What is typically the strongest cross country section in NorCal?

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Great day for NorCal runners and teams...

Lots of stats to come but for now...

Team Champions
Division III Girls-Campolindo HS (NCS)
Division IV Girls-San Lorenzo Valley HS (CCS)
Division IV Boys-Yreka HS (NS)
Division V Girls-Branson HS (NCS)
Division V Boys-St. Joseph Notre Dame (NCS)

Individual Champions
Division I Girls-Fiona O'Keeffe (SJS) 16:59
Division III Boys-Aidan Goltra (NCS) 15:02 (Div. III finish http://instagram.com/p/hWjGgoghCS/)
Division IV Girls-Anna Maxwell (CCS) 17:08
Division V Girls-Julia Maxwell (NCS) 18:12

More Podium Teams (Top 3)
Division I Girls-Davis HS 2nd Place (They just qualified for NXN as an at-large qualifier)
Division V Boys-Marin Academy HS 2nd Place

Individual Podium Finishers (Top 10)
I will post these when I get a moment...

Until then, feel free to discuss today's meet.  Just an amazing effort by so many individuals and teams.  What was the biggest surprise today?  Most impressive?

75 comments:

Anonymous said...

I thought that sophomore Kevin Lehr from St. Ignatius (15:41) and Melissa Reed from Mt. View (18:08) both had outstanding races. In terms of team performances, Bellarmine getting 6th in D1 was amazing, and CCS placing 3 teams in the top 10 for Boys Div 3 was also incredible (Scotts Valley 5th, Seaside 7th, and Half Moon Bay 9th). Looks like if Scott Edwards had run the same time that he ran last year at State, Scotts Valley would've placed 2nd in Div 4. Was he injured this season?

Anonymous said...

Maybe he was. but times in general today were slow

Anonymous said...

Branson girls after a season of injuries and adversity putting it all together for the win and of course Julia Maxwell just rocks

Anonymous said...

8:35, I think you mean Div. 4 Boys, not Div 3.

Anonymous said...

Great finish by Bellarmine for sixth in the boys D1 race. Coach McCrystal gets his boys ready for state every year!

Anonymous said...

Top 10 finishers in each division from NCS:
D1
Blair Hurlock 15:10
D2
Tyler Olson 15:28
Cameron Tu 15:29
D3
Aidan Goltra 15:02
Fred Huxam 15:07
D4
N/A
D5
Trevor Rienhart 15:25
Gabe Arias 15:42
James Kinney 15:43
Michael Murphy 16:10

Anonymous said...

top NCS finishers at State

1 Aidan Goltra SR 3 Campolindo 15:01.9 4:51

6 Fred Huxham SR 3 Redwood 15:07.6 4:53 749 NCS

9 Blair Hurlock SR 1 De La Salle 15:10.1 4:53 634 NCS

24 Trevor Reinhart JR 5 Marin Academy 15:24.6 4:58 702 NCS

30 Tyler Olson SR 2 Livermore 15:27.5 4:59 683 NCS

33 Cameron Tu SR 2 Alameda 15:28.9 4:59 522 NCS

43 Ryan Anderson SR 2 Maria Carrillo 15:36.7 5:02 694 NCS

53 Todd Olson SR 2 Livermore 15:41.1 5:03 684 NCS

54 Gabe Arias-Sheride SR 5 St. Joseph Notre Dame 15:41.1 5:03 778 NCS

56 James Kinney SR 5 Marin Academy 15:42.1 5:04 706 NCS

67 Jason Intravaia SR 1 San Ramon Valley 15:45.8 5:05 764 NCS

83 Colin Burke JR 3 Bishop O'dowd 15:49.6 5:06 561 NCS

87 Matt Salazar SO 2 Casa Grande 15:50.3 5:06 601 NCS

95 Jackson Crose JR 2 Livermore 15:51.8 5:07 682 NCS

Thats everyone under 16

hank said...

Just got home, will be adding all sorts of NorCal only stats, coed stats, stats by section, let me know what you would like to see and I'll try and add if. They will be posted at:

http://www.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/XC/2013/stateres.htm

hank

Anonymous said...

I think davis gets team performance of the day for Norcal. Sensational performance with all 5 scorers under 19 to finish second to great oak and qualify for nationals. Okeefe under 17 and sophomore record time!

Anonymous said...

Booo, Aidan Goltra BETRAYED his team. He clearly found a loophole in the transfer rules and his title should be vacated!

Anonymous said...

Fred Huxham ran a killer race to bounce back from NCS. Props to him for sticking with those guys and running an awesome time

Anonymous said...

Why don't the top runners from those who made it as an individual get a medal or anything? Just wondering

Anonymous said...

Hank: A stat I'd like to see how NCS performed relative to pre-meet predictions versus how SS did. I realize that SS is huge with 30% of entrants; but just like there is a perceived east coast bias in college sports their seems to be a southern bias in CA ratings.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 3:35 AM - I wonder if there is a correlation between your Goltra rant and the time you posted it. I'm a Las Lomas fan and none of the other LL supporters I know bear a grudge. Time to move on anonymous at 3:35 AM

hank said...

@ 8:47 - My program doesn't do that. I can give you stats from within a race but not taking one set of data and comparing with a different set - sorry. NorCal only & SoCal only are now posted.

hank

hank said...

@8:47 - I re-read your post, so you just want a NCS Vs SS stat...? That I can do - will post in about 15 min.

hank

Anonymous said...

@ The first post
Yes CCS D4 boys did fantastic with 3 teams in the top ten. As for Scott Edwards running slower than he did last year he has been dealing with stomach problems and hasn't had a good race all season. He hopes to be 100% by track.

Anonymous said...

Hank, a bit more complicated. My perception is that pre-meet predictions leaned SS's way at the expense of NCS. For example, Campo girls second to PV and Las Lomas girls unranked (yet 5th) and Goltra picked third, etc.

Would have to almost give minus points for underperforming prediction and plus points for over performing. Not worth the exercise.

Albert Caruana said...

Based on how the SS teams and individuals have performed in past state meets, I don't see an issue with the pre-state meet rankings. Aidan was ranked 3rd going into the state meet and he finished 1st with 2 runners right behind him. I would say that is pretty accurate. Rich didn't have Las Lomas in his pre-state meet top 10 and dyestatcal.com had them at 8th.

There are always going to be surprises at the state meet and some teams/individuals will surpass their rankings and some teams/individuals will perform below their rankings.

This is why they still run the races.

Anonymous said...

Props to Piedmont 3rd at NCS then finished 4th at State without their #2 runner.

Albert Caruana said...

Piedmont was unbelievable. I picked them to win NCS and 2 teams just outran them there. I didn't realize they ran without their #2 runner which makes their result even more amazing.

Anonymous said...

Yes Piedmont was unbelievable. As a SMB fan, I am disappointed at their results...again!

Andrew said...

Yes, Piedmont was great at state! Its a shame Sophie MacCracken apparently got injured at NCS. She walked into the finish line there just to finish the race. She didn't race at state. If she did and ran as their #2, they would have come in 2nd to SLV probably!

WACC represented nicely - O'Dowd ran well in both boys and girls. Cameron Tu of Alameda 10th in his race.

My favorite tidbit - Liberty (NCS) had two girls race. But there was a full team from the Central Section named Liberty as well. So, in the Combined Girls results, they were counted as one team! That would have been a disaster if they qualified to NXN because of that!

Anonymous said...

It's time for an Open Division! I'd like to see the top 23 teams race!!!

Albert Caruana said...

I think another division to better balance out the rest of the divisions would be a welcome addition by many of the larger schools in the North.

Anonymous said...

"My favorite tidbit - Liberty (NCS) had two girls race. But there was a full team from the Central Section named Liberty as well. So, in the Combined Girls results, they were counted as one team! That would have been a disaster if they qualified to NXN because of that!"

Oh come on. That would have been caught right away.

Anonymous said...

Marin Academy Boys went from 2nd at BCL-West meet to 2nd at D5 State in the last 3 weeks of the season

Andrew said...

@Anonymous 3:22 PM

Sorry, I found something particularly odd about the meet...sheesh. But then again, would they have caught it right away? At NCS, there were runners who were lapped being directed into the finish after all and it probably cost some teams some points. I doubt the mistake cost the teams a state meet berth, but it could have.

Anonymous said...

so many north coast fans

Anonymous said...

All the posts above referencing top NCS finishers and not a one of them talks about the girls divisions.

Anonymous said...

Sorry ... one of them (the first post) mentions one girl.

Anonymous said...

10 Thoughts from the state meet:

1. Someone needs to fix the t-shirt thing. Was there only one person working? I know it brings in tons of cash, how about a cash only line, a vender selling a shirt outside the tent or another place to buy a shirt!

2. Traffic is awful. And the people selling the tickets spent way too much time. Needs better organization here.

3. The course needs a lot of work. Drop off curbs should be replaced with a gradual slant. The start needs to be widened. It should be a two lane road without having to bottleneck 150m into the race. Woodward park has become increasingly ugly with industrial like structures. Plant some trees, trim overgrown shrubs and put some t-shirt money into the course.

4. Timing and results were great. Props to who does that.

5. A warm up area needs to be designated. Too many athletes on the course.

6. Terrible weekend to host the meet. Trying to find a place to eat is unreal. Not to mention traffic, booked hotels, etc.

7. The quality of talent is amazing. The girls D1 race wow!

8. State enrollment standards are needed. I'd like to see schools the same size go head to head. It seems like sections handicap schools from winning. There has to be a way to have your section meet and make the state meet fair.

9. It seems like very few have figured out how to peak. Not that there's a big secret. It seems like those who know they are going every year (Bell, Campo, etc) run better than those who just want to get there.

10. Arcadia keeps rolling.

Anonymous said...

If I was suddenly CIF Commisioner with dictatorial powers I would force Oakland and SF sections to merge, and I would split the SS in half. Crazy that it goes from Arroyo Grande to Indio. How about a SCS (south coast section) and a SO (southern section).

Anyone know the reason SS is so large?

Anonymous said...

"8. State enrollment standards are needed. I'd like to see schools the same size go head to head. It seems like sections handicap schools from winning. There has to be a way to have your section meet and make the state meet fair. "

That's how it used to be, but then the section meets became very unfair. Here's an example: if the divisions were split evenly by statewide enrollment, then there would be fewer than 10 schools in Division I in either the NCS or CCS. Now, do those sections still get two automatic qualifiers? What happens if there are only 5 Division I-sized schools but over 40 in Division III?

Anonymous said...

Will NCS get a new state spot for D V? They killed SS at state.

Anonymous said...

Congrats to Aidan! #1 overall! I cant believe he did that well. Why does he get so much hate on this website? Hurlock transferred too. Why is Aidan painted negatively and not Hurlock?

Anonymous said...

Goltra's had to overcome a lot of adversity and bigotry from the internetand running community in general. Im proud of him.

Anonymous said...

The difference is that Aidan transferred from an already competitive program, Las Lomas, while Hurlock transferred from Tracy.

Coach Small said...

@ 6:05 PM

My thought (which Albert shoots down every time I bring it up but I'll share anyways) would be to reseed for the state meet. The 23 most populous schools that qualify are D1, next 23 are D2, etc. Allow sections to run their meets and select qualifiers as they like. The qualifying teams are reseeded anyways.

I also would like to see an open division which I know is an unpopular idea. But to me cross country is the one place where distance runners from varying specialties all come together to race. The best should face the best.

Last little note: I find it amazing McFarland with 700ish students is D1.

Albert Caruana said...

Actually you would be surprised that I like the reseeding idea. I also like the open division since they already have one in basketball and football.

This way they can have the best teams face each other at state and qualify to NXN by beating other teams head to head. It would also allow the state to properly divide the rest of the divisions in a fair manner.

As for McFarland being in Division I, that is an absolute joke.

pmccrystle said...

Albert, Josh, et al:
Well, MacFarland is assigned to DII--NOT DI--by its own section, even though its CBED enrollment is 775. Edison High of Fresno has over 2100 students but is DIII in the Central Section, because of its poor history in cross country...there are only 10 schools assigned to DI in the Central Section! The situation in the Central section is as ridiculous as the CBED disparities between the Southern Section and the Sac Joaquin Section; the state should create one equitable system that applies to all sections. And yes, the SF and Oakland sections should be assumed into the NCS, or maybe the SF into the CCS, and then those two spots could go into the general pool for the State to divide up.

A major problem with an Open division comes with deciding who runs in that division. Where would you have put our team this year (Bellarmine)? Prior to the meet no one thought we were going to finish 6th in DI--we were the 14th seed in DI, and ranked behind many great schools from DII and DIII...I would not want a system where we didn't get a chance to race all the highly ranked DI teams to see what we could do in one race that matters more than all the others: the last race, the State Championship!!

Anonymous said...

I don't get why there was a video cart. It only kicked up dust during the race and probably was in the way of the front runners. Flotrack barely even used footage from the cart as well.

Anonymous said...

Sectionals should have qualifying team times for the state meet. Just my input

Anonymous said...

Open division solution:

8 sections (not included Oakland/SF) top 2 over-all in each section advance to open. That's 16 teams. 7 at-large spots based on head to head like selecting for NCAA/rankings.

So hypothetically one section could have 9 teams. That would make SS happy. Each section is represented.

Hard Truth said...

Believe it or not, the easiest way to alleviate the section disparity is to reduce the number of divisions. If there were only three divisions (like there was at the start of the State Meet), then all sections could field reasonable numbers at their section meets with statewide enrollment cut-offs. As it stands, many section meets are already very diluted with five divisions.

Other benefits include a much more competitive state meet and a much easier time finding hotel rooms.

GHPADD said...

Just a short thought on a new State XC Meet qualifying process. After sections and prior to State, an All Nor-Cal and an All So-Cal XC Championship meet. After the meets, the top 10 teams from North and top 10 from south, male and female (10 each Division for how many divisions are decided upon) meet at the State meet. 20 teams on the line...140 runners. The top 50 individuals not on a team and based on time at the All-Nor-Cal and All So-Cal meets (combining all divisions at each meet for individual results), male and female, then race in an individual championship race at State. This allows the north and south to be well represented and gives individuals not on a team a chance to also shine so that the top runners are always at the State meet...either on a team or as an individual. In this manner, no Section has more or less qualifying positions and makes sure that the North and the South are well represented by the best that both have to offer. I am sure that there are other simple methods to correct a current problem that only plagues XC, of all sports.

pmccrystle said...

To GHPADD: The North-South pre State qualifier is a great idea. I think the Central Section would need to be included in the North, to even up numbers between SD/S/LA sections. League Finals dates might have to be changed, but that wouldn't be a problem in my opinion. So, anybody know the key to getting the CIF to listen to new ideas??

Anonymous said...

Has any NCS team ever repeated as state champs? On a side note it's commendable that SJND would have won D4 as well the last two years.

Anonymous said...

"Has any NCS team ever repeated as state champs?"

The SF University girls have been state champs of Division V something like 10 or 11 times in recent years, with multiple repeats.

Albert Caruana said...

College Park girls won that state championship in 2003 and 2004.

Anonymous said...

School Size Always Will Be in Favor of A Larger School Majority of the Time! The Way the State Meet is Run Now is perfectly fine!

Albert Caruana said...

The current state meet divisions are very fair for Division IV and V teams because those numbers are the same for all sections. That is not the case for the top 3 divisions.

Anonymous said...

Albert, your right.

Anonymous said...

So, what's the breakdown on this weekend? Goltra has confirmed he will run at NXN, but have both Huxham and Hurlock confirmed for Footlocker West?

I ask because it looks like the winner of that head-to-head will have implications on Norcal Runner of the Year. If Huxham wins, I think it will be difficult to see someone other than Goltra getting Norcal Runner, since Huxham also got Hurlock at State. If Hurlock wins, it might be more of a toss-up given his NCS performance and the fact that there was never a head-to-head race against Goltra.

Then again, maybe the races this weekend don't mean as much given what happened with Lawson last year.

Anyone else have an opinion on this?

No matter what happens, I'm sure the debate for ROY will be a heated one given that it involves Goltra, haha.

Coach Tim said...

There's some interesting ideas here!

I like the idea of re-seeding divisions before state, at least in principle. Running against similar-sized schools seems fair for the runners and a reasonable goal to pursue.

I'm not sold on the idea of an open division - mostly because (as stated earlier), How do you choose? Any objective measure is going to be difficult at best based on different championship courses, and any subjective measure opens the door for controversy.

I strongly disagree with GHPADD's idea of an "Individual qualifiers" race. Yes, it'd be great to have an all-team race, but there's always the argument that the best should race the best, and this solution seems to punish great individuals whether they're on a great team or not by depriving them of that opportunity.

I'm not sold on a NorCal/SoCal championship pre-state, for several reasons: 1. Travel requirements for a lot of schools would be difficult (for some several weeks in a row). 2. Travel accomodations would be difficult (think it's hard booking a room at state on 2 weeks notice? Now you get to do it twice, on one week's notice!) 3. Geography - Let's be honest: "SoCal" is comprised of only three sections: SS, LAS, SDS. Everything else is "NorCal" (CS could go either way, but most of it is north of the CCS southern boundary, which no one would argue is "SoCal"). At that point, does the benefit really outweigh the cost?

GHPADD said...

Coach Tim brings up some good points. However, instead of thinking how it will not work, try thinking of how it could work. No one said that State meet had to be two or one week later, why would or wouldn't the dates of major competitions have to remain the same? Additionally, what happens if a school cannot put together 5 runners to form a team that can qualify for State, and they have one of the elite runners in the State. No individual race means that you have an appearance of having the best run...but not! Not every school has a "great" team and should a great runner be punished for that? All good questions, ideas, etc. If a forum could develop a great plan that "could" work, selling a great plan to CIF is not much of an issue. Developing one will require major brainstorming by many who are seeking to move running forward, not hold it back. So, how does the running community move forward with bringing the best to the State meet in all Sections and Divisions, and make it enticing for others outside the sport to want to watch? Big questions, but as school budgets dry up, are re-directed, etc., new solutions will be found. The question is will they be forced on the running community or will the running community be a part of the solution?

Anonymous said...

I'd rather the effort be put into sort out the Footlocker vs NXN mess.

Half the top ten CA boys declined NXN invitations (most likely for Footlocker)

Footlocker (or not NXN):
Tal Braude SR 1 Torrey Pines 15:02.0 4:51 1138 SDS
Fred Huxham SR 3 Redwood 15:07.6 4:53 749 NCS
Garrett Corcoran SR 2 Villa Park 15:08.9 4:53 1917 SS
Blair Hurlock SR 1 De La Salle 15:10.1 4:53 634 NCS

NXN:
1. Aidan Goltra (Campolindo) - Fastest overall male at state meet; qualifies to NXN as an individual
2. David Luna (Indio) – 3rd-fastest overall male at state meet; qualifies to NXN as an individual
Estevan DeLaRosa (Arcadia) – 4th-fastest overall male at state; qualifies to NXN as part of a team
3. Austin Tamagno (Brea Olinda) – 5th-fastest overall male at state; qualifies to NXN as an individual
4. Blake Haney (Stockdale) – 7th-fastest overall male at state; qualifies to NXN as an individual
5. Alan Yoho (Flintridge Prep) – 10th-fastest overall male at state; qualifies to NXN as an individual

It lessens both events because you don't have all the top athletes at one race.

Albert Caruana said...

I totally agree with this. NXN should be a team event and Footlocker should be the individual event as it's been in the past.

It's a shame that Nike had to play the power game with Footlocker and started inviting the individuals as well.

Albert Caruana said...

Agreed @4:16

It's the CIF equivalent of when you split your team in half for a time trial when you're trying to make equal teams, it's a total cluster. Would have been awesome to have Braude and Goltra finally race each other.

Albert Caruana said...

The above was posted by someone else. I re-posted it taking out the unnecessary expletive.

Anonymous said...

^^^

Sorry, that was my comment. Forgot the context of my post, no harm intended.

Albert Caruana said...

No problem. I am sure it's just me but since we do have a high school audience, I would prefer we not use expletives.

Anonymous said...

Goltra is State Champ. Goltra ran the fastest at the time state championships. Goltra is Nor Cal runner of the year!

Anonymous said...

I know it's a bit early for all this NorCal Runner of the year stuff.. But I still like Hurlock over Goltra.
This kid set the course record at NCS, raced much more than Aidan, THREW down much more than Goltra... weighs maybe 105 pounds? and will ultimately be more of a story to tell than Goltra's down the line.. (At least for me)

John said...

Problem with NXN is they are selecting teams and individuals based on a power merge. The DI and DII races not only had deeper fields but the best conditions as well.

If NXN could move back a week, individuals could go to Footlocker West and the top 20 teams at CIF could compete at NXN California....

Anonymous said...

NXN is not for the kids it's a marketing opportunity for this this evil child labor using corporation- Just say NO!

Anonymous said...

@6:37, because noooo 17 or 18 year old kid would EVER want to be part of a giant, selective and FREE Nike advertisement.

Anonymous said...

YES!!! I love the idea of realigning the divisions after the section meets / before the state meet. That makes everything fair at each section meet, and makes it most fair at the state meet. Has this idea ever been brought it up? It is literally genius and I don't see why it wouldn't make everyone happy. Tomorrow is the CCS meeting. Who is going to please bring up this brilliant idea to Steve Filios so that he can propose it to CIF?

On a separate note, can someone do the calculations and tell how many qualifying slots each section / division / gender will be allotted for the 2014 state meet?

hank said...

^ A League has to present any idea to the CCS (not just a person to Filios) so that means the League Commissioner has to sign-off on it first, which usually means they'd want to meet with the ADs first, and on down the line... Not enough time for all of these meetings to take place before the CCS meeting so it most likely can't be presented until the following year. Now if CIF were to step in and say they want to make a change, that's a different story but I would guess that CIF usually takes it's suggestions from the Sections so you'd still have a host of meetings to go through first.

hank

Coach Tim said...

GHPADD - I didn't intend to be dismissive or pessimistic. I like the idea of a Semi-Cal championship race in principle, and do think it's worth exploring. Let's continue to do so, but know that in the back of my mind I am already aware of significant costs that would have to be outweighed by benefits we can devise.

Separately, can you offer an argument for why a separate individual race would be better than an Team Q + Individual Q format from either section to semi-state or semi-state to state? I don't grasp why this would be superior, but might be missing something key.

Anonymous said...

@ GHPADD re: semi-Cal or Nor-Cal, So-Cal Championship qualifier, this is not a novel idea but is one currently in practice. It's called the CCCAA Cross-Country Championships.

Each conference has its championship race, then you have the Nor-Cal and So-Cal races, and then you have the State Championship race, except it is 27 teams. There are also individuals who qualify but can't tell you the numbers, and there is no separate individual race.

Does it work? Sure, but I can tell you there is still disparity between So-Cal and Nor-Cal with So-Cal dominating.

Would it work in high school? About as well as the current system, and IMHO, there is no need for a separate individual race. Use NXN and Footlocker for that.

Otherwise, you'd have an absurdly long season as a result of not adding in one additional race, but two. You are still going to have your leagues, sections (some have "semi-sections"), Nor-Cal, So-Cal, States, then individual states?

Hmmmm, good luck with that one.

Anonymous said...

I Wouldn't Push It to Much, there's only a Few sports in California that even have State Championships.

Anonymous said...

The best idea here by far, and one I could see passing because it allows the sections to maintain how they run their meet is the reseeding. It is fair, reasonable and little work on the parts of the sections. Simply input the CBED of those who qualify from your section.

I hope this finds some traction and someone reading this will present to their league-section, etc.

And I wouldn't be afraid of this meet going away any time soon. The amount of money they make is enormous, just off attire alone. The city of Fresno even has been paying for them to host it there.

I would be worried that the meet would move to the Southern Section. Though I think even those down south like Fresno to want to keep it there.

I would like to see a rotating course, north, central south. Maybe a run through the Humbolt redwoods, a traditional stop in Fresno and then the Footlocker course in San Diego.

Anonymous said...

One race, one champ, anybody see the movie Hoosiers?

Albert Caruana said...

The one state basketball champion in Indiana is history as well.

Popular Posts