Saturday, October 21, 2017

Northern California League and Invitationals results

FLAT SAC Invitational at Gibson Ranch, Rio Linda results: (NEW)
http://ca.milesplit.com/meets/286747/results#.We1pnROPIWo

SOQUEL "KEN THOMAS" CROSS COUNTRY INVITATIONAL - OCT. 21, 2017 (NEW)
http://lynbrooksports.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/XC/2017/soq_res.htm

Yoshaany Rahm Invitational at Ukiah HS results: (NEW)
http://ca.milesplit.com/meets/294422/results#.WewX9Y9SzIV

Mt. SAC Invitational results:
http://events.mtsac.edu/ccinvite/results.htm

Mariner Invitational at Hayward HS (NCS course).
Results LINK

Aragon Center Meet at Crystal Springs course:
http://lynbrooksports.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/XC/2017/cntr1res.htm

WCAL #2 at Golden Gate Park today (live results):
http://www.rtspt.com/events/cif/2017Meets/wcal2/

SCVAL #3 at Baylands Park:
http://lynbrooksports.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/XC/2017/baylands.htm

BCL #3 at Joaquin Miller Park:
Cancelled

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can anyone beat 75:58.8 at GGP? Is that a new course record for St. Francis? This team is still young and learning how to run together, but a :20 spread is an indication that they are starting to put it in top gear.

Albert Caruana said...

76:59 and that is very impressive. Check out their 6th and 7th runners as well. Can somebody confirm if that is indeed a team time record for the GGP course used by WCAL?

Anonymous said...

Forgot to carry the 1 but that is still very good. The spread for all 7 is very impressive.

Albert Caruana said...

The last NorCal boys' team to win Division 2 was Mountain View in 2009 (before that, it was Jesuit in 2006). The divisions were altered a few years ago which has made it really tough for NorCal teams to compete in that division. This year, there are two legitimate title contenders with Dublin and St. Francis. Can't wait for late November!

Anonymous said...

Why don't they just have the same division alignments for all of the sections in CA? Isn't it obviously unfair?

Anonymous said...

@8:00PM agreed especially with D4 since cutoff anywhere else is 600, CCS is 500. And only a handful of teams will get moved to D5 so why don't we do it already. The other divisions at least there will be huge discrepancies since CCS isn't big enough with the bigger schools. D1 would be a tiny race.

Albert Caruana said...

The Southern Section has an enormous number of Division I teams that no other section can duplicate. The only way to make it fair is to do what NCS has done and that is place 8 teams in Division I and then match up the rest of your schools as best you can to the other sections at state.

Anonymous said...

I feel like NCS is doing it right. As of now, and past years, CCS certainly has seemed to have extra teams in D1 that would be good contenders in D2 at state.

Also, even in CCS, it isn't very fair to have teams like Los Altos with under 2000 kids competing against schools like Bellarmine, who has over 1600 boys. On a side note, I'd take Los Altos as the heavy D1 favorite next year.

Anonymous said...

Los Altos actually has 2091 students according to the CBEDs, but your point remains.

There used to be the same divisional alignments for all sections, but the sections asked to be able to adjust the divisions themselves. This is because otherwise the competition within a section became very skewed. Some sections would only have one or two teams in a division (do both automatically make the State meet every year?).

If the CCS used the same divisions as the SS, then there would only be 9 teams in DI, 9 teams in DII, but 36 in DIII. It would be much easier to make the state meet in DI or DII versus DIII. So even though the top teams in DIII would possibly perform better at the state meet, many "slower" teams and athletes would qualify in the upper divisions.

You can see this in the NCS. Last year, the last individual in DI qualified for the state meet with a 16:28. In DII it took 15:45 and in DIII it took 15:48. In other words, 11 runners in DIII and 21 in DII who didn't qualify for the state meet but were faster than kids who qualified in DI. This is exactly what was happening before and what caused the sections to ask to be able to set their own divisions.

This is not to say that the current system in CCS is the best (far from it), but before you just dismiss it (or, as some in the past have accused it of being some nefarious plot by administrators to screw over kids) you need to understand the rationale behind the system and in consequences and implications of any changes. You may be able to "fix" one problem (non-optimal competitive representation at the State level), but it can introduce a whole host of other issues that most people may feel is actually worse.

Anonymous said...

Does WCAL at GGP run the same course as Lowell Invite? Or is it a different course?

Albert Caruana said...

Different course.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone confirm the course length of Mariner/Hayward High 3-mile course? Times from there today seem ridiculously fast.

Albert Caruana said...

I am assuming the same course as last year at Hayward HS today?

Anonymous said...

No Scales @ Mt. Sac?

Anonymous said...

Agree with 1:07. Seems a little crazy that nearly 40 guys could go sub 16.

Anonymous said...

I would love to think Scales is on an official visit and is not hurt but missing a meet like Mt. Sac for a visit would be unusual. Let's hope he gets back for the WCAL final on 11/1 so we can see Bell and SF go at it at full strength. I have SF in that battle at this point and with no scales it would seem to be a lock.

Coach Tim said...

Regarding Mariner - It was really that fast. Conditions were pretty fantastic for the varsity races in the morning, and the field was much, much more competitive than a year ago (8 of the top 10 teams in each varsity race didn't attend a year ago).

Anonymous said...

Mariner Invite was the same course as NCS last year

Peter Brewer said...

About the Hayward course - - with the current construction and the equipment and material stored on the far loop, course is not quite the same as last year's NCS course. On top of that, the Mariner Invite setup crew is not the same folks as the Hayward High set up crew. And neither of them is the NCS setup crew. Add to the mix is that the construction area is fenced off until the day of the meet, and all the setup is done in a rush in just the time from daylight to the first race. This means that in the rush, the accuracy and distance of the course is compromised. As course manager for NCS, my job is to make this construction-altered course as much comparable to the full 3.0 distance and use of the terrain as possible to the previous course, so historical comparisons are as legitimate as possible. Rest assured that the course will be groomed, marked, and measured as closely as possible to the original course for the NCS meet. In the meantime, it is okay to indulge in rampant speculations about individuals and teams, which is what spices up the ratings and rankings anyway.

Popular Posts