CIS Simulation - Men's

[Finn]

The men now. I know there are some contentious picks in here but this simulation is based on how they have run this year, with last year's season factored in to account for those with a slow start to the season. I.e. they are not random picks. If they have been consistently slower or faster this year over last year, I used only this year's results.

INDIVIDUALS:

1. HUNTER - MAN
2. MAURICIO - WIN
3. THORSON - GUE
4. CHAFE - DAL
5. MURENBEELD - UVIC
6. B. WALKER - MAN
7. KOZIARSKI - GUE
8. KERR - CGY
9. ARNOLD - WAT
10. GOSSELIN - WIN
11. N. WALKER - UVIC
12. LOGUE - WAT
13. NOVAKOWSKI - QUE
14. SAQUI - UVIC
15. BODRILAU - WIN
16. LOUTITT - MAN
17. BAILLERGEON-SMITH - GUE (if he wears the space suit)
18. HUTCHINSON - GUE
19. YOUNG - WIN
20. TRAMBLE - STFX

TEAMS:

1. WINDSOR
2. GUELPH
3. MANITOBA
4. UVIC
5. DALHOUSIE
6. QUEENS
7. CALGARY
8. UWO

[Confused]

First off, thanks for putting in the effort, rankings are always cool. Just some observations because the rankings seem off to me. For an example... Novakowski beat Logue by 53 secs at Western International yet you have Logue beating him! I can only assume you used the Don Mills race by Logue of 25:41 to place him up there... but keep in mind an even paced 8k split of 32:00 is 25:36 which is still faster and on a tougher and longer course. Also, while Windsor may very well win CIS, this is supposedly a simulation based on times and hasn't Guelph outperformed them so far this year? The 5km times of Victoria should also be taken with a grain of salt until they show range in an 8 or 10km... they have consistently blazed through short, flat, early season races but that only takes them so far. And how can UWO and Queens be separated when UWO barely beat them twice head to head and they tied on score at Thames Valley? If anything, shouldn't it be UWO, Queens, Calgary??? Anyway, just curious how you came up with these 'not random' picks.

[numbers]

he crunched the numbers

everything has been accounted for grassopper.

[numbers]

What numbers show Logue beating Novakowski?

[james]

check braden's not so stellar race from the murray keating invitational. i'm guess that is what puts him so far back, considering he finished between the 2 and 3 guys on the list at uwo.

[Finn]

I've only seen three races from Novakowski so far and one of them was a stinker. You're right, in head to head races Novakowski rates ahead of Logue but when Logue wasn't around, Novakowski bombed in one. Not my numbers - they're what the runner puts up. Ah, and the rankings aren't based on absolute times that are run (we all know x-c times don't provide the most objective of measures), they're based on what one runner runs relative to the strength of the field that he is racing. Once Novakowski gets a couple more races under his belt I'll drop his worst performance. Don't worry - he'll be top 10 this year, possibly top 5.

[question]

how is hunter ahead of cm? what has he done this year to show that he is better?

[the prophet]

Hunter is running well this year. If you compare his time to Booth a season ago, he is not to far off.

I think the cis race will suit Hunter well. Booth always seems to runs well when he does not have to initiate the pace (ie. nat xc).

[Finn]

So far Hunter has demolished the rest of the (very solid) Manitoba team on the two occasions he has raced. It's a pretty tight battle between those two though, Hunter edging Mauricio by a couple of seconds by the numbers. Things will likely be shaken up this weekend, when Manitoba and Windsor both come to Victoria. Hoping Murenbeeld can keep it a close race, as three of my current top 5 will do battle.

[donkey kong]

and 4 of your top 6...

[Observer]

Now that we've seen the standings according to the seasons progression. Why dont we find out what everyone REALLY thinks will happen. Lets be serious, Novakowski will obviously do better than 13th, Gosselin will do better than 10th, and i think its safe to say that Young will do better than 19th. Honestly now!!

[OB]

Murenbeeld just ran a half-marathon this weekend. He's running well but I have to question his build-up for CIS...

[suggestions]

It'd be interesting to see the simulation with the following adjustments on the subjective portion of the analysis:

- Reduce the opinion of how fast UVic is so that they don't have 3 all-canadians... Saqui was 28th last year
- Ditto for Manitoba... they may be quick but even if their course was brutal, I'd easily bet on Mauricio's 24:30 (and the win) being relatively quicker than Hunter's 25:38 (for fourth place) and this simulation banks on the opposite... this would also lower Calgary's ranking since it's likely based mostly on a comparison with Toba's Louttit in the UofS Open right?
- Forget about using every race (especially for the OUA runners with 4 already!) if they race every week they're obviously not peaking for each one (ie Novakowski)... use their best 2 maybe? You have to assume a high calibre runner will race better at CIS than the average of their first 4 races!!

I'm pretty sure the rankings would be quite more accurate using these criteria.

[fano]

I believe Jim drops the worst race come the next simulation, although I agree I cant figure out how UVIC is ranked so high, sure they ran well at Stanford but that course is fast, Windsor guys at ND (also fast) and Guelphs guys at Wilamette (also fast) as well as the AUS guys at Murray Keating (also fast) ran faster times then them.

[dropping races]

My point is that if CanWest guys have only raced once or twice they've likely been a lot more rested on race day than OUA guys who raced 4 times in a month... so why not just take top 2 races now instead of waiting for the simulation to be more accurate later??

[but]

How do you know that racing 4 times a month is going to be condusive to a good performance at CIS and not being burnt out? How do you not know that the guys who are racing twice a month arent the smart ones who will be racing well at nationals?

[burn out]

First, that speculation is beyond the scope of a simulation - that's for rankings - they're different things. Second, about the 'smart' thing, coaches set the race schedule not the athletes and so if an athlete deals with that schedule by not racing to their max every week there's no need to penalize them for one mediocre time. Third, even with accounting for Braden's bad race, he should still be ahead of Logue:
Race Novakowski Logue
10k 32:00 32:53 same race
8k 26:00 25:41 diff courses
6k 18:37 n/a
I don't care how you average those out, Braden should still be ahead... something's off. That's all I'm saying.

[Guest]

Can you show the simulation results down to maybe the top 50. I am interested in the Western, Queens, etc... battle to get into the top 5.
I think the simulation is really interesting.

Also who is this Tramble guy? Impressive result in Maine. What does he run on the track? Who saw this coming?

[east coast]

John Tramble has run 1:55, 4:02, and 8:41 on the track. Everyone who knows the guy saw this coming.

[Finn]

Hey all,
As I suspected, there are a lot of contentious issues with this simulation. I want to try to clear up a couple of things. First of all, these rankings are not at all subjective. They do not benefit those who have raced on quicker courses or even those who have raced on "short" courses. After each race a "10km" rating is calculated for every athlete which counts towards the overall rating for the athlete. After an athlete has a few times in the season, statistical aberrations are eliminated from the average rating. This is the only time there are any subjective measures taken - and even here I have the measures adhere to statistical principles. I don't want to make any assumptions over the season, which is why I don't only use "some" races for those who race more often. Which races would I throw out? Which ones would I keep? Only towards the end of a season, or if I want to use the simulation as a predictive tool, do I eliminate these aberrations I mentioned. Otherwise the simulation would become subjective.
To 'suggestions': Yes, a high calibre runner will perform better at CIS than the average of their first four races, but most runners will perform better towards the end of a season than they did at the start. The ratings inherently reflect this. Remember, a rating from a single race is calculated by the finishing time of the runner in question relative to the finishing times of every other runner in the race and the strength of these other runners, once again statistical aberrations notwithstanding. As one runner improves, their ranking will improve only if they improve relative to the rest of the runners in the field. If all runners in the field have improved at the same rate, nobody's rating will change.
Also: it is not my opinion that UVIC or Manitoba are as quick as the simulation suggests. The simulation is only done by crunching numbers, as one person pointed out. If UVIC and Manitoba seem to be high in the ratings, it is only because they have performed well. In fact, I don't bring opinion into this at all - by suggesting that I start to do this, you are suggesting that I create a subjective element to this simulation which is distinctly what I am trying to avoid. I can show the rating value alongside the names of the runners if you want, with their standard deviations in performances (in seconds) so you can see how consistent some runners have been and how inconsistent others have been. In the cases of Logue and Novakowski, Logue's rating is 869 plus or minus 16 seconds right now, and Novakowski is at 866 plus or minus 54 seconds. Clearly, Nova had a quick start and blew up somewhere along the way but when I eliminate his poor performance, his other two races (performance-wise) were quite close together. Unless he has a bad race at CIS, he will beat Logue as I mentioned before, and will possibly be in the top 5 (he has the 5th best performance this year, behind Chafe, Hunter, Murenbeeld and Mauricio).

[this]

was thursday's race at western factored in?

[Finn]

Nah, not yet. Exams are my excuse.

[sh]

People seem to have so many opinions when the season isn't even half over. let's see what the results are like at OUs, then you can have a strong opinion with facts to base your arguments. Most of you seem to forget that these rankings are calculated numerically and definitely do not necessarily represent the actual results. They're not written in stone, HOWEVER they are based on actual result times so they do have some merit, whether you like it or not.

As far as the Logue and Novakowski argument goes, let them run their races this weekend and then you can make the call. deal? Maybe then we'll get a more accurate portrayal.

[prediction]

the only thing right on this is putting AP at 17th...

[who cares]

yeah good call, AP has done nothign lets not talk about him till later on, I bet he wont crack top 14 he seems pretty burnt out, lets leave it at that.

[haha]

top ten signs someone is talking about themselves:
1)they say "he sucks, dont talk about him any more"

[report]

mcinnis/kitley report available on sportingcanada.com as well as new coaches rankings

[AB runner]

it doesn't seem like anyone's made mention of Nissen coming back to run for Alberta this year. The 2001 CIS ROY is in good form and has the talented Adrian Lambert (31:43 at Jerome) to back him up. Alberta will make a good showing on Nov 13.

[Finn]

Nissen is tops on my provisional list, those who haven't yet raced but who competed for their Universities last year. Looking forward to his results ...