82.62 83
65 Stevanovich, Katarina 12 Pine Crest HS 21:08.64 81.12 81
67 Vreeland, Simone 10 Pine Crest HS 21:08.85 81.05 81
83 Yared, Mahlet 12 Pine Crest HS 21:29.36 74.21 74
139 Walker, Sarah 10 Pine Crest HS 22:54.17 45.94 46
watchout

MatthewXCountry, on , said:

I'm sure that I'm just missing something, but how is it that Elmira beats Manlius and while Manlius falls 7 spots in the rankings, Elmira doesn't move up at all? Is Manlius plagued with injuries?


I don't know if FM is plagued with injuries or what. Maybe they just had a bad day, or trained too hard during the week and/or overlooked their opponents because they're more concerned about later races. To be honest, I probably dropped them even further than I should have (they have a good argument for being ahead of Davis and Blacksburg, they score out close enough and it is FM, however Davis and Blacksburg have an unblemished record while racing top teams this year while FM lost to Elmira), but that doesn't do anything to answer what I think is your actual question (Why did FM stay ahead of Elmira when Elmira beat them?) ... the answer to that is FM started off the stronger team, and while the gap shrank with Elmira's win, it didn't disappear. Also, it is relevant to point out that the four teams that passed Elmira didn't improve enough to pass FM (in other words, Elmira's race at McQuaid was good enough to pass 4 teams that were previously ranked ahead of them). The four teams that passed them, not surprisingly, all had at least 1 new scorer: Buchanan has a freshman running as their #4, Hinsdale Central has a freshman at #3 and at #4, Monarch has a freshman at #5, while Birmingham Seaholm has a freshman at #3 and a sophomore I hadn't included in the preseason at #5 (who didn't run XC last year and was a 2:30/5:51 girl this spring) -- so, the only teams that passed Elmira are teams that got freshmen who are already making an impact, while Elmira didn't get any new scorers.

Yes, the end result is that FM dropped 6 spots in the rankings while Elmira stayed put. However, I do think the fact that 4 teams previously ranked ahead of Elmira are now ranked behind Elmira due to how well Elmira ran and how those other four teams (Cherry Creek CO, Unionville PA, Pennsbury PA, and Fort Collins CO) have run is of at least some note.
MatthewXCountry

DougB, on , said:


7. Fayetteville-Manlius NY (1): 2nd McQuaid NY; Idle; 1st V-V-S NY

15. Elmira District NY (15): 1st McQuaid NY; Idle; Idle



I'm sure that I'm just missing something, but how is it that Elmira beats Manlius and while Manlius falls 7 spots in the rankings, Elmira doesn't move up at all? Is Manlius plagued with injuries?
MatthewXCountry

watchout, on , said:

Great Oak's JV may be good enough to beat all but about a dozen Varsity teams, but that doesn't mean Great Oak's JV team should compete at the (Varsity) State Championship, or as a team at the (Varsity) National Championship. But that's the great thing about invites and post season meets - there isn't that same limitation, and those kids can still show how good they are even if they aren't one of the top 7 runners from the school (whether in a different division, as unattached runners like they would in college, or at Footlocker or the open race at Nike - though admittedly the National version of the latter, which would be the only non-FLW option for California, was much more interesting back when there was a Kenyan team and some other notable teams participating)


I think allowing the JV team to compete at the state meet would be really silly. However, I think it would be a great idea to hold a JV state/national championship where the best JV teams competed against each other. If it's held on the same course that the varsity runners compete on you can always do a post race merged results analysis to see how your JV team would stack up against the varsity squads.
watchout
Early results from last night and today:

#3 Desert Vista (51) had no issues winning the Desert Twilight last night over Xavier Prep (112) and Rio Rancho NM (119)

Marcus (58) won Nike South over Southlake Carroll (93), New Braunfels (94), The Woodlands (113) and College Park (123)

#6 Blacksburg VA (53) rolled at Great American over LaSalle RI (105), Green Hope NC (130) and #14 Saratoga Springs NY (143)

Side note: Libby Davidson's winning time of 17:07.3 is #5 All Time at the WakeMed, and runner-up Ryen Frazier's time of 17:22.7 is #12. Blacksburg's team time of 91:28.9 is good for #7 All-Time, and LaSalle's 92:06.2 puts them at #11.
cerutty fan
There is a great misconception that the CA State Champs, or even NXN, is actually a compilation of the absolute best teams within the allowable borders to run those respective races. It is not. The CA State Champs would be comprised of 90% Southern Section teams if it were merit based. It is supposed to be a representation of all of CA's sections. The overall quality suffers a bit, but the best teams still rise to the top and make the schools from Oakland look silly.

NXN is largely the same. CA can only send 2 or 3 teams even though the girls currently have 9 teams ranked in the top 25.

If you could send "B" and "C" etc. teams to championships then Kenya and Ethiopia would have about 80% of the contestants in the 5000, 10000 and Marathon at the Olympics.

Quite honestly, I'm all for it, but that's a battle that is never going to be won.
Chris Nickinson

GeorgieTheK, on , said:

I don't see anything in the rules definitively preventing such a scenario.

http://www.runnerspa...265&page_id=472

Theoretically, a h.s. could split their team into different "clubs" - and could enter as such. If a regional race put both teams in the seeded race, it could happen - however unlikely.

Though I'm sure that once it happened, Nike would put a stop to the practice.


I agree with Joe, meet management would make a spot ruling to prevent a 2nd team from a school from qualifying but I don't see them stopping those kids from running in the qualifying race for open spots to nationals if they're resume shows they're deserving of that.
Joe Lanzalotto

GeorgieTheK, on , said:

I don't see anything in the rules definitively preventing such a scenario.

http://www.runnerspa...265&page_id=472

Theoretically, a h.s. could split their team into different "clubs" - and could enter as such. If a regional race put both teams in the seeded race, it could happen - however unlikely.

Though I'm sure that once it happened, Nike would put a stop to the practice.


I can guarantee that this would not be allowed. NXN rules don't cover every situation and sometimes spot rulings need to be made.

Quote

I guess I here people keep saying they shouldn't be able to but I have yet to hear a compelling reason why, other than, "that's just the way it should be and always has been", or it is somehow not fair to some other school. Soccer and basketball JV teams were given as examples why it seems silly which I would more lean to track examples where even if a competitor does not place high enough in their league or sectional, etc, there are at-large qualifying times that allow them to go to state because they are just that good and deserve to compete with their equivalent deserving peers. Same thing here, this is a B team that beat Capistrano Valley, Ayala, Mira Costa, Arcadia, Vista Murrietta head to head and was 1 second in team time at Woodbridge from Runnerspace California (all Divisions) ranked #5 Simi Valley and 34 seconds from #4 Buchanan. I would easily also argue though semantics that there are only a handful of teams that could beat Great Oak's B team in the state and not near a dozen. Bottom line, 7 other kids that can't help they live in a certain school district that are just as much part of their team and proud of it want to compete, not in Footlocker, but for their team and they've more than eanred the right to be there by their efforts to represent it.


One g old reason for not allowing more than one varsity team in a competition is that the rules don't permit it. The rulebook states the first 7 runners from a team (school) make up a team and the first 5 are scored and all other runners from the same school are ignored. Some states prohibit the entry of more than one varsity team in a race or a meet. I don't know about you but I doubt that the NFHS would get enough of a groundswell across the country to change the rules so that the very talent rich/large schools could take another spot in a meet. There is a further ramification that would affect track. If you allowed this it follows that you would have to allow teams who were say talent-rich in the spinets (Long Beach Poly in their great years comes to mind) to have more than one relay team in a race.

If you think along the lines of "its not the kids' fault that they live in a district where there are many talented runners" then why shouldn't the 4th 800 meter runner from a school put up a similar protest when she cannot run in a meet even though she's a 2:09 runner because there are 3 kids that are faster than she is?
GeorgieTheK

Scott Joerger, on , said:

HOWEVER this raises an interesting point. If Great Oak was in any region besides California, they could potentially send 2 teams to NXN, couldn't they? I don't think that's against the NXN rules is it? Watchout do you know?


I don't see anything in the rules definitively preventing such a scenario.

http://www.runnerspa...265&page_id=472

Theoretically, a h.s. could split their team into different "clubs" - and could enter as such. If a regional race put both teams in the seeded race, it could happen - however unlikely.

Though I'm sure that once it happened, Nike would put a stop to the practice.
Scott Joerger

mpflughoft1, on , said:

Capistrano Valley is ranked 16th and the Great Oak B team just beat them handily last Saturday at the Dana Hills Invitational. I think the California CIF needs to re-think the limitation of only one team per school to qualify for the CIF championships. The best teams should be allowed to compete and individuals not punished for attending a school too deep to allow them to showcase their deserving talents.


Maybe USA and Jamaica should field multiple relays teams in the olympics? Maybe USA Basketball should field a second team in the olympics - maybe we can go 1-2! I'm joking of course - I think it should remain one country (And one school) get's one team.

There's a similar argument that crops up every year for XC representation in the CA State Championships. Some of the stronger sections (Southern Section in particular) leave many capable teams home while teams which aren't as strong travel to the state finals from other sections. Why is this? - each region gets to send their best to represent them at state finals. Similarly, each school gets to send their 7 best to see how far they can go in CIF.

HOWEVER this raises an interesting point. If Great Oak was in any region besides California, they could potentially send 2 teams to NXN, couldn't they? I don't think that's against the NXN rules is it? Watchout do you know?

...but since California teams qualify via the CIF State Finals, there is not possibility for this for Great Oak.

What Great Oak is doing depth-wise is INCREDIBLE and I have nothing but admiration for them. Best of luck with the rest of the season.
GeorgieTheK

mpflughoft1, on , said:

Bottom line, 7 other kids that can't help they live in a certain school district that are just as much part of their team and proud of it want to compete, not in Footlocker, but for their team and they've more than eanred the right to be there by their efforts to represent it.


They didn't earn anything, and no one is taking anything away from them.

They're on a team - the coach sets the lineup. If they want to run, they can beat the people who are ahead of them on the team. Not much different than a kid who is on a great football team but can't crack the starting lineup. Or a basketball player who sits behind the blue chip recruit. The rules may seem arbitrary - but all rules of sport are. You can't play more than 5 guys at a time in basketball, etc. Some people play, some don't.

My point is what is the end point? Just individual sports? Team sports where there are multiple teams? But not head to head matchups? Are we to put all kids by time on the line? What if there's a school with a great top 7, and one or two kids - but not a full "B" team good enough - would those 1-2 kids get to run? Who decides?



I understand your argument - I was one of those kids. My HS (CBA) has had similar "problems" over the years. There have been years where the "B" 4x800 team ran well under 8:00. (At one point early last indoors CBA had the #1 and #3 times in the country in the event)

I was a 4:27 miler as junior in h.s. who never ran a state xc championship race for my h.s. I just wasn't good enough to make the team. I could've run varsity at any other high school in the state, but not at mine. So it was.

There's no grand injustice. The kids can run invites, dual meets, etc. They can run league meets. You know what my h.s. did/does? The "B" squad hhandled the dual meets; we ran invites when the varsity rested. Heck, the "B" team even ran - and won - the state xc meet two years ago when the schedule was compressed due to Hurricaine Sandy.
GeorgieTheK

mpflughoft1, on , said:

Bottom line, 7 other kids that can't help they live in a certain school district that are just as much part of their team and proud of it want to compete, not in Footlocker, but for their team and they've more than eanred the right to be there by their efforts to represent it.


They didn't earn anything, and no one is taking anything away from them.

They're on a team - the coach sets the lineup. If they want to run, they can beat the people who are ahead of them on the team. Not much different than a kid who is on a great football team but can't crack the starting lineup. Or a basketball player who sits behind the blue chip recruit. The rules may seem arbitrary - but all rules of sport are. You can't play more than 5 guys at a time in basketball, etc. Some people play, some don't.

My point is what is the end point? Just individual sports? Team sports where there are multiple teams? But not head to head matchups? Are we to put all kids by time on the line? What if there's a school with a great top 7, and one or two kids - but not a full "B" team good enough - would those 1-2 kids get to run? Who decides?



I understand your argument - I was one of those kids. My HS (CBA) has had similar "problems" over the years. There have been years where the "B" 4x800 team ran well under 8:00. (At one point early last indoors CBA had the #1 and #3 times in the country in the event)

I was a 4:27 miler as junior in h.s. who never ran a state xc championship race for my h.s. I just wasn't good enough to make the team. I could've run varsity at any other high school in the state, but not at mine. So it was.

There's no grand injustice. The kids can run invites, dual meets, etc. They can run league meets. You know what my h.s. did/does? The "B" squad hhandled the dual meets; we ran invites when the varsity rested. Heck, the "B" team even ran - and won - the state xc meet two years ago when the schedule was compressed due to Hurricaine Sandy.
watchout
Great Oak's JV may be good enough to beat all but about a dozen Varsity teams, but that doesn't mean Great Oak's JV team should compete at the (Varsity) State Championship, or as a team at the (Varsity) National Championship. But that's the great thing about invites and post season meets - there isn't that same limitation, and those kids can still show how good they are even if they aren't one of the top 7 runners from the school (whether in a different division, as unattached runners like they would in college, or at Footlocker or the open race at Nike - though admittedly the National version of the latter, which would be the only non-FLW option for California, was much more interesting back when there was a Kenyan team and some other notable teams participating)
mpflughoft1
I guess I here people keep saying they shouldn't be able to but I have yet to hear a compelling reason why, other than, "that's just the way it should be and always has been", or it is somehow not fair to some other school. Soccer and basketball JV teams were given as examples why it seems silly which I would more lean to track examples where even if a competitor does not place high enough in their league or sectional, etc, there are at-large qualifying times that allow them to go to state because they are just that good and deserve to compete with their equivalent deserving peers. Same thing here, this is a B team that beat Capistrano Valley, Ayala, Mira Costa, Arcadia, Vista Murrietta head to head and was 1 second in team time at Woodbridge from Runnerspace California (all Divisions) ranked #5 Simi Valley and 34 seconds from #4 Buchanan. I would easily also argue though semantics that there are only a handful of teams that could beat Great Oak's B team in the state and not near a dozen. Bottom line, 7 other kids that can't help they live in a certain school district that are just as much part of their team and proud of it want to compete, not in Footlocker, but for their team and they've more than eanred the right to be there by their efforts to represent it.
GeorgieTheK

mpflughoft1, on , said:

Capistrano Valley is ranked 16th and the Great Oak B team just beat them handily last Saturday at the Dana Hills Invitational. I think the California CIF needs to re-think the limitation of only one team per school to qualify for the CIF championships. The best teams should be allowed to compete and individuals not punished for attending a school too deep to allow them to showcase their deserving talents.


I'm all for getting more kids to run, but this is pretty silly.

Would they have another basketball team play games and qualify for a state tourney? A soccer team?
mpflughoft1
If the JV team was not only a State contender but a national ranking level, I think yes. Basketball and soccer is also a game played by two teams only against each other for that game. Cross country State Championships bring the best teams on the same field at once to see who is better, it is not a tournament of one on one games until you get to a championship game. Regardless, as long as an equivalent size school can put out on the course another team able to beat 98% of the other teams the same size other than their own A team, then it seems more than fair. It is not placing any other team at a disadvantage, it is doing the oppposite by penalizing the program and the kids left at home for being too good.
mpflughoft1
Capistrano Valley is ranked 16th and the Great Oak B team just beat them handily last Saturday at the Dana Hills Invitational. I think the California CIF needs to re-think the limitation of only one team per school to qualify for the CIF championships. The best teams should be allowed to compete and individuals not punished for attending a school too deep to allow them to showcase their deserving talents.
History for DyeStat XC RANKINGS
YearVideosNewsPhotosBlogs
2023   58    
2022   56    
2021   58    
Show 8 more