Author: mixcspeedratings

Finally, the start of the season we’ve all been waiting for. Throw out all the fast times from September, but apply all the lessons learned through the summer and fall. Regional week is here and with it comes the many projections and previews I’ll write.

Just as last year and throughout the season, I’m projecting these using race simulations. Through a season’s worth of speed ratings, one can determine a runner’s average rating and the variability of those ratings. Both those factors are then weighed towards more recent meets, which are then simulated thousands of times using a Monte Carlo analysis (also described by TullyRunners here). Over those thousands of race simulations, one can determine a team’s average place and average score, a runner’s average place, odds on winning, and odds on qualifying.

These are useful in cross country scenarios, where you have consistent runners and those who are a bit more up and down. For example:

Tanner Time	Tanner Rating	Tanner Avg.	Tanner StDev.
15:30	210
15:45	205
16:00	200
16:15	195
16:30	190	200	7.91
MIXCSR Time	MIXCSR Rating	MIXCSR Avg.	MIXCSR StDev.
16:09	197
16:12	196
16:15	195
16:18	194
16:21	193	195	1.58

Jacob at his best might be faster than I in four of the five races during the season. I’d almost never be All-State in Division 1, but he might contend for a top-5 spot or place 60^th.

If we did 20 simulations, this is how it might turn out:

Race	Tanner Avg.	Tanner StDev	Tanner Rating	MIXCSR Avg.	MIXCSR StDev	MIXCSR Rating
1	200	7.9	202.1	195	1.6	195.6
2	200	7.9	196.2	195	1.6	194.1
3	200	7.9	190.0	195	1.6	199.2
4	200	7.9	193.4	195	1.6	192.5
5	200	7.9	206.8	195	1.6	195.7
6	200	7.9	201.8	195	1.6	196.1
7	200	7.9	171.6	195	1.6	194.9
8	200	7.9	189.2	195	1.6	195.9
9	200	7.9	205.5	195	1.6	197.0
10	200	7.9	203.8	195	1.6	192.6
11	200	7.9	192.3	195	1.6	196.5
12	200	7.9	196.9	195	1.6	196.4
13	200	7.9	198.5	195	1.6	195.6
14	200	7.9	203.2	195	1.6	194.1
15	200	7.9	193.9	195	1.6	192.6
16	200	7.9	199.3	195	1.6	193.2
17	200	7.9	208.7	195	1.6	194.2
18	200	7.9	213.7	195	1.6	194.6
19	200	7.9	212.6	195	1.6	197.1
20	200	7.9	206.3	195	1.6	193.9

I’d win four times, but I’d never have the ability to win a title like he had in Race 18. He’s usually All-State, but may cost his team a title through his effort in Race 7.

The simulations give the possibilities of those scenarios and all the various scoring scripts. A sixth girl that can pop off on any certain day, a reliable boy who always runs 17-flat, you name it. Hopefully, they better elucidate our contenders, qualifiers, and how these races play out over the weekend.

But always remember, races aren’t run on paper or on a computer. These projections are meant to better our sport, give more attention where little is given. Although I take pride in their accuracy, this endeavor would be quite boring if it were always perfect. I look forward to these being proven wrong and I expect to hear about it as well.

SUMMER PREVIEW
MID-SEASON

GIRLS

Ranked Teams

#8 Kingston
#20 Unionville-Sebewaing
#23 Ubly

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

Tons of USA, Kingston, and Ubly girls occupying the 11th-20th spots moves the expected cutoff to 19th.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Kingston	32	1.0	95+	95+
2	Unionville-Sebewaing	68	2.1		95+
3	Ubly	80	2.9		95+
4	Dryden	107	4.7
5	Brown City	107	4.9
6	Harbor Beach	111	5.4
7	Deckerville	166	7.0

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	10	Lilah Kiley	Kingston	1.3
2	12	Alberta Reinbold	Unionville-Sebewaing	3.4
3	10	Katie Sweeney	Ubly	3.6
4	12	Lily Lemanski	Marlette	3.9
5	12	Gracy Walker	Kingston	6.0
6	11	Reece Wruble	Harbor Beach	6.2
7	11	Kyra Beemer	Brown City	7.8
8	12	Zoe Van Rijn	Kingston	8.3
9	11	Julia Rogers	New Life Christian Academy	10.0
10	10	Cara Prusakiewicz	Dryden	10.4
11	11	Meeghan Flikkie	Kingston	10.8
12	10	Molly Walker	Kingston	10.9
13	11	Sarah Nimtz	Unionville-Sebewaing	12.0
14	11	Cambree Torma	Unionville-Sebewaing	13.6
15	12	Audrey Napolitano	Dryden	14.4
16	12	Erica Klee	Ubly	14.7
17	10	Hailey McGuire	Kingston	16.6
18	11	Megan Peter	Unionville-Sebewaing	19.4
19	11	Bridget Anderson	Harbor Beach	20.4
20	12	Aran Harris	Ubly	20.8
21	11	Emma Ramisch	Harbor Beach	22.5
22	12	Lily Finnigan	Dryden	22.9
23	10	HarLee Leasher	Brown City	23.2
24	11	Skylar Vincent	Brown City	24.9
25	9	Nicole Klee	Ubly	25.3
26	12	Emily Greyerbiehl	Ubly	27.9
27	10	Mya Garza	Deckerville	28.7
28	11	Danielle Hunt	Unionville-Sebewaing	28.7
29	12	Johanna Kubacki	Deckerville	29.3
30	10	Maleah Roth	Ubly	30.0

BOYS

Ranked Teams

#10 Harbor Beach

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

15th place.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Harbor Beach	53	1.0	95+	95+
2	Dryden	97	2.5		93
3	Mayville	99	2.8		84
4	Marlette	111	3.7		23
5	Unionville-Sebewaing	143	5.7
6	Ubly	146	6.0
7	New Life Christian Academy	158	7.1
8	Kingston	163	7.2
9	Deckerville	194	8.9
10	Brown City	241	10.0

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	10	Brody Karg	Harbor Beach	1.2
2	12	Aiden Fitchett	Dryden	2.5
3	10	Carson Burgess	Brown City	3.5
4	12	Utah Gusa	Ubly	4.4
5	11	Matthew Pasiak	Harbor Beach	4.4
6	11	Turlough Bennett	Marlette	6.8
7	12	Gavin Helgeson	Mayville	7.6
8	11	Zack Becker	Unionville-Sebewaing	8.6
9	11	Samuel Shatto	Harbor Beach	9.4
10	10	Michael Walsh	Ubly	10.4
11	11	Isaac Bignall	Unionville-Sebewaing	11.3
12	9	Thijs Van Rijn	Kingston	12.6
13	11	Noah Hall	Dryden	13.5
14	11	Joel Enos	Mayville	13.5
15	12	Ben Gura	New Life Christian Academy	16.3
16	10	Nino Perna	Marlette	17.1
17	10	Logan Romain	Dryden	18.0
18	9	Owen Wruble	Harbor Beach	18.3
19	9	Brennan Robinson	Kingston	18.8
20	11	Isaac Roggenbuck	Harbor Beach	21.2
21	11	Colin Beck	Deckerville	22.1
22	12	Sam Keller	New Life Christian Academy	22.4
23	12	Christopher Gonzales	Mayville	24.3
24	12	Jacob Bulgrien	Harbor Beach	26.4
25	11	Caden Meyer	Marlette	26.7
26	10	Kole Franzel	Mayville	27.9
27	12	Connor Wolff	Dryden	28.0
28	10	James Nelson	New Life Christian Academy	28.3
29	10	Luke Thomas	Marlette	28.4
30	9	Donovan Glasgow	Capac	28.5

Finally, the start of the season we’ve all been waiting for. Throw out all the fast times from September, but apply all the lessons learned through the summer and fall. Regional week is here and with it comes the many projections and previews I’ll write.

Just as last year and throughout the season, I’m projecting these using race simulations. Through a season’s worth of speed ratings, one can determine a runner’s average rating and the variability of those ratings. Both those factors are then weighed towards more recent meets, which are then simulated thousands of times using a Monte Carlo analysis (also described by TullyRunners here). Over those thousands of race simulations, one can determine a team’s average place and average score, a runner’s average place, odds on winning, and odds on qualifying.

These are useful in cross country scenarios, where you have consistent runners and those who are a bit more up and down. For example:

Tanner Time	Tanner Rating	Tanner Avg.	Tanner StDev.
15:30	210
15:45	205
16:00	200
16:15	195
16:30	190	200	7.91
MIXCSR Time	MIXCSR Rating	MIXCSR Avg.	MIXCSR StDev.
16:09	197
16:12	196
16:15	195
16:18	194
16:21	193	195	1.58

Jacob at his best might be faster than I in four of the five races during the season. I’d almost never be All-State in Division 1, but he might contend for a top-5 spot or place 60^th.

If we did 20 simulations, this is how it might turn out:

Race	Tanner Avg.	Tanner StDev	Tanner Rating	MIXCSR Avg.	MIXCSR StDev	MIXCSR Rating
1	200	7.9	202.1	195	1.6	195.6
2	200	7.9	196.2	195	1.6	194.1
3	200	7.9	190.0	195	1.6	199.2
4	200	7.9	193.4	195	1.6	192.5
5	200	7.9	206.8	195	1.6	195.7
6	200	7.9	201.8	195	1.6	196.1
7	200	7.9	171.6	195	1.6	194.9
8	200	7.9	189.2	195	1.6	195.9
9	200	7.9	205.5	195	1.6	197.0
10	200	7.9	203.8	195	1.6	192.6
11	200	7.9	192.3	195	1.6	196.5
12	200	7.9	196.9	195	1.6	196.4
13	200	7.9	198.5	195	1.6	195.6
14	200	7.9	203.2	195	1.6	194.1
15	200	7.9	193.9	195	1.6	192.6
16	200	7.9	199.3	195	1.6	193.2
17	200	7.9	208.7	195	1.6	194.2
18	200	7.9	213.7	195	1.6	194.6
19	200	7.9	212.6	195	1.6	197.1
20	200	7.9	206.3	195	1.6	193.9

I’d win four times, but I’d never have the ability to win a title like he had in Race 18. He’s usually All-State, but may cost his team a title through his effort in Race 7.

The simulations give the possibilities of those scenarios and all the various scoring scripts. A sixth girl that can pop off on any certain day, a reliable boy who always runs 17-flat, you name it. Hopefully, they better elucidate our contenders, qualifiers, and how these races play out over the weekend.

But always remember, races aren’t run on paper or on a computer. These projections are meant to better our sport, give more attention where little is given. Although I take pride in their accuracy, this endeavor would be quite boring if it were always perfect. I look forward to these being proven wrong and I expect to hear about it as well.

SUMMER PREVIEW
MID-SEASON

GIRLS

Ranked Teams

#16 Linden
#18 Dearborn Divine Child
#26 Pontiac Notre Dame Prep

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

18^th place.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Dearborn Divine Child	54	1.4	61	95+
2	Linden	56	1.6	39	95+
3	Pontiac Notre Dame Prep	80	3.0		95+
4	Detroit Country Day	118	4.0
5	Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook-Kingswood	158	5.9
6	Pinckney	160	6.2
7	Bloomfield Hills Marian	169	6.9
8	Orchard Lake St. Mary’s	177	7.6
9	Lake Fenton	186	8.4
10	Garden City	320	10.0
11	Detroit Cody	362	11.0
12	Dearborn Henry Ford Academy	380	12.0

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	11	Mea D’Agostino	Orchard Lake St. Mary’s	1.6
2	9	Jaelyn Ray	Pinckney	2.2
3	11	Maria Nunning	Pontiac Notre Dame Prep	3.4
4	11	Chloe Josephson	Linden	3.7
5	12	Kirsten Koss	Dearborn Divine Child	6.5
6	11	Kathryn Kurtinaitis	Dearborn Divine Child	7.6
7	9	Melody Meckstroth	Linden	7.9
8	11	Kayla Slade	Dearborn Divine Child	9.5
9	9	Diya Goyal	Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook-Kingswood	9.9
10	10	Anna Kujansuu	Dearborn Divine Child	10.6
11	11	Nell Stover	Detroit Country Day	12.5
12	9	Addison Josephson	Linden	12.6
13	11	Skylar Vanhecke	Pontiac Notre Dame Prep	12.9
14	9	Sidney Shepard	Linden	14.6
15	11	Claire Heller	Detroit Country Day	14.7
16	9	Claire Dunn	Pontiac Notre Dame Prep	15.3
17	12	Reagan Brooks	Linden	17.4
18	12	Molly O’Brien	Bloomfield Hills Marian	18.9
19	11	Mary Larocca	Pontiac Notre Dame Prep	19.3
20	9	Elliana Hufton	Lake Fenton	19.9
21	11	Kate Paluszewski	Dearborn Divine Child	21.4
22	12	Chloe Kurschat	Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook-Kingswood	22.2
23	12	Ava Fahrenkopf	Linden	23.2
24	11	Madalynn Karsies	Pinckney	24.7
25	10	Elizabeth Salinas	Dearborn Divine Child	26.3
26	9	Georgia Hopkins	Detroit Country Day	26.3
27	11	Jillian Wygonik	Dearborn Divine Child	27.5
28	12	Kaitlyn Hatfield	Lake Fenton	28.8
29	9	Lucille Clark	Bloomfield Hills Marian	29.9
30	9	Charlotte Hartley	Detroit Country Day	31.9

BOYS

Ranked Teams

#5 Pinckney

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

19th Place.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Pinckney	28	1.0	95+	95+
2	Detroit Country Day	103	2.4		95+
3	Dearborn Divine Child	108	2.9		84
4	Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook-Kingswood	124	4.1		21
5	Orchard Lake St. Mary’s	133	4.8
6	Lake Fenton	156	6.2
7	Pontiac Notre Dame Prep	169	7.1
8	Linden	177	7.6
9	Redford Union	250	9.0
10	Melvindale	298	10.1
11	Dearborn Henry Ford Academy	316	11.1
12	Garden City	325	11.8
13	Detroit Henry Ford	368	13.0
14	Detroit Southeastern Tech	417	14.0
15	Detroit Cody	473	15.0

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	12	Evan Loughridge	Pinckney	1.3
2	12	Solomon Kwartowitz	Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook-Kingswood	3.1
3	11	Colin Murray	Dearborn Divine Child	3.3
4	12	Nolan Pinion	Lake Fenton	4.5
5	12	Paul Moore	Pinckney	4.6
6	12	Ethan Sandula	Pinckney	5.2
7	11	Jacob Hopkins	Detroit Country Day	7.9
8	9	Cole McCraw	Pinckney	9.3
9	12	Joshua Simpson	Orchard Lake St. Mary’s	9.9
10	12	Arnot Heller	Detroit Country Day	10.0
11	11	Zach Newman	Pinckney	11.6
12	11	Kyle Osborne	Pinckney	12.2
13	12	Parker Hays	Pinckney	12.7
14	11	Isaak Brook	Pontiac Notre Dame Prep	13.5
15	12	Ian Martin	Linden	13.7
16	11	Tamer Zahr	Dearborn Divine Child	17.0
17	9	Omar Elbashir	Detroit Country Day	17.6
18	12	Eric Shan	Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook-Kingswood	18.9
19	12	Eamon Kennedy	Dearborn Henry Ford Academy	20.2
20	10	Jake Yono	Orchard Lake St. Mary’s	20.6
21	9	Cooper Steckroth	Lake Fenton	21.3
22	10	Bela Matyus	Orchard Lake St. Mary’s	21.5
23	11	Blaise Gooding	Linden	23.3
24	11	Nicholas Nakic	Dearborn Divine Child	25.7
25	11	Ryan Wojichowski	Pontiac Notre Dame Prep	27.3
26	11	Alex Kitsopanidis	Detroit Country Day	27.6
27	11	Jaime Saucedo	Melvindale	27.7
28	12	Krish Kalmadi	Bloomfield Hills Cranbrook-Kingswood	28.0
29	11	Maximiliano Juarez	Dearborn Divine Child	30.6
30	12	Joshua Sharp-Pelto	Garden City	31.2

SUMMER PREVIEW
MID-SEASON

GIRLS

Ranked Teams

#3 Brighton
#13 Ann Arbor Skyline
#15 Davison
#20 Dexter

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

Anywhere from 20^th to 22^nd place.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Brighton	32	1.0	95+	95+
2	Ann Arbor Skyline	78	2.4		91
3	Davison	87	2.9		81
4	Dexter	98	3.7		28
5	Grand Blanc	125	5.3
6	Hartland	131	5.7
7	Fenton	171	7.0
8	Lapeer	255	8.5
9	Howell	260	8.8
10	Holly	280	10.0
11	Flushing	296	10.7
12	Swartz Creek	372	12.0

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	10	Lydia LaMarra	Brighton	2.8
2	11	Elle Bissett	Brighton	3.8
3	12	Carrigan Eberly	Brighton	4.0
4	11	Grace Tykocki	Grand Blanc	4.3
5	11	Alena Blumberg	Dexter	5.5
6	12	Allison Mayer	Ann Arbor Skyline	6.1
7	12	Paige McArdle	Davison	7.3
8	9	Ava Goodman	Hartland	9.7
9	12	Nina Frost	Fenton	10.4
10	10	Juliet Lewis	Brighton	10.7
11	9	Becca van Lent	Ann Arbor Skyline	10.8
12	12	Sydney Smith	Davison	13.8
13	12	Gabrielle Bolitho	Brighton	14.0
14	12	Megan Kowalski	Brighton	14.7
15	10	Nevaeh Polovina	Davison	15.5
16	9	Irie Scrase	Ann Arbor Skyline	16.4
17	11	Addison Bruckman	Dexter	17.7
18	12	Nikki Carothers	Brighton	17.7
19	11	Annabel O’Haver	Dexter	18.8
20	9	Becca vanLent	Ann Arbor Skyline	19.9
21	12	Brooke Lemos	Davison	22.7
22	10	Reese Canada	Fenton	24.2
23	12	Samantha Wogaman	Grand Blanc	25.0
24	11	Ayla Balazer	Ann Arbor Skyline	25.1
25	12	Samantha Shaver	Grand Blanc	25.5
26	9	Kodie Snyder	Dexter	26.2
27	10	Elliana Neuer	Hartland	26.8
28	9	Brooklyn Wiltse	Davison	27.7
29	11	Zoe Howard	Hartland	29.4
30	10	Sarah Albright	Grand Blanc	30.3

BOYS

Ranked Teams

#2 Brighton

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

20^th place.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Brighton	32	1.0	95+	95+
2	Dexter	88	2.3		95+
3	Howell	95	2.8		95+
4	Ann Arbor Skyline	127	4.4
5	Davison	136	4.7
6	Hartland	161	5.8
7	Holly	209	7.3
8	Grand Blanc	230	8.3
9	Flushing	238	8.8
10	Lapeer	256	9.8
11	Fenton	279	11.2
12	Swartz Creek	287	11.7
13	Jackson	358	13.0

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	12	Brandon Anderson	Dexter	2.2
2	12	Tyler Langley	Brighton	3.1
3	12	Luke Suliman	Ann Arbor Skyline	4.2
4	9	Jack MacGregor	Howell	4.3
5	12	Iain Forrest	Davison	4.5
6	12	Luke Campbell	Brighton	4.9
7	11	Brady Millington	Brighton	7.7
8	11	Tyler Brock	Brighton	8.4
9	11	Elijah Forbord	Brighton	10.3
10	11	Tyler Outlaw	Brighton	10.5
11	12	Mason Jett	Ann Arbor Skyline	10.6
12	12	Bode Cooper	Brighton	11.9
13	11	James Latstetter	Flushing	13.7
14	11	Julian Linebaugh	Dexter	15.4
15	11	Jacob Essenmacher	Lapeer	16.5
16	11	Lucas Wood	Howell	17.3
17	11	Caleb Snyder	Dexter	17.4
18	12	Carson Cook	Hartland	18.2
19	11	Drake Wallace	Howell	20.6
20	11	Jacob Huntoon	Fenton	23.2
21	10	Griffin Good	Flushing	25.1
22	11	Maxwell Merrill	Grand Blanc	25.6
23	12	Gavin Smith	Davison	25.7
24	12	Noah DeLand	Howell	26.4
25	12	Liam Hoover	Howell	26.9
26	9	Trevor Murphy	Holly	27.2
27	10	Bruno Cifaldi	Ann Arbor Skyline	27.4
28	11	Elijah Smith	Dexter	28.2
29	11	Scott Smith	Dexter	28.6
30	12	Anthony Maini	Fenton	28.9

Finally, the start of the season we’ve all been waiting for. Throw out all the fast times from September, but apply all the lessons learned through the summer and fall. Regional week is here and with it comes the many projections and previews I’ll write.

Just as last year and throughout the season, I’m projecting these using race simulations. Through a season’s worth of speed ratings, one can determine a runner’s average rating and the variability of those ratings. Both those factors are then weighed towards more recent meets, which are then simulated thousands of times using a Monte Carlo analysis (also described by TullyRunners here). Over those thousands of race simulations, one can determine a team’s average place and average score, a runner’s average place, odds on winning, and odds on qualifying.

These are useful in cross country scenarios, where you have consistent runners and those who are a bit more up and down. For example:

Tanner Time	Tanner Rating	Tanner Avg.	Tanner StDev.
15:30	210
15:45	205
16:00	200
16:15	195
16:30	190	200	7.91
MIXCSR Time	MIXCSR Rating	MIXCSR Avg.	MIXCSR StDev.
16:09	197
16:12	196
16:15	195
16:18	194
16:21	193	195	1.58

Jacob at his best might be faster than I in four of the five races during the season. I’d almost never be All-State in Division 1, but he might contend for a top-5 spot or place 60^th.

If we did 20 simulations, this is how it might turn out:

Race	Tanner Avg.	Tanner StDev	Tanner Rating	MIXCSR Avg.	MIXCSR StDev	MIXCSR Rating
1	200	7.9	202.1	195	1.6	195.6
2	200	7.9	196.2	195	1.6	194.1
3	200	7.9	190.0	195	1.6	199.2
4	200	7.9	193.4	195	1.6	192.5
5	200	7.9	206.8	195	1.6	195.7
6	200	7.9	201.8	195	1.6	196.1
7	200	7.9	171.6	195	1.6	194.9
8	200	7.9	189.2	195	1.6	195.9
9	200	7.9	205.5	195	1.6	197.0
10	200	7.9	203.8	195	1.6	192.6
11	200	7.9	192.3	195	1.6	196.5
12	200	7.9	196.9	195	1.6	196.4
13	200	7.9	198.5	195	1.6	195.6
14	200	7.9	203.2	195	1.6	194.1
15	200	7.9	193.9	195	1.6	192.6
16	200	7.9	199.3	195	1.6	193.2
17	200	7.9	208.7	195	1.6	194.2
18	200	7.9	213.7	195	1.6	194.6
19	200	7.9	212.6	195	1.6	197.1
20	200	7.9	206.3	195	1.6	193.9

I’d win four times, but I’d never have the ability to win a title like he had in Race 18. He’s usually All-State, but may cost his team a title through his effort in Race 7.

The simulations give the possibilities of those scenarios and all the various scoring scripts. A sixth girl that can pop off on any certain day, a reliable boy who always runs 17-flat, you name it. Hopefully, they better elucidate our contenders, qualifiers, and how these races play out over the weekend.

But always remember, races aren’t run on paper or on a computer. These projections are meant to better our sport, give more attention where little is given. Although I take pride in their accuracy, this endeavor would be quite boring if it were always perfect. I look forward to these being proven wrong and I expect to hear about it as well.

SUMMER PREVIEW
MID-SEASON

GIRLS

Ranked Teams

#23 Chelsea

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

With essentially four teams battling for two spots, good luck figuring this one out!

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Chelsea	75	1.1	92	95+
2	Tecumseh	99	2.5		85
3	Adrian	110	3.5		45
4	Monroe Jefferson	110	3.5		49
5	Ann Arbor Gabriel Richard	122	4.4		21
6	Carleton Airport	148	6.0
7	New Boston Huron	181	7.8
8	Grosse Ile	185	8.0
9	Riverview	186	8.2
10	Dundee	256	10.1
11	Milan	270	10.9
12	Ypsilanti	323	12.0

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	11	Sophy Skeels	Adrian	1.9
2	12	Jenna Pilachowski	Monroe Jefferson	2.1
3	11	Natalia DeMea	Chelsea	2.6
4	12	Anastee Davis	Adrian	4.0
5	9	Ayda Skeels	Adrian	5.4
6	12	Cecilia Ortega	Carleton Airport	7.2
7	11	Madison Morris	Tecumseh	7.4
8	12	Sparrow Centeno	Southgate Anderson	8.3
9	10	Avery Turk	New Boston Huron	8.8
10	11	Courtney Bovair	Carleton Airport	10.2
11	10	Falyn Doss	New Boston Huron	10.3
12	10	Samantha Bieber	Chelsea	12.2
13	12	Riley Peer	Monroe Jefferson	15.9
14	12	Daniela Hinojos	Riverview	16.7
15	10	Alyssa Korte	Grosse Ile	17.2
16	9	Zora Ziolkowski	Chelsea	17.9
17	12	Erin Stuk	Ann Arbor Gabriel Richard	18.3
18	11	Kim Miller	Monroe Jefferson	19.4
19	10	Claire Cousineau	Tecumseh	20.3
20	11	Marisa Chuey	Trenton	22.2
21	12	Seren Angus	Chelsea	22.5
22	11	Kaylee Hovey	Dundee	23.2
23	10	Avery Boggs	Riverview	23.3
24	9	Ava Pfaffenbach	Ann Arbor Gabriel Richard	26.1
25	9	Maya Whelan	Tecumseh	26.2
26	11	Lauren Thompson	Chelsea	26.9
27	10	Avery Faut	Ann Arbor Gabriel Richard	27.8
28	11	Avery Dent	Ann Arbor Gabriel Richard	28.3
29	9	London Landini	Tecumseh	29.2
30	9	Leila Morris	Tecumseh	30.0

BOYS

Ranked Teams

#7 Adrian
#22 Chelsea

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

Adrian leaving their footprint all over the top-20 leaves many individual spots further back to 21st.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Adrian	36	1.0	95+	95+
2	Chelsea	69	2.0		95+
3	New Boston Huron	100	3.0		95+
4	Ann Arbor Gabriel Richard	128	4.1
5	Riverview	156	5.1
6	Monroe Jefferson	172	6.1
7	Tecumseh	186	7.0
8	Carleton Airport	196	7.7
9	Dundee	248	9.2
10	Grosse Ile	266	10.0
11	Ypsilanti	289	10.9
12	Milan	326	11.9
13	Summit Academy North	403	13.0

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	12	Connell Alford	Chelsea	1.0
2	12	Braylon Petty	Adrian	2.4
3	12	Logan Ruffner	Riverview	2.7
4	10	Moises Salazar	Adrian	4.1
5	11	Lucas Kuhn	New Boston Huron	6.2
6	11	Isaak Rubley	Dundee	6.4
7	12	Matthew Canales	Adrian	7.3
8	10	Luke Dulecki	New Boston Huron	10.2
9	12	Abdul Ghennewa	New Boston Huron	10.5
10	12	Hayden Holmes	Riverview	11.6
11	12	Jackson Dell	Chelsea	11.8
12	12	Chase Nyack	Adrian	12.2
13	9	Carter Fenner	Adrian	13.3
14	12	Jackson Nyack	Adrian	14.1
15	10	Beckett Boos	Chelsea	15.0
16	12	Grant Fahle	Tecumseh	16.3
17	9	Silas Skeels	Adrian	17.1
18	10	Linus Helzerman	Chelsea	17.3
19	11	Callum Bell	Carleton Airport	19.6
20	12	Sunishthh Singh	Ann Arbor Gabriel Richard	20.0
21	12	Luke Bounerba	Ann Arbor Gabriel Richard	20.8
22	10	Joseph Horn	Ann Arbor Gabriel Richard	24.0
23	9	Wyeth Angus	Chelsea	24.6
24	10	William Dobbertin	Carleton Airport	25.6
25	12	Israel Garcia	Riverview	27.9
26	12	William Steinhour	Monroe Jefferson	28.0
27	11	Malaki Muhammud	Ypsilanti	28.9
28	11	Brant Maley	Chelsea	30.8
29	12	Gabriel Natividad	Trenton	31.2
30	10	Matthew Carbajo	Grosse Ile	31.7

SUMMER PREVIEW
MID-SEASON

GIRLS

Ranked Teams

#2 Ann Arbor Pioneer
#7 Saline

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

Two dominant teams knock individuals down to 23^rd place.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Ann Arbor Pioneer	28	1.0	95+	95+
2	Saline	49	2.0		95+
3	Brownstown Woodhaven	102	3.0		95+
4	Temperance Bedford	165	4.2
5	Allen Park	178	5.4
6	Monroe	181	5.7
7	Wyandotte Roosevelt	193	6.7
8	Dearborn Heights Crestwood	220	8.2
9	Detroit Cass Tech	242	9.0
10	Gibraltar Carlson	259	9.8
11	Dearborn	304	11.1
12	Lincoln Park	359	12.5
13	Belleville	372	13.0
14	Dearborn Edsel Ford	403	13.9
15	Detroit Martin Luther King	430	14.7
16	Dearborn Fordson	466	15.8

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	12	Rachel Forsyth	Ann Arbor Pioneer	1.0
2	12	Lydia Bowman	Ann Arbor Pioneer	3.3
3	12	Elaina (Laney) Alig	Saline	4.0
4	12	Payton Scheffler	Brownstown Woodhaven	4.8
5	9	Anyla Robinson	Detroit Cass Tech	4.9
6	12	Natalie Mello	Ann Arbor Pioneer	5.8
7	11	Corynn Gady	Saline	7.5
8	10	Lillian Schlack	Saline	7.9
9	12	Sylvia Sanok Dufallo	Ann Arbor Pioneer	8.6
10	12	Katie Hume	Ann Arbor Pioneer	9.7
11	10	Quincy Behm	Ann Arbor Pioneer	11.5
12	9	Nina Moore	Ann Arbor Pioneer	12.7
13	9	Iva Ravindra	Temperance Bedford	14.2
14	9	Sophie Roth	Saline	14.2
15	12	Viktoria Bloniarz	Monroe	14.8
16	9	Hope Noal	Brownstown Woodhaven	15.5
17	12	Nancy Gage	Saline	16.9
18	10	Eleanor Grant	Wyandotte Roosevelt	18.7
19	11	Mackenzie Sellenraad	Saline	18.9
20	11	Abby Roth	Saline	19.2
21	12	Batoul Hamka	Dearborn	21.4
22	12	Claire Bireta	Allen Park	21.4
23	10	Sarah Wazne	Dearborn Heights Crestwood	23.5
24	9	Reagan Reaume	Gibraltar Carlson	24.4
25	11	Raelyn McLaughlin	Brownstown Woodhaven	25.9
26	10	Elliana Perugi	Brownstown Woodhaven	26.9
27	12	Lauren Moreno	Wyandotte Roosevelt	28.2
28	10	Anna Coury	Monroe	28.8
29	10	Joslyn Bechtol	Brownstown Woodhaven	30.4
30	11	Anahi Chapa	Allen Park	30.7

BOYS

Ranked Teams

#5 Ann Arbor Pioneer
#20 Saline

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

Weighing out the percentages and last qualifiers between Bedford, AP, Woodhaven advancing, I’m coming out on 21^st place.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Ann Arbor Pioneer	27	1.0	95+	95+
2	Saline	50	2.0		95+
3	Temperance Bedford	114	3.8		45
4	Brownstown Woodhaven	115	3.9		35
5	Allen Park	119	4.5		19
6	Monroe	138	5.9
7	Dearborn	219	7.1
8	Wyandotte Roosevelt	237	8.2
9	Gibraltar Carlson	251	8.8
10	Belleville	312	10.3
11	Detroit Cass Tech	324	10.9
12	Dearborn Heights Crestwood	353	12.1
13	Lincoln Park	366	12.7

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	9	Kamari Ronfeldt	Ann Arbor Pioneer	1.1
2	12	Truman Johnson	Saline	2.3
3	12	Vincent Peterson Sand	Ann Arbor Pioneer	3.0
4	12	Eric Overdier	Ann Arbor Pioneer	5.5
5	10	Beckett Crooks	Ann Arbor Pioneer	5.7
6	12	Andrew Foshag	Monroe	6.7
7	10	Pierce Scheffler	Brownstown Woodhaven	7.9
8	9	Jacob Szalay	Saline	8.9
9	10	Brennan LaRusso	Saline	9.0
10	12	Caleb Wynn	Allen Park	10.2
11	10	Alex Vazquez	Brownstown Woodhaven	12.9
12	10	Theo Sacks-Thomas	Ann Arbor Pioneer	13.6
13	10	Dane Hieronimus	Temperance Bedford	13.8
14	11	Brady Boroniec	Allen Park	13.9
15	11	Saman Meshinchi	Saline	14.2
16	12	Patrick Donoghue	Ann Arbor Pioneer	15.0
17	12	Koen Lanker	Saline	16.4
18	12	Grayson Albers	Ypsilanti Lincoln	18.3
19	12	Evan Smith	Brownstown Woodhaven	20.4
20	12	Joey Stevenson	Ann Arbor Pioneer	20.9
21	9	John (Jack) Klein	Saline	21.1
22	11	Myles Bray	Monroe	21.6
23	9	Cameron Varner	Temperance Bedford	22.2
24	11	William Rosales	Saline	24.8
25	12	Matthew Mizzi	Allen Park	26.4
26	11	Jordan Bunce	Temperance Bedford	27.3
27	11	Reggie Geftos	Monroe	28.4
28	11	Aidan Ortiz	Temperance Bedford	28.9
29	12	Ethan Johnson	Wyandotte Roosevelt	31.1
30	10	Nicholas Balla	Temperance Bedford	31.5