State Rankings

sorry :geek:

FinishingKick wrote:

Running With Scissors wrote:

TehNextTopMiler wrote:eh. i don't beleive it's a fair representation of some of the states.

They're not an end all, they just show us some facts. And they took a long time if you must know.

to copy and paste NTN results? ok....

TehNextTopMiler wrote:

FinishingKick wrote:

Running With Scissors wrote:

TehNextTopMiler wrote:eh. i don't beleive it's a fair representation of some of the states.

They're not an end all, they just show us some facts. And they took a long time if you must know.

to copy and paste NTN results? ok....

First you have to find the results, then research what state each team is from, then score it, and then go through and take out teams that scored once. It took at least 15 minutes.

FinishingKick wrote:

TehNextTopMiler wrote:

FinishingKick wrote:

Running With Scissors wrote:

TehNextTopMiler wrote:eh. i don't beleive it's a fair representation of some of the states.

They're not an end all, they just show us some facts. And they took a long time if you must know.

to copy and paste NTN results? ok....

First you have to find the results, then research what state each team is from, then score it, and then go through and take out teams that scored once. It took at least 15 minutes.

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor baby.....

TehNextTopMiler wrote:

FinishingKick wrote:

TehNextTopMiler wrote:

FinishingKick wrote:

Running With Scissors wrote:

TehNextTopMiler wrote:eh. i don't beleive it's a fair representation of some of the states.

They're not an end all, they just show us some facts. And they took a long time if you must know.

to copy and paste NTN results? ok....

First you have to find the results, then research what state each team is from, then score it, and then go through and take out teams that scored once. It took at least 15 minutes.

awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww poor baby.....

Top 25 from a few State's XC meet results from 2007.

I'm missing a lot of states and they aren't perfect comparisons, the IL state meet for example is a 3 mile race not 5K, there's course differences, weather/condition differences etc.. And it's only looking at the large-school divisions so there are certainly differences there too. But it's just another thing to look at.
If anyone can find other's post them up, I was too lazy/got mad when I couldn't find New York's results :p
And it's guys only because I was lazy



CA
-----5K
1-14:24
2-15:38
3-15:44
4-15:45
5-16:06
6-16:09
7-16:10
8-16:11
9-16:12
10-16:15
11-16:21
12-16:22
13-16:25
14-16:26
15-16:27
16-16:32
17-16:32
18-16:34
19-16:34
20-16:34
21-16:35
22-16:36
23-16:37
24-16:38
25-16:38


TX
-----5K
1-14:45
2-15:00
3-15:08
4-15:15
5-15:23
6-15:23
7-15:25
8-15:31
9-15:34
10-15:37
11-15:37
12-15:39
13-15:39
14-15:40
15-15:42
16-15:42
17-15:43
18-15:43
19-15:43
20-15:44
21-15:46
22-15:46
23-15:49
24-15:49

IL
-----3 Mile
1-13:52
2-14:12
3-14:17
4-14:25
5-14:26
6-14:33
7-14:33
8-14:34
9-14:35
10-14:36
11-14:38
12-14:41
13-14:45
14-14:48
15-14:48
16-14:49
17-14:49
18-14:51
19-14:53
20-14:53
21-14:54
22-14:55
23-14:57
24-14:58
25-14:59

looks like TX was better than CA....

AudienceOfOne wrote:looks like TX was better than CA....

A LOT better if those numbers are true

did TX really put 30 people under 16?

well it says so...

PCNQtrack wrote:well it says so...

i have a hard time believingg that.

sure it does, you just aren't looking hard enough

alabama is not even near on there

PCNQtrack wrote:sure it does, you just aren't looking hard enough

that doesn't make sense....

mae2937 wrote:alabama is not even near on there

because it's not good. especially if WW wins it.

AudienceOfOne wrote:

mae2937 wrote:alabama is not even near on there

because it's not good. especially if WW wins it.

ya we are not known for xc

but we are pretty mean at football

yeah you have that show two-a-days.

mae2937 wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:

mae2937 wrote:alabama is not even near on there

because it's not good. especially if WW wins it.

ya we are not known for xc

but we are pretty mean at football

so i hear....

That won't work, XC courses range in difficulty.

AudienceOfOne wrote:looks like TX was better than CA....

The TX numbers are off. I couldn't find the state meet results, the ones posted are a mix of different meets. The fastest ones ran during the 2007 season.

Then there are course, conditions, class-size, etc differences.

California for instance is like a 1049102 class state and even though it has a higher population it's possible it has less people in a given class, I can't say for sure though.

Found the TX State meet results.
1-15:11.15
2-15:36.30
3-15:40.75
4-15:47.95
5-15:52.90
6-15:53.05
7-15:54.70
8-16:01.10
9-16:03.40
10-16:09.00
11-16:12.35
12-16:13.90
13-16:15.75
14-16:21.35
15-16:21.85
16-16:23.00
17-16:24.30
18-16:24.85
19-16:24.95
20-16:26.95
21-16:28.25
22-16:28.75
23-16:28.75
24-16:29.00
25-16:29.15

So the Texas course could be flat and the California course could be hilly. I know ours is no picnic, but I don't know how tough it is.

If you add in A and AA to those Illinois numbers (which currently only represents AAA) then you would have 3 more people sub-15 for A and 6 more for AA. Also, a 15:00 3 mile converts to a 15:34 5k, so we had 30 people sub 15:30 pace.

XCTrackXC wrote:

AudienceOfOne wrote:looks like TX was better than CA....

The TX numbers are off. I couldn't find the state meet results, the ones posted are a mix of different meets. The fastest ones ran during the 2007 season.

Then there are course, conditions, class-size, etc differences.

California for instance is like a 1049102 class state and even though it has a higher population it's possible it has less people in a given class, I can't say for sure though.

yea, i figured.

FK wrote:So the Texas course could be flat and the California course could be hilly. I know ours is no picnic, but I don't know how tough it is.

are course is really really hard
my pr is 17:50 and on that course i ran a 19:something (at districts cause state and districts is held at the same place for me, Hershey)