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 Boys - XC - DyeStat

Published by
DyeStat.com   Oct 2nd 2014, 8:29pm
Comments

No. 1 American Fork getting sharp in Utah

by Rob Monroe

 


 

Boys Top 40, Oct. 2

 

1. American Fork UT (3): 1st Nebo UT; Idle; 1st Herriman UT

 
2. College Park TX (23): 1st Brenham TX; Idle; 1st Oak Ridge TX


3. La Salle Academy RI (1): 2nd Bowdoin NY; Idle; Idle


4. Great Oak CA (13): 1st Nike Pre-Nationals OR; 1st Woodbridge CA; Idle


5. Fayetteville-Manlius NY (5): 1st McQuaid NY; Idle; 1st V-V-S NY


6. Davis UT (9): 1st Bob Firman ID; Idle; 1st BYU UT


7. Christian Brothers Academy NJ (2): 1st Bowdoin NY; Idle; Idle


8. Liverpool NY (6): 2nd McQuaid NY; 1st Pre-State NY; Idle


9. Jenks OK (21): 1st OSU Jamboree OK; Idle; Idle


10. Wayzata MN (10): 1st Griak MN; Idle; Idle


11. Saugus CA (29): 3rd Griak MN; 3rd Woodbridge CA; Idle


12. Loyola CA (NR): 1st Bell-Jeff CA; Mt Carmel CA; Idle


13. Central Catholic OR (4): 7th Nike Pre-Nationals OR; 3rd Sundodger WA; Idle


14. Kamiakin WA (11): Idle; 1st Sundodger WA; 1st Tracy Walters WA


15. Timpanogos UT (18): 2nd Bob Firman ID; Idle; Idle


16. Madera South CA (15): 1st Golden Eagle CA; 8th Woodbridge CA; Laguna Hills CA


17. Sandburg IL (66): Idle; 1st Richard Spring IL; Idle


18. The Woodlands TX (56): 2nd Brenham TX; Idle; 2nd Oak Ridge TX


19. Southlake Carroll TX (8): Idle; 1st Javelina TX; Idle


20. North Central WA (7): 5th Bob Firman ID; Idle; 3rd Tracy Walters WA


21. Lake Braddock Secondary VA (22): Top team @ flighted DCXC DC; 6th Trinity KY; Idle


22. Hinsdale Central IL (62): Idle; Idle; 1st First to the Finish IL


23. Carmel IN (99): Idle; 1st Trinity KY; 2nd Eagle Classic IN


24. Summit OR (28): 3rd Nike Pre-Nationals OR; 1st NW Classic OR; 1st Ash Creek OR


25. West Lafayette IN (38): 2nd Culver IN; 2nd Trinity KY; Idle


26. Columbus North IN (NR): 3rd Culver IN; 1st Flashrock IN; 1st Eagle Classic IN


27. Burroughs (Burbank) CA (NR): Idle; Mt Carmel CA; Rosemead CA


28. Claremont CA (NR): Idle; 2nd Woodbridge CA; Idle


29. St. Anthony's NY (43): 1st Carlisle PA; 1st Regis NY; Jim Smith NY


30. Festus MO (73): 1st Hancock MO; 1st Festus MO; 1st Forest Park MO


31. Don Bosco NJ (14): 3rd Bowdoin NY; Idle; Idle


32. Tahoma WA (NR): 2nd Nike Pre-Nationals OR; 1st Ft. Steilacoom WA; Idle


33. Malvern Prep PA (20): Idle; Idle; 1st Briarwood PA


34. Desert Hills UT (NR): 2nd Nebo UT; 5th Woodbridge CA; 2nd BYU UT


35. Ogden UT (49): 3rd Bob Firman ID; Idle; Idle


36. Lincoln SD (61): 2nd Griak MN; 1st Heartland Classic IA; 1st Millard South NE


37. Mountain View ID (NR): 4th Griak MN; 1st Mountain Home ID; 2nd Tracy Walters WA


38. Bellarmine Prep CA (41): 2nd Stanford CA; Idle; Idle


39. Corona del Sol AZ (NR): 1st Doug Conley AZ; 1st Ojo Rojo AZ; Idle


40. Brea Olinda CA (42): Idle; 4th Woodbridge CA; Idle

More news

90 comment(s)
King999
Indeed..

Many agree , but , but after FM domination in 2004, I believe it was and getting beat at Nationals? I think, many have downplayed the 2.5 time tested Vanny results

Not me, this is all time stuff no matter where it was or the distance
GeorgieTheK

King999, on , said:

I rarely use team times OR even 5 man avgs to look at a race

They get too skewed by one guy possibly, which happened today

The issue here today was that this was a very fast race 20 under 12:45 35 under 13:00, when you pick up scoring at second with 47th you have no chance, in this type of field.



I'm just getting to the results after being in the mountains all weekend.


To borrow a kingism - FM a horror show. Seriously.

Are we not talking about this? I know the race was fast, etc. But they had their #2 guy at 12:21, and 4 guys under 12:40.

I think CBA ran really poorly, as poorly as they have run in the past 10 years. In fact, the last time they had a team that was good enough to run well and didn't was...at Manhattan in 2004 when they got waxed by FM. But even on their best day they don't come close to FM.

FM's performance might be the best HS team performance ever. Top guy who is legitimately one of the best 5-10 guys in the country (if not better), with 3 other guys within 30 secs of him.

Scary stuff. Kudos to them.
cerutty fan

watchout, on , said:

So... they scored essentially the same amount of points as a pair of US#15-30 ranked teams and not far off a US Top-5 team, while some of their runners had clearly bad days (their #3 and #4 ran as their #7 and #6 in the championship race, and two of their 'B' team runners ran faster than they did as well), and you think that means that, despite running well and winning Nike South last week clearly showing they are either #1 or #2 in Texas and #2 or #3 in the South, and what that all means is they should drop back to #29-34 (behind teams they beat last week)?

Come on.

EDIT: Let's take a closer look at this, because it's a great example of how the snapshot of a single race can show something different than what the actual results over the course of the season has shown.

On the left is the rank within their team (including a quick estimate of the race today) and on the right is how they ran (all were in the championship race).

Claremont -
#1/2 Adam Johnson = #31 (15:48.25)
#1/2 Mike Lowrie = #19 (15:38.09)
#3 Jonah Ross = #16 (15:36.51)
#4 Dylan Powers = #45 (16:00.61)
#5/6 Tom Englebert = #67 (16:16.26)
#5/6 Jonah Evans = #76 (16:20.17)
#7 Tab Backman = #119 (16:40.69)

Canyon -
#1 Wesley Walsh = #5 (15:23.32)
#2 Chance Lamberth = #8 (15:26.76)
#3/4 Ryan Thompson = #40 (15:57.29)
#3/4 Dylan Scarsone = #28 (15:46.41)
#5/6 Dalton Tanner = #94 (16:27.45)
#5/6 Travis Gradijan = #95 (16:28.07)
#7 Omar Ledezma = #151 (17:04.28)

Southlake Carroll -
#1 Eli Canal = #22 (15:43.60)
#2 Reed Brown = #18 (15:37.60)
#3 Timou Toure = #103 (16:32.21)
#4/5 Ansel Richards = #70 (16:18.02)
#4/5 Shea Whatley = #42 (15:58.60)
#6 Charles Gardner = #43 (15:59.18)
#7 Johnny Kemps = #60 (16:11.76)



So, Southlake Carroll's #5/6 guys (though not on this day) beat Claremont's #4, and Southlake Carroll's #1-2 punch (both today and their usual runners) beat Claremont's #1-2 punch.

Meanwhile, Southlake Carroll's #5/6 guys (though not on this day) were far ahead of Canyon's #5; their #5 on the day was STILL almost 10 seconds ahead of Canyon's, and their #4's were very similar (though Canyon had the better day up front).

Despite the fact that the only reason Canyon (175) and Claremont (178) scored less points than Southlake Carroll (185) was because of the makeup of the Championship race's field, the fact that Southlake Carroll had a more significant trek to get to the meet, were coming off a big win the week before, and had a worse day when looking at "who ran what" vs. "who should have run what", you believe all that is irrelevant because Canyon scored 175 points, Claremont scored 178 points, and Southlake Carroll scored 185 in the championship race.


That's correct. As they say, "scoreboard".
watchout

cerutty fan, on , said:

I would still say they should drop at least 10-15 spots to 29-34 range. I wouldn't rank them based on a "merged" score using runners that raced in less competitive races and therefore had less traffic to negotiate given where they finished. Their boys that ran 16:02 (10th place in DI) and 16:09 (14th in DI) wouldn't necessarily have run faster than their 5th runner (16:11 for 69th) did in the Championship race.

In this case the merged scored definitely does not take precedence over the actual race score. If they had one or two kids run 30-40 seconds faster in the DI race then that would be different.


So... they scored essentially the same amount of points as a pair of US#15-30 ranked teams and not far off a US Top-5 team, while some of their runners had clearly bad days (their #3 and #4 ran as their #7 and #6 in the championship race, and two of their 'B' team runners ran faster than they did as well), and you think that means that, despite running well and winning Nike South last week clearly showing they are either #1 or #2 in Texas and #2 or #3 in the South, and what that all means is they should drop back to #29-34 (behind teams they beat last week)?

Come on.

EDIT: Let's take a closer look at this, because it's a great example of how the snapshot of a single race can show something different than what the actual results over the course of the season has shown.

On the left is the rank within their team (including a quick estimate of the race today) and on the right is how they ran (all were in the championship race).

Claremont -
#1/2 Adam Johnson = #31 (15:48.25)
#1/2 Mike Lowrie = #19 (15:38.09)
#3 Jonah Ross = #16 (15:36.51)
#4 Dylan Powers = #45 (16:00.61)
#5/6 Tom Englebert = #67 (16:16.26)
#5/6 Jonah Evans = #76 (16:20.17)
#7 Tab Backman = #119 (16:40.69)

Canyon -
#1 Wesley Walsh = #5 (15:23.32)
#2 Chance Lamberth = #8 (15:26.76)
#3/4 Ryan Thompson = #40 (15:57.29)
#3/4 Dylan Scarsone = #28 (15:46.41)
#5/6 Dalton Tanner = #94 (16:27.45)
#5/6 Travis Gradijan = #95 (16:28.07)
#7 Omar Ledezma = #151 (17:04.28)

Southlake Carroll -
#1 Eli Canal = #22 (15:43.60)
#2 Reed Brown = #18 (15:37.60)
#3 Timou Toure = #103 (16:32.21)
#4/5 Ansel Richards = #70 (16:18.02)
#4/5 Shea Whatley = #42 (15:58.60)
#6 Charles Gardner = #43 (15:59.18)
#7 Johnny Kemps = #60 (16:11.76)



So, Southlake Carroll's #5/6 guys (though not on this day) beat Claremont's #4, and Southlake Carroll's #1-2 punch (both today and their usual runners) beat Claremont's #1-2 punch.

Meanwhile, Southlake Carroll's #5/6 guys (though not on this day) were far ahead of Canyon's #5; their #5 on the day was STILL almost 10 seconds ahead of Canyon's, and their #4's were very similar (though Canyon had the better day up front).

Despite the fact that the only reason Canyon (175) and Claremont (178) scored less points than Southlake Carroll (185) was because of the makeup of the Championship race's field, the fact that Southlake Carroll had a more significant trek to get to the meet, were coming off a big win the week before, and had a worse day when looking at "who ran what" vs. "who should have run what", you believe all that is irrelevant because Canyon scored 175 points, Claremont scored 178 points, and Southlake Carroll scored 185 in the championship race.
cerutty fan

watchout, on , said:

Now that all the races at Clovis are done, Southlake Carroll ends up #2 in the full merge. Anyone still think they should drop out of the top 30?

EDIT: Power merge scores =

  • 140 - Great Oak - 78:37.79 (US#4)
  • 187 - Southlake Carroll - 79:21.06 (US#19)
  • 189 - Canyon (Anaheim) - 79:01.23 (was on the bubble, which means US Top-55)
  • 195 - Claremont - 79:19.72 (US#28)
  • 202 - Madera South - 79:12.96 (US#16)
  • 242 - Westview - 79:39.41
  • 249 - King - 79:59.32
  • 278 - McQueen - 80:04.66 (unranked but was US#41 if I listed beyond 40)
  • 282 - Clovis North - 80:09.45 (was on the bubble, which means US Top-55)
  • 293 - California (Whitter) - 80:19.71
  • 300 - Beaumont - 80:22.16
  • 319 - De La Salle - 80:34.44
  • 321 - Central Catholic - 80:41.33 (US#13)
  • 337 - Agoura - 80:49.45
  • 347 - Ventura - 80:52.97
  • 347 - St John Bosco - 81:00.08
  • 349 - Clovis - 80:51.90
  • 356 - Paso Robles - 81:06.23
  • 360 - Davis - 81:06.57
  • 362 - Arcadia - 80:47.82
  • 383 - Quartz Hill - 81:16.12
  • 383 - Jesuit - 81:10.10


...


I would still say they should drop at least 10-15 spots to 29-34 range. I wouldn't rank them based on a "merged" score using runners that raced in less competitive races and therefore had less traffic to negotiate given where they finished. Their boys that ran 16:02 (10th place in DI) and 16:09 (14th in DI) wouldn't necessarily have run faster than their 5th runner (16:11 for 69th) did in the Championship race.

In this case the merged scored definitely does not take precedence over the actual race score. If they had one or two kids run 30-40 seconds faster in the DI race then that would be different.
watchout
Now that all the races at Clovis are done, Southlake Carroll ends up #2 in the full merge. Anyone still think they should drop out of the top 30?

EDIT: Power merge scores =

  • 140 - Great Oak - 78:37.79 (US#4)
  • 187 - Southlake Carroll - 79:21.06 (US#19)
  • 189 - Canyon (Anaheim) - 79:01.23 (was on the bubble, which means US Top-55)
  • 195 - Claremont - 79:19.72 (US#28)
  • 202 - Madera South - 79:12.96 (US#16)
  • 242 - Westview - 79:39.41
  • 249 - King - 79:59.32
  • 278 - McQueen - 80:04.66 (unranked but was US#41 if I listed beyond 40)
  • 282 - Clovis North - 80:09.45 (was on the bubble, which means US Top-55)
  • 293 - California (Whitter) - 80:19.71
  • 300 - Beaumont - 80:22.16
  • 319 - De La Salle - 80:34.44
  • 321 - Central Catholic - 80:41.33 (US#13)
  • 337 - Agoura - 80:49.45
  • 347 - Ventura - 80:52.97
  • 347 - St John Bosco - 81:00.08
  • 349 - Clovis - 80:51.90
  • 356 - Paso Robles - 81:06.23
  • 360 - Davis - 81:06.57
  • 362 - Arcadia - 80:47.82
  • 383 - Quartz Hill - 81:16.12
  • 383 - Jesuit - 81:10.10


...
Joe Lanzalotto

watchout, on , said:

No doubt, that's a very good trio of NY teams.

It's worth putting into perspective: CBA's team time was pretty similar to what they ran in 2011, when they edged Southlake Carroll 91-95 to win NXN.

A ~13:00 average isn't world-beating anymore, but it's still a very solid mid-season mark en route to bigger meets later in the season.


Yes, true and I think they do know this is not the time of year that you HAVE to beat the world but I would bet anything they're not happy with this result.

EDIT: and on another front, Briana Gess won the girls B race by 25+ seconds, in the third fastest time of the day. She was 5 seconds behind wunderkind Kelati who ran in the Easterns race with PLENTY of competition. Gess should be ranked much higher.

I guess she has now done something!!! :-)
watchout

King999, on , said:

I rarely use team times OR even 5 man avgs to look at a race

They get too skewed by one guy possibly, which happened today

The issue here today was that this was a very fast race 20 under 12:45 35 under 13:00, when you pick up scoring at second with 47th you have no chance, in this type of field.


I was trying to put a positive spin on their race; my apologies.

Perhaps looking at the NY trio would be better then:

#3 St. Anthony's times were better almost across the board than CBA's times that year (only spot that St. A's didn't have the edge was #3, where they ran 12:59.3 to CBA 2011's 12:58.2). The NY teams that beat CBA are all very very good.
King999
I rarely use team times OR even 5 man avgs to look at a race

They get too skewed by one guy possibly, which happened today

The issue here today was that this was a very fast race 20 under 12:45 35 under 13:00, when you pick up scoring at second with 47th you have no chance, in this type of field.
watchout
No doubt, that's a very good trio of NY teams.

It's worth putting into perspective: CBA's team time was pretty similar to what they ran in 2011, when they edged Southlake Carroll 91-95 to win NXN.

A ~13:00 average isn't world-beating anymore, but it's still a very solid mid-season mark en route to bigger meets later in the season.
King999
Joe, to further emphasize a point, if Paugh had scored they would only have dropped off 25 more points, still would have been fourth by a bit.At 190
Joe Lanzalotto

King999, on , said:

well, we will see if you are true to your word

And when I am wrong I admit it, CBA had a rough day today, no two ways around that

FM was on fire and CBA looks like they were never in it. FM had four guys under 12:40 on this layout


I do not remember an important or visible meet where they had a day like this when much was expected. It does happen.


...and then some. Greg Paugh, who ran the JV race, would have been their second varsity scorer today.
watchout

King999, on , said:

well, we will see if you are true to your word

And when I am wrong I admit it, CBA had a rough day today, no two ways around that

FM was on fire and CBA looks like they were never in it. FM had four guys under 12:40 on this layout


I do not remember an important or visible meet where they had a day like this when much was expected. It does happen.


I don't know why you would doubt it: CC has dropped in the rankings every week, and since they didn't run particularly well, will continue to do so. That's exactly what my ranking philosophy dictates: if you haven't run well recently, you drop. If you HAVE run well recently, you move up. It's not rocket science, it's not unreasonable, and it's not unfair.
King999
well, we will see if you are true to your word

And when I am wrong I admit it, CBA had a rough day today, no two ways around that

FM was on fire and CBA looks like they were never in it. FM had four guys under 12:40 on this layout


I do not remember an important or visible meet where they had a day like this when much was expected. It does happen.
watchout
Again, teams don't drop because they have one bad race, so I don't forsee Great Oak dropping just because of what they ran. They might drop because of what other teams run, though. Same for Southlake Carroll.

CC will drop a bit, possibly out of the top 40 we will see.
cerutty fan
Teams that raced in Clovis should shake this ranking up quite a bit. In my opinion, Clovis tells us the following:

Great Oak should drop 5-10 spots.
Canyon should be in the top 30.
Madera is hiding their 5th guy again, should retain their ranking.
Claremont should retain their ranking.
Southlake Carroll should drop about 10-15 spots.
Central Catholic should drop out of top 40.
ORXCCoach

watchout, on , said:

It was in Hoover in 2007 (because that's where the NXN-SE regional was that year), but otherwise I think it's been at WakeMed every year.


From 2006-2008 GA was in Hoover. We won it there in 07, as well as NXNSE. It was a deceptively slow course.

I think the first xc result I saw from wakemed was in 2004.
watchout

GeorgieTheK, on , said:

Joe:

Do you know of a top 10 (or deeper) list for the course? Individuals, primarily, but I'd be curious about team avg's too.


From my files, this was what I had (prior to this year):


Boys Individuals Sub-15:10 (18):

14:43.60 - Sean McGorty - 12 - Chantilly VA - 2012
14:43.90 - Jacob Thomson - 12 - Holy Cross KY - 2012
14:57.50 - Josh Brickell - 12 - Peachtree Ridge GA - 2012
14:57.60 - Daniel Moore - 12 - Holy Trinity Academy FL - 2011
14:58.50 - Elliot Clemente - 12 - Belen Jesuit FL - 2011
14:59.20 - Thomas Madden - 12 - Skyline VA - 2012
15:00.20 - Jacob Burcham - 11 - Cabell Midland WV - 2011
15:00.20 - Armando DelValle - 12 - Miami Columbus FL - 2010
15:02.80 - Jacob Thomson - 11 - Holy Cross KY - 2011
15:03.20 - Sandy Roberts - 12 - Broughton NC - 2005
15:03.30 - Bakri Abushouk - 12 - Cary NC - 2012
15:05.70 - Taylor Caldwell - 12 - Brentwood TN - 2013
15:07.00 - Thomas Graham - 12 - Cary Academy NC - 2011
15:07.20 - Thomas Mulroy - 12 - Midlothian VA - 2013
15:07.90 - Tyler Spear - 12 - Loyola Blakefield MD - 2013
15:09.40 - Austin Sprague - 12 - St. Pius X GA - 2013
15:09.80 - Jacob Burcham - 12 - Cabell Midland WV - 2012
15:10.00 - Adam Visokay - 12 - Albemarle VA - 2011


Girls Individuals Sub-17:40 (35):

16:40.90 - Aisling Cuffe - 12 - Cornwall NY - 2010
16:56.31 - Aislinn Ryan - 11 - Warwick Valley NY - 2004
17:01.40 - Julie Macedo - 12 - Charter of Wilmington DE - 2011
17:05.50 - Aislinn Ryan - 12 - Warwick Valley NY - 2005
17:10.00 - Wesley Frazier - 9 - Ravenscroft NC - 2009
17:11.10 - Haley Pierce - 12 - Tatnall DE - 2011
17:14.00 - Carolyn Baskir - 12 - East Chapel Hill NC - 2009
17:14.60 - Kathleen Stevens - 12 - Blacksburg VA - 2009
17:17.00 - Samantha Nadel - 10 - North Shore NY - 2009
17:17.00 - Wesley Frazier - 12 - Ravenscroft NC - 2012
17:23.00 - Ashley Brasovan - 8 - Wellington FL - 2005
17:23.21 - Whitney Anderson - 12 - Summit CO - 2004
17:24.40 - Annie LeHardy - 12 - Hidden Valley VA - 2010
17:24.50 - Joanna Stevens - 12 - Blacksburg VA - 2009
17:25.10 - Hannah Christen - 11 - Lake Braddock VA - 2012
17:25.40 - Kelsey Margey - 11 - Harborfields NY - 2010
17:27.00 - Jessica Molloy - 10 - Mountain Brook AL - 2012
17:27.90 - Maggie Drazba - 12 - St. Mary's WV - 2012
17:30.00 - Hannah Long - 10 - Eureka MO - 2012
17:30.72 - Nicole Blood - 11 - Saratoga Springs NY - 2004
17:31.90 - Taylor Driscoll - 12 - Saratoga Springs NY - 2012
17:33.00 - Lindsey Olivere - 12 - Archmere Academy DE - 2010
17:33.90 - Kayla Beattie - 12 - Woodstock IL - 2010
17:34.00 - Amanda Winslow - 12 - Collins Hill GA - 2008
17:34.30 - Nora McUmber - 11 - Bethesda-Chevy Chase MD - 2013
17:35.10 - Cassie Hintz - 12 - Old Town ME - 2005
17:35.40 - Katie Fortner - 10 - Cave Spring VA - 2011
17:35.40 - Carolyn Bethel - 12 - Hidden Valley VA - 2012
17:36.17 - Erin Bedell - 12 - Plano West TX - 2004
17:36.60 - Kara Dickerson - 12 - Midlothian VA - 2012
17:36.60 - Keara Sammons - 12 - Smoky Hill CO - 2005
17:37.00 - Diane Robison - 12 - Parkway Central MO - 2009
17:37.80 - Mattie Webb - 12 - Western Albemarle VA - 2010
17:39.32 - Cassie Hintz - 11 - Old Town ME - 2004
17:39.90 - Haley Cutright - 12 - Hidden Valley VA - 2010


Boys Teams Sub-79:45 (21):

77:00.20 - Christian Brothers Academy NJ 2012
77:13.60 - Brentwood TN 2013
78:01.70 - Chantilly VA 2012
78:05.60 - Severna Park MD 2013
78:09.60 - Belen Jesuit FL 2011
78:25.50 - St. Xavier KY 2012
78:28.70 - Cardinal O'Hara PA 2012
78:50.30 - Trinity Prep FL 2010
78:57.40 - Midlothian VA 2013
78:58.40 - Broughton NC 2013
79:09.80 - Blacksburg VA 2012
79:11.20 - Cardinal O'Hara PA 2011
79:13.30 - Miami Columbus FL 2010
79:19.40 - Midlothian VA 2010
79:20.30 - Brentwood TN 2012
79:22.40 - St. Pius X GA 2013
79:22.80 - Great Oak CA 2011
79:32.90 - Brentwood TN 2011
79:38.00 - Jamestown VA 2008
79:38.30 - Brookwood GA 2011
79:44.60 - Walter Johnson MD 2010


Girls Teams Sub-92:40 (13):

90:08.70 - Tatnall DE 2011
90:18.89 - Saratoga Springs NY 2004
90:29.00 - Tatnall DE 2008
90:30.10 - Saratoga Springs NY 2010
91:09.60 - Saratoga Springs NY 2011
91:12.90 - Blacksburg VA 2009
91:35.00 - Collins Hill GA 2008
91:39.50 - Tatnall DE 2010
91:41.80 - Assumption KY 2012
92:08.80 - Tatnall DE 2009
92:15.00 - Saratoga Springs NY 2009
92:31.80 - Tatnall DE 2012
92:38.40 - Lake Braddock VA 2012
watchout

ORXCCoach, on , said:

I believe the course has been there since 2004. The first time we ran there, in 2005, it was rough. Now it's nice. I wouldn't call it a speedway, because it does have a number of hills--certainly it's not McAlpine, Tom Sawyer, or Oakville--but the path is packed very hard now, like concrete.

Weather was perfect on Saturday, and Hunter was able to run alone for most of the time--I'd say that's why it ran so fast for him, other than the fact that he was absolutely hauling butt.

It also looked to me as if Marietta and Boone ran their best races of the year by far.


It was in Hoover in 2007 (because that's where the NXN-SE regional was that year), but otherwise I think it's been at WakeMed every year.
Joe Lanzalotto

GeorgieTheK, on , said:

Joe:

Do you know of a top 10 (or deeper) list for the course? Individuals, primarily, but I'd be curious about team avg's too.


George,

There's a history page for the meet and the venue on our website here: http://www.nationals...org/gacc/stats/

Not too much on teams there but Jim Spier has put up a very deep Wake Med individual list there for both girls and boys.
GeorgieTheK

Joe Lanzalotto, on , said:

Daniel Boone is the best team that few know about. I knew they were good when we seeded them into the ROC and they didn't disappoint. Marietta obviously was really good too.

Hunter wasn't that far ahead of Philip Hall when they came up the hill the first time but Hall was clearly suffering from something and he DNFed due to an injury he had going into the race. Maybe he shouldn't have tried it, I don't know.

I think running on that course you WANT people with you. There's certainly enough room and no sharp turns or anything. The hill is there - twice - so having someone pushing you is probably not a bad thing.

As I said before, Hunter looked really good.



Joe:

Do you know of a top 10 (or deeper) list for the course? Individuals, primarily, but I'd be curious about team avg's too.
Joe Lanzalotto

ORXCCoach, on , said:

I believe the course has been there since 2004. The first time we ran there, in 2005, it was rough. Now it's nice. I wouldn't call it a speedway, because it does have a number of hills--certainly it's not McAlpine, Tom Sawyer, or Oakville--but the path is packed very hard now, like concrete.

Weather was perfect on Saturday, and Hunter was able to run alone for most of the time--I'd say that's why it ran so fast for him, other than the fact that he was absolutely hauling butt.

It also looked to me as if Marietta and Boone ran their best races of the year by far.


Daniel Boone is the best team that few know about. I knew they were good when we seeded them into the ROC and they didn't disappoint. Marietta obviously was really good too.

Hunter wasn't that far ahead of Philip Hall when they came up the hill the first time but Hall was clearly suffering from something and he DNFed due to an injury he had going into the race. Maybe he shouldn't have tried it, I don't know.

I think running on that course you WANT people with you. There's certainly enough room and no sharp turns or anything. The hill is there - twice - so having someone pushing you is probably not a bad thing.

As I said before, Hunter looked really good.
ORXCCoach
I believe the course has been there since 2004. The first time we ran there, in 2005, it was rough. Now it's nice. I wouldn't call it a speedway, because it does have a number of hills--certainly it's not McAlpine, Tom Sawyer, or Oakville--but the path is packed very hard now, like concrete.

Weather was perfect on Saturday, and Hunter was able to run alone for most of the time--I'd say that's why it ran so fast for him, other than the fact that he was absolutely hauling butt.

It also looked to me as if Marietta and Boone ran their best races of the year by far.
Chardongirls1978
"Unfortunately this thread is in regards to Team Rankings.

Read more: National Team Rankings - 10/2 Boys - XC - DyeStat - DyeStat.com Track Talk - Page 4"

LOL
Xc911
We get it, the Fischer kid is the top dog, a super talent. Unfortunately this thread is in regards to Team Rankings.
View More
History for DyeStat XC RANKINGS
YearVideosNewsPhotosBlogs
2023   58    
2022   56    
2021   58    
Show 8 more