Rank the district courses from fastest to slowest
- Thread starter xc1
- Start date
Supertramp
Active member
I am not familiar with every course, but Hilliard Darby (Central) is historically one of the fastest courses in the State.
Voice of America (Southwest) is probably not far behind that.
And Cedarville (Southwest) is typically a little slower than VOA.
For the Regional Courses, I have never seen Troy run fast. The only question is how slow. If the weather and conditions are great, it'll run fair, but you're not going to see many PBs, if any.
But if it rains, and if there is any wind, it will be very slow. The first 2 miles of the course are below the levee, on a flood plain, next to a river, so it can oftentimes be a mud pit in a wind tunnel down there. In other words, exactly how Cross-Country should be.
Voice of America (Southwest) is probably not far behind that.
And Cedarville (Southwest) is typically a little slower than VOA.
For the Regional Courses, I have never seen Troy run fast. The only question is how slow. If the weather and conditions are great, it'll run fair, but you're not going to see many PBs, if any.
But if it rains, and if there is any wind, it will be very slow. The first 2 miles of the course are below the levee, on a flood plain, next to a river, so it can oftentimes be a mud pit in a wind tunnel down there. In other words, exactly how Cross-Country should be.
psycho_dad
Well-known member
If cross country is meant to be run back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth
Supertramp
Active member
I was referring to the weather more than the course.
I know a lot of people have issues with Troy, but personally, I really like it. It's an exciting environment and very easy to spectate.
Depends on what you mean by significant, but I would disagree. VOA is fast, but not silly fast. And you can run very fast at Cedarville, too, if the conditions are right. This year, for example, there were a lot of PBs and times darn close to PBs at the Cedarville District.
17 of the top 50 fastest times run by boys in the Cedarville District so far this season came at the District Meet.
10 of the top 50 for the girls.
Compared to VOA:
11 of the top 50 fastest times run by boys in the VOA District so far this season came at the District Meet.
14 of the top 50 for the girls.
That's just this year. I agree Cedarville is slower, but not that much slower.
psycho_dad
Well-known member
I was there and liked the Awards presentation better than any other Regional I've seen. Course might be good for spectating, but compared to the courses I ran, I would hate running it. Course interest doesn't seem to be of any consideration for the runners.
Troy has run its course. Time to move on. Good for spectators, not so much for runners. 2 huge 1 mile loops, then the last mile is more interesting.
VOA is 10-20 seconds faster than Cedarville most years. VOA is just so quiet for 80% of the race.
Hillard Darby is very fast.
Lorrain appears to be very slow.
VOA is 10-20 seconds faster than Cedarville most years. VOA is just so quiet for 80% of the race.
Hillard Darby is very fast.
Lorrain appears to be very slow.
I’ll say that last year Cedarville ran fast. This year not as much. Probably largely based on some wind and higher than expected temps for this time of year. Last year conditions were perfect. Overall VOA is typically a good amount faster.
As far as Troy goes, it’s definitely not an interesting or fast course, but my kids were still always excited to run there. would they probably prefer it on another course…yes, but the excitement of regionals and spectators lining just about everywhere they run is nice. It seems to rain and make it a bit of a mess every year but that’s cross country in November in Ohio
As far as Troy goes, it’s definitely not an interesting or fast course, but my kids were still always excited to run there. would they probably prefer it on another course…yes, but the excitement of regionals and spectators lining just about everywhere they run is nice. It seems to rain and make it a bit of a mess every year but that’s cross country in November in Ohio
EuclidandViren
Well-known member
Was the GMC meet at VOA this year? If so, you can directly compare the teams that ran GMC and Cedarville. IE. Middletown.
Also, interesting is that Talawanda went from the Dayton district to the Cincinnati district this year.
Also, interesting is that Talawanda went from the Dayton district to the Cincinnati district this year.
CC Track Fan
Well-known member
Columbus Grove has to be one of the fastest. Completely flat and last 300 on a track. (I for one don't think running on a track should be part of a post season CC meet).
I generally consider Columbus Grove a fast course but I didn't see kids PR'ing left and right on Saturday there like I was expecting especially the girls D2 race. 20:12 was the 12th ranked time going into that race and 21:02 ended up being the 12th and final qualifying spot.
psycho_dad
Well-known member
Milesplit used to have course rankings with multipliers so you could compare times from one course to another.
Not sure whatever happened to that, but going forward with Milesplit and the OHSAA partnering for CC and Track and Field registration and results, All the District, and Regional courses should be able to be put into the system and multipliers shown. Each year it should get more and more accurate to where better comparisons can be made. Actually something where having times would matter and please everyone that loves times so much. Something that should be a must if using Milesplit for the OHSAA.
Not sure whatever happened to that, but going forward with Milesplit and the OHSAA partnering for CC and Track and Field registration and results, All the District, and Regional courses should be able to be put into the system and multipliers shown. Each year it should get more and more accurate to where better comparisons can be made. Actually something where having times would matter and please everyone that loves times so much. Something that should be a must if using Milesplit for the OHSAA.
ohiorunner14
New member
It is crazy how much people worry and focus on time in XC..Track is much easier and consistent to utilize times and compare them person/team to person/team. XC there are simply way too many variables that alter the time/performance of a runner..so whether it is the postseason or not, just look at what teams are beating certain teams, and how their runners stack up overall..and compare it to the races where you raced against those same teams and runners and go from there. If you beat teams A B C at a race, but in a different race those sames teams raced and then another team, such as team E beat them, it is reasonable to say team E would beat you in a race, regardless of the course or times they run.
Those multipliers were nearly useless. Boardman at 60 F with firm ground versus 80 F w/high humidy and soft ground or 35 F and a mudpit isn't going to be described by a single multiplier. When they first came out, I saw the multipliers and just shook my head - they didn't reflect my experiences in most cases.
CC Track Fan
Well-known member
That also could be an indication of the fast courses they ran during the season. Also need to keep in mind those ranking going into the meet are all time PR and it is not uncommon for a girl to have set that PR 2 years prior.
psycho_dad
Well-known member
I disagree. Over time a very good idea emerges. They could also figure out a way to filter out outlier years, but I don't think that's even necessary.
Take a course that say runs 60 seconds slower on average for 9 years, but then has conditions that make it 120 seconds slower the 10th year. That only adds 6 seconds. That still gives you a good reference. Take that down to 30 seconds and you are only adding 3 seconds if one year was double at 60 seconds slower. I look at 30 seconds and 33 seconds and figure that's a wash.
I'm also sure that they could come up with a weather factor or condition factor. The more data the more accurate. You and I have our own methods of doing it ourselves. Sort of more art than science, but with much less data, I have some pretty good sense of what the Regional courses look like going into the state meet.
I would think that over time from the 4 Regional Courses, it would be pretty darn accurate by now if they plugged in the data starting back in 2004.
It's at least a tool that those that only follow for a few years while their kids are in school can use.
Last edited:
Mr. Slippery
Well-known member
Not sure why some of you are so intent on knowing exactly where your coaching or rooting interest is going to finish before the race is ever contested. For awhile, my local road racing scene was like that. Just look at the starting line, and you knew exactly where you were going to place. There's no fun in that.
psycho_dad
Well-known member
For Minster girls and Woodridge boys, it's been kind of fun.
The rankings are from this year, not all time PRs. Some were faster but many were slower than the times they ran at the CG invitational earlier in the season. Maybe it was the warm temps after it had been cooler the previous few weeks. idk
CC Track Fan
Well-known member
That was not true for the ranking in Milesplit for Findlay district. One girls time I know was from from 2019 she is 2 minutes slow now.
The CG milesplit rankings used times from this year from all of the ones I spot checked of D2 girls who I know of who ran faster in prior years. I wonder why they were different.
CC Track Fan
Well-known member
Maybe we are looking at different things. I was looking at the times listed on the entries listing under the meet in MS.
That's explains it. I was looking at rankings using the virtual meet rather than entries.
PatHelgerman
Member
Those multipliers are still on there for courses that had enough data before they stopped trying to calculate it. I would very much like to see them brought back. Some kind of a “weather effects “ score would be fun for individual races, but i have no idea how you would implement it except for maybe comparing to the average race on a given course.
An on-line spreadsheet is available that calculates Jack Daniels training paces and also includes a correlation for the impact of temperature on race performance. Based on this calculation, late afternoon temps slowed the Darby DI district performances by an average of 2.8%... 28 seconds at 16:40. My experience says the temperature correlation is useful for comparing the performance of "the field" from course to course, but less useful for evaluating individual performances... some guys just handle the warm temps better than others.
Runner's Projection Utilities <small>(and other cool stuff)</small>
www.electricblues.com
PatHelgerman
Member
I was looking at the Darby results on Athletic.net and noticed a drop off in PR rate over the course of the day. The early races were close to 40% while the late races dipped under 10%. Milesplit says the course is 20 to 30 seconds faster than average, based on their data. So your numbers fit right in.
Heat is one factor. It seems like there might be a way to factor temp, wind, course conditions, etc all into one number for a given race. Unfortunately, it would also be impacted by field quality due to the small sample size of a single race.
Up until a few years ago, Darby ran at about -2.5% in good conditions, close to, but a little slower than the current Berlin course in cool, dry conditions. The warm afternoon temps made this year's course run slightly slower than average... closest to Newark in our 2022 experience.
You can estimate the average combined impact of all conditions, temp, wind, mud... motivation... after the fact... compared to a known standard. Just a simple statistical comparison resulting in a conclusion like: the average Ohio guy ran X% slower at the cold, muddy and incredibly windy 2021 NXR than at the Ohio State Championship.