Am I the only one to have noticed these? I haven’t seen anything on the coaches’ forums, internet, social media, newsletters, or even an announcement from the MHSAA.
The Early Qualifying Standards for the 2026 T&F season have been posted. Yes, you can check with your own eyes:
Scroll about halfway down the page and look within the navy-blue box. There you have the Early Qualifying, State Qualifying, and Regional Qualifying Standards.
With me being me, I’m always gonna dive a little deeper than the surface. And I usually have numbers and a database from the past season. Posting all the early qualifiers throughout last spring, I have just that, a grand listing of everyone that qualified prior to the final round at regionals (if one hit an EQ in the regional final, they would’ve already qualified via the SQ, so that’s useless data in my opinion). Shading on the charts corresponds with my subjective thoughts, red numbers represent numbers that are too low, green represents qualifying numbers that were a bit too high.
A few observations from those numbers.
Sprints had the highest number of qualifiers.
Sprints will always have the highest number of participants. They’ll also have Michigan weather, not an advantage at all. On the other hand, a wind gauge isn’t required and illegal wind does not disqualify a qualifier.
Distance had the least number of qualifiers.
Distance typically takes up the next highest set of participants. There are certainly more distance runners than hurdlers, throwers, jumpers, or vaulters. Different than the other events are the methods in which one trains to peak for a distance race. To be able to peak in early June, a distance runner usually won’t be in their best fitness in April. My thought is that the current EQ system puts distance runners at a disadvantage relative to the other events.
The higher the enrollment, the higher the qualifiers
Both on a team and relay level. It’s my understanding that the 2025 EQ standards were calculated by the average 6th place at the State Finals over the past 3. In theory, that should lead to an equal number of qualifiers in that event. In reality, there are all sorts of randomness and anomalies and years where the event is stronger or weaker. For the individual events, there is a clear difference between the qualifying numbers in Divisions 1 & 2 vs. Divisions 3 & 4. I wonder if this is tied to the number of qualifying opportunities. Lower divisions tend to be from more urban areas, where there’s a higher concentration of meets, and thus, a higher concentration of qualifying chances.
These are just observations. Are there solutions where you have a different formula for distance runners or lower divisions? Reading the 2026 qualifying FAQ, my interpretation is that while the 3-year average of 6th place finishes is the baseline, some adjustments were made from that point. There is no mention of how those adjustments were thought out.
All this being said, CHANGES WERE MADE. I have charts for that as well!
From the first set of charts, I outlined events per division and gender that had an egregiously high number of qualifiers:
Division 1 Boys 100m – lowered from 10.95 to 10.90, eliminating 7 early qualifiers
Division 1 Boys 200m – lowered from 22.20 to 22.00, eliminating 7 early qualifiers
Division 2 Boys 200m – lowered from 22.60 to 22.40, eliminating 17 early qualifiers
The Division 1 changes appear reasonable. The Division 2 Boys 200m could be a tad aggressive.
With the exception of the D4 Boys 800m and 3200m, the distance events were low on early qualifiers. Of the 32 distance EQ standards, only 4 got harder (the 2 listed in the previous sentence among those 4), 11 became easier, and the other 17 remained the same.
Divisions 3 & 4 had less qualifiers on average. But compared to the other divisions, their standards got tougher. Of the 68 EQ marks for D3/D4, 33 became tougher (49%). Of the 68 EQ marks for D1/D2, 14 became tougher (21%).
On the flip side of the low division sprints, there were a few events where very few athletes hit the EQ marks
Division 4 Boys Long Jump – lowered from 20’ 11” to 20’ 5”, would have added 3 qualifiers
Division 4 Girls Shot Put – lowered from 35’ 7” to 35’ 0”, would’ve added 3 qualifiers
Division 3 Girls 800m – raised from 2:19.4 to 2:21.0, would’ve added 0 qualifiers
Division 4 Boys Pole Vault – remained the same at 12’ 6”
Division 4 Girls Discus – lowered from 110’ 0” to 108’ 0”, would’ve added 0 qualifiers
Division 3 Boys 100m – remained the same at 11.10
Division 3 Girls 400m – remained the same at 59.40
The first two listed had the absolute lowest figures and meaningful changes were had. The remaining five either have no changes or the changes wouldn’t have an impact on last year’s figures. But a caveat must be made, top-8 athletes from each event, over 90% competed in the State Finals anyhow. The end results were State Finals fields that represented the best of that division, which is intention of any qualifying system.
Matt, you’ve rambled quite a bit. What do you actually think?
The adjusted requirements and changes in the EQ marks follow a logical pattern. I’d love if the MHSAA, in the early qualifying FAQ document, summarized what they felt about last year’s system. From the numbers, it appears as if the inconsistencies in qualifiers were addressed, but I’m curious if the MHSAA believes it was a fair system that ensured the best athletes and relays were able to compete at State. As you’re probably aware, I have no qualms about calling out unfair XC regionals, I definitely don’t toe any company lines, and have no issue calling out issues. That said, I’ll give the MHSAA an A- on these EQ marks and regulations.
The one team in all of Division 2 to place above the range I had projected, the one squad to greatly exceed expectations, those were the girls of New Boston Huron. Five of the Chiefs placed significantly better than projected:
Zoey Cheney – projected 164th, placed 78th, and ran a personal best, dropping under 20-flat for the second time ever.
Falyn Doss – projected 148th, placed 119th, and nearly matched her season best from regionals.
Ellia Egle – projected 204th, placed 120th, and ended the season over 3 min. faster than in 2024.
Alexis White – projected 217th, placed 129th, and popped a 35+ second personal best.
Kayla Christesen – projected 214th, placed 186th, competing in her first State Finals ever.
I didn’t have Jennalynn Bronstein in the projections, but it’s worth noting that the freshman slipped under 22:00 in three of her final four races of the year. And of course, I must give mention to Avery Turk, who maybe didn’t have the best race of her season, but has much to be proud of. Avery competed at MIS all four years and was a standout in the Huron League for her entire career.
Pre-race gratitude leads to a great result; MLive
Unexpected All-Staters
Eliana Stob, Holland Christian – projected 31st with a 41.2% chance, placed 17th
What did it take? An effort that was nearly a minute faster than she ran at MIS as a sophomore. Her 18:29 was a personal best and her 4th sub-19 of the year.
Madison Petty, Adrian – projected 38th with a 23.8% chance, placed 19th
What did it take? A nice lil’ 28 second personal best. Before the State Finals, Petty had slipped under 19:00 twice, both by a second or two. Her MIS performance was much, much lower.
Ella McInerney, Cadillac – projected 35th with a 11.1% chance, placed 22nd
What did it take? Nearly matching her State race from her sophomore year. Over the past two seasons, McInerney has sure shown a penchant for bringing it in early November.
Beatrice Perucchetti, St. Joseph – projected 48th with an 8.2% chance, placed 30th
What did it take? Dropping two minutes from her 2023 MIS race and a minute from her 2024 version. Perucchetti’s 18:41 was her second sub-19 ever and nearly a 20 sec. PR.
Joshua Macri, Macomb Lutheran North – projected 45th with 22.3% chance, placed 19th
What did it take? His first sub-16 since early September. Macri had been on the cusp on multiple occasions, under 16:10 on four separate occasions throughout September and October, before breaking through with a personal best.
Ryan Good, Parma Western – projected 55th with a 19.2% chance, placed 21st
What did it take? A repeat of his regional performance, as Good matched his 15:55 season best. As with McInerney, has shown the ability to rise to the occasion in November, earning back-to-back podium finishes.
Christian Ayres, Battle Creek Harper Creek – projected 48th with a 3.5% chance, placed 22nd
What did it take? Breaking into the 15’s for the first time ever. Ayres had flirted with the 15’s on a few occasions – once at Bulldog and again in the Battle Creek City Championship. With his 15:56, the third time was the charm.
Seth Betzold, Essexville Garber – projected 36th with a 12% chance, placed 23rd
What did it take? A championship season where he was on another level in comparison to the rest of the fall. At Regionals, State, and MITCA, Betzold averaged a 16-flat. Everything else, above 16:30.
Owen Metzger, Sparta – projected 44th with a 16.5% chance, placed 24th
What did it take? Just being on the line. Unfortunately, Owen wasn’t able to compete here as a junior, but he was able to make up for lost time. His 15:58 was his first sub-16 of the year and a memorable way to end his Sparta career.
Owen Adams, Spring Lake – projected 33rd with a 10.1% chance, placed 25th
What did it take? A tremendous improvement from his sophomore year. For one, Adams had never toed the line at MIS, so even without his medal-earning 15:58, the season was a success. But that sub-16 was the second in as many weeks, a sharp drop from the mid-16’s he had been hitting throughout the fall.
Matthew Carbajo, Grosse Ile – projected 66th with a 13.8% chance, placed 29th
What did it take? Another athlete with a significant time drop, Carbajo’s coming between his junior and senior seasons. His 11th grade version set a personal best here with a 16:32, a year later, he’d broken 16:00 for the second time.
Tommy Beiter, Flint Powers Catholic – projected 40th with a 29.1% chance, placed 30th
What did it take? The continuation of his late-season form. With the exception of Bluejay, Beiter had hovered in the mid-16’s for much of his important races. Championship season was a different story, as Tommy reeled off three straight 16:0x efforts, the best of which coming here at State.
Perfectly Paced
Just as it’s described, the runners that hit as close to their average pace as possible. Pace is based on their overall time, though the figures include the mile splits.
Place
Grade
Name
Time
Pace
Team
1st Mile
2nd Mile
3rd Mile
Overall Diff.
150
12
Katelynn Boyd
20:33.2
6:36.9
Hudsonville Unity Christian
6:37.5
6:41.7
6:36.4
5.9
11
11
Addison Josephson
18:23.9
5:55.3
Linden
5:54.0
5:58.1
5:57.7
6.5
135
12
Emily Agnew
20:19.2
6:32.4
DeWitt
6:32.3
6:38.7
6:32.7
6.7
134
11
Noelle Wielhouwer
20:19.1
6:32.4
Hudsonville Unity Christian
6:32.1
6:36.1
6:35.5
7.1
65
9
Brooklyn Takagishi
19:35.9
6:18.5
DeWitt
6:16.7
6:20.8
6:22.4
8.0
18
10
Anneliese Passchier
18:30.0
5:57.3
East Grand Rapids
5:58.1
6:03.4
5:56.0
8.2
14
10
Kayla Shellenbarger
18:25.7
5:55.9
Goodrich
5:53.8
5:58.0
6:00.1
8.4
60
10
Courtney Floeter
19:28.7
6:16.2
Linden
6:22.3
6:14.1
6:16.4
8.4
149
12
Sadie Schout
20:32.2
6:36.6
Hudsonville Unity Christian
6:35.2
6:44.0
6:36.5
8.9
Addison Josephson’s evenly paced race led to another All-State result; MLive
Place
Grade
Name
Time
Overall Pace
Team
1st Mile
2nd Mile
3rd Mile
Overall Diff.
44
11
Omar Elbashir
16:14.5
5:13.6
Detroit Country Day
5:13.1
5:15.0
5:15.1
3.4
36
12
Ronnie Silveira
16:07.3
5:11.3
Allendale
5:09.7
5:12.7
5:10.4
3.9
40
12
Henry Fredenberg
16:13.1
5:13.2
Chelsea
5:12.0
5:15.0
5:14.5
4.3
160
10
Jack Mechenbier
17:05.1
5:29.9
Richland Gull Lake
5:28.9
5:33.0
5:30.4
4.6
15
10
Ashton Fink
15:50.8
5:06.0
GR Christian
5:06.5
5:05.2
5:10.0
5.3
141
10
Eddie Radtke
16:58.6
5:27.8
Shepherd
5:29.5
5:31.9
5:27.4
6.2
37
11
Wyeth Angus
16:09.8
5:12.1
Chelsea
5:15.1
5:14.9
5:11.6
6.3
95
11
Jakin Whitney
16:41.4
5:22.3
Shepherd
5:24.8
5:26.4
5:20.5
8.4
9
12
Aden Ashworth
15:34.4
5:00.7
Allendale
4:58.5
5:06.3
5:00.1
8.4
53
11
Steven Zawacki
16:20.1
5:15.4
FHE Ada Forest Hills Eastern
5:13.2
5:19.6
5:17.7
8.7
From the mile to the finish, Omar Elbashir moved up more than 60 spots, ending the day with a huge PR; MLive
Quickest Kick
Once again, just as it sounds. The fastest times from the 3 mile mark to the finish. I hope everyone listed tries their hand at a 400 or 800 this spring. If you have this sort of energy at the end of a 5k, you might have some secret mid-distance skill we didn’t know about.
Place
Grade
Name
Time
Team
Kick
Places Moved
Kick Pace
107
9
Julia Geisz
20:04.6
Marian (Bloomfield Hills)
28.4
-22
4:25.4
146
12
Lauryn Byker
20:29.7
Hudsonville Unity Christian
30.6
-8
4:46.0
8
11
Annabelle Lowman
18:05.8
Ludington
31.0
0
4:49.7
3
9
Eliza Schwass
17:44.0
Ludington
31.1
0
4:50.7
178
10
Alayna Smith
21:07.0
Marian (Bloomfield Hills)
31.2
-8
4:51.6
198
9
Kamille Fitzpatrick
21:27.2
Armada
31.3
-8
4:52.5
214
10
Astrid Leininger
21:47.6
Adrian
31.5
-7
4:54.4
43
9
Hailey Kuhn
19:04.7
Cadillac
32.0
-3
4:59.1
12
11
Lane Isom
18:25.0
Richland Gull Lake
32.1
-3
5:00.0
24
12
Chloe Rinzema
18:35.1
GR South Christian
32.1
-2
5:00.0
The Ludington girls charged hard toward the finish; MLive
Between the boys and girls, ONE team greatly exceeded expectations – the Traverse City St. Francis boys. Normally, I’d refer to the Glads’ championship experience, TCSF capturing the past two titles. But of their squad that competed in early November, only one boy could point back to a MIS performance, William Ready. Although Ready couldn’t quite capture his 2024 magic (11th place), he was able to summon his best effort of a shortened season.
Beyond Ready, all of the TCSF boys placed higher than projected. Three stood out:
Harper Mullet– projected 169th and placed 108th, dropping nearly a 30 sec. PR
Nate Gorman – projected 168th and placed 120th, over 1.5 minutes faster than his 2024 best
Hayden Mohrhardt – projected 195th and placed 134th, his first time in the 17’s all season
With everyone returning and positive momentum from their collective effort, expect TCSF to return to podium consideration in 2026.
Unexpected All-Staters
Alaina Civinskas, Roscommon – projected 53rd with a 30.7% chance of All-State, placed 8th
What did it take?
By golly, just look at that athletic.net profile. Alaina figured some things out late in the year, making a huge leap in the final weeks of the season. Can’t wait to see where she builds from here.
Anna Hallett, Blissfield – projected 54th with a 23.9% chance of All-State, placed 20th
What did it take? Her second straight sub-20 ever. Hallett’s 20th place finish was also nearly 100 places ahead of where she finished as a sophomore (also close to 200 places better than she was here as a freshman).
Natalie Rosema, Hart – projected 33rd with a 10.6% chance of All-State, placed 23rd
What did it take? A 10 sec. PR, even faster than the 19:33 she laid down at Benzie. Rosema had been a consistent mid-20 girl for much of the year, but obviously raced at a much higher level in early November.
Marlowe Walcott, Reed City – projected 39th with a 32.9% chance of All-State, placed 29th
What did it take? A match of her regional performance and a return to early season form. Walcott ended August with a 19:23 at Oiler and ended her Reed City season with a 19:28 at MIS.
Alaina Civinskas entered a new stratosphere in championship season; MLive
Jacob Mankey, Ithaca – projected 34th with a 37.3% chance of All-State, placed 15th
What did it take? Running a solid 30+ seconds faster than a majority of his races during the season. Prior to State, Mankey had been over 16:40 for all but one race (a 16:13 at Dale Devine the week before Regionals). At MIS, he found a 7 second PR, ending his career with his first All-State ever.
William Gancer, Stockbridge – projected 38th with a 30.9% chance of All-State, placed 21st
What did it take? A 16:13, 16 second PR, and his 8th sub-17 of the year. He’d been at that level only once in 2024.
Paul Saladin, Reed City – projected 67th with a 28.1% chance of All-State, placed 23rd
What did it take? A match of his 16:14 the week prior at Benzie. Before Region 20, Saladin had been on the high side of 17 for all of October. Glad to see him return to quick times for his final trek to MIS.
Trenton Fetter, Adrian Madison – projected 43rd with a 29.1% chance of All-State, placed 25th
What did it take? A year-long wait for another personal best. Fetter’s 16:22 here a year ago was a breakout performance and showed he was very capable of stepping onto the podium. The wait was worth it, with Fetter dropping 8 seconds from his 2024 effort.
Michael Weidmayer, Blissfield – projected 35th with a 19.8% chance of All-State, placed 26th
What did it take? A minute improvement from his freshman to sophomore year. 2024’s State Finals showed Weidmayer could have a penchant for performing well when it matters most, as he dropped a 30+ sec. PR in that moment. His PR performance from this November wasn’t as dramatic, but it was a PR nonetheless.
Maxwell Durham, New Haven – projected 42nd with a 2.1%(!!!) chance of All-State, placed 27th
What did it take? The long shot of the meet came by way of a 11 second personal best. Durham had been under 17:00 a few times in the fall, but was mainly in the high-16’s. A 16:26 to place 5th in Region 26 paved the way toward a 27th place MIS finish.
Isaac Cox, Plymouth Christian Academy – projected 37th with a 22.8% chance of All-State, placed 29th
What did it take? Being the top freshman in the D3 field. Cox matched his great performance from Gabriel Richard, his second 16:15 of the fall.
Tristan Hernandez, Kingsley – projected 47th with a 19.5% chance of All-State, placed 30th
What did it take? A continuation of the momentum from his Region 20 victory. The win at Benzie led to Hernandez’s return to MIS, where he dropped 40 sec. from his freshman mark.
Perfectly Paced
Just as it’s described, the runners that hit as close to their average pace as possible. Pace is based on their overall time, though the figures include the mile splits.
Grade
Name
Time
Avg. Pace
Team
1st Mile
2nd Mile
3rd Mile
Total Diff.
10
Shelby Zimmer
20:00.9
6:26.5
Kent City
6:28.2
6:31.8
6:26.5
7.0
12
Anna Poppema
19:34.4
6:18.0
Bath
6:20.5
6:20.8
6:16.1
7.2
12
Alina Martinson
18:59.7
6:06.8
Saugatuck
6:01.9
6:07.0
6:09.7
8.0
10
Revan Ricker
21:00.6
6:45.7
Blissfield
6:42.5
6:49.1
6:48.1
9.0
10
Takoda Holicki
21:28.6
6:54.7
Montrose
6:53.6
7:01.8
6:52.8
10.1
11
Madelyn Reinink
20:17.4
6:31.8
McBain
6:30.6
6:37.8
6:35.1
10.5
12
Natalie Benitez
21:22.0
6:52.6
Blissfield
6:52.5
7:02.1
6:51.6
10.6
9
Sage Palmer
19:55.6
6:24.8
Sandusky
6:23.0
6:31.1
6:27.4
10.7
11
Alyssa Kramer
18:27.5
5:56.5
Pewamo-Westphalia
5:53.0
6:00.2
6:00.7
11.4
10
Joellah Bouwman
20:38.1
6:38.5
Grandville Calvin Christian
6:36.0
6:46.4
6:39.6
11.5
Grade
Name
Time
Avg. Pace
Team
1st Mile
2nd Mile
3rd Mile
Total Diff.
10
Timothy Wolff
17:17.1
5:33.8
Hart
5:33.8
5:37.6
5:34.4
4.4
10
Jude Wentzloff
17:30.1
5:38.0
Jackson Lumen Christi
5:41.0
5:39.0
5:38.7
4.8
12
Maxwell Durham
16:15.5
5:14.0
New Haven
5:13.0
5:16.5
5:15.8
5.3
11
Aiden Schaner
16:59.6
5:28.2
Hart
5:26.3
5:29.6
5:30.3
5.4
12
Ben Gautsche
16:46.4
5:23.9
Union City
5:22.9
5:28.7
5:23.9
5.8
10
Grayson Wells
17:57.2
5:46.7
Midland Bullock Creek
5:51.6
5:45.6
5:47.2
6.5
10
Michael Allen
17:05.3
5:30.0
Montrose
5:33.0
5:31.7
5:32.2
6.9
9
Wesley Mair
17:59.8
5:47.5
Montague
5:48.2
5:53.2
5:46.9
7.0
10
Owen Poppema
15:46.6
5:04.7
Bath
5:10.1
5:04.9
5:03.0
7.3
11
Avery Morrow
16:43.1
5:22.9
Jackson Lumen Christi
5:26.2
5:25.4
5:21.1
7.6
Quickest Kick
Once again, just as it sounds. The fastest times from the 3 mile mark to the finish. I hope everyone listed tries their hand at a 400 or 800 this spring. If you have this sort of energy at the end of a 5k, you might have some secret mid-distance skill we didn’t know about.
Place
Grade
Name
Time
Team
Kick
Places Moved
Kick Pace
169
9
Bayla Curtis
21:40.2
Kent City
30.5
-10
4:45.0
1
11
Samantha Schroeder
18:07.0
Jackson Lumen Christi
30.8
-1
4:47.9
64
9
Avery Haynes
20:16.9
Brooklyn Columbia Central
32.2
-5
5:00.9
6
10
Josie Bishop
18:38.4
Lansing Catholic
32.4
-2
5:02.8
55
10
Esther Cahill
20:01.6
Saranac
33.2
-2
5:10.3
68
10
Alaina Schaner
20:18.7
Hart
33.3
-3
5:11.2
7
11
Grace Wonch
18:38.7
Lansing Catholic
33.4
+1
5:12.1
94
9
Ella Worthing
20:42.8
Jackson Lumen Christi
33.5
-10
5:13.1
4
11
Alyssa Kramer
18:27.5
Pewamo-Westphalia
33.6
-1
5:14.0
65
11
Madelyn Reinink
20:17.4
McBain
33.9
-2
5:16.8
Samantha Schroeder, in the middle of her ferocious kick; MLive
Place
Grade
Name
Time
Team
Kick
Places Moved
Kick Pace
102
11
Owen Sytsema
17:03.7
Muskegon Western Mich. Christian
26.3
-6
4:05.8
53
11
Naveen Kulkarni
16:35.4
Ann Arbor Greenhills
26.4
-11
4:06.7
131
10
Trevor VanderKodde
17:17.5
Hart
26.8
-4
4:10.5
75
11
Charlie George
16:48.6
Pewamo-Westphalia
26.8
-7
4:10.5
109
12
Henry Beck
17:07.0
Ann Arbor Greenhills
26.9
-9
4:11.4
28
12
Jeryn Frisbie
16:15.6
Belding
27.0
-5
4:12.3
50
11
Landon Madden
16:32.7
Delton-Kellogg
27.1
-8
4:13.3
145
11
Gibson Smith
17:27.8
Montague
27.1
-8
4:13.3
154
12
Jaycob Hipps
17:34.5
Montrose
27.3
-6
4:15.1
35
12
Noah Devereaux
16:22.0
Laingsburg
27.5
-2
4:17.0
Girls Adjustment: +21 Boys Adjustment: +16
The course seemingly ran a little slower than in the early morning.
Michigan XC Speed Ratings 