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

#4 Pewamo-Westphalia
#6 Stanton Central Montcalm

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

21^st Place

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Pewamo-Westphalia	32	1.1	87	95+
2	Stanton Central Montcalm	38	1.9	13	95+
3	Laingsburg	93	3.0		95+
4	Ovid-Elsie	136	4.1
5	New Lothrop	151	5.2
6	Almont	158	5.7
7	Bath	189	7.2
8	Chesaning	196	8.0
9	Perry	211	8.8
10	Montrose	253	10.0

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	11	Kyah Hoffman	Stanton Central Montcalm	1.0
2	11	Whitney Werner	Pewamo-Westphalia	2.0
3	11	Ashley Choponis	Stanton Central Montcalm	3.1
4	10	Grace Coston	Stanton Central Montcalm	3.9
5	9	Alyssa Kramer	Pewamo-Westphalia	5.8
6	12	Melanie Werner	Pewamo-Westphalia	6.1
7	10	Abbie Schneider	Pewamo-Westphalia	8.1
8	10	Anna Poppema	Bath	8.3
9	11	Emily Rathka	Laingsburg	9.1
10	9	Jenna Keilen	Pewamo-Westphalia	10.5
11	9	Andrea Rolston	Stanton Central Montcalm	11.0
12	10	Clarissa Baese	Ovid-Elsie	11.5
13	10	Lilly Rooks	Pewamo-Westphalia	12.2
14	12	Isabell Helman	Pewamo-Westphalia	13.9
15	11	Piper White	Ovid-Elsie	16.0
16	10	Laila Evola	Almont	16.0
17	11	Evelyn Logghe	Laingsburg	18.5
18	10	Braelyn Bunting	Stanton Central Montcalm	18.8
19	10	Hazel Burley	Laingsburg	19.3
20	12	Ayla DeLaurier	Almont	22.2
21	12	Kaia Spiess	Ovid-Elsie	22.3
22	12	Taylor Bailey	Chesaning	22.7
23	9	Samantha Gutzman	Laingsburg	22.8
24	11	Addison Rusz	Laingsburg	23.7
25	12	Hannah Oakes	Chesaning	26.0
26	12	Klara Mulcahy	New Lothrop	27.4
27	12	Sara Dammann	New Lothrop	27.6
28	10	Mackenzie Hills	Bath	27.7
29	11	Lexy Andres	New Lothrop	29.4
30	12	Josie Bauman	New Lothrop	31.6

Any Intriguing Battles?

Will Stanton Central Montcalm pull off the upset and bust through the perennially strong Pirate pack? I think there’s a better chance on the girls side, although both are fully capable. Paths to victory include placing three very highly or their 4^th and 5^th picking up some very manageable spots late.

BOYS

Ranked Teams

#2 Pewamo-Westphalia
#6 Stanton Central Montcalm
#14 Bath

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

Going all the way down to 25^th(!!!) place.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Pewamo-Westphalia	40	1.1	94	95+
2	Stanton Central Montcalm	47	1.9	6	95+
3	Bath	62	3.0		95+
4	Ovid-Elsie	158	4.9
5	Laingsburg	159	4.7
6	New Lothrop	181	6.0
7	Almont	194	6.7
8	Montrose	240	8.6
9	Chesaning	253	9.4
10	Perry	260	9.6
11	Memphis	272	10.5
12	Mt Morris	299	11.9
13	Burton-Bendle	333	12.9

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	12	Collin Farmer	Pewamo-Westphalia	1.1
2	10	Gage Hoffman	Stanton Central Montcalm	2.1
3	12	Graham Coston	Stanton Central Montcalm	3.1
4	12	Carter Holmes	Bath	5.2
5	10	Noah Devereaux	Laingsburg	6.1
6	10	Sylus Wilson	Stanton Central Montcalm	6.6
7	9	Wyatt Werner	Pewamo-Westphalia	8.0
8	11	Allan George	Pewamo-Westphalia	9.3
9	9	River Fox	Bath	10.2
10	11	Luke Skidmore	Bath	10.9
11	9	John Kowatch	Pewamo-Westphalia	11.5
12	11	Sam Muirhead	Pewamo-Westphalia	11.6
13	12	Andrew Koenigsknecht	Bath	11.8
14	11	Clay Powell	Ovid-Elsie	12.0
15	9	Nolan Mitchell	Pewamo-Westphalia	14.4
16	10	Kyler Fertig	Stanton Central Montcalm	16.0
17	9	Charlie George	Pewamo-Westphalia	16.4
18	10	Evan Rolston	Stanton Central Montcalm	19.0
19	9	Kai Fisher	Memphis	21.6
20	11	Lieu Vincke	New Lothrop	23.7
21	10	Madden Starkweather	Bath	23.8
22	11	Kevin Heslip	New Lothrop	24.7
23	12	Josiah Curry	Stanton Central Montcalm	25.6
24	10	Joshua Miller	Ovid-Elsie	25.9
25	9	Jaxon Hemgesberg	Chesaning	26.3
26	12	Kyle Baldwin	Mt Morris	28.8
27	9	Tyler Rockafellow	Perry	29.1
28	9	Colton Grzyb	Almont	29.4
29	11	Felix Ramirez	Laingsburg	29.9
30	11	James Kelly	Ovid-Elsie	31.0

SUMMER PREVIEW
MID-SEASON

GIRLS

Ranked Teams

#9 DeWitt
#11 St. Johns
#15 Owosso

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

18^th place with these top-heavy squads.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	DeWitt	57	1.4	60	95+
2	St. Johns	60	1.6	40	95+
3	Owosso	83	2.9		95+
4	Mason	137	4.5
5	Haslett	144	5.0
6	Williamston	153	5.6
7	Parma Western	188	7.5
8	Charlotte	191	7.6
9	Corunna	207	8.8
10	Fowlerville	254	10.1
11	Eaton Rapids	277	10.9
12	Jackson Northwest	316	12.0
13	Lansing Eastern	396	13.0

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	9	Ava Schafer	St. Johns	1.2
2	12	Meghan Ford	Mason	1.8
3	12	Abby Young	St. Johns	3.7
4	11	Kayla Williams	DeWitt	3.8
5	10	Chloe Khon	Jackson Northwest	7.1
6	12	Clara Fletcher	St. Johns	7.3
7	12	Libby Summerland	Owosso	11.0
8	11	Ayla Holben	DeWitt	11.1
9	10	Emma Crandell	Owosso	11.1
10	9	Sophia Schafer	Williamston	11.8
11	11	Autumn Thompson	DeWitt	12.1
12	11	Nicole Schafer	Williamston	12.2
13	10	Miriam Kloha	St. Johns	12.3
14	11	Josie Jenkinson	Owosso	13.0
15	11	Mia Williams	DeWitt	14.0
16	12	Dora Henry	Haslett	15.2
17	10	Reese Supianoski	Williamston	17.1
18	11	Hayven Thiel	Corunna	17.6
19	9	Jaidyn Nickels	Corunna	18.8
20	10	Isabella Taber	DeWitt	19.3
21	11	Julionna West	Owosso	21.0
22	10	Abby Russel	Haslett	22.5
23	11	Ryleigh Hanlin	DeWitt	24.3
24	9	Colette Charchut	Haslett	25.0
25	11	Raquel Curey	Parma Western	26.3
26	11	Natalie Summerland	Owosso	26.6
27	10	Avari Montgomery	Charlotte	27.7
28	12	Analise Chelotti	DeWitt	28.9
29	10	Aubrey Metzger	Mason	29.5
30	10	Delaney Richardson	Fowlerville	30.9

Any Intriguing Battles?

DeWitt has been coming on strong as of late, entering the top-10 through their results from Greater Lansing and the CAAC Blue, the Panthers finishing 2^nd in each. Do they have enough depth to overcome the Redwings’ powerful top-3?

BOYS

Ranked Teams

#24 Parma Western
#26 St. Johns
#27 DeWitt

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

15^th Place, as this seems to be a much better individual region than a team region.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	DeWitt	85	1.7	51	95+
2	Parma Western	87	2.0	29	95+
3	St. Johns	92	2.7	16	78
4	Corunna	108	3.6		29
5	Mason	146	5.5
6	Haslett	148	5.5
7	Eaton Rapids	184	7.0
8	Williamston	220	8.3
9	Fowlerville	233	8.7
10	Charlotte	267	10.0
11	Owosso	305	11.9
12	Lansing Waverly	308	12.1
13	Jackson Northwest	309	12.4
14	Lansing Eastern	329	13.6
15	Lansing Sexton	499	15.0

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	12	Nate Carmody	Haslett	1.3
2	11	Alex Doneth	Mason	2.8
3	11	Dylan Lydic	Haslett	3.0
4	12	Isaac Staib	St. Johns	4.4
5	11	Nolan Inglis	DeWitt	4.7
6	10	Edison Lopeman	Parma Western	6.7
7	12	Cooper Singleton	Parma Western	6.8
8	9	Ryan Good	Parma Western	7.9
9	12	Matthew Schrauben	St. Johns	8.1
10	11	Simon Erfourth	Owosso	11.7
11	12	Brennan McKone	DeWitt	12.0
12	11	Conner McCormick	Mason	12.1
13	10	Payton Chandler	Corunna	12.9
14	11	Jack Huntington	Eaton Rapids	15.9
15	11	Lucas Moore	Fowlerville	17.0
16	11	Braylen Eaton	Charlotte	17.3
17	11	Bobby Donley	Corunna	17.3
18	10	Aidan Roka	Corunna	18.4
19	12	Xander Maliska	St. Johns	18.8
20	9	Mason Raborn	DeWitt	22.9
21	12	Kenny Evans	Corunna	23.1
22	11	Jackson Walthorn	DeWitt	23.3
23	11	Ian Goodrich	DeWitt	26.6
24	12	Daniel Wilson	Williamston	27.3
25	10	Reagan Ward	St. Johns	28.2
26	10	Grant Conley	Charlotte	29.2
27	11	Gabi Martinez	Lansing Eastern	30.1
28	9	Will Chelotti	DeWitt	31.0
29	11	Drew Holevac	Eaton Rapids	31.4
30	11	Nathan Szilagyi	Fowlerville	31.7

Any Intriguing Battles?

Can Corunna shock the world again? Last year, the Cavaliers qualified for State as a longshot, coming in with a 6% chance. They’re almost 5x as likely this time around and as expected, just blasted the field at Shiawassee County.

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 Lansing Catholic
#11 Leslie

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

In a very front-loaded region, 22^nd place.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Place	Avg. Score	Win %	Qualify %
1	Lansing Catholic	1.3	31	73	95+
2	Leslie	1.7	36	27	95+
3	Rochester Hills Lutheran NW	3.0	106		95+
4	Wixom St. Catherine	4.3	136
5	Madison Heights Bishop Foley	5.0	145
6	Stockbridge	5.9	157
7	Algonac	6.9	173
8	Charyl Stockwell Academy	8.2	209
9	Clawson	9.2	226
10	New Haven	9.6	233

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	12	Tessa Roe	Lansing Catholic	1.0
2	10	Frances Melinn	Lansing Catholic	3.2
3	9	Reagan Lees	Wixom St. Catherine	3.6
4	10	Hailey Creisher	Leslie	4.4
5	11	Erin Lubahn	Leslie	4.8
6	9	Grace Wonch	Lansing Catholic	5.7
7	11	Jaidyn Smith	Leslie	8.4
8	12	Jalynn Schmelter	Leslie	8.4
9	12	Abby Rice	Rochester Hills Lutheran NW	10.4
10	9	Avery Miller	Lansing Catholic	10.8
11	9	Mia Papendick	Leslie	11.5
12	10	Kaitlin Ludwig	Lansing Catholic	11.7
13	10	Jasmine Walker	Algonac	13.4
14	11	Kerith Short	University Liggett	14.6
15	9	Emily Satkowiak	Stockbridge	15.9
16	9	Makya Isham	Leslie	16.3
17	10	Jaylee Chapman	Stockbridge	17.2
18	12	Kendall Zaliwski	Rochester Hills Lutheran NW	19.1
19	11	Maddie Szlachta	Rochester Hills Lutheran NW	20.6
20	11	Ava Vaccaro	Stockbridge	21.2
21	10	Stella Lipinski	Lansing Catholic	21.9
22	12	Madison Juchno	Wixom St. Catherine	23.8
23	12	Carmellina Biafora	Madison Heights Bishop Foley	23.9
24	10	Ella Heffner	Charyl Stockwell Academy	24.1
25	12	Lovelyn Ketepa	Clawson	25.8
26	9	Amanda Ludwig	Lansing Catholic	27.4
27	11	Kate Bennett	Algonac	27.4
28	10	Cristina Wenderski	Wixom St. Catherine	27.6
29	11	Josephine Malysz	Madison Heights Bishop Foley	30.1
30	11	Grace MacDonald	Rochester Hills Lutheran NW	31.3

Any Intriguing Battles?

Leslie and Lansing Catholic appear to be neck and neck. Although the projections say one thing, results from this season say another. Just 10 days ago at Greater Lansing, the Blackhawks top-3 dominated the D3 crowd, competing with P-W for top honors among those teams. Though an advantage for LC might come in that their home course is filled with hills, as is the final mile at Possum Hollow.

BOYS

Ranked Teams

#21 Leslie
#25 Lansing Catholic

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

19^th-20^th Place. The projections have Algonac as a bit stronger toward the front, which might open a spot lower if they’re able to pull off the upset.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Place	Avg. Score	Win %	Qualify %
1	Leslie	1.3	49	75	95+
2	Lansing Catholic	1.8	56	25	95+
3	Dansville	3.2	114		81
4	Algonac	3.8	123		19
5	Charyl Stockwell Academy	5.5	156
6	Rochester Hills Lutheran NW	6.5	167
7	Stockbridge	6.6	168
8	University Liggett	7.3	176
9	Clawson	9.5	246
10	Madison Heights Bishop Foley	10.1	257
11	New Haven	10.4	264
12	Detroit Osborn	12.0	338

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	11	Theodore Davis	Dansville	1.0
2	10	Julian Walker	Algonac	2.6
3	12	Anthony Urbaniak	Charyl Stockwell Academy	2.8
4	9	Kenneth Mangles	Leslie	5.7
5	10	Lucas Gates	Lansing Catholic	5.9
6	11	Michael Darlington	University Liggett	6.1
7	9	Cooper Schmelter	Leslie	6.8
8	9	Matthew Killeen	Leslie	8.9
9	9	Everett Beach	Lansing Catholic	9.9
10	9	Téo Krumm	Lansing Catholic	10.2
11	9	William Gancer	Stockbridge	11.0
12	10	Grason Weber	Leslie	12.2
13	9	Finn Korte	Lansing Catholic	14.9
14	10	Blaise Demko	Lansing Catholic	16.0
15	11	Kyan Isham	Leslie	17.8
16	12	Ethan Wright	Stockbridge	17.8
17	11	Jose Domecq	Leslie	18.5
18	10	Zach Witherspoon	Algonac	18.6
19	9	Clayton Gady	University Liggett	19.2
20	10	Owen Beindit	Algonac	19.8
21	9	Ayden Mayr	Dansville	20.1
22	9	Hayden Selesky	Lansing Catholic	20.8
23	10	Brody Urbaniak	Charyl Stockwell Academy	22.2
24	12	Logan Hile	Leslie	25.8
25	9	Preston Varnauskas	Rochester Hills Lutheran NW	26.1
26	12	Logan Fowler	New Haven	26.6
27	10	Hayden Richey	Lansing Catholic	26.8
28	9	Owen Windgaston	Clawson	27.1
29	10	Ryder Dayton	Rochester Hills Lutheran NW	29.1
30	12	Calvin vanHartesvelt	Dansville	30.0

Any Intriguing Battles?

Just as the girls, Leslie and Lansing Catholic will likely duel for the team title, but we could have some intrigue for the 3^rd qualifier. In late August, both Dansville and Algonac came over to the shores of Kent Lake for the Milford Invite. Dansville obtained a significant victory over the Muskrats. Since then, Algonac has had noticeable improvement from their freshmen and their frontrunner, but will it be enough?

SUMMER PREVIEW
MID-SEASON

GIRLS

Ranked Teams

#19 White Lake Lakeland
#24 Walled Lake Northern

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

15^th or 16^th Place.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Place	Avg. Score	Win %	Qualify %
1	White Lake Lakeland	1.2	58	81	95+
2	Walled Lake Northern	2.0	72	17	95+
3	Highland-Milford	3.2	103		73
4	Novi	3.9	126		27
5	South Lyon	5.7	166
6	Birmingham Seaholm	6.1	171
7	Royal Oak	6.4	177
8	Walled Lake Western	7.6	194
9	South Lyon East	9.0	241
10	Walled Lake Central	10.3	275
11	West Bloomfield	11.2	291
12	North Farmington	11.9	305
13	Berkley	12.6	318
14	Beverly Hills Groves	14.0	383

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	11	Ava Alicandro	White Lake Lakeland	1.5
2	12	Alisia Olteanu	Walled Lake Western	3.2
3	10	Kayla Ward	South Lyon	4.5
4	12	Emma Hoffmeyer	Walled Lake Western	4.6
5	12	Madelyn Gordon	Walled Lake Northern	6.6
6	9	Jillian Broyles	Highland-Milford	6.7
7	11	Alena Tiernan	White Lake Lakeland	8.1
8	9	Maya Pletzer	White Lake Lakeland	8.7
9	12	Ava Kurczewski	Walled Lake Northern	8.9
10	9	Emily Alt	Walled Lake Northern	9.2
11	10	Macy Czelada	South Lyon	11.5
12	9	Claire Porinsky	South Lyon East	16.7
13	10	Lauren Bradley	Highland-Milford	16.8
14	11	Emily Bieniasz	Walled Lake Central	18.0
15	11	Natalie Joiner	White Lake Lakeland	19.0
16	9	Kareena Babu	Novi	22.2
17	10	Mya Tass	Novi	22.5
18	9	Katelynn Egli	Novi	22.5
19	12	Katherine Wischman	Royal Oak	23.3
20	9	Morgan Scally	White Lake Lakeland	23.7
21	11	Isabelle Krause	Walled Lake Northern	24.3
22	11	Macy Jenkins	Highland-Milford	24.5
23	11	Cora Liu	North Farmington	25.2
24	9	Paige Haller	Walled Lake Central	27.1
25	12	Mackenzie Hendry	White Lake Lakeland	27.2
26	11	Kerrigan Kennedy	Highland-Milford	27.3
27	9	Allie Gallagher	Walled Lake Northern	27.5
28	9	Jane Meinecke	Royal Oak	27.5
29	12	Elaine Burkmyre	Walled Lake Western	28.0
30	11	Ellie Nohovig	Highland-Milford	28.9

Any Intriguing Battles?

We’re blessed to be able to peek back 2.5 weeks ago, where the Lakeland girls survived the final hills in order to hold off Walled Lake Northern. We’re also blessed to have that highly-competitive LVC Championship, where Allie Gallagher showed much mettle, rising into the Knight scorers and displacing just enough White Lake girls. Now we get the rubber match!

BOYS

Ranked Teams

#12 White Lake Lakeland
#13 Walled Lake Northern

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

17^th or 18^th Place.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Place	Avg. Score	Win %	Qualify %
1	White Lake Lakeland	1.5	56	53	95+
2	Walled Lake Northern	1.5	57	47	95+
3	Highland-Milford	3.6	104		54
4	Novi	3.8	109		43
5	Royal Oak	5.3	127
6	Detroit Catholic Central	5.4	132
7	South Lyon	7.0	193
8	Berkley	8.5	283
9	Birmingham Seaholm	8.6	287
10	Brother Rice	10.1	316
11	South Lyon East	12.1	347
12	North Farmington	12.7	355
13	Walled Lake Central	12.7	355
14	Beverly Hills Groves	12.9	357
15	West Bloomfield	14.5	380
16	Walled Lake Western	16.0	434

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	12	Sebastian Ramirez	Royal Oak	1.7
2	12	Ty Parker	Walled Lake Northern	2.3
3	10	Kyle O’Rourke	Highland-Milford	2.4
4	12	Pierce Grzymkowski	White Lake Lakeland	4.2
5	12	Evan Rice	Walled Lake Northern	5.6
6	12	Oliver Moss	Berkley	6.7
7	12	Braxton Sipes	Royal Oak	7.9
8	12	Ryan Ward	White Lake Lakeland	10.3
9	12	Lucas Karbel	Walled Lake Northern	11.2
10	10	Gavin Johns	White Lake Lakeland	12.9
11	11	Drew Abbott	Detroit Catholic Central	13.8
12	12	Noah Tiernan	White Lake Lakeland	14.7
13	11	Matthew Verellen	White Lake Lakeland	14.8
14	11	Nolan Till	Royal Oak	15.4
15	9	Nathan Bruss	Walled Lake Northern	16.5
16	12	Carter Lukas	Novi	16.9
17	11	Ryan Carrannanto	Highland-Milford	17.9
18	12	Julian Liang	Novi	20.3
19	9	Briggs Warren	Novi	20.6
20	10	Soma Sato	Novi	21.5
21	12	Brayden Mullins	Highland-Milford	22.1
22	12	Ryan Illikman	Detroit Catholic Central	22.6
23	12	Liam Collins	Brother Rice	25.0
24	11	Ayden McDonald	White Lake Lakeland	25.7
25	11	Chase Griffith	Walled Lake Northern	26.9
26	10	Finn Gammerath	Walled Lake Northern	27.6
27	10	Gavin Tisch	Detroit Catholic Central	28.1
28	12	Dylan Shoresh	Birmingham Seaholm	28.3
29	12	Skylar Jess-Isenegger	Highland-Milford	30.6
30	11	Thomas Watson	Detroit Catholic Central	32.1

Any Intriguing Battles?

Thanks to a clutch performance from sophomore Finn Gammerath, the Walled Lake Northern boys pulled off a minor upset in their win of the LVC. Personal bests were hard to come by last week, but dude broke into the 16’s for the first time ever in that championship race. Surely the Eagles are looking for revenge and this could go either way. Even though White Lake skipped out on the County meet, they have had positive experiences on this course, such as their win over Milford. If you can beat the Mavs on their home course, you’ve got a darn good team.

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, to 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

#15 Concord
#17 Kalamazoo Hackett

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

Probably gonna be around 16^th place regardless if the 3^rd team is White Pigeon or Centreville.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Place	Avg. Score	Win %	Qualify %
1	Kalamazoo Hackett	1.5	41	52	95+
2	Concord	1.5	42	48	95+
3	Centreville	3.4	91		56
4	White Pigeon	3.6	94		44
5	Battle Creek St. Philip	5.5	150
6	Athens	6.3	159
7	Three Oaks River Valley	6.6	161
8	New Buffalo	7.5	174

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	9	Haley Stimer	Concord	1.4
2	11	Presley Allen	Mendon	2.2
3	9	Gabriella Siems	Kalamazoo Hackett	3.6
4	10	Cieara Barrett	Concord	4.1
5	10	Emma Riker	Kalamazoo Hackett	5.0
6	10	Katelyn Van Es	Kalamazoo Hackett	7.1
7	12	Riley Adams	Concord	9.5
8	12	Emma Gaylor	Heritage Christian Academy	10.8
9	10	Ellie Reed	Centreville	10.9
10	11	Jamielynn Delarye	White Pigeon	12.0
11	12	Gwen Bulko	Concord	12.6
12	12	Addie Curtis	Marcellus	13.4
13	12	Mimi Hibbard	Battle Creek St. Philip	14.3
14	11	Abigail Ulbrich	Kalamazoo Hackett	15.2
15	9	Harper Bowman	New Buffalo	15.7
16	12	Chloe Badger	Athens	17.4
17	12	Analiese Miller	White Pigeon	17.5
18	12	Emmy Pritchard	Centreville	19.6
19	12	Alexae Hall	Decatur	21.4
20	9	Angel VeenKant	Tekonsha	21.7
21	11	Rachel Schelstraete	White Pigeon	22.8
22	9	Ella Hendrixson	Three Oaks River Valley	23.0
23	10	Bethany Carpenter	Kalamazoo Hackett	23.9
24	12	Frances Mildenberg	Centreville	25.2
25	11	Hannah Stimer	Concord	25.9
26	10	Rachel Byler	White Pigeon	26.2
27	9	Helen Donner	Three Oaks River Valley	26.4
28	10	Julianne Mounce	Kalamazoo Hackett	27.9
29	10	Kimberlynn Lawson	Centreville	28.9
30	12	Ellie Miller	Centreville	30.7

Any Intriguing Battles?

Concord vs. Kalamazoo Hackett for the girls win. Concord had the upper hand earlier in the year at Portage, buoyed by quick efforts from Stimer and Barrett. Hackett had more bodies toward the back of the pack. Two aspects to watch: what sort of gap is there in place between the Yellowjackets’ top-2 and Hackett’s top-2 and if depending on the former’s significance, can the Irish pull through late?

BOYS

Ranked Teams

#6 Three Oaks River Valley
#8 Kalamazoo Hackett
#26 Battle Creek St. Philip

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

22^nd Place. With two top-10 teams, this appears to be very top-heavy, with many spots up for grab later into the race.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Place	Avg. Score	Win %	Qualify %
1	Three Oaks River Valley	1.3	38	72	95+
2	Kalamazoo Hackett	1.7	42	28	95+
3	Battle Creek St. Philip	3.0	88		95+
4	White Pigeon	4.5	146
5	Concord	4.7	148
6	Centreville	6.0	171
7	Eau Claire	7.3	198
8	Heritage Christian Academy	8.6	217
9	Mendon	8.8	219
10	Athens	9.3	228
11	New Buffalo	10.9	262

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	10	Marek Butkiewicz	Kalamazoo Hackett	1.4
2	10	Landon Rogers	Three Oaks River Valley	2.5
3	12	Gavin Sehy	Kalamazoo Hackett	2.6
4	12	Austin York	Three Oaks River Valley	4.8
5	12	Luke Sprague	Battle Creek St. Philip	5.8
6	10	Charlie Gibson	Three Oaks River Valley	6.2
7	10	Sean Siems	Kalamazoo Hackett	6.3
8	10	Jesse Fielis	White Pigeon	7.9
9	11	Ben Iobe	Mendon	9.7
10	11	Adam Slavens	Three Oaks River Valley	11.1
11	11	Ryan Blankenship	Eau Claire	11.3
12	12	Max Shugars	Battle Creek St. Philip	11.7
13	11	Sean Driscoll	Three Oaks River Valley	14.6
14	12	Nick Doerr	Kalamazoo Hackett	14.8
15	12	Braiden Brooks	Three Oaks River Valley	16.2
16	11	Jerome Bastian	Battle Creek St. Philip	17.0
17	11	Alex Dumont	Kalamazoo Hackett	17.8
18	9	Kellen Siems	Kalamazoo Hackett	19.4
19	10	Ethan O’Connor	Athens	20.4
20	10	David Lane	White Pigeon	22.2
21	10	Maddox Hutchinson	Concord	22.2
22	9	Max Barron	Tekonsha	23.5
23	11	Owen Nofs	Battle Creek St. Philip	23.5
24	9	Keaton Smith	Concord	24.9
25	11	Lleyton Bauman	Concord	27.2
26	10	Brendan Sre	Centreville	27.7
27	11	Grant Schumm	Three Oaks River Valley	28.0
28	9	Elias Baldwin	Decatur	28.4
29	9	Oliver Mildenberg	Centreville	29.3
30	9	Seth Crown	Heritage Christian Academy	30.7

Any Intriguing Battles?

As with many of these Southwest schools, we can look to Portage and try to glean something from the River Valley vs. Hackett matchup. There, the Mustang pack laid a giant impact, in particular Adam Slavens through Braiden Brooks, placing six RV boys before Hackett’s fourth. In a smaller meet such as this, that significance gets toned down, so if kids such as Sehy and Siems can sneak up a spot or two, Hackett’s winning odds become larger.

SUMMER PREVIEW
MID-SEASON

GIRLS

Ranked Teams

#10 Forest Hills Central

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

A little light on the elite squads leaves many individuals in the top-15. Less depth in terms of spots, but a high possibility of more than 7 individual qualifiers.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Place	Avg. Score	Win %	Qualify %
1	Forest Hills Central	1.0	53	95+	95+
2	Portage Central	2.5	122		89
3	Byron Center	3.4	134		70
4	East Kentwood	4.8	152		19
5	Grand Rapids Ottawa Hills	5.5	158
6	Kalamazoo Central	6.1	164		9
7	Caledonia	6.1	164		7
8	Forest Hills Northern	7.2	174
9	Battle Creek Lakeview	9.1	198
10	Portage Northern	9.5	206
11	Lowell	11.1	246
12	Kalamazoo Loy Norrix	12.3	285
13	Mattawan	12.4	290

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	12	Selma Anderson	Grand Rapids Ottawa Hills	1.0
2	12	Clara James-Heer	Forest Hills Central	2.0
3	12	Izzy Fazio	Forest Hills Northern	4.1
4	10	Ava Lawrence	East Kentwood	4.3
5	11	Annie Alkema	Kalamazoo Central	5.0
6	11	Anna Sybenga	Forest Hills Central	6.6
7	11	Clare Mathison	Forest Hills Central	8.9
8	12	Alyssa DeFields	Caledonia	10.9
9	12	Emilee Rudlaff	Kalamazoo Central	11.0
10	12	Peyton Ludwig	Forest Hills Central	11.6
11	10	Lilamae Frank	Battle Creek Lakeview	12.7
12	11	Sydney Law	Byron Center	13.3
13	9	Roxanne Jorgensen	Portage Northern	14.4
14	10	Enna Wainer	Grand Rapids Ottawa Hills	15.5
15	10	Rhea Mouw	Portage Central	16.4
16	9	Olivia Storteboom	Portage Central	17.1
17	12	Lexi Hurst	East Kentwood	21.0
18	12	Julia Moxey	East Kentwood	21.8
19	11	Daphne Ball	Byron Center	21.8
20	10	Olivia Stacy	Portage Northern	22.6
21	11	Reese Hansen	Grand Rapids Ottawa Hills	23.4
22	12	Alyssa Hinton	Battle Creek Lakeview	24.6
23	11	Rachel Grice	Kalamazoo Central	25.4
24	11	Ella Harlow	Portage Northern	26.7
25	12	MK Elliott	Portage Central	26.7
26	10	Lilah Yoder	Forest Hills Central	26.7
27	11	Claire O’Boyle	Lowell	29.6
28	11	Sofia Bogard	Kalamazoo Loy Norrix	30.4
29	12	Addison Begeman	Portage Central	30.7
30	11	Mia Stibitz	Forest Hills Central	31.3

Any Intriguing Battles?

The many contenders for this third spot. Portage Central, slotted in second, may benefit from a home course advantage. But I wouldn’t be shocked with any order here. Byron Center is probably the favorite, a solid team all year that just recently won at Sturgis and placed 4^th in the notoriously tough OK White. A darkhorse and wild card could be Kalamazoo Central, who at this past weekend’s SMAC Championship, sent three girls under 20:00.

BOYS

Ranked Teams

#6 Kalamazoo Central
#10 Forest Hills Central
#21 Portage Central
#23 East Kentwood

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

Likely around 15^th place even if the third team is Portage Central or East Kentwood. Tons of great individuals here that should push back those two top-10 teams.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Place	Avg. Score	Win %	Qualify %
1	Kalamazoo Central	1.1	61	93	95+
2	Forest Hills Central	2.0	82	7	95+
3	Portage Central	3.1	106		83
4	East Kentwood	4.0	121		16
5	Byron Center	5.1	145
6	Caledonia	6.5	169
7	Battle Creek Lakeview	6.5	169
8	Kalamazoo Loy Norrix	8.2	203
9	Forest Hills Northern	8.6	212
10	Grand Rapids Ottawa Hills	10.1	248
11	Lowell	11.0	273
12	Portage Northern	11.9	295
13	Mattawan	13.0	327

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	12	Aiden Moore	Battle Creek Lakeview	1.2
2	12	Jasper Cane	Kalamazoo Central	2.1
3	12	Liam Walters	Grand Rapids Ottawa Hills	3.7
4	11	Evan Nickoles	East Kentwood	5.7
5	9	Samuel Baker	Kalamazoo Central	8.4
6	12	Logan Begeman	Portage Central	9.0
7	9	Ben Romero	Forest Hills Central	10.0
8	11	Jonah Bills	Battle Creek Lakeview	10.5
9	11	Sawyer McCarthy	Forest Hills Central	10.7
10	11	Isaac Tanis	East Kentwood	11.2
11	11	Mitchell Jeruzal	Byron Center	11.4
12	10	Logan Westgate	Portage Central	12.6
13	10	Dylan Duguay	Kalamazoo Loy Norrix	15.6
14	10	Ty Billings	Kalamazoo Central	16.1
15	10	Jackson Lam	Kalamazoo Loy Norrix	16.7
16	11	Kort Thompson	Caledonia	17.1
17	11	Joseph Spada	Kalamazoo Central	18.2
18	12	Parker Ludwig	Forest Hills Central	18.2
19	12	Levi Green	Byron Center	19.0
20	10	Andrew Wright	Kalamazoo Central	20.3
21	11	Jacob Sanford	Forest Hills Central	20.9
22	12	Will Banfield	Forest Hills Central	22.1
23	11	Spencer Parker	Portage Central	23.2
24	11	Spencer Porter	Forest Hills Northern	23.8
25	9	Memphis Connor	Byron Center	25.7
26	10	Elijah Thompson	Kalamazoo Central	25.9
27	12	Hudson Kemperman	Forest Hills Northern	26.5
28	10	Eli Velting	Caledonia	28.4
29	12	Mark Millard	Byron Center	30.1
30	12	Reponse Shema	East Kentwood	31.0

Any Intriguing Battles?

A great aspect of athleticnet is being able to filter a meet’s results. For instance, three weeks ago on this very course, you can look at all the Region 3 teams from the Portage Invite. There, Portage Central had four boys sub-17, and when scored with only Region 3 teams, beat the Falcons by 14 points. But the Falcons just didn’t have a day. Portage is a fair course, ripe for PR’s when running in a massive, competitive field. And the Falcons didn’t obtain any from their varsity boys. Those PR’s came this past week at the OK Red Championship, where the Falcons placed 3^rd and six boys nailed sub-17’s.