How Good of a Predictor Are Virtual Meets? 2A Girls


2A Girls had, by far, the smallest field at state last year, but the preseason virtual meet correctly identified all of the top contenders. Photo by Erin Percy.

We continue to march our way through the classifications and genders, trying to get a handle on how reliable preseason virtual meets are as a predictor for state meet placement. The premises of this series are laid out in the Introduction of the first article.

Our attention turns now to the preseason virtual meet and the eventual finish for 2A Girls.

2A Girls 2015 Virtual Meet Team Scoring as a Predictor of State Finish

We begin with 2A Girls from 2015. Here is what the preseason virtual meet team scoring showed for the top dozen teams:

Championship Meet - 86 Teams Team Scores

#TeamScore123456
1Heritage Christian Academy193412---
2Hotchkiss High School20578---
3Telluride High School266911---
4Lyons High School441241---
5Shining Mountain Waldorf High School75182334---
6Peyton High School96173940---
7Rocky Ford High School96223143---
8Sargent High School103242950---
9Dawson School103104251---
10Yuma High School119192080---
11Paonia High School135155268---
12Highland High School135324954---


And here is the actual order of finish of the 12 complete teams at state:


  1.    16  Telluride                  (  20:33.2  1:01:39.4   0:35.2)
=========================================
  1      3  Soleil Gaylord SO                   20:09.9     4   (  8) Anna Fake SR                        20:45.1
  2      6  Maya Ordonez FR                     20:44.4     5   ( 22) Lydia Hagen FR                      22:04.2
  3      7  Larkin Brodie JR                    20:45.1

  2.    19  Heritage Christian Academy (  20:27.1  1:01:21.3   1:24.3)
=========================================
  1      1  Rachel Rairdon SR                   19:55.8     4   ( 17) Olivia Couch SR                     21:24.2
  2      2  Rebekah Rairdon SR                  20:05.4     5   ( 31) Megan Wagner SO                     22:48.7
  3     16  Leeann Wagner SO                    21:20.1

  3.    32  Lyons                      (  21:00.6  1:03:01.8   1:16.5)
=========================================
  1      4  Sierra Tucker SR                    20:30.0     4   ( 25) Grayson Thomas FR                   22:19.9
  2      9  CeAnn Udovich JR                    20:45.3     5   ( 28) Sarah Roberts SO                    22:33.4
  3     19  Madeleine Seifert FR                21:46.5

  4.    50  Hotchkiss                  (  21:34.4  1:04:43.1   1:14.8)
=========================================
  1     11  Mae Anderson SR                     21:07.4     4   ( 39) Mariah Griffith FR                  24:17.9
  2     13  Kaiya Firor FR                      21:13.5
  3     26  Sophia Schelle SR                   22:22.2

  5.    55  Sargent High School        (  21:35.9  1:04:47.5   0:49.3)
=========================================
  1     14  Makayla Garcia SR                   21:15.2     4   ( 43) Angelina Riggs SR                   24:51.4
  2     18  Maria Montes SR                     21:27.8     5   ( 48) Jaci Kenison JR                     25:16.2
  3     23  Faith Stults SR                     22:04.5

  6.    60  Resurrection Christian     (  21:49.9  1:05:29.6   2:25.1)
=========================================
  1      5  Kyra Hanson JR                      20:33.5     4   ( 37) Cailyn Konkey FR                    23:25.7
  2     20  Hannah Hart SR                      21:57.5     5   ( 50) Karly Christensen JR                25:37.4
  3     35  Averi Phillips FR                   22:58.6

  7.    71  Rocky Ford                 (  22:08.0  1:06:23.9   1:21.8)
=========================================
  1     15  Taylor Berg SR                      21:19.4     4   ( 30) Jacklynn Snyder SO                  22:47.3
  2     27  Emily Gauna SO                      22:23.3     5   ( 33) Jaquelin Alvey FR                   22:50.2
  3     29  Emily Aragon JR                     22:41.2

  8.    78  Shining Mountain Waldorf   (  22:41.3  1:08:03.7   4:03.8)
=========================================
  1     10  Emma Schaefer SO                    21:00.3     4   ( 53) Kelly Ireland-Ashley FR             32:44.7
  2     21  Abby Leuchten FR                    21:59.3
  3     47  Ella Baca JR                        25:04.1

  9.    95  Custer County              (  23:20.8  1:10:02.3   3:47.6)
=========================================
  1     12  Kayla Carter FR                     21:09.9     3     45  Kayli Short SR                      24:57.5
  2     38  Katlyn Freeburg SR                  23:54.9

 10.   102  Peyton                     (  22:56.8  1:08:50.2   0:14.0)
=========================================
  1     32  Kaylee Kearse SO                    22:50.1     4   ( 44) Mattie Hlatki FR                    24:52.4
  2     34  Shian Hanks SO                      22:56.0     5   ( 46) Kylie Millard FR                    25:03.6
  3     36  Victoria Logar SO                   23:04.1

 11.   117  Wiggins                    (  26:01.3  1:18:03.7   8:38.8)
=========================================
  1     24  Maggie Allen SO                     22:19.0     4   ( 52) Kamryn Sirios JR                    30:59.2
  2     42  Marisol Mendez SO                   24:46.9
  3     51  Valerie Sandoval JR                 30:57.8

 12.   130  Kiowa                      (  24:58.4  1:14:55.0   0:53.6)
=========================================
  1     40  Savannah Wassil FR                  24:37.8     3     49  Kaitlyn Sinclair FR                 25:31.4
  2     41  Kristin McKnight SO                 24:45.8

Preliminary Analysis

The preseason virtual meet did correctly identify the top four teams, though not in their final order of finish. To be fair, there is a lot more volatility in team placement when you score only three instead of five. 

In all, the preseason projection correctly picked out eight of the eventual top 12 (and only 12) teams at state. Other than Resurrection Christian, all of the top eight teams at state were selected among the top eight teams in the virtual meet.

Seen that way, the virtual meet was a very solid predictor of what teams would be power brokers at state, even if the order of finish was a little muddled. And, in a different region, perhaps Dawson, Yuma, and Highland might have advanced to state? As it was, 2A Region 1 was the classification's dominant region, but only advanced four of its teams to state in an eventual field of 12. In this sense, the preseason virtual meet was bound to create a mismatch with the top 12 teams at state.

2016 Preseason Virtual Meet for 2A Girls