Category: Uncategorized

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

#11 Oxford
#17 Clarkston
#18 Utica
#23 Rochester
#26 Lake Orion

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

18^th place. Seems the contenders for qualifying have plenty of runners in that 5^th to 15^th range.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Oxford	56	1.1	94	95+
2	Clarkston	78	2.5	5	90
3	Utica	81	2.8		90
4	Rochester	99	4.2		13
5	Lake Orion	103	4.5		7
6	Rochester Adams	147	6.4
7	Troy	157	6.7
8	Bloomfield Hills	192	7.9
9	Utica Ford	309	9.5
10	Troy Athens	314	9.6
11	Sterling Heights Stevenson	348	11.0
12	Waterford Mott	376	12.2
13	Warren Cousino	392	13.2
14	Warren Mott	405	13.9
15	Waterford Kettering	415	14.7

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	11	Lucy Cook	Rochester	1.1
2	11	Mallory Bigelow	Oxford	2.1
3	12	Braydee Elling	Oxford	3.9
4	12	Hannah DeRoeck	Lake Orion	4.8
5	10	Addison Herr	Bloomfield Hills	5.1
6	10	Audrey Hamilton	Troy	7.3
7	9	Emma Brown	Utica	8.2
8	9	Linda Lopez	Lake Orion	8.9
9	10	Siene Muraszewski	Utica	9.6
10	11	Taylor Brodeur	Oxford	10.4
11	12	Alexandra Brigham	Clarkston	12.2
12	9	Avery DeGrendel	Clarkston	15.3
13	12	Anna Reineck	Clarkston	15.6
14	10	Taylor Parsons	Rochester	15.9
15	9	Addison Brigham	Clarkston	16.1
16	10	Brooke McFarland	Utica	16.7
17	11	Norah Lesner	Utica	18.3
18	9	El McMahan	Rochester Adams	18.5
19	12	Aubrey Mery	Oxford	20.5
20	11	Jamie Patterson	Oxford	20.9
21	10	Sydney Fischer	Clarkston	21.3
22	11	Kaitlyn Kauppila	Rochester Adams	23.4
23	11	Stephanie Bulat	Rochester	23.5
24	11	Madie Miller	Troy	26.1
25	11	Mia Snellgrove	Rochester	26.3
26	9	Mary Graves	Lake Orion	27.4
27	10	Laila Bodell	Oxford	27.7
28	9	Olivia Jenny	Bloomfield Hills	28.0
29	11	Sophia Aquino	Utica	29.9
30	9	Annie Roraff	Rochester	32.5

Anything Intriguing?

I’ve been really impressed with Utica’s ability to handle adversity this season. Missing their top runner for the past two months may have derailed a weaker team, but these girls have come together stronger. They’ll face qualifying challenges from a Clarkston, who had the race of their lives at last fall’s regional and a young Rochester squad.

BOYS

Ranked Teams

#7 Oxford
#9 Troy
#16 Clarkston
#18 Utica
#26 Lake Orion

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

15^th to 16^th place.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Oxford	69	1.7	54	95+
2	Troy	75	2.0	23	95+
3	Clarkston	82	2.7	22	76
4	Utica	97	3.8		26
5	Lake Orion	124	4.9
6	Troy Athens	174	6.8
7	Rochester Adams	175	6.9
8	Rochester	178	7.1
9	Utica Ford	252	9.6
10	Warren Cousino	254	9.6
11	Bloomfield Hills	280	10.8
12	Sterling Heights Stevenson	353	12.2
13	Waterford Kettering	367	13.0
14	Waterford Mott	391	13.9
15	Warren Mott	494	15.3
16	Auburn Hills Avondale	500	15.7

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	12	Vishvaa Ravishankar	Troy	1.9
2	11	Taye Levenson	Bloomfield Hills	2.2
3	11	Kian Schneeweis	Troy	3.1
4	11	Alexander McArthur	Oxford	4.3
5	10	Harper Wesley	Utica	4.5
6	11	James Cusick	Oxford	8.0
7	12	Bryce Nowik	Clarkston	9.7
8	11	Raymond Lucero II	Lake Orion	10.1
9	12	Louis D’Souza	Troy	12.8
10	11	Cayden DeGrendel	Clarkston	13.3
11	12	Ethan Muraszewski	Utica	14.2
12	11	Max Myrand	Oxford	15.1
13	12	Jacob Esser	Troy Athens	17.0
14	10	Ryan Barnes	Clarkston	17.1
15	10	Nate Linden	Troy Athens	17.3
16	12	Aiden Janes	Rochester Adams	17.8
17	12	Lucas Ames	Oxford	19.6
18	11	Luke Morehouse	Utica	19.8
19	11	Napolean Lino	Rochester	21.0
20	11	Blake Peardon	Lake Orion	21.6
21	12	Cass Feeney	Oxford	22.2
22	10	Dylan Pascoe	Rochester	22.7
23	12	Andrew Floros	Clarkston	22.9
24	12	Oliver House	Lake Orion	23.0
25	11	Akshat Arora	Troy	24.2
26	12	Silas Smith	Utica	26.8
27	11	Joshua Ellingsworth	Clarkston	27.5
28	11	Reynold Wei	Rochester Adams	28.1
29	12	Dylan Esser	Troy Athens	28.8
30	12	Johnathan Mitchell	Utica Ford	28.9

Anything Intriguing?

You could make arguments for any combination of these top four teams to be the state squad. Utica pulled a major upset last year, Clarkston is on their home course, Oxford has stepped up to the plate in large invites, and Troy looks to capitalize on their potential shown at Jackson and re-write the wrongs of the County and OAA Red championships. Whatever it is, a top-15 squad is likely staying home and three other top-15 squads are moving on.

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

#1 Whitmore Lake
#14 Novi Christian Academy
#21 Lansing Christian
#25 Fowler
#27 Livingston Christian

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

17^th Place, behind all them Whitmore Lake Trojans.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Whitmore Lake	21	1.0	95+	95+
2	Novi Christian Academy	73	2.1		95+
3	Lansing Christian	85	2.9		95+
4	Fowler	105	4.3
5	Livingston Christian	108	4.8
6	Portland St. Patrick	123	5.9
7	Byron	197	7.0

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	9	Kaylie Livingston	Whitmore Lake	1.0
2	10	Carina Burchi	Whitmore Lake	2.2
3	10	Taylor Wiegand	Livingston Christian	3.9
4	10	Sofia Robertson	Whitmore Lake	4.5
5	12	Natalie Meadows	Whitmore Lake	4.9
6	12	Isabella Yeoman	Genesee	5.5
7	12	Ellayna Meredith	Portland St. Patrick	8.1
8	11	Kelcie Pung	Fowler	8.7
9	9	Adrienne Mitchell	Lansing Christian	9.3
10	10	Elodie Weaver	Whitmore Lake	10.8
11	11	Ava Mustapha	Lansing Christian	13.1
12	12	Mya Guillermo	Novi Christian Academy	13.3
13	8	Madison Markowicz	Novi Christian Academy	14.0
14	10	Abigail Yatooma	Novi Christian Academy	15.3
15	11	Brooke Sonnenberg	Genesee Christian Academy	17.5
16	9	Ezrielle Martin	Livingston Christian	18.5
17	11	Autumn Reynolds	Potterville	18.7
18	9	Marian Davlin	Portland St. Patrick	19.2
19	12	Josie Dubuc	Novi Christian Academy	19.8
20	12	Ciara Parsons	Whitmore Lake	21.4
21	12	Autumn Troupe	Novi Christian Academy	21.8
22	12	Rebecca Smith	Fowler	22.5
23	10	Juliette Tallon	Lansing Christian	22.6
24	9	Isabella Halfmann	Fowler	23.9
25	10	Averie Zinn	Genesee	25.3
26	11	Isabella Nelson-Daniels	Whitmore Lake	25.8
27	8	Abigail Galazka	Livingston Christian	26.4
28	9	Annie Wernet	Lansing Christian	28.9
29	12	Grace O’Hare	Fowler	29.9
30	12	Hope Tebben	Lansing Christian	30.1

BOYS

Ranked Teams

#23 Whitmore Lake

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

Get in the top-15! My guess is 80% of the top-10 finishers are from non-qualifying teams.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Whitmore Lake	71	1.0	95+	95+
2	Novi Christian Academy	112	2.3		94
3	Fowler	122	3.1		73
4	Lansing Christian	138	4.7		12
5	Byron	140	4.9		16
6	Portland St. Patrick	143	5.4
7	Waterford Our Lady of the Lakes	165	7.1
8	Webberville	184	8.4
9	Livingston Christian	185	8.5
10	Potterville	206	9.9
11	Genesee	224	10.8
12	Genesee Christian Academy	252	11.9
13	Morrice	303	13.0

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	10	Landen Livingston	Whitmore Lake	1.5
2	10	Timothy Chamberlain	Portland St. Patrick	2.4
3	12	Connor Rouse	Genesee	3.0
4	12	Trevor Feldpausch	Fowler	5.0
5	10	Josiah Johncox	Byron	5.4
6	12	Ethan Gray	Byron	9.2
7	10	Quentin Smith	Fowler	9.3
8	10	Tyler Langfeldt	Potterville	9.8
9	10	Ben Young	Lansing Christian	10.8
10	11	Aaron Crittenden	Potterville	11.7
11	11	Nate Dillon	Whitmore Lake	12.2
12	9	Benjamin Fox	Whitmore Lake	14.1
13	10	Isaac FoxElster	Portland St. Patrick	14.6
14	10	Nathan Camilleri	Waterford Our Lady of the Lakes	14.7
15	10	Gavin Howery	Webberville	15.5
16	10	Reuben Jiran	Novi Christian Academy	16.6
17	12	Luke Shenton	Novi Christian Academy	17.8
18	11	Karl Wegner	Waterford Our Lady of the Lakes	18.2
19	12	Reily Henderson	Whitmore Lake	18.7
20	11	Samuel Hubbard	Livingston Christian	19.0
21	10	Ethan West	Webberville	19.8
22	12	Jobe Skaff	Novi Christian Academy	21.2
23	10	Ian Ferguson	Genesee Christian Academy	22.9
24	11	Caleb Valentine	Whitmore Lake	24.8
25	8	Trey Johnson	Livingston Christian	24.9
26	12	Ryan Williams	Novi Christian Academy	25.8
27	10	Matias Greve	Lansing Christian	26.1
28	9	Landon Miller	Fowler	26.2
29	9	Francis Austen	Portland St. Patrick	27.3
30	9	Nolan Gallagher	Novi Christian Academy	30.8

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

#11 Auburn Hills Oakland Christian
#19 Royal Oak Shrine
#22 Allen Park Cabrini

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

21^st Place

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Auburn Hills Oakland Christian	43	1.1	89	95+
2	Royal Oak Shrine	52	1.9	11	95+
3	Allen Park Cabrini	67	3.0		95+
4	Plymouth Christian Academy	103	4.0
5	Birmingham Roeper	144	5.2
6	Southfield Christian	152	6.0
7	Academy of the Sacred Heart	162	6.8
8	Austin Catholic	209	8.0

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	12	Ava Teed	Allen Park Cabrini	1.1
2	11	Eliza Keith	Auburn Hills Oakland Christian	2.1
3	10	Madi Hare	Plymouth Christian Academy	4.6
4	10	Eleanor Cole	Lutheran Westland	4.7
5	12	Leah Zarrilli	Auburn Hills Oakland Christian	4.8
6	11	Natalie Gibbs	Birmingham Roeper	4.9
7	11	Sarah Goodwin	Auburn Hills Oakland Christian	7.7
8	9	Louisa Denks	Royal Oak Shrine	8.5
9	11	Rose Losey	Royal Oak Shrine	9.6
10	12	Karis Keith	Auburn Hills Oakland Christian	12.6
11	9	Josephine Malcolm	Royal Oak Shrine	13.6
12	11	Grace Kendziuk	Allen Park Cabrini	13.6
13	12	Morgan McNally	Academy of the Sacred Heart	15.6
14	11	Annaliese Losey	Royal Oak Shrine	15.8
15	12	Grace Ligon	Southfield Christian	17.0
16	10	Maya Ferguson	Marine City Cardinal Mooney	17.1
17	11	Isobel Malcolm	Royal Oak Shrine	17.3
18	11	Tess Tillman	Royal Oak Shrine	19.0
19	12	Nicole Teed	Allen Park Cabrini	19.3
20	9	Kassie Kozlo	Allen Park Cabrini	19.3
21	9	Sydney Erickson	Lutheran Westland	21.8
22	12	Leah Kroge	Auburn Hills Oakland Christian	22.0
23	10	Clara Groen	Plymouth Christian Academy	22.8
24	12	Kaitlyn Jabczenski	Allen Park Cabrini	23.6
25	12	Soleil Weaver	Plymouth Christian Academy	24.0
26	11	Chloe Surhigh	Royal Oak Shrine	24.5
27	12	Emma Smith	Auburn Hills Oakland Christian	28.2
28	10	Sarah Abazi	Southfield Christian	28.9
29	12	Ella Bush	Riverview Gabriel Richard	30.9
30	11	Addison Geisler	New Haven Merritt Academy	31.7

BOYS

Ranked Teams

#13 Marine City Cardinal Mooney
#14 Royal Oak Shrine
#17 Lutheran Westland
#22 Auburn Hills Oakland Christian

Projected Individual Qualifier Cutoff

Any combination of these top-25 outfits could make it, so get yourself into the top-15 and guarantee a spot! And if not, don’t give up.

Projected Place	Team	Avg. Score	Avg. Place	Win %	Top 3 %
1	Royal Oak Shrine	84	2.1	28	93
2	Marine City Cardinal Mooney	84	2.3	34	83
3	Lutheran Westland	87	2.4	25	80
4	Auburn Hills Oakland Christian	93	3.2	13	44
5	Riverview Gabriel Richard	136	5.1
6	Birmingham Roeper	149	6.0
7	Plymouth Christian Academy	162	7.0
8	Detroit Frederick Douglass	183	8.0
9	Allen Park Cabrini	214	9.1
10	Austin Catholic	227	9.8
11	New Haven Merritt Academy	321	11.0
12	Detroit Davis Aerospace	362	12.0

Projected Place	Grade	Name	Team	Avg. Place
1	10	Abenezer Cerone	Royal Oak Shrine	1.5
2	12	Tyler Lenn	Marine City Cardinal Mooney	1.6
3	10	Emmanuel Mehari	Plymouth Christian Academy	4.6
4	10	Rich Fanti	Riverview Gabriel Richard	5.3
5	12	Isaac Zammit	Marine City Cardinal Mooney	5.8
6	9	Vern Clyne	Auburn Hills Oakland Christian	7.4
7	10	Max Brannan	Lutheran Westland	7.8
8	10	Joel Johnson	Detroit Frederick Douglass	8.4
9	10	Michael Bowker	Royal Oak Shrine	9.2
10	10	Andrew Lopez	Royal Oak Shrine	10.0
11	12	Evan Sumner	Plymouth Christian Academy	10.5
12	11	Tom Shafer	Lutheran Westland	10.7
13	12	Luke Douglas	Auburn Hills Oakland Christian	11.9
14	9	Jacob Ferdubinski	Riverview Gabriel Richard	13.5
15	10	Goni Wong	Birmingham Roeper	15.7
16	12	Tommy Abazi	Southfield Christian	19.4
17	11	Nico DiPonio	Austin Catholic	19.7
18	12	Adrian Smith	Detroit Frederick Douglass	19.9
19	12	Max Procissi	Marine City Cardinal Mooney	20.3
20	12	Jeffrey McGuire	Lutheran Westland	20.4
21	9	Uzziel Thomassen	Auburn Hills Oakland Christian	21.1
22	10	Dominic Barretto	Riverview Gabriel Richard	22.8
23	11	Evan Jacobs	Marine City Cardinal Mooney	23.1
24	10	Caesar Soma	Royal Oak Shrine	23.4
25	10	Andrew Abramowicz	Lutheran Westland	24.8
26	10	William Storrie	Auburn Hills Oakland Christian	26.5
27	12	Joshua Reddypogu	Southfield Christian	26.8
28	12	Nathan Betke	Lutheran Westland	27.9
29	10	Carter Russelburg	Allen Park Cabrini	31.4
30	11	Ralph Kaleniecki	Allen Park Cabrini	31.8