Thursday, September 17, 2009

NCS Team Rankings #2

Thank you to all the coaches that contributed to the following rankings. Please chime away on teams you feel did not make the list or which teams below should be ranked higher or lower.


1) San Ramon Valley Division I
2) De La Salle Division I
3) College Park Division II
4) Las Lomas Division III
5) Petaluma Division III
6) Castro Valley Division I
7) Livermore Division I
8) Monte Vista Division I
9) Acalanes Division III
10) Maria Carrillo Division III/Campolindo Division III

1) Castro Valley Division I
2) Monte Vista Division I
3) Casa Grande Division II
4) Acalanes Division III
5) Campolindo Division III
6) Maria Carrillo Division III
7) College Park Division II
8) Petaluma Division III
9) Montgomery Division II
10) Amador Valley Division I

Comments below will be appreciated. Please identify yourself.


Eric P. said...

Great web site/blog. Thank you for all the effort you are putting into this. My athlets love all info you are posting.

Puma Coaches said...

Another boys team that should be included in the discussion for top 10 is Casa Grande. We ran against them yesterday they looked quite good - they have a strong front runner in Spencer Hall and a balanced top 5.

The girls teams included in the top 10 seem to look about right - but many of these teams are very close and not too much should be made of the ranking order right now. It will be interesting to see how this sorts out - who will continue to improve and remain healthy for the end of the season.

Albert Caruana said...

Eric, thank you for your support.

I am not so concerned about the rankings right now. Teams will move up and down during the season. I just want to make sure that the teams that belong on the list are there.

Suzi said...

This is Suzi from SRHS, and I just checked the NCS website...College Park is actually Div II this year, they squeaked in one person short of the cutoff..

Albert Caruana said...

Suzi, fixed. Had it right in the boys but not girls. Thanks for catching the error.

Sterling Lockert said...

i <3 running

Anonymous said...

san ramon valley is beast

Albert Caruana said...

San Ramon Valley boys are rightfully the best team in NCS. They were quite impressive today at the Lowell Invitational.

The girls proved that they belong on the top ten NCS list as they won their section in the Varsity race.

Anonymous said...

SRV took care of business at GG Park today. How about their boy's JV team finishing 1-7? Varsity smoked it, too.

Anonymous said...

Told you college park wasnt an honorable mention

Anonymous said...

I just want to point out that SRV's JV performance wasn't quite as dominant as it seemed. If you combined the times from both of the JV races, they still easily beat Bellarmine and Mt. View, but if you take away their freshmen and sophomores in the race (Bellarmine and Mt. View were both running true JV teams), then both Bellarmine and Mt. View's teams would have beaten them in a combined scoring. Don't get me wrong, SRV ran a great race and was very impressive. I just thought that was something interesting.

=Dalton Guthrie '10 BCP

Anonymous said...

Dalton, are you saying that SRV running frosh and sophs in a JV race was somehow unfair? Using that theory, we could recalculate the varsity race, too, and take Parker Duel out of their varsity lineup? He's only a soph. I think the SRV coach made an effort to place the non-varsity runners in the correct races based on previous times. I overheard a comment from someone near the finish line after the JV race, and the person was grousing that "the SRV coach OBVIOUSLY ran his varsity boys in the JV race..." That person was OBVIOUSLY proven wrong a couple hours later :) From what I can gather, Hunter puts together his roster based solely on times from the previous race, ie: the fastest 7 boys run varsity, the next fastest 7 run JV, and the remainder run unlimited JV or frosh/soph, depending on grade level. Isn't that common practice? I don't know... I'd also like to see the difference in roster size between SRV and the schools you mentioned-bigger team (theoretically) equals greater depth of talent, all things being equal. Not trying to be argumentative, but I don't see anything underhanded going on.

Albert Caruana said...

I personally do not put my runners in JV races at Invitationals if they are freshmen or sophomores. That's just me.

However, there is nothing unethical about putting freshmen or sophomores on the JV team as long as they are not one of the top 7 overall on the team.

Dalton, thank you identifying yourself with your post.

Anonymous said...

I was not trying to say that they cheated. I was just trying to point out that Bellarmine and Mountain View did not have frosh/soph runners in the JV race, and that if Bellarmine and Mountain View had put their top frosh/soph in the JV race, it would have been closer. However, both Bellarmine and Mountain View were in the other heat, so SRV still would have gone 1-7, which is incredibly impressive no matter how you spin it.


Coach Pup said...

Someone needs to ease off the trigger a bit here...

Mr. Guthrie made no accusations at all--merely an observation which I found to be quite valid. And as Albert pointed out, the kid had guts enough to put his name out there--which is why I honor him with the title Mr. for being a man and owning his opinions and observations.

As for SRV running frosh and soph runners in the JV race, I believe everyone needs to take note of a simple fact--if you want your frosh or soph kids to run the longer distance at the Lowell Invite, they have to run in either the JV or Varsity divisions. It is that simple.

Again, Mr. Guthrie was not slinging mud, and Tim Hunter is one of the best guys I know in the sport, so we can be assured there was no subversive motivations here.

He simply wanted to see some of his young guys leg it out across a greater distance.

Can we mellow out now, ANONYMOUS?

Anonymous said...

Coach P-

No need to mellow, because I wasn't fired up! I disagreed, and even asked for clarification on some things with which I was unfamiliar. No one's attacking anyone here, and I never thought anyone was slinging mud. The tone of an opposing viewpoint is hard to convey on a forum, and unfortunately, people get the wrong idea at times. If anyone was upset by my opinions or questions, my apologies.

Anonymous said...


Coach Pup said...

Fair enough, Anon...

Thanks for the clarification.

Popular Posts