TullyRunners - Article
One Measure of Success at NXN Nationals
by Bill Meylan (June 29, 2011)
Introduction ... I began preparing a cross country article entitled "Losing Interest in NXN Nationals - One Guy's Perspective" (I plan to post the article later this summer ... been planning it for a while ... might annoy a few people, but editorial articles are meant to express opinion and hopefully deliver some insights) ... In the process, I came across some stats that might be of interest to viewers, but not relevant for that article.
Several e-mails prompted this article ... There has been a re-occurring internet "opinion" that the New York Boys do not deserve their own NXN region because they simply are not good enough in comparison to other states and regions ... and the only reason New York is a separate NXN region is due to the success of the NY Girls ... Clearly, the success of the NY Girls was a factor in NY becoming a separate region (or so I assume).
But how successful have the NY Boys been at NXN in comparison to other states and regions?? ... Rob Monroe (a.k.a. Watchout, who does XC ranking for ESPN-Rise DyeStat) has posted some statistics on the ESPN-Rise DyeStat Forum (under High School Elite, 2011 Boys NXN Hopefuls) that the NY Boy's performance at NXN ranks them only 6th or 7th best of the nine regions ... I guess that's one veiw-point.
This article presents a different result based on a widely-accepted measure of success.
Measure of Success ... How do we measure
success in sports?? ... It can be done with statistics and opinion (Lots of
opinion in anything sports-related
)
... But sometimes it is useful to ask casual fans of a sport about success,
so that's what I did ... The most common answer was "Who Won" (yes, winning
is a great measure of success
)
... and when talking about national or international competition, the "Olympics-mentality"
of gold, silver and bronze medals is frequently invoked.
NXN recognizes the top three finishing teams (the "podium teams") ... This corresponds nicely to the gold, silver and bronze medals of the Olympics ... Newspapers and television commonly list the Olympic "medal count" by country (4th-place is usually forgotten unless you are Steve Prefountaine).
The stats for this "measure of success"
by State are shown in the following table (1st (gold)-2nd (silver)-3rd
(bronze) or the NXN podium teams) ... By this standard, New York is the second most
successful State for Boys at NXN
:
Nike NXN National XC Medals by States 2004-2010
BOYS GIRLS
----------------- -----------------
1st 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd
--- --- --- --- --- ---
IL 2 2 1 NY 7 4 1
NY 1 2 1 CA 0 2 1
WA 1 1 2 CO 0 1 1
CA 1 1 0 TX 0 0 2
TX 1 0 1 DE 0 0 1
PA 1 0 0 SD 0 0 1
NM 0 1 1
IN 0 0 1
------------------------------------------------------------
Nike National Cross Country Medal Teams (Podium Teams)
----------------------- -----------------------
BOYS GIRLS
----------------------- -----------------------
2010
------------------------------------------------------------
1 Arcadia CA 1 Fayetteville-Manlius NY
2 Fayetteville-Manlius NY 2 Saratoga Springs NY
3 Columbus North IN 3 Saugus CA
2009
------------------------------------------------------------
1 Boerne TX 1 Fayetteville-Manlius NY
2 Ferris WA 2 Saratoga Springs NY
3 The Woodlands TX 3 Fort Collins CO
2008
------------------------------------------------------------
1 North Central WA 1 Fayetteville-Manlius NY
2 York IL 2 Saugus CA
3 Naperville North IL 3 Tatnall DE
2007
------------------------------------------------------------
1 Neuqua Valley IL 1 Fayetteville-Manlius NY
2 Los Alamos NM 2 Saugus CA
3 Albuqerque NM 3 Saratoga Springs NY
2006
------------------------------------------------------------
1 Coatesville PA 1 Fayetteville-Manlius NY
2 Royal CA 2 Hilton NY
3 Ferris WA 3 Southlake Carroll TX
2005
------------------------------------------------------------
1 Saratoga Springs NY 1 Hilton NY
2 York IL 2 Saratoga Springs NY
3 Fayetteville-Manlius NY 3 Southlake Carroll TX
2004
------------------------------------------------------------
1 York IL 1 Saratoga Springs NY
2 Fayetteville-Manlius NY 2 Smoky Hill CO
3 Mead Spokane WA 3 Yankton SD
|
I never thought about it from this "medal" point-of-view ... If you ask various "rankers" about "which States have the
best Boys XC teams??" (no criteria given), you might hear California,
Illinois, Washington and Texas (and I might agree), and those are four of
the top five "medal" States at NXN ... Maybe the NY guys deserve a little
more credit
.
The dominance of the New York Girls at NXN is well established ... and their "medal" count is just another example ... Interestingly, If you ask various "rankers" about "which States have the best Girls XC teams??" (no criteria given), you would likely hear New York, California, Colorado and Texas among the possibilities, and those are the top four States above ... The NY Girls have won 12 of the 21 "medals" at NXN from 2004 to 2010, and that overshadows the results (skews the stats) with respect to some other States with very good girl's teams ... But the medal count "is what it is", and the successful States are noted above.
NOTE ... I am NOT determining which States have the best XC teams in general ... That is very subjective and depends on criteria - and for my purposes with respect to NXN, it does NOT matter ... For example, I believe the California Girls teams have the deepest talent-pool in the United States with many schools having an ability to perform at a very high level ... But exceptional depth like that has limited meaning with respect to NXN because NXN limits each State to a maximum of four bids nationally ... The consideration becomes "How well can the top four teams from each State compete at NXN??" ... And when considering four teams from one State, it leads to the At-Large selections.
At-Large Selections at NXN ... The table below lists the NXN At-Large selections and their respective finishing position at NXN Portland Meadows for all seven years:
Boys At-Large Teams Girls At-Large Teams
2010 2010
--------------------- ---------------------------
11 - Davis UT 9 - North Shore NY
12 - Neuqua Valley IL 13 - Great Oak CA
16 - Loyola CA 16 - La Costa Canyon CA
20 - The Woodlands TX 18 - Wheaton-Warrensville So IL
2009 2009
--------------------- ---------------------------
4 - Loyola IL 7 - Queensbury NY
11 - Cedar Park TX 8 - Shenendehowa NY
15 - Royal Simi CA 10 - Corona Del Mar CA
20 - Arcadia CA 13 - Hidden Valley VA
2008 2008
--------------------- ---------------------------
10 - Thousand Oaks CA 5 - Queensbury NY
12 - North Allegany PA 8 - Burnt Hills NY
15 - Loyola CA 18 - Vista Ridge TX
21 - Danbury CT 22 - Kingwood Park TX
2007 2007
--------------------- ---------------------------
10 - Don Bosco NJ 3 - Saratoga NY
12 - Medina OH 4 - Hanover NH
16 - Rogers AR 6 - Mountain Brook AL
17 - Murietta Valley CA 11 - Warwick Valley NY
2006 2006
--------------------- ---------------------------
4 - Jesuit CA 2 - Hilton NY
15 - LaSalle OH 12 - Tatnall DE
18 - Danbury CT 16 - Carondelet CA
19 - Cheyenne WY 19 - Iowa City IA
2005 2005
--------------------- ---------------------------
1 - Saratoga NY 8 - Fort Collins CO
4 - Meade WA 9 - Roxbury NJ
13 - Morris Hills NJ 15 - West Valley AK
19 - Rock Springs WY 20 - Boise ID
2004 2004
--------------------- ---------------------------
3 - Meade WA 2 - Smoky Hill CO
9 - Eisenhower WA 5 - Fremont UT
17 - El Toro CA 13 - Bethlehem NY
21 - Cedar Park PA 14 - Sioux Roosevelt SD
18 - Murrieta Valley CA
** 5 at-large because
auto-pick not allowed
to compete
|
The NY Boys have received only one
"at-large" bid, and that team won (the Saratoga Boys
2005) ... They are the only at-large selection to win NXN ... I guess
the NY Boys are in contention for an at-large bid only when they seem
capable of winning
... That's OK if the same criteria is applied to everybody else ... And Yes,
I realize selecting a NY Boys team in many of the years would have been
difficult based on their XC performances compared to other States ... But a
fair number of at-large selections performed poorly at NXN, and I suspect
different selections from the top "podium States" (e.g. IL, WA, NY) could
have done better.
Girls At-Large Selections ... Easy to see how superior the NY Girls at-large selections have performed compared to everybody else ... Hilton 2006 and Saratoga 2007 were "podium" teams.
Smoky Hill Co (2004) was the only other girl's podium team ... Two "early" at-large selections were made in 2004 (Smoky Hill was one) ... They had three Footlockers Finalists on that squad (although Footlocker 2004 had not been run at selection date) ... They were clearly second-best to powerful Saratoga 2004 based on their team races, so "at-large" status was subjective (versus regular bid).
Same could be said for Hilton 2006 ... Hilton was the
defending NXN champion with much of their team returning (but a group of
unknown girls from Fayetteville-Manlius beat them at States & Feds, and who thought
FM could have a good girl's team??
... entering November 2006, FM was not even ranked nationally) ... The
ability of Hilton was demonstrated at Footlocker Northeast when Allison
Sawyer finished 8th and Caroline Schultz 11th (missed qualifying by one
second) - Those were the "olden" years when NY'ers could run both NXN and
Footlocker.
The lowest at-large finish for the NY Girls was Bethlehem 2004 ... Their top runner (Emily Malinowski) had oral-surgery (wisdom teeth extraction) before going to Portland Meadows and that was the only race all year she was not their top runner (she was #3 at NXN) ... an average race by her would have lifted Bethlehem to 5th, but many teams have "stuff" happen at Portland Meadows ....... Many NY'ers thought Bay Shore should have been invited in 2004, but they weren't ... Bethlehem finished 3 points ahead of Bay Shore at Feds, but Bay Shore's #2 runner (Mary Liz McCurdy) finished #4 for the team when she was sick ... At Footlocker Northeast the following week, Bay Shore's Laura Cummings qualified for Footlocker Finals (along with Nicole Blood, Aislinn Ryan, Hannah Davidson, Caitlin Lane, etc) and Mary Liz McCurdy finished 12th (just ahead of Danielle Tauro and Neely Spence) ... Bay Shore was capable of finishing 3rd to Saratoga and Smoky Hill CO, but did not get invited.
Saratoga Girls 2006 also did NOT get invited to NXN
... I still remember the NY Federation race where Saratoga finished 3rd to
FM and Hilton, and the NXN guys saying "Saratoga only finished 3rd - Guess
they're not that good" ... WHOA Guys - It depends on who you finish 3rd to
... Unfortunately in the large forest of opinion, I was a lone voice who thought FM and
Hilton were two of the top four teams in the nation at that point ...
Saratoga had beaten FM and Hilton at Manhattan and finished a decent 3rd to them
at States and Feds ... FM and Hilton finished 1st and 2nd at NXN, and
Saratoga was capable of finishing 3rd, but did not get invited.
A couple of bullet conclusions based strictly
on what has happened at NXN Portland Meadows using my totally unbiased (or
not) opinion:
- Based on their proven ability, the NY Girls
should automatically get two of the At-Large bids until they
demonstrate failure .... Entering XC 2011, FM and Saratoga will likely
be ranked #1 and #2 in the nation, and North Shore NY in the top 3, 4 or
5 ... I believe several other NY teams may be capable of finishing in
the top 10 at NXN as well, but I doubt they will be given the
opportunity ... Conceivably, I could envision 5 NY teams finishing in
the top 11 at NXN
.... Does that mean I believe the NY Girls are that much better at XC
than everybody else?? - NO, It does Not!
- NXN means Portland Meadows in December ... The NY Girls can handle Portland Meadows in December ... IF NXN was contested at Mt. SAC California, I could envision multiple CA teams finishing in the top 10 (and CA automatically getting two at-large bids) ... Unfortunately, Portland Meadows in December results in "poor performances" by many teams ... the NY Girls seem to be able to perform normally (e.g. Fayetteville-Manlius) or "less poorly" than other teams ... The notion that "it's same for everybody" is garbage, but that's a discussion for another article ("Losing Interest in NXN Nationals").
- One aspect of at-large selection is rarely
mentioned ... The pool of potential at-large teams were all given
the opportunity to quality by finishing 1st or 2nd at regionals (or in
the California "power" pool), but failed to qualify ... The question is
"Why?" ... In recent years, the NY Girls had to contend with
Fayetteville-Manlius and Saratoga at the top-end giving them little
chance, so evaluation of the at-large possibilities should consider that
aspect (Where are auto-qualifiers likely to finish at NXN? ... And that
is NOT the same thing as "Where are the auto-qualifiers ranked
nationally entering NXN?) .... Just My Opinion.
National Cross Country Participation Numbers ... Thought this might be of interest to some viewers ... I collected the most recent XC participation numbers from the National Federation of State Associations web-site (http://www.nfhs.org/) ... The available data are listed in the table below.
The number of schools for NY (554) seems appropriate for the NYSPHSAA schools with both boys & girls teams (the school numbers are the same for both boys & girls in their data) ... seems to exclude the NY Catholic league, PSAL league in NY City and the independent schools, but the NYSPHSAA is by far the largest of the NY Federation associations ... I assume the survey methodology is similar in other States.
I thought California would have the highest XC
participation, but Texas tops the list (guess Texas likes to do things big)
... I'm not sure how to "use" these numbers for performance comparisons, but
they are interesting to look at.
2009-10 HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETICS PARTICIPATION SURVEY
Conducted By
THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF STATE HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATIONS
Based on Competition at the High School Level in the 2009-10 School Year
Cross Country Participation 2009-2010
State Schools Boys Schools Girls
Alabama 177 1,277 177 1,166
Alaska 99 1,058 99 834
Arizona 192 3,213 192 2,710
Arkansas 111 1,239 111 974
California 1,034 26,766 1,034 21,901
Colorado 221 4,809 221 3,293
Connecticut 170 3,806 170 2,740
Delaware 45 838 45 644
District of Columbia 11 94 11 65
Florida 520 6,855 520 6,596
Georgia 373 6,683 373 5,119
Hawaii 73 1,198 73 1,010
Idaho 103 1,578 103 1,259
Illinois 534 10,647 534 9,752
Indiana 379 4,881 379 4,281
Iowa 316 4,837 316 4,338
Kansas 237 3,522 237 2,827
Kentucky 222 2,613 222 2,175
Louisiana 263 2,898 263 2,741
Maine 99 1,273 99 1,040
Maryland 183 3,734 183 2,585
Massachusetts 317 6,436 317 5,111
Michigan 605 8,419 605 7,925
Minnesota 326 6,460 326 5,052
Mississippi 155 2,625 155 1,401
Missouri 345 4,864 345 3,703
Montana 83 915 83 848
Nebraska 198 2,550 198 2,028
Nevada 78 882 78 784
New Hampshire 73 1,143 73 1,056
New Jersey 365 7,301 365 5,095
New Mexico 110 1,538 110 1,286
New York 554 9,293 554 7,460
North Carolina 353 7,171 353 4,445
North Dakota 68 537 68 483
Ohio 729 9,931 729 8,570
Oklahoma 294 2,212 294 2,212
Oregon 208 3,377 208 2,670
Pennsylvania 568 11,360 568 11,400
Rhode Island 45 967 45 757
South Carolina 147 3,031 147 2,127
South Dakota 137 899 137 695
Tennessee 278 3,793 278 2,836
Texas 1,336 28,165 1,336 28,102
Utah 119 2,081 119 1,613
Vermont 37 452 37 478
Virginia 285 5,548 285 4,555
Washington 255 6,295 255 4,347
West Virginia 84 831 84 727
Wisconsin 388 6,287 388 5,837
Wyoming 40 426 40 315
|