Sunday, October 27, 2013

Mt. SAC Top 10 NorCal runners and teams (boys and girls)

Please note that I may have missed a runner or team and there were timing issues at Mt. SAC yesterday so if see any errors, please make not of them in the comment section below.

Top 10 Boys
1)  Blair Hurlock De La Salle HS 14:48
2)  Chris Foster Los Gatos HS 15:06
3)  Matthew Schumann De La Salle HS 15:12
4)  Gabe Arias-Sheridan St. Joseph Notre Dame HS 15:20
5)  Cameron Gaskell Acalanes HS 15:21
6)  Carter Mackey Castro Valley HS 15:23
7)  Neilson Powless Roseville HS 15:25
8)  Matt Salazar Casa Grande HS 15:26
9)  Ben Haderle Los Gatos HS 15:29
10)  Andrew Melendez Bishop O'Dowd HS 15:30

Next 10
11)  Jason Intravaia San Ramon Valley HS 15:31
12)  Justin Robison Lynbrook HS 15:32
12)  Fred Huxham Redwood HS 15:32
12)  Luke Williams De La Salle HS 15:32
15)  Cooper Sloan Homestead HS 15:35
16)  Colin Burke Bishop O'Dowd HS 15:36
17)  Matthew Murphy St. Joseph Notre Dame HS 15:39
18)  Michael Murphy St. Joseph Notre Dame HS 15:43
19)  Steven Grolle Sonora HS 15:46
20)  Austin Sanchez De La Salle HS 15:47

Top 10 Girls
1)  Fiona O'Keeffe Davis HS 16:54
2)  Anna Maxwell San Lorenzo Valley HS 16:56
3)  Lauren LaRocco St. Francis, Sacramento 17:17
4)  Lauren Jacob Los Altos HS 17:40
5)  Sofia Castiglioni Davis HS 17:42
6)  Madison Rawson St. Francis, Sacramento 17:43
7)  Christine Bayliss San Ramon Valley HS 17:45
8)  Bridget Gottlieb Monta Vista HS 17:58
9)  Cassidy Towner El Dorado HS 17:59
10)  Miranda Myers St. Francis, Sacramento 18:01

Top 10 Boys Teams
1)  De La Salle HS (NCS) 1:17:16
2)  St. Joseph Notre Dame HS (NCS) 1:19:01
3)  Homestead HS (CCS) 1:20:05
4)  Los Gatos HS (CCS) 1:20:46
5)  Davis HS (SJS) 1:21:06
6)  Casa Grande HS (NCS) 1:21:33
7)  Bishop O'Dowd HS (NCS) 1:21:40
8)  San Ramon Valley HS (NCS) 1:21:55
9)  Los Altos HS (CCS) 1:22:28
10)  Roseville HS (SJS) 1:22:34

Top 10 Girls Teams
1)  Davis HS (SJS) 1:31:42
2)  St. Francis, Sacramento (SJS) 1:31:49
3)  San Lorenzo Valley HS (CCS) 1:33:49
4)  Bishop O'Dowd HS (NCS) 1:35:48
5)  Monta Vista HS (CCS) 1:36:08
6)  Monte Vista HS (NCS) 1:37:16
7)  Amador Valley HS (NCS) 1:37:18
8)  San Ramon Valley HS (NCS) 1:37:49
9)  Del Oro HS (SJS) 1:38:46
10)  Vacaville HS (SJS) 1:38:56

2013 Top 100 by Grade - Mt. Sac XC Invitational (Courtesy of www.dyestatcal.com)
2013 Top 100 Individuals - Mt. Sac XC Invitational (Courtesy of www.dyestatcal.com)
2013 Top 100 Teams - Mt. Sac XC Invitational (Courtesy of www.dyestatcal.com)

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you for sorting and posting these times.

GHPADD said...

itdifin 960As I previously mentioned, Neilson Powless in his 3rd or 4th race of the year, after representing the US in Europe on the World Mountain Biking Team, is beginning to get back into shape. He will be one of the top 10...or even 5 by State meet. This kid will be going places!!

Anonymous said...

Are there combined race results available? Would Be nice to see those with the runners CIF divisions for the top 50 overall girls and boys times to see how competition stacks up for state

Tony Roberts said...

Austin Sanchez De La Salle 15:47

Albert Caruana said...

No combined results for the Mt. SAC invitational. Somebody would have to go back and accumulate the top 50 marks from every race.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for my ignorance but what is the Mt Sac distance? The Lynbrook results show 2.93 and the course map shows 3.0. Thanks for educating me!

Albert Caruana said...

2.93 is correct. I believe the times from Mt. SAC match up very favorably with the Crystal Springs course.

hank said...

I'm working on combining all the races (yup 15,000 times) as we speal and should have something up later tonight or tomorrow morn. If someone wants to take the excel file that has both days in it and send me that file with teams CIF divisions in it, then I can compute out standings by division. Same is true by Section (Walt has already sent me the CCS athletes and I'll be posting that soon) but if someone wants to do the other sections, please do and I can create a NorCal list.

hank

Anonymous said...

Very true Albert, but you still got to add a couple of seconds to the Mt. Sac times to make an actual comparison with Crystal. I don't necessarily agree with both time converters offered here. Crystal is still a tougher course in my opinion.

Anonymous said...

St. Joe's had an outstandin race and deserve not only a spot but a higher NorCal rankings. They also bested Flintridge 39-72 in the D5 Sweepstakes race which could very well be preview of the upcoming D5 State championship. Glad to see Chris Melendez back from injury.

Anonymous said...

Here are 4 kids to add from our school... When we were there we had lots of kids missing from results... they said they would try to fix things but with the size of the meet probably not going to happen...
Boys
Freddy Torres 16:28
Owen Ibarra 16:55
Jeremy Samples 17:22
Girls
Elisa Ibarra 21:01

Coach Ibarra
North Monterey County

Anonymous said...

83:19 team time for NMC boys with missing results

Anonymous said...

We've always run much faster at Crystal than Mt. Sac by 30-45 seconds. Mt. Sac is much more difficult than Crystal.

Anonymous said...

Sac is not 30-45 seconds slower than Crystal. Chris Foster is not going to run 14:30 at Crystal. There might be a 10 second variation depending on conditions but the two courses are very comparable.

Anonymous said...

Hurlock's individual win in the Team Sweepstakes was definitely one of the biggest "wow" moments for me.

Anonymous said...

What's going on with Steven Sum?

Anonymous said...

NMC Boys actually 84:18 team time with adding missing guys...
Thanks,
Coach Ibarra
NMC

Anonymous said...

My guess is Mt. Sac results won't be fixed. How can timing be off and people missing? What a joke. And people were hating on the Crystal Invite.

Albert Caruana said...

This was the first year they used chip timing at the Mt. SAC invite. I am sure whatever issues that came up this year will be resolved by next year.

That is a good point about the Crystal Springs invite. I know there was a wait for the results but they were accurate when they were posted which is much better than fast results and many errors.

Anonymous said...

My watch was right-on with the finish line clock for our school's race. The official, published results vary from 2-to-5 seconds slower for every runner that I clocked - our school as well as others. No way they can fix that for this year...

Albert Caruana said...

One possible reason for that is the pad that records the chip timing was placed beyond the finish line. If a runner stopped right at the finish line and then proceeded slowly forward,their time was recorded only when they went over the pad.

Not sure if this was the case but it's one option.

Anonymous said...

Thanks to Anon 12:57 who posted that their watch and finish video matched up. Runners for our team also were missing and randomly 2-5 seconds off from what we had and I was wondering where the difference was (finish line clock or the official results). Also to note regarding name changes despite changes made with the timer none were made in the results.

First year with chip timing, hopefully they learned from their mistakes.

Anonymous said...

I watched the finish line videos posted on dyestat for a few of the races and you can see that the finish clock and posted time do not match. It looked to me as if maybe the times were recorded off the second pad that the runners crossed. Just a guess.

Coach Ozzie said...

To all those stating that Mt. SAC wouldn't fix errors, they did for us (Amador Valley). There was a problem solving tent on site and we brought our concerns to them. We only had 2 athletes not show up in the results. We brought the bib numbers over, gave them our names and estimated times and they said they'd review the tape. They told us right then and there that it might take them a couple of days to fix, which seemed reasonable given the task and that they had 55 more races to run that day. Our errors were fixed last night and we moved from 5th in our race to third. It was worth the wait. As for the times being off by 2-5 seconds, They made announcements throughout the day that the actual finish line was beyond they arch at the top of the hill and that athletes needed to run through the pads on the ground. We had at least one runner lose a couple of spots due to stopping early, but that was not Mt. SAC's fault. I hate to be the apologist, but it seems to me that effective chip timing is a step towards the lightning fast and efficient results we all want and Mt. SAC is trying to move toward that goal. There will be some hiccups in that process and as long as they're going to work to fix them, we'll probably all be pretty happy that they went through this process in a couple of years. Also, all of our names were changed in the results.

Anonymous said...

Our results were just updated last night also for race 9 adding our missing top 3 guys...
http://events.mtsac.edu/ccinvite/results/2013/hs/9.pdf
I'm sure many races are being fixed as we speak since a few more missing kids of ours are still missing...
Not sure how much it will change things but I do think it's much better to wait and post results once they are correct since hundreds of running sites take results as they come and post and have a hard time updating them later...
I do like the chip timing but if it's going to be a problem with missing kids then old school tags may work better in the end, especially for championship events where much is on the line...
Coach Ibarra
NMC

Anonymous said...

Some teams ran late in the day and did not hear announcements throughout the day. The timing discrepancy added 19 seconds to our 1-5 team time; the division team course record is only 12 seconds less... so it mattered at the margin. Would have been better to highlight finish line changes in the packets to make sure the runners all understood.

I agree that the chip timing at Mt. Sac is a huge step forward. Let's hope they work out the kinks for the future.

hank said...

Gus
"old school tags"...? My how times have changed, I always thought old school was pop sticks and a tick sheet - guess I need to go get some learnin'

hank

Anonymous said...

Hank,
Haha! I still have Popsicle sticks! I guess if it's not broke why try to fix it ;)
I know the wave of the future is upon us and having chips in the bibs is very cool! Iron out the kinks and I'm sure we will all love them! For now I'm not loving it... we've been to 3 meets with chips and all 3 have missed many of our kids in the results...
what's the plan for CCS and State? Anyone know?
Gus

Albert Caruana said...

Sean Laughlin has been timing the Stanford Invite and the state meet with chips for the past few years. NCS hired him last year for their meet starting last year.

As for CCS, I am fairly certain the same old timing system will be used again this year.

hank said...

yup, CCS will be "old school" again this year. :)

hank

Anonymous said...

If I am not mistaken when chips are used it is the foot that is the official time not the chest. Also you must have a chip on both feet in championship meets.

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it depend on where the chip is? State is on the shoe while Mt Sac was embedded in the number.

hank said...

I can only speak for how Sean does races, he runs two sets of systems (for redundancy), first set of pads are the official time, 2nd set is to catch a "miss-read" (remember that XC races are only timed to the second, even though he has the time to the tenth). In the event of a close finish, Sean also runs a FinishLynx camera so that he can switch the order of finish (based on torso) if the shoe time puts someone in front of someone else when they shouldn't be). He also runs a program (constantly) that is checking to see if a "read" from pad #1 and a "read" from pad #2 both happened, if not, he can go back to either the FinishLynx OR the IdentiLynx (real time video) camera and insert whatever is needed. So he's got many resources at his fingertips to make sure that the order and times are correct (in big meets, someone else is taking his data and creating the results - in smaller races he waits til everyone is done and then creates the results (I'm not even going to go into the "split" pads that he puts out on the course). It's a VERY COOL thing to watch Sean do what he does, makes my little program that creates results seem small and yet I get the credit for I hand the printed results out to the "poster".

hank

Nils said...

Hank,
As a real-world database geek (in financial context) I really appreciate your detailed description, which shows how no automated process can run hands-off and maintain accuracy. There's a constant stream of runners across the finish line, and having all of these cross-checks and ways to correct (with ~Lynx as backup "looking over your shoulder") is absolutely necessary. And we should all appreciate the work of Sean, or anyone in his position.

Popular Posts