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 - 11/13 Boys - XC - DyeStat

Published by
DyeStat.com   Nov 13th 2014, 7:03pm
Comments

Status quo at 1-2 as postseason meets loom

By Rob Monroe


Boys Top 40, 11/13


1. American Fork UT (1): Utah 5A State Champion

2. Fayetteville-Manlius NY (2): New York A State Champion

3. La Salle Academy RI (11): New England Champion

4. Summit OR (23): Oregon 5A State Champion

5. Davis UT (4): Utah 5A State Runner-up

6. Great Oak CA (3): 1st Southwestern League CA

7. Liverpool NY (5): New York Section 3A Runner-up

8. North Central WA (33): Washington 3A State Champion

9. Christian Brothers Academy NJ (18): 1st Shore Conference NJ

10. Madera South CA (6): 1st Apache CA

11. Jurupa Hills CA (7): 1st Mountain Valley League CA

12. Desert Hills UT (14): Utah 3A State Champion

13. Timpanogos UT (15): Utah 4A State Champion

14. Desert Vista AZ (16): Arizona D1 State Champion

15. St. Anthony's NY (13): New York CHSAA Champion

16. Agoura CA (19): 1st Marmonte League CA

17. Lake Braddock Secondary VA (12): 1st 6A North Regional VA

18. Burroughs (Burbank) CA (10): 1st Pacific League CA

19. Kamiakin WA (NR): Washington 3A State Runner-up

20. Wayzata MN (9): Minnesota 2A State Champion; NXN Heartland Champion

21. Hinsdale Central IL (8): Illinois 3A State Champion

22. Sandburg IL (28): Illinois 3A State Runner-up

23. Clovis North CA (17): Idle

24. Brea Olinda CA (20): 1st Crestview League CA

25. Claremont CA (22): 1st Palomares League CA

26. Severna Park MD (40): Maryland 4A State Champion

27. Brentwood TN (NR): Tennessee 3A State Runner-up

28. Daniel Boone TN (NR): Tennessee 3A State Champion

29. Broughton NC (NR): North Carolina 4A State Champion

30. Loyola CA (27): 1st Mission League CA

31. Canyon (Anaheim) CA (29): 2nd Crestview League CA

32. North Allegheny PA (NR): Pennsylvania 3A State Champion

33. Palmer Ridge CO (32): Colorado 4A State Champion

34. Jenks OK (21): Oklahoma 6A State Champion

35. Don Bosco NJ (NR): 1st Bergen County MOC NJ

36. Westview CA (37): Idle

37. Southlake Carroll TX (26): Texas TX 6A State Champion

38. Central Catholic OR (NR): Oregon 6A State Champion

39. Saugus CA (25): 1st Foothill League CA

40. Festus MO (36): Missouri Class 3 State Champion

More news

26 comment(s)
Bill Meylan

palimmer, on , said:

St. Anthonys ran the third fastest five man average ( 16:14 ) at the NY Fed meet demolishing the field....only FM (2012) was faster I believe....faster than any of those super CBA teams


Bowdoin Park - Boys Top Team Averages
16:02.4 - NXN-New York 2013 - Fayetteville-Manlius
16:10.0 - NXN-New York 2013 - Northport
16:14.5 - NY Federation 2014 - St. Anthony's
16:14.64- Bowdoin Classic 2012 - CBA NJ
16:15.0 - NXN-Northeast 2013 - CBA NJ
16:15.2 - NY Federation 2004 - Fayetteville-Manlius
16:21.5 - NXN-New York 2013 - Liverpool

As a side-note ... Boy Individuals - 28 of 50 fastest times ever run at Bowdoin Park have been run in 2012, 2013 or 2014 ... Just a comment (not evaluating anything).
Coach Bennett
PL,
CBA opened up the 2012 season with a 16:14.
Sounds like a great race by a great St. Anthony's team. Should be an awesome NXN NY Boys race next weekend!
Cheers,
CB
palimmer
St. Anthonys ran the third fastest five man average ( 16:14 ) at the NY Fed meet demolishing the field....only FM (2012) was faster I believe....faster than any of those super CBA teams
palimmer
St. Anthonys ran the third fastest five man average ( 16:14 ) at the NY Fed meet demolishing the field....only FM (2012) was faster I believe....faster than any of those super CBA teams
dkap

Doug Soles, on , said:

Like I said I think the issue is teams that are peaked for their state meet vs. teams that are cruising meets and training hard for their peak at a later time comparatively.


Out of curiosity -- because I, like watchout (but to a much lesser extent), try to rank local teams based on how they've performed across different courses and at different times -- how would you propose accounting for that? On the one hand, you can rely on the data and rank teams exactly how the crunched numbers suggest. On the other, you can attempt to adjust things based on hunches that a team didn't go all out. Wouldn't the latter be exactly what several are accusing watchout of, i.e., letting personal bias sneak into the rankings?

Dan
Doug Soles

watchout, on , said:

Wouldn't I be "discounting the success that teams are having" if I DON'T reward teams for getting better during the season?

Yes, you guys beat Summit - by quite a bit - at NPN. That was 7 weeks ago, they have improved enough that they would at least (with Maton) give you a run for your money with how good you guys were back then; at the same time, you guys aren't running as well as you were back then, so why should I give you guys the benefit of doubt but not Summit?

These rankings are about how things look RIGHT NOW, based on how runners have run this year - most specifically, how well they've done in the last few weeks. If Summit has been running better than you guys over the last month, why shouldn't they sneak past you in the rankings - despite any team result from nearly 2 months ago?

EDIT: For a more complete explanation of Great Oak vs. Summit... here's a look at my ratings for Great Oak @ NPN and your last 2 major meets (Clovis & Mt. SAC) compared to Summit's last 2 meets (OR State and NXN-NW).

GO @ Pre-Nationals: 191.1-190.7-183.6-179.0-175.8

GO @ Mt SAC Invite: 192.6-188.4-179.1-178.9-168.1
GO @ Clovis Invite: 187.7-180.6-179.8-179.5-173.1

Summit @ OR State: 202.0-182.8-182.5-179.1-177.4
Summit @ Northwest: (DNS)-183.1-182.3-179.1-173.9 (ratings could be a couple points higher, but these look reasonable to me)


What that shows to me: Summit is, over the last 3 weeks, running just about as well as Great Oak did at their best race this year: the only big differences are at #1 (edge to Summit, though not huge scoring-wise) and #2 (edge to Great Oak, with a notable difference scoring wise), though Summit also has a slight edge at #5 (though not enough to make up for the deficit at #2 in elite fields like NXN). That implies to me that, if both teams ran just as well as their best team races to date, it would be a close race - Great Oak probably having the edge. But when you look at how the two teams have compared recently, it's another story: Great Oak hasn't quite run as well as they were previously, which means Summit has the edge.

So, what is more important: how well a team is running now/recently, or how well a team was running back in September? My rankings favor recent results over team scores from back in September, because I think it's MUCH more telling of how good a team is right now, and because I think ranking teams based on how good they are right now is more important than lining up with how things looked on a specific day 2 months ago.


Thanks Watchout,

It helps to see the breakdown. Like I said I think the issue is teams that are peaked for their state meet vs. teams that are cruising meets and training hard for their peak at a later time comparatively. Definitely hard to rank people from different parts of the country, who are focused on different types of races at different times. We will have our hands full just getting out of California so this may all be moot anyway. I appreciate your time. :)

Doug
DontStopPre
I know enough about xc that no team runs it's best race of the season in September ... sure a team can dominate early season vs teams that build steam as the season progresses, so it looks like they've peaked too soon, but even those early peakers are still progressing, just not as much as the competition. Idk what the numbers are telling the people who do rankings. Maybe they over valued your early season races or are under valuing your recent races. Maybe you're training through recent meets. Maybe you're killing it in practices (which rankers can't rank lol). But Coach Soles, I'm sure you're going to do just fine finishing the season.

One thing Coach Soles did ask for which nobody gave an answer, who is his biggest competition?
watchout

Doug Soles, on , said:

I agree with you. I think many of the teams in the top 40 would give us a good race. I actually think Wayzata at #20 would probably beat us, that is why I'm trying to understand the logic behind it. I get Watchout's formula, etc. but I think the biggest issue for me is that the simple math of it is discounting the success that teams are having. Who has beaten Wayzata? Great Oak? I think to move a team in front of us that we have beaten pretty handily (with or without Maton) isn't a very logical thing to do. I'm just trying to understand how that makes sense so I can really understand how we stack up. The funny thing is I'm less worried about where we sit currently than I am trying to define who is truly better than us and why. Who are the teams that we are racing when it matters...if that makes sense.

Watchout does an awesome job, no doubt. I think there is clearly a Northwest bias, as much as there is an East Coast bias from some of the other rankers. I think that is normal based on what you see live and in person and how much it impresses you. The next 3 weeks should be interesting for all. :)

Doug


Wouldn't I be "discounting the success that teams are having" if I DON'T reward teams for getting better during the season?

Yes, you guys beat Summit - by quite a bit - at NPN. That was 7 weeks ago, they have improved enough that they would at least (with Maton) give you a run for your money with how good you guys were back then; at the same time, you guys aren't running as well as you were back then, so why should I give you guys the benefit of doubt but not Summit?

These rankings are about how things look RIGHT NOW, based on how runners have run this year - most specifically, how well they've done in the last few weeks. If Summit has been running better than you guys over the last month, why shouldn't they sneak past you in the rankings - despite any team result from nearly 2 months ago?

EDIT: For a more complete explanation of Great Oak vs. Summit... here's a look at my ratings for Great Oak @ NPN and your last 2 major meets (Clovis & Mt. SAC) compared to Summit's last 2 meets (OR State and NXN-NW).

GO @ Pre-Nationals: 191.1-190.7-183.6-179.0-175.8

GO @ Mt SAC Invite: 192.6-188.4-179.1-178.9-168.1
GO @ Clovis Invite: 187.7-180.6-179.8-179.5-173.1

Summit @ OR State: 202.0-182.8-182.5-179.1-177.4
Summit @ Northwest: (DNS)-183.1-182.3-179.1-173.9 (ratings could be a couple points higher, but these look reasonable to me)


What that shows to me: Summit is, over the last 3 weeks, running just about as well as Great Oak did at their best race this year: the only big differences are at #1 (edge to Summit, though not huge scoring-wise) and #2 (edge to Great Oak, with a notable difference scoring wise), though Summit also has a slight edge at #5 (though not enough to make up for the deficit at #2 in elite fields like NXN). That implies to me that, if both teams ran just as well as their best team races to date, it would be a close race - Great Oak probably having the edge. But when you look at how the two teams have compared recently, it's another story: Great Oak hasn't quite run as well as they were previously, which means Summit has the edge.

So, what is more important: how well a team is running now/recently, or how well a team was running back in September? My rankings favor recent results over team scores from back in September, because I think it's MUCH more telling of how good a team is right now, and because I think ranking teams based on how good they are right now is more important than lining up with how things looked on a specific day 2 months ago.
Doug Soles

cerutty fan, on , said:

Spencer Dodds went backwards dramatically at the Mt. SAC Invite (ran 15:30 after showing 14:55 equivalent fitness at Clovis) and has slid slightly further back each race since, running 15:36 at league finals (equal to about 15:56 at Mt. SAC) and then 16:08 on the Mt. SAC course for prelims yesterday. I know that is only league finals and prelims, but it makes you guys look pretty vulnerable. I had heard that twittergram said he had bronchitis AND got a concussion just before the Mt. SAC Invite, is that true? Is he OK? You obviously know more about his situation than I would, but unless he rebounds or has been tempoing races for some reason, it looks like he won't be in the top 2-3 when you run your full squad.

Mt. SAC and Clovis estimates
14:45 - 15:10 - Doan
15:00 - 15:28 - Cortes
15:15 - 15:44 - Spencer
15:30 - 15:59 - Arvizu
??:?? - ??:?? - Dodds
??:?? - ??:?? - Quintana, Fountain, Eipp, Ruiz, Combe, Tibbitts?

If Dodds comes back and runs what he did already at Clovis, 15:21, and the other guys run the times above you'll qualify for NXN and do well (whether that is top 5 or top 15, i really have no idea; don't know teams outside of SoCal). Without him, you might have a couple teams sneak by you at State and only be taking the girls to NXN unless one of the big young talents like Quintana or Fountain really mans up. Like you said, the next 3 weeks will be interesting indeed!


Yes Spencer had a those issues and has been working back from them. He is looking good in workouts, and cruised prelims preparing to run fast at State and beyond. He will be fine when it matters. CIF Prelims is probably the biggest illusion race out there because some teams are just cruising and others are all out and so it skews things a bit. Unfortunately, Solomon Fountain badly twisted his ankle and had to end his season to focus on getting it healthy so he will not be back for xc until next year. Trust me, we are not over looking any team in the D1 SS ranks. Anyone can have a great day at any time.
cerutty fan

Doug Soles, on , said:

The funny thing is I'm less worried about where we sit currently than I am trying to define who is truly better than us and why. Who are the teams that we are racing when it matters...if that makes sense.

Watchout does an awesome job, no doubt. I think there is clearly a Northwest bias, as much as there is an East Coast bias from some of the other rankers. I think that is normal based on what you see live and in person and how much it impresses you. The next 3 weeks should be interesting for all. :)

Doug


Spencer Dodds went backwards dramatically at the Mt. SAC Invite (ran 15:30 after showing 14:55 equivalent fitness at Clovis) and has slid slightly further back each race since, running 15:36 at league finals (equal to about 15:56 at Mt. SAC) and then 16:08 on the Mt. SAC course for prelims yesterday. I know that is only league finals and prelims, but it makes you guys look pretty vulnerable. I had heard that twittergram said he had bronchitis AND got a concussion just before the Mt. SAC Invite, is that true? Is he OK? You obviously know more about his situation than I would, but unless he rebounds or has been tempoing races for some reason, it looks like he won't be in the top 2-3 when you run your full squad.

Mt. SAC and Clovis estimates
14:45 - 15:10 - Doan
15:00 - 15:28 - Cortes
15:15 - 15:44 - Spencer
15:30 - 15:59 - Arvizu
??:?? - ??:?? - Dodds
??:?? - ??:?? - Quintana, Fountain, Eipp, Ruiz, Combe, Tibbitts?

If Dodds comes back and runs what he did already at Clovis, 15:21, and the other guys run the times above you'll qualify for NXN and do well (whether that is top 5 or top 15, i really have no idea; don't know teams outside of SoCal). Without him, you might have a couple teams sneak by you at State and only be taking the girls to NXN unless one of the big young talents like Quintana or Fountain really mans up. Like you said, the next 3 weeks will be interesting indeed!
Doug Soles

DontStopPre, on , said:

My take on it is you're undefeated and ranked 6th in the nation with a couple meets to go before you peak ... I'd say you're in a perfect position, why worry at this point where someone ranks you. Having said that, I appreciate you're position, you've built a program that you're passionate about and you want to advocate for your kids, and you feel some others haven't fully appreciated your accomplishments. I get that, just keep in mind other programs would love to have your problem. Plus there's very little difference between the nationally top ranked teams. Plus ranking teams is a difficult and thankless job.


I agree with you. I think many of the teams in the top 40 would give us a good race. I actually think Wayzata at #20 would probably beat us, that is why I'm trying to understand the logic behind it. I get Watchout's formula, etc. but I think the biggest issue for me is that the simple math of it is discounting the success that teams are having. Who has beaten Wayzata? Great Oak? I think to move a team in front of us that we have beaten pretty handily (with or without Maton) isn't a very logical thing to do. I'm just trying to understand how that makes sense so I can really understand how we stack up. The funny thing is I'm less worried about where we sit currently than I am trying to define who is truly better than us and why. Who are the teams that we are racing when it matters...if that makes sense.

Watchout does an awesome job, no doubt. I think there is clearly a Northwest bias, as much as there is an East Coast bias from some of the other rankers. I think that is normal based on what you see live and in person and how much it impresses you. The next 3 weeks should be interesting for all. :)

Doug
DontStopPre

Doug Soles, on , said:

I appreciate the reply. I think national rankings are tough when some teams are at State or post season races and others are at league finals or prelims type races where you cruise through. I think one thing that is difficult is kind of like TCU/Baylor in the college football polls. Baylor beat TCU but TCU is still ahead of Baylor. Not logical, but yet it is still there.

I think the hard part is we have beaten 16 of the top 40 ranked teams, haven't lost a race including 4 major invites, scored a perfect 15 at our league finals, and dropped. I guess I'm just not seeing the logic of it. Hopefully we will make NXN and have a chance to race head to head. Again.


My take on it is you're undefeated and ranked 6th in the nation with a couple meets to go before you peak ... I'd say you're in a perfect position, why worry at this point where someone ranks you. Having said that, I appreciate you're position, you've built a program that you're passionate about and you want to advocate for your kids, and you feel some others haven't fully appreciated your accomplishments. I get that, just keep in mind other programs would love to have your problem. Plus there's very little difference between the nationally top ranked teams. Plus ranking teams is a difficult and thankless job.
Doug Soles

watchout, on , said:

It's pretty much what cerruty fan already posted, Summit has improved since NPN and ran their best race at OR State. You can see with his OR State -> Clovis estimates that Summit isn't quite the same caliber team as they were early on. Also, doesn't help that NPN was GO's best boys race this year and that was 7 weeks ago (so not the most influential in the rankings at the moment).


I appreciate the reply. I think national rankings are tough when some teams are at State or post season races and others are at league finals or prelims type races where you cruise through. I think one thing that is difficult is kind of like TCU/Baylor in the college football polls. Baylor beat TCU but TCU is still ahead of Baylor. Not logical, but yet it is still there.

I think the hard part is we have beaten 16 of the top 40 ranked teams, haven't lost a race including 4 major invites, scored a perfect 15 at our league finals, and dropped. I guess I'm just not seeing the logic of it. Hopefully we will make NXN and have a chance to race head to head. Again.
beetjuice
Many of us are confused as to why Wayzata drops to 20th spot after breaking the Heartland team average record by over 10 seconds. Their 1,3, and 5 runners had off days and they were still able to win the region with relative ease. They return 6/7 from last year's nationals team and 20th seems a little ridiculous.
watchout

Bundang Social Club, on , said:

Watchout, any reason why Lafayette MO isn't ranked?

They crushed Festus in the merge (http://mo.milesplit..../results/340693). I don't follow MO too closely, but the performance certainly looked impressive. Would've guessed they're a top 15 or 20 type team.


Wow, looks like I made a mistake for all the Midwest teams that had state meets last weekend and added weighting to their state qualifying meet rather than their state meet (which would drop some teams down the rankings, and boost some teams up). You are right, Lafayette should have made the rankings (not cracking the top 20, but somewhere around Severna Park)...

Really sorry I didn't notice that error before.
Bundang Social Club
Watchout, any reason why Lafayette MO isn't ranked?

They crushed Festus in the merge (http://mo.milesplit..../results/340693). I don't follow MO too closely, but the performance certainly looked impressive. Would've guessed they're a top 15 or 20 type team.

EDIT: And they all come back next year! (SO, JR, JR, JR, SO)
Shades of La Salle 2013?
watchout

cerutty fan, on , said:

Ha! Also, Summit is in the northwest, so they are dearer to his heart than you lowly SoCal folks. I'm still trying to figure out how Clovis North is ranked above Brea-Olinda, Canyon and Claremont. Canyon (175 pts) and Claremont (178 pts) beat Clovis (259 pts) at the Clovis Invitational pretty handily a month ago, and Brea-Olinda has beat Canyon 3 times this season, albeit by a narrow margin each time.


Funny, I remember not too long ago when everyone seemed to think I was way too pro-California. :P

Clovis North: I don't think they ran particularly well at Clovis. Their race was better at Bella Vista across the board, and they were also more impressive than their Clovis race at the Clovis North invite (though that was a 2 mile flighted race, they looked as good as Madera South that day: 9:17-9:36; 9:32-9:47; 9:49-9:50 vs. 9:08-9:12; 9:30-9:51; 10:01-10:07 ... obviously much stronger than they looked at Clovis as their #6 was slightly faster than Madera South's #4, while at Clovis their #2 was barely ahead of Madera South's #4)

BTW, thanks for posting the OR State vs. Clovis comparison. I actually had a little less than usual difference between Clovis and OR State (I think Clovis ran slow that day - heat? wind? I don't know the reason, but I only had a 7 second difference for those races rather than my usual ~15)
watchout

Doug Soles, on , said:

Hi Watchout,

I'm not complaining as the rankings just give us an idea of where we are at, but how/where is summit coming out better than us in this rankings set vs. the others. Looking at NPN, they must have made some amazing jumps and we must have taken some major steps back somewhere? Can you elaborate?

Thank you,

Doug


It's pretty much what cerruty fan already posted, Summit has improved since NPN and ran their best race at OR State. You can see with his OR State -> Clovis estimates that Summit isn't quite the same caliber team as they were early on. Also, doesn't help that NPN was GO's best boys race this year and that was 7 weeks ago (so not the most influential in the rankings at the moment).
watchout

GeorgieTheK, on , said:

I think we've pretty much established at this point that the rankings are done to generate controversy (as opposed to discussion), with the criteria pretty much being what watchout thinks they should be this week.


Wow Georgie, why don't you tell us how you really feel?

What is your problem with the rankings? I can think of a few possibilities, but let me know which it is that is bothering you:

1. CBA is ranked ahead of St. Anthony's
2. CBA isn't ranked high enough
3. CBA dropped in the rankings after Manhattan
4. FM isn't ahead of AF
5. Something I'm not thinking of?
cerutty fan

GeorgieTheK, on , said:

I think we've pretty much established at this point that the rankings are done to generate controversy (as opposed to discussion), with the criteria pretty much being what watchout thinks they should be this week.


Ha! Also, Summit is in the northwest, so they are dearer to his heart than you lowly SoCal folks. I'm still trying to figure out how Clovis North is ranked above Brea-Olinda, Canyon and Claremont. Canyon (175 pts) and Claremont (178 pts) beat Clovis (259 pts) at the Clovis Invitational pretty handily a month ago, and Brea-Olinda has beat Canyon 3 times this season, albeit by a narrow margin each time.

At NPN, if you put Maton in and say he scores 1 pt, that puts Summit around 128 pts and Great Oak around 68 pts. They ran really well at their state meet, which appears to run about 10-15 seconds slower than the CA state meet course. Of course their ranking is skewed moving forward since Maton is no longer running with his team, but with him in there they are certainly phenomenal.

If the conversion of 10-15 seconds is correct from the OR state course to CA, it'd look like this at Clovis (using 12 seconds).

01. 14:33 - Maton
16. 15:30 - Martin
19. 15:31 - Fykerud
31. 15:41 - Jones
40. 15:46 - Merlos
45. 15:52 - Schoderbeck
78. 16:12 - Sjogren

Obviously GO ran Clovis a month ago and Summit ran their best very recently, but if that conversion is right then Summit may have won Clovis IF they put forth an identical effort to what they did at State with Maton. Without Maton they are about 20 points behind GO, again, with the unfair assumption they could have raced as well at Clovis as they did at their state meet.

Summit really has a legit team, even without Maton.
dkap

Doug Soles, on , said:

I'm not complaining as the rankings just give us an idea of where we are at, but how/where is summit coming out better than us in this rankings set vs. the others. Looking at NPN, they must have made some amazing jumps and we must have taken some major steps back somewhere? Can you elaborate?


Maton not running at NPN is probably the bulk of the explanation. The rest is likely due to Summit having a great State meet showing.

Dan
GeorgieTheK

Doug Soles, on , said:


I'm not complaining as the rankings just give us an idea of where we are at, but how/where is summit coming out better than us in this rankings set vs. the others. Looking at NPN, they must have made some amazing jumps and we must have taken some major steps back somewhere? Can you elaborate?



I think we've pretty much established at this point that the rankings are done to generate controversy (as opposed to discussion), with the criteria pretty much being what watchout thinks they should be this week.
Doug Soles

watchout, on , said:

I disagree. Not every team runs at NXR and NXN, let alone run all their complete top 5.

IMO, if a runner competes on the varsity squad at State, NXR or NXN they should be factored into the rankings.


Hi Watchout,

I'm not complaining as the rankings just give us an idea of where we are at, but how/where is summit coming out better than us in this rankings set vs. the others. Looking at NPN, they must have made some amazing jumps and we must have taken some major steps back somewhere? Can you elaborate?

Thank you,

Doug
Coach Parise
?, I guess we will see at southwest region.
watchout

loverubber, on , said:

Summit should be adjusted based on the fact that Maton is out for his own now, am I right? Surely they cannot be 4th without him, and these are team ratings.


I disagree. Not every team runs at NXR and NXN, let alone run all their complete top 5.

IMO, if a runner competes on the varsity squad at State, NXR or NXN they should be factored into the rankings.
View More
History for DyeStat XC RANKINGS
YearVideosNewsPhotosBlogs
2023   58    
2022   56    
2021   58    
Show 8 more