NJ High School Rankings – Girls Week 4

NJ High School Rankings – Girls Week 4

A New #1


As most of the this week’s Top Ten prep for the 40th Shore Coaches Invitational, let’s see who landed where after the 4th week of the season. While there was some exciting action right here in the Garden State, many of the top squads traveled to other states, notably New York & Rhode Island, to face some tough competition. As we prepare to make the turn into the second half of the season, let’s see how the top Ladies did.

GIRLS: Week 4
RANK TEAM VOTES 1ST PLACE Week Looking Back Looking Ahead
1 Ridgewood 87 3 2 No Race Championship Race @ SCI
2 Red Bank Catholic 86 3 1 2nd @ Ocean State Inv. Championship Race @ SCI
3 Randolph 67 3 3 2nd in Girls 2 Race @ Bowdoin Classic No Race
4 Haddonfield 61 1 8 W0n Girls 1 Race @ Bowdoin Classic No Race
5 Hillsborough 60 6 No Race Varsity “A” Race @ SCI
6 W. Windsor-Plainsboro So. 57 4 No Race Championship Race @ SCI
7 Ridge 54 5 No Race Varsity “A” Race @ SCI
8 Rumson-Fair Haven 20 7 2nd (merge) @ CJ Shootout Championship Race @ SCI
9 Chatham 15 NR Winners (merge) @ CJ Shootout Varsity “B” Race @ SCI
10 Morristown 11 9 7th (merge) Passaic Coaches Inv. No Race
Also Receiving Votes:
No. Hunterdon (10) Voorhees (9) Shawnee (6)Roxbury (4) Freehold Twp. (3)

Next Up – Dudes

Published by Patrick Montferrat

A life long Jerser and former runner. Owned and published NJRunners.com for the last 7 years, continued to contribute until MileSplit / FloTrac kicked me to the curb. Now I'm just a guy "Along the Fence"

29 thoughts on “NJ High School Rankings – Girls Week 4

  1. Morristown also did not run all of their top kids, including their number one.

    If we’re evaluating where teams are ranked based on the results of one race, then Roxbury should be ranked, since they won the Passaic Coaches. Moreover, they won by a margin that was insurmountable regardless of just one kid sitting it out for another team.


  2. As stated one of Voorhees top runners did not compete. Her absence probably taked on an extra 50 points and allowed Roxbury to win with i believe their A team. I agree with you on Morristown not running three of their top 5 returners including projected #1. Back of the envelope probably added 150 pts to their score assuming everyone healthy. Would have placed them in a close race with a Voorhees “a” team


  3. I am not arguing that Voorhees (or Roxbury, or any team for that matter) should or should not be ranked. I am simply saying that Morristown is not where you should look if you want to make the case for Voorhees to be ranked. A better argument would have been that Chatham should not be ranked ahead of Voorhees. Chatham ran significantly slower at Thompson Park this past weekend than Voorhees did the previous weekend on the same course, in more adverse conditions (hot & humid on the 20th, vs. cloudy & cool this past weekend). Yet in this poll, on njrunners, and on nj.com, Chatham is ranked in the Top 10, and Voorhees is not.

    In my opinion, this would have made for a better argument for your team, rather than citing Morristown.

    All of this said, I did not vote for either Voorhees or Chatham to be ranked in the Top 10, so I am simply playing devils advocate here, not shilling for one team over another.



      1. Pat,

        You’re right, and that is what one of the other panelists said to me regarding their vote in favor of Chatham. I disagree, given that the time frame was short (one week between races on the same course). However, that’s why this Top 10 is better than the other two mentioned. Both of those are simply one man’s opinion; this is a panel of 10 people who, although not experts, certainly follow the sport here in NJ.



  4. Not a huge fan of merges in any circumstance but with the weather getting hotter and hotter at the PCCI meet and more than 2 hours between the morning and afternoon sessions they meet even less.
    Have no idea why Morristown is ranked so high — even if they were missing a number one kid — Hackensack and Clifton are okay teams but should not have been able to beat them. Roxbury looks very very good. And no one seems to have Northern Highlands on their radar. BIG MISTAKE. I have no great love for duals but NH lost to Ridgewood, 27-28 on Monday at Darlington (see lfrauloracing.com for results) with both teams running all out — Their team times are #7 and #8 all-time at course (If I counted duals) which is 20+ years old.


  5. BWW, regardless of the merits of Chatham or Vorhees in the rankings, lets at least bring some accuracy to the weather factors in the Thompson races. There was nothing remotely “cloudy and cool” about the weather last week at Thompson Park- 80s, sunny and HOT. Ask the kids with the sunburn. Both teams faced tough conditions.

    But we really should ask where Mendham should be in the rankings (and where they will be next week) after their midweek dual romp this week at Greystone, putting 15 points up on that same Chatham squad, with a 19:42 team average! What depth in Morris County.


  6. Excellent debate on on this sight. Will help calibrate a more focused approach at SCI tomorrow. Definitly would have had marginal interest in Northern Highlands after Pagano. Same for Mendham. Many great races tomorrow regardless of who is running where


  7. They would be the number 2 and 3 spots behind Princeton in Group 3. based on SCI results. That being said Group 3 is not exactly the 27 Yankees. I would be schocked if any Group 3 team earns a spot on MOC medal stand.


  8. Any perspective on how SCI sorts out the NPB field. I scrolled down 50 spots searching for a NPB team and came up empty. I for get how many automatic slots the NPB schools receive at MOC. I think i once read it was three which i believe is the same number as Group 4.

    Congrats to the NPA field for placing teams in top 35 including champion RBC


  9. I beg you greentree on my hands and knees — PLEASE don’t start with MOC qualification standards again here. I’m begging you.


  10. Paul, If you factor an absent Randolph into the SCI calculus an exceptional Ridgewood team you have justifiably championed is fighting its way into MOC via the Wild Card with WWPS. I point out both teams have received first place in various on going in season rankings. That says nothing for teams like Shawnee and Morristown would be watching behind the ropes.

    The absurdity of the NPA and NPB system as it applies to XC defies comprehension. It is simply unethical that any of the aforementioned teams should excluded from the seasons ultimate goal at the expense of watered down groups who quite honestly have one team worthy of competing in a race at Holmdel on November 22nd.


  11. Guess begging didn’t work.

    The MOC as Danser and many others have said innumerable times is not set up to identify the state’s top 20 teams. NPA and NPB and Group 1 teams pay the same entry fee and the same school fee to be in the NJSIAA. If you don’t make the MOC, as many have said in the past — run faster and get in the top 3. No one cares who finishes 12th in the MOC. If you can’t make the top 5 in your group (assuming both wild cards from the same group) you don’t belong there.

    Please! It’s not changing (unless maybe some day they extend the wild cards beyond 2) so let’s talk about the runners more and not the rules. They are what they are,


  12. Paul, Where the rules makers lose sight is the kids that bust their ass from Mid June through late November for the opportunity to compete in the MOC. The absurdity is what their are 6 groups as a starting point. I have no issue with Group 1 as their are 80 teams in Group 1, same as Group 2, 3 and 4. The NPs represent 10% of the schools and get 30% of the slots. Even ignoring the fact that absent RBC none justify the merits of competing in the MOC it simply defies comprehension.

    All i ever have asked is why do the NPs get their own groups. Slot them in with the public’s based on school size and you will never here squat from me again. I am not aware of any other state organized around such insanity. The reality it devalues the exceptional efforts of a team like RBC that could probably get their squad in running blind folded and backwards in either the NP Groups.

    Quite honestly i would like to see a 6th place Group 4 team(hypothetically Ridgewood) with a legitimate shot at the medal stand ceremony then a NPB school with zero % chance of finishing anywhere but the last three slots in what essentially is a watered down MOC simply by the absurdity of Group B and for that matter Group A.

    I agree with you it is about the kids and giving all kids an equal shot based on school size eliminates the coddling and represents an even playing field


  13. The girls did that in the past and the small group publics were overwhelmed by the small school parochials and the large school parochials still got 2 or 3 every year. By including them together all you’ll do is eliminate the public Group 1s.


  14. Paul i really do respect your opinion and historical perspective. Mine is less then 10 years in NJ and 7 years while my daughters competed for their local Skyland area team.

    In my snapshot the NP’S absent RBC simply not a factor. At least last 2 years i do not think the NPBs would edge out the Group 1 schools completely and certainly not Group 2 schools. I honestly have no idea how big RBC is. Quite possibly could strengthen already wicked strong Group 4 or improve a relatively Group 3. I personally could care less if NP’s dominate a certain group i just do not want to see them coddled in their own Groups

    Where i really do disagree with you and others is the concept they all pay the same fees. I agree they all pay the same fees. Its just that the NP’s pay fees to slot them in with 18-20 schools and the Public’s same fee leads to fields of 80 that is winnowed by tough sectional race.

    I simply will never accept an argument that 10% of the schools warrant 30% of the automatic births. The fact that on the girls side only one NP program is MOC worthy simply accents the absurdity of the current group structure.

    .If the powers the be are inflexible to the insanity of the current Group alignments i think cutting back to 2 automatics per Group and 8 wild cards would be a far more equitable system. It would still recognize the accomplishment of top smaller schools while affording the opportunity of a Hoosier like “miracle on the trails”. It would also insure an exceptional team like Ridgewood, WWPS, Morristown and perhaps a few others would not be locked out at the expense of un competitive schools from the NPS or Group 1. I could also live with 5 Groups, 3 automatics per Group and 5 wild cards.

    Finally i do not buy the argument that The MOC is not to recognize the top teams. They throw a exceptional awards ceremony recognizing top 20 individuals and top 6 teams for each gender. Every kid who sees that ceremony that runs XC in NJ wants to run in the race that gets them to the podium. There is no ceremony after the group races


    1. Totally agree greentree on reducing to 2 Autos per group, and adding wild cards for deserving teams on merit. Back in the day if memory serves, I do believe there were only 2 auto qualifiers from each Group. If you can run 215+ kids in a race at Shore Coaches, you can certainly handle 8-10 deserving wild cards on time. For the Group 1s and NPB’s of the world, you still get 2 auto qualies. Fairness and meritocracy it would seem. Who would oppose this- the 3rd place Group 1 team? Is that who the powers are worried about offending? I’m sorry but people should not accept “thats the way its going to be in stone, and thats that” as some edict from above. Should be addressed every year as part of a CQI process like happens in any other organization.


      1. The only time there were just 2 autoqualifiers was from 1973 to 1977 when there were NO wild cards. Since 1978 there have been three teams advancing from each group with wild cards beginning in 1997 with 1 and extending to 2 in 2000. Individual wild cards began in 1993. In 1991 and 1992, the girls races qualified four from each of four groups (non-publics were intergrated and it was a robust failure).

        I agree with the addition of extra wild cards — in fact I rang the drum from the mid-1980s on to GET wild cards into the meet. But there have never been a REDUCTION of autoqualifiers (1991-92 not really applicable because of the integration) and I and most would vehemently oppose taking a spot away.

        And to think that they don’t address is every year, Austin, is incorrect. They do, ad nauseaum.


  15. Sorry to bring in any type of nauseum to the topic. But I believe that common sense improvements deserve continued beating of the drum. For the benefit of those not on the inside of these meetings, what is the objection to extra wildcards? Cost/logistics?

    I do thank you Paul for your valuable history, perspective and comments. You apparently have cyber-carbon dated me with my mid 70s memory. But you forgot to mention the infamous Parochial C getting teams into the MOC..what a firestorm that would be today!


  16. Believe me if there were still a Parochial C, I’d be leading the screaming chorus. As far as extra wild cards, I wholeheartedly support an increase from 2 to 4.

    But no further — If you can’t finish in the top third of your group you don’t belong in the MOC no matter how stacked a group is.

    I’m opposed to 27 teams in the Big East making the NCAA BITD as well. 🙂


    1. Understood. There clearly is a wild card sweetspot after which it gets ridiculous.
      If you keep 3 autos for each Group, 4-5 WCs would be that common sense solution. Really, would love to hear the tangible argument against adding 2 or 3 teams to MOC. After all, their ability to bump schools from say Group 2 to compete with a powerhouse set of Group 3 teams in a particular year is something the kids and coaches have no control over. More WCs evens that out obviously. OK, said my part.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: