tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-675840884075304933.post3691397980417030589..comments2021-04-12T10:17:47.549-07:00Comments on Watchout Cross Country Rankings: Utah State RatingsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-675840884075304933.post-54441725277409937572012-10-19T22:38:16.115-07:002012-10-19T22:38:16.115-07:00Not wanting to make a whole other post on this top...Not wanting to make a whole other post on this topic, but wanted to drive home the topic a little more...<br /><br />It has been pointed out that graphing time vs. place - a very good tool in most cases, particularly if fields are relatively consistent - show this year to be faster than previous years. I've always preferred to look at how runners do from race to race, or occasionally year to year, though do look at graphing races when I have the time.<br /><br />But to discuss two of the other sides of the coin... <br /><br />Over the years, I've found that AVERAGE year-to-year improvement for STATE QUALIFYING athletes around the nation hover around 101.5-103.0% for boys (usually ~102.0-102.5%), and around 100.0-102.0% for girls (usually around 100.5-101.5%).<br /><br />Here is the improvement for Utah athletes at the state meet since 2009 (the freshman year for this year's seniors) after taking out all statistical outliers (in the pure sense of the word, continually removing data points beyond 2 standard deviations of the median):<br /><br />Boys:<br /><br />2009 -> 2010 = 101.79%<br />2010 -> 2011 = 102.88%<br />2011 -> 2012 = 102.58%<br /><br />2009 -> 2011 = 102.15%<br />2010 -> 2012 = 102.62%<br /><br />Girls:<br /><br />2009 -> 2010 = 100.22%<br />2010 -> 2011 = 101.60%<br />2011 -> 2012 = 102.72%<br /><br />2009 -> 2011 = 102.01%<br />2010 -> 2012 = 101.35%<br /><br />Boys + Girls:<br /><br />2009 -> 2010 = 101.31%<br />2010 -> 2011 = 102.28%<br />2011 -> 2012 = 102.64%<br /><br />2009 -> 2011 = 102.07%<br />2010 -> 2012 = 102.31%<br /><br /><br />To me, that indicates two things: first, that girls improved inconsistently (better year-to-year improvement, though 2-year average improvement was worse - around the national average - so maybe they just ran poorly as a group in 2010?). And it shows that the boys either improved by ~0.5% more than in past years (which equates to about 3-4 seconds) going by the 2-year average, or by about ~0.3% less (or about 2 seconds less) than the previous year. Both scenarios are very near the national average.<br /><br /><br />How good have Utah teams and athletes proven to be through this year?<br /><br />Runners and teams have been close to or better than meet and course records throughout the year. Just look at the times at Bob Firman, Nebo, Grass Relays, etc -- they all list very prominently on the All-Time records list, for both individuals and teams. And they've been very close to out of state teams (Arcadia CA at Firman, for example) that have also been running at near US Top-5 type levels (Arcadia being just 3 seconds slower than last year's NXN#4 team at Woodbridge, for example).<br /><br />At Bob Firman, Davis, Herriman, Ogden, and Mountain View boys all ran times similar to what the NXN-NW#3/4 teams usually run - in November. Park City, Skyline, Ogden, and Orem were all around the level of the usual NXN-NW#4 teams as well. In short, despite it being September instead of November, and despite some teams missing scoring runners, these teams were already good enough to contend for top four finishes at NXN Regionals, and have only gotten better since. <br /><br />Should it be a surprise so many of these teams and athletes threw down so many good times? No! They were already proving they could throughout the season, and they were already at the level last year to suggest they'd be capable of doing so this year with reasonable improvement.<br /><br />Utah State is very, very good this fall... and so are the Colorado girls, which should make for a very interesting regional in less than 30 days!watchouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02838975063853852963noreply@blogger.com