What is toughest CCS At-Large distance mark?

Monday, December 21, 2015

2015 All-NorCal Cross Country Team

http://lynbrooksports.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/XC/2015/allnorca.htm


Feel free to post your thoughts in the comment section below.

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Were these just based on State results? There are a good handful of runners that performed well at Invitationals, section championships and/or Post Season races (Footlocker) with better times than many on this list. This is always a difficult list to put together, but some good seasonal performers are missing and at least deserve an honorable mention.

Albert Caruana said...

I think state meet results play a large part in determining this team. For me personally, I look at the state meet performance as well as post state meet results as well as section and other invitationals throughout the season.

Feel free to add runners who you feel belong on any of the lists.

hank said...

States did sway the voters as to which team they should be on. There were 2 runners from CCS that I would've liked to see on the list (Slaney & Dozier) but their State performance seemed to sway the voters more than their Section & League performances.

hank

Anonymous said...

At least it is more clear that state is the biggest factor in this list. The other lists were a complete mystery, and the CCS list was a disaster of crony seniority from yesteryear that had no real relation to the season, CCS final, or state. Thank goodness there is at least one list that has put its methodology on full display, albeit behind the cloak of secrecy that is the "vote."

Albert Caruana said...

There is no cloak of secrecy. You see all the voters. Each one of us turned in our 1st, 2nd, 3rd, HM teams as well as section runners of the year and Hank added up all the votes. It can't get any simpler than that.

Sal said...

I agree, this is a good list but we are kind in light in WCAL guys. For the best league, they don't get a lot of respect.

Anonymous said...

Murphy, Glennis makes Foot Lockernationals and get's second team all NOR CAL....Harsh!

Albert Caruana said...

5 girls made NXN as individuals and that doesn't include the Davis girls.

With the WCAL guys, they have some very good teams but at the state meet Meika Beaudoin-Rousseau was the top WCAL runner at 15:50.2. There were 31 NorCal runners that finished ahead of him.

Anonymous said...

Yes, state uber alles. That's contrary to what we tell the kids. One race does not define your season until the polls come out.

Albert Caruana said...

The state meet is important but speaking for myself, I looked at a lot of races throughout the season. When you have high caliber runners, you will see those runners go back and forth against their peers. Sometimes it's not very clear and you have to put more emphasis on certain races. If runner A defeated runner B at Stanford Invite but runner B defeated runner A at the section and/or state meets, I would say runner B ends up with an edge over runner A.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 6:51 PM - Yes, one race does not define a season but all the top programs/individuals know that championship season (section, state, etc) is what matters most.

Anonymous said...

One poll doesn't define one's season either. Lighten up, people. I'm sure Albert and the other coaches culled through a lot more data than any of us. Nice job and thank you!

Anonymous said...

Agree wholeheartedly with 8:08 PM. Thanks to everyone who helped assemble the All NorCal team.

For everyone unhappy with the list then publish your own list somewhere or state your case why athlete(s) should be included/excluded.

Anonymous said...

Overall, I think everyone in the comment section so far has been complimentary of this list. The argument seems to center on the previous lists that did not put as much weight on the combination of overall season, section, and state, but relied on one race or previous years. These are common complaints when the criteria are not defined in advance.

Hank said...

5:45 - Got any ideas on how we can do this better? Share them here, the process won't get any better unless ideas are shared. Would you like to be on the committee next year?

8:19 - Yes, I'd be more than happy to publish any list that is sent to me - thanks for the plug.

9:08 - Interesting that you should mention a set of criteria to be used... in the "olden" days there was a criteria (see link below)

All-NorCal history

my favorite being that you had to submit a 2 mile time. In fact, when I re-established the All NorCal Teams list (yup, I'm that old) I specifically did NOT want to have a criteria, for then it would be too restrictive for the voters. In fact, the complaints of athletes from the 70's was that we thought they should get rid of criteria and let coaches vote the way they felt (I was one of those, "Get rid of the criteria" kids for I thought it was unfair towards me - I always choked at season's end - yup, I'm THAT old). So I wanted to get rid of criteria so kids wouldn't have to get overlooked like I was. But as they say, you can't please all the people all of the time. sigh.

hank

Anonymous said...

Oh, I'll bet you and Walt could come up with some type of point system based on converted course times. Runners could earn bonus points for titles, league, section, state, or post season births. Tie breakers could be head to head match ups. There may be no point anyway. I think you guys usually get it right. No body knows more about the CCS kids for sure. There are definitely some close judgement calls. State should probably count for more, but I think you're right about Slaney, and Dozier. Most of the CCS kids besides Munoz and Roberson would have a really hard time with either of these 2 head to head. Bell freshman who ran 16:16 could probably be on there too.

Anonymous said...

I agree with most of the comments...a pretty decent job with a lot of stats to consider. I agree that there is more than just the state race. Disappointed that there was almost no representation from NCS on voting committee. (with the exception of Albert, who is a CCS coach) Gaskell (Acalanes) and Robey(Las Lomas), DFAL/NCS could well be at least on the HM list, too. Both went head to head with Yabu all season, ...both had a disappointing state race. Robey nearly tied Yabu for 2nd at NCS. Both finished ahead of Delaney, Schultz,Surapaneni, Pride, Reckers, etc. at NCS. Gaskell won Stanford. Robey won Monte Vista, Lowell and Farmers and finshed over Yabu, Frisbie, Richardson, Borowsky, Franklin and Littwiller(3rd and 4th at state), at Footlocker....Two seniors with a great 4 year runs.
Just goes to show that on any given day...
All in all, though, good job. A tremendous appreciated effort.

Anonymous said...

I know each voter has their own criteria which is fine. However IMHO if you are selecting an all region team that covers multiple sections then you have to weigh State performance the highest. It's the only day everyone is on a level playing field so to speak. This year even more so as the weather and course conditions were perfect.

If you want a ranking that factors other races more heavily then look at MileSplit's All-State ranking. There are several runners who made the lists based on their early season results even though they didn't perform well at State. One runner even made "All State" without even running at State!

Anonymous said...

Seems like a good, well thought out list. Still, I can't help but notice that there are no women on the voting committee, and only 2 of 30 coaches signed up for the coaches' clinic are women. Women are sadly under-represented in a sport that has at least 40% girls.

pmccrystle said...

@10:31: The Bell frosh, Ross D'Orfani, ran 16:07, but the results from that meet (WCAL Finals) are not on athletic.net, which means that Meika B-R's 16:23 also doesn't appear as his season best, or Matt Richardson's 16:27. That day--Wednesday Nov. 4--was the second most perfect day I have ever seen at Crystal, which is a big part of why we ran so fast that day...

In going over a mountain of stats to vote for this team, I considered the whole season, with emphasis given to 'head to head', and to 'end of year', through States. Beyond the obvious--that NorCal girls' XC this year was the best ever--one thing that stuck out to me was that the CCS has a very strong class of 2019!!! 5 of 10 all-frosh are from CCS, and I agree that D'Orfani deserves to be on the list, as 16:07 as a freshman was good enough (Ryan Ma ran 16:15, eg)

Anonymous said...

Dear or Deer 10:31
Do you mean post-season berths? I don't think runners are born post-season.

Albert Caruana said...

One of the problems this year was that Sean was using a new way to post results which didn't show the grades in most results. That means some freshmen got lost in the shuffle since we didn't know their grade.

Aside from the CCS freshmen that made the list, you also have EJ Kelly, St. Francis CCC who ran 16:12 at Crystal Springs and Max Kluss at Sacred Heart Prep who ran 16:17 also at Crystal Springs.

Anonymous said...

Agreed about women being under represented. But they have to want to do it. Most women run for social reasons and have no desire to continue in college or coach. Hard truth but a tough reality.

Anonymous said...

I guess the births would only apply to the ladies, and probably isn't something we should encourage. Sorry.

Anonymous said...

"Most women run for social reasons" -- wow. That's just not true. From what I've seen in the 7 years my kids have run (4 yrs/son, 3 yrs/daughter), a handful of each gender run seriously and the rest run for social reasons, fitness or whatever. My son considered running in college but decided not to, but it's definitely something my daughter plans on doing.

Albert Caruana said...

A parent sent the following in regards to Kent Slaney (Palo Alto)
1st - Lowell Invitational
1st - Stanford Invitaional
3rd - Monterey Bay Invit.
9th - Clovis Invitational
2nd - SCVAL League champ
1st - CCS champ !!
But
63rd at State.....ouch. One bad race!

Anonymous said...

At 10:31: MBR's time was 15:23 and Richardson's was 15:27 NOT 16:23 and 16:27.

Anonymous said...

Slaney peaked at league and CCS. What did he have to prove at state after that? The voters put too much emphasis on state, which many in NorCal don't peak for because of the SS teams.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 9:11 PM

First off, Slaney's 9th at Clovis is misleading as it's more in line with his State performance since he ran 16:28, which was only the 138th fastest time of the day.

Second, please stop with the peaking at Section argument because Southern Section is too strong. This is a weak excuse and only used by those teams/individuals who didn't run well at State to justify their poor performance. Plenty of NorCal teams/individuals showed they can compete with SS athletes at State.

Last, if you are putting together an all section list then emphasizing section results is fine. But if you are comparing athletes from different sections then it makes most sense to emphasize State results.

Anonymous said...

Facts:
There are more serious boys than girls.
More depth of talent and competitive boys than girls.
More boys are interested in sports and competition than girls.
It is harder to win a boys championship than girls.
More men are interested in coaching than girls.


Anonymous said...

The difference between boys and girls sports in unmistakable. Just look at the number of underclass"men" girls on the top lists every year vs the number of guys (almost zero). The boys have to wait their turn, usually as a junior or senior, to make a mark where there are multiple frosh/sops girls that impress every year. That doesn't mean the girls are not as serious or they don't want to run in college. It just means the path is a little easier because there is not as much competition. The positive for girls wanting to go on to run in college - title IX has given them many more scholarships and slots on XC and track teams (especially schools with football programs) then the boys. Now, go out and make something out of that opportunity!

Anonymous said...

I'd say by the looks of things, the CCS girls are making the most of it.

Anonymous said...

At least the voters are being consistent with their votes based on State Finals since Kent Slaney didn't make it (I mean it wasn't only a bad race, it was a HORRIBLE race); Anderson beat out Colonna at State as well (even though Colonna has been consistent all season,) but again this is being consistent. This list is a lot better than Jeff's All State team. Milesplit should be ashamed for posting it (unless Jeff owns Milesplit - Robinson not even included in that list is as bad as it gets. Uhhhh...NXN Qualifier who finished top 10 in the State.)

And yes, State should be the main guide for NorCal voting since at least most of the kids are running on the same course, on the same day. And this continuous BS of not peaking your kids in State has got to stop. NorCals did awesome vs. the South this year especially the GIRLS! Congrats to NorCal runners and teams this year, without a doubt a great job by the kids & coaches.

Albert Caruana said...

I will disagree with anybody that thinks Kent Slaney had a horrible race at the state meet. He ran a well for a little over 2 miles (top 25) and had a tough last mile. It was a great learning experience for him as most of his races this season didn't have the same kind of depth and talent that he faced at the state meet.

If you look at his entire season, he definitely belongs on the all-norcal team.

Anonymous said...

@ 10:01 AM - FYI, Lynbrook's Robison is on the MileSplit All-State 2nd team. Otherwise great post.

Albert - I don't follow CCS but Slaney wasn't impressive at Clovis either so he's had issues with Woodward Park this year. Hope he learns how to run it next year.

Anonymous said...

It was brutally hot at Clovis Invite and Kent Slaney was having bad knee pain at state.

Anonymous said...

My name is Dan and I offered my selections as part of this process. My nominations were pretty close to the winners on both the boy's and girl's sides. I (and I am confident in saying the other voters did too) spent hours going over data in order to justify the decisions I made. Sure, state had a big bearing on where some people ended up on my ballot, but when I made a decision about one runner over another, I tried to find head to head competitions or at least times on similar courses. Having a knowledge of some of the conditions was helpful too. I tended to dismiss "poor" performances in all but the early races at Clovis since it was brutal and I didn't think it fair to penalize for that. Although state was closely looked it, it wasn't just because it was the last race most of the runners ran, but because it was on the same course under almost identical conditions on the same day as their competition ran. One thing I had not considered was suggesting some small school awards. On the whole, there is not as much depth in the lower divisions (obviously due to much smaller attendance numbers), but some individuals can obviously run with just about anyone in the state. I also tried not to put too much emphasis on one race.

And.....as much information as there is out there on the web sites, athletic.net, xcstats, etc., they don't tell the story of someone who suffered a lingering injury or the weather conditions at an event that I wasn't familiar with. Not a perfect science, but I am comfortable where we ended up.

Anonymous said...

What happened to the comments on the interview post?

Albert Caruana said...

No longer visible to the public since the comments took a direction away from the original intent of the post.

Anonymous said...

Good idea, Albert. I think we need a separate sticky item for public vs private recruiting so we can bunk and debunk all rumers and misconceptions out there.

Popular Posts