2011 Cross Country,
Norcal Rankings '11
Wow, look at the pictures of the boys throughout the years (in the History area). Are we sure these were high school boys and not college age (smile)?Thanks Albert for the Blogs and the postings. Wonderful website. Many appreciate your efforts...both the visible and the behind the scene.
The gavel drops. Good list!
I am a bit baffled though, how can kids that were 2nd or 3rd team in their section beat first team selections on the over-all nor cal list? Like Gibson over Welsh in the girls?Doesn't add up unless you only count the State Championship which it looks like the list does. But I guess weather doesn't count for anything either. Oh well...
It looks like they only count State Because Fraiser actually has only beaten Maxwell twice in her running career and they Race very often against each other!Then Julie Maxwell ran a Faster time than Anna Maxwell but then Anna Maxwell beat her at FootLocker Regionals. Then Claire Carrol is another but then she only ran the last part of the season due to injury!
All valid points. I can tell you from experience that it's not easy selecting the team members in the right order. There are 7-8 voters so hopefully we were as accurate as possible.
Have to agree with Anonymous on the heavy concentration on State. I don't think it is reasonable to consider an entire season - but sections, league finals and difficulty of courses should factor in. BUT this is not being critical - only an observation. Also, Sierra Jaeger from VDL should be HM as should Lauren Larocco from St. Francis who finished ahead of Myers at league and section finals. Just trying to get a SJS voice in the mix. Merry Christmas.
The timing of these results do not represent the season. If these were posted three weeks ago they would be valid.
One can only look at the list and know the State was a major influence based on rankings. I find it incerdible the Girls PAL Champion as well as DII CCS Champion did not even qualify as an honorable mention. She also was selected XC Athlete of Year in San Mateo County and 1st Team All CCS. Plus is listed at 43rd ranked individual of the 81 individual girls to break 18 minutes on Belmont Crystal Springs course in its history since 1979.With that said one would have to presume this year's PAL is condsidered inferior. And DII CCS was not as difficult as some thought throughout the year.I am sure all those selected were deserving though this young woman in the minds of the judges was not as accomplished!
As "Coach" may or may not know,League and Section championships are only "advance" meets.State is where top athletes earn their $$$ and coaches cement their legacies.
In response to Coach and MBL Fan, each member of the committee has his own criteria for the All NorCal selections. There are no standards for how each of us evaluate the many fine athletes, such as Ms. Croshaw.Speaking only for myself, I looked at a number of factors, including the end of the year races (Section, State, FootLocker/NXN) and also a significant number of invitationals (Stanford, Mt. Sac, Clovis, and other more regional invites) to come up with my selections. Moreover, I looked at times, finish position in an individual's race as well as overall for the meet, and finally tried to ascertain what competition did each athlete face and how consistent did he/she perform throughout the season. As Albert already pointed out, it's not easy.However, I am curious what other Cross Country Express followers think. What criteria would you use to evaluate if you were one of the selection committee?Happy Holidays to all!
If the season of meets are only "advance" meets for the State fine. An athletes body of work should not count. Then just select the top 21 State finishers from NorCal for teams 1 thru 3. Next 20 Honorable Mention as was done this year but call this recognition "All NorCal State Meet High School X-C Teams Boys & Girls". This would be crystal clear for anyone viewing the list. Very understandable and no committee of experts would need to meet to select it. The honors list would self dictate as it did this year. 1 thru 41 fell into place. Only special designation would need to be discused i.e, Runner of the Year, All Frosh team, etc.I presume, since a committee does meet, there is a written set of critieria for an athletes to be selected & recognized under the current NorCal title. If not there should be and maybe that could be shared on this Albert's and Lynbrook for all to see.An a side comment:I am not one of the super star coaches here who, as was so well described, is at State to "cement their legacies". I strictly coach to help atheltes of all abilities to reach as high as they can!
Just for clarification, there are 10 voting members and we do not meet. There is no criteria so each member is free to vote as best as they can.
All NorCal history can be found here:http://www.dyestatcal.com/ATHLETICS/XC/alnorhis.htmand a little more history on the All-NorCal teams and selection methodology. Prior to 1962 it was based on finish at the NCS meet. In 1962 it was based on 2 mile Postal time, Stanford course time and NCS Finals. In '63 it was the same but used CSM course and not Stanford and consistency throughout season and coaches recommendations was also added. In '65 Group and League meets (finish place, not time) was added. Athletes selected were given awards by Track & Field News and were invited to a NorCal banquet for College, JC & HS athletes for recognition purposes. Plato Yanicks (M-A) started the selection process in '62 and received input on athletes prior to selecting the team. In '65 the All-NorCal team was selected by a panel of coaches that physically met one night to select the team. To even be considered for the team, you had to have a 2 mile time run on the track (this was their main comparison). Anyone could send in nominations for the selection committee to review. About 100 athletes were consistently considered for the 22 original spots on the team. By the 70's, multiple teams were selected (22 per team) as well as Honorable Mention. By this time as well, athletes no longer received awards or a banquet, just the recognition. And letters were sent to Plato expressing displeasure that an athlete wasn't selected for the team or for the selection method that was used. By the 70's head to head competition was considered as well. By the late 70's there was an All-NorCal meet held so that did away with the need for a selection committee for they just used the finish from the single NorCal meet that existed. The All-NorCal team ceased to exist. Then came the State meet but this had multiple divisions so head to head competition didn't exist except for Invites & Leagues. In 1995, with the help of Dan Cruz (coach at Del Mar, then Logan, then DVC) we started up the All-NorCal team again. With the help of other committee members we selected our first team since 1986 (last year of NorCals). I also went back and collected data for State, Sections & League from 1987-1994 and with a small committee of members we retroactively selected All-NorCal teams for those missing years. Since the guidelines had changed throughout the years, I thought the fairest way to choose the teams was to have no guidelines and let the members vote as they wish, using their own guidelines. We also switched to the 3 team format (7 per team) and the 20 honorable mention along with the All-Frosh team. We have come a long way since 1962 but one thing stays the same, the passion that the athletes and coaches show for our sport is, and always will be, there.hank
I have to agree with "Coach" here. The State finishes were used because it is otherwise hard to compare Crystal to Hayward to the north section to SJS... it just doesn't work. So I'd imagine most coaches just take the easy route.And that works for probably the "first team" and those who look to advance to FL West and maybe make nationals. (Though not in Anna Mazwell's case who finished 10th in the West and wasn't named to 1st team nor cal). But the fact is after 5-10 runners many runners peak at different times. Some may peak for their league, some their section, some state depending on individual or team goals. To simply look at State meet results is not fair to the kids. And yes, our sport is geared toward an all or nothing mentality. But the fact is to throw away all previous results is absurd and just outright wrong. Time after time coaches, representatives, AD's, Principles have tilted the rules to make sure the "regular season" counts. Perhaps not as much in voters minds but it does. Does a runner who runs poorly all year but runs out of their mind in one race deserve more recognition than an athletes who runs excellent all year and has a bad run in the one at the end of the year?That decision is above my pay grade.
Great comments! All go to show that there are many ways to come up with a system to pick who should be recognized. As others have said, multiple methods are used by multiple voters that are then added up and averaged. I am sure that everyone can pick one, two or even three athletes that they feel should have been chosen for this list. But then again, is there a boy or a girl on the listing that did not deserve their selection? Hmmmmmm.League meets, invitationals, beginning of the season and mid-year meets are all important. However, it is the big meets at the end of the year that stand out the most and always should. If you don't make the top three at the USA Track finals, or the top 7 at the XC finals, it does not matter how good your season was, for that year, you did not perform up to the level of those selected to represent the US on the day that you needed to perform. Right or wrong that is the story. When you choose to compete at the top...dems da rules of da game.Luckily, the voting members don't all vote in this manner. However, it is tough to argue with: "When all things are considered if you don't ace the final, it will impact your final grade".We all know and recognize that there are many FANTASTIC runners in NorCal. Some will be recognized locally, some regionally, some statewide, fewer nationally and a slim few...at a world level. Some of the middle of the pack runners will most likely outshine many of the top performers we recognize today, when they begin their college careers.The key is to recognize and support every athlete you see on the starting line, at the finish line, on the team, and doing the workouts. For thousands of youth give it their best, try their hardest and have given no less than those we all recognize. Their reward is in knowing they gave it their all and hopefully achieved whatever goals they may have set for the season.So once all the clamor settles down as to who was left out or who should have made it to a listing of recognized superstars; remember...THEY WERE ALL SUPERSTARS. Sadly, we only recognized a few, and I personally work harder each year to recognize just a few more than last year.Merry Christmas to all.....no go out for a run!!
One final comment from me...as pointed out below there is a case to be made for those left out but it is the finals that count.So to eliminate the "bickring", "course differences","season meets" tec. just remane the list to define what it is and not pretend it is anything different. After all this list is just a straight 1 thru 41 from the State Meet so cal it the All NorCal State Meet X-C Team. End of story everyone understands its published and no comments.
But Coach, that title would be incorrect since Whelan is on the 3rd team where Prior & Foster (who had faster times than Whelan) are Honorable Mention (I only checked the guys list). So the title could be "All NorCal State Meet X-C except Prior, Foster and a few others Team".:)hank
The argument here that State is all that maters is flawed. Time and again Coaches, Principles, AD's have voted time and again for the regular season to mean something. It is why league meets count in the league standings and a 50% rule is in place in the CCS.My argument here is that you would think that first team athletes would rank higher on the Nor Cal list. How can an honorable mention for CCS be 2nd team nor-cal? That doesn't add up.But just to note many times the world record holder has had a hard time winning the gold medal in the Olympics. Never has their career been considered anything less than the best.And do you know any classes that make you attend the 18 weeks every day, take tests along the way but then after you have an A all year but get a C on the final are told the only thing that counts is the final at the end of the year so you get a C?Don't think so.
"And do you know any classes that make you attend the 18 weeks every day, take tests along the way but then after you have an A all year but get a C on the final are told the only thing that counts is the final at the end of the year so you get a C?"I had plenty of classes like that in college.
I don't care either way but as a current college student I have to disagree here with one comment. "Plenty" of courses like this is an exaggeration. I have never had a class that made me take tests and write paper to have them not count for my grade and only the final count. In fact I have never had a class be a final only. I am at Stanford.I know this is just my personal experience so I e-mailed my friends who are at Columbia, UC Riverside, Cal, University of Arizona, Washington, and West Valley CC. None of them have a final only course let alone a professor who assigns work that does not count toward their grade. They may have someone else read it but it still counts.
Post a Comment