Well done Scott:)

cerutty fan, on , said:

Haha sure sure, my fingers are all callused from shredding. Actually I'm putting my years as an Excel jockey to good use

Thanks for the lengthy explanation. Those 5 bullet points sound quite time consuming. I have to assume you really shred on the abacus.

cerutty fan, on , said:

I can't comment on how Rich does it, but he certainly know's his stuff. I'm happy to give a general overview of my method -

For preseason, I do a projection on a runner level based on previous years performances. For XC: State, CIF Sectionals, Stanford, Mt. Sac, and Clovis. For Track: 1600 and 3200 times. This is the same methodology used by Rob "Watchout" Monroe on the national rankings. Then in season, I adapted the method a bit more specifically for California but still generally follow the same idea. I base everything on a projected scoring in a state finals mega-merge as is used for NXN selection.

• I calculate a course conversion factor based on 2012 performances to convert a given course to the state finals.
  
• I use actual performances at a given meet, times the factor to get projected state performance.
  
• I take that time and see what points it would earn in a top 23 team mega-merge, based on the 2011 and 2012 state championships.
  
• I also make adjustments for runners who haven't run yet or are known to be injured.
  
• I calculate the projected score, based on each runner's best inseason performance.

I hope that helps.

I can't go through every discrepancy, and again, I only see my side. But take Campolindo girls as an example. Brighid Leach, Rachel Johnson, and Haley Shipway all exceeded projections at Ed Sias. Hana Sun didn't run but is reportedly heathly, so I left her at her projected level. Mary Orders is recovering from a minor injury, so I docked her projected performance 2% as a result. With three athletes exceeding projections by about 10 seconds each, and a 4th expected to return, I believe I have them at the right level.

But I don't always have great info on every team - there simply isn't time. It may be that Rich has specific information on injuries or resting runners that I don't on a team such as Palos Verdes. I can only go off of results I have seen. I suspect that once all teams are competing in major meets at full strength you will see less variation between the rankings.

I just made a correction to an oversight with the boys rankings. I overlooked the significance of the Bellarmine College Prep boys performance at the Lowell Invitational. While their performance at Earlybird put them in the high 20's, their solid team performance at Lowell now puts them at #16. According to my calculations, that equates to a sub 80:00 performance at Woodward Park.

Given that the rankings have only been out 2 hours, revising seemed appropriate.

Given that you and Rich vary quite a bit on some of your rankings, I would be interested to see your line of reasoning versus his on those teams.

For the boys, the biggest differences that jumped out were
Bellarmine - Rich ranks them at 6th in DI, you have them somewhere outside the top 14.
Bishop O'Dowd - Rich ranks them at 6th in DIII, you have them at 2nd.
Cathedral - Rich ranks them at 10th in DIII, you have them at 4th.


For the girls, the biggest differences that jumped out were
Aptos - Rich has them outside the top 10 in DIII, you have them 3rd in DIII and 22 overall in State.
Arroyo Grande - Rich has them outside the top 10 in DII, you have them at 4th.
Bella Vista - Rich has them 3rd in DII, you have them somewhere outside the top 12.
Campolindo - Rich has them 10th in DIII, you have them 1st in DIII and 9th overall in State.
Moorpark - Rich has them outside the top 10 in DII, you have them at 5th.
Palos Verdes - Rich has them 1st in DIII and as high as 6th overall in State, you have them somewhere outside the top 3 in DIII and outside the top 25 overall in State.

Another week with a lot of movement in the top 25. Where to start?

On the boys side, our biggest gains were from Canyon (Anaheim), which moved from 20th to 11th based on their excellent run at Laguna Hills, and Crescenta Valley, which outperformed on their home course in La Crescenta. Dana Hills dropped a bit after struggling with a banged up team at Laguna Hills (though no doubt they will be back). For the girls, the biggest mover was Vista Murrieta, which far exceeded projections based on their perforamance at Laguna Hills.

Many of the other moves occured more as I factored out preseason projections as we enter the meat of the season. For those projected scorers who haven't run, I lowered their projected performances by 2% (about 18-22 seconds). Thus, you might see a team that did well the weekend of 9/7 pass a team that hasn't had all their athletes run, even if neither ran this weekend. Arcadia boys, for example, dropped to 3rd as they held out 3 at Laguna Hills, though I'm told they will be at full strength at Woodbridge this weekend.

Questions and comments are encouraged...