OK - so I have my ranking and % number from USAT for the 35-39 age group…
Question - How do I know out of how many people I am ranked? Does the % have anything to do with it?
Assuming you did not look at the “National Ranking” category; choose that option, choose Triathlon, Male, 35-39, etc. and check (or not) the “Show unranked” box; hit enter or search; scroll down to the bottom of that first screen that shows up with the listings; it will tell you how many are in that category.
The trobuel with including “unranked” is that its’ not 100% sorted by USAT and a lot of theose unranked include multiple entries for thsoe that used 1 day licenses. For example, using “Mike” one time and “Micheal” another results in 2 differnet entries. WIthout a annual memebership ID#, It’s impossible to determine if these are the same or different individuals. So unranked, generally should be excluded. But for overall comparision, you could probably roughly double the number “ranked” and that’s probably the total participated overall.
In the end, the rankings will only include the annual members with three or more races.
So currently, the numbers are somewhat meaningless due to the issue you state (same person, different rankings) and those with less than three races.
I did not realize that one day membership athletes were included in these preliminary rankings.
In the end, the rankings will only include the annual members with three or more races.
So currently, the numbers are somewhat meaningless due to the issue you state (same person, different rankings) and those with less than three races.
I did not realize that one day membership athletes were included in these preliminary rankings.
One day athletes are only included in the “unranked” if you check that box to include those to get a better feel for total particupation. But those ranked only include annual memebers and thsoe with 3 or more races. Although by thsi late in the seasons, most all annual members would probably have 3 or mroe races sicne there’s not much point to a annual membership unless you do at least 3 races a season.
Count the number of people listed as All-Americans and multiply that by 20.
(AA-status is given to the top 5%). Ignore the unranked folks.
Digging up an old thread…
It looks like USAT has posted final rankings and eliminated the “honorable mention” status. Instead they have doubled the amount of all american’s???
Count the number of people listed as All-Americans and multiply that by 20.
(AA-status is given to the top 5%). Ignore the unranked folks.
Actually that’s incorrect. AA status was given to the top 10% this year. There no longer is an honorable mention level. So multiply by 10.
The date on the post you replied to is in 2013…
That seems to be the case, yeah. It’s unfortunate too because I’ve been trying to meet the old standard for so long an I’ve been so close. I’d rather the standard remained high and I never got it than they lower the standard and I meet it because it’s easier…
The date on the post you replied to is in 2013…
Ahh. Good catch. I missed that. Thanks.
That seems to be the case, yeah. It’s unfortunate too because I’ve been trying to meet the old standard for so long an I’ve been so close. I’d rather the standard remained high and I never got it than they lower the standard and I meet it because it’s easier…
Me too. I like the difference between the two. They were good stepping stones as yearly goals… Now I guess I will just have to pick a number… TOP 100 35-39 will have to work as this years goal!
So if you are an all american by the old standards can you be considered a super-all american? Seems to me they are watering down the honor.
So if you are an all american by the old standards can you be considered a super-all american? Seems to me they are watering down the honor.
I’m a little disappointed as well. Big difference in performance from the 5% to the 10% mark. In an Olympic distance, I think it’s a solid 10 minutes or more. I was HM 2 years ago and it gave me some extra motivation to see if I could go up one notch higher and I did.
That seems to be the case, yeah. It’s unfortunate too because I’ve been trying to meet the old standard for so long an I’ve been so close. I’d rather the standard remained high and I never got it than they lower the standard and I meet it because it’s easier…
Me too. I like the difference between the two. They were good stepping stones as yearly goals… Now I guess I will just have to pick a number… TOP 100 35-39 will have to work as this years goal!
Too bad there’s no mathematical calculation you all can do to determine where last year’s All-American status would end in your age group this year if they kept the 5%/5% qualification standard.
As for top 100: do you control who races in your age group?
So if you are an all american by the old standards can you be considered a super-all american? Seems to me they are watering down the honor.
I’m a little disappointed as well. Big difference in performance from the 5% to the 10% mark. In an Olympic distance, I think it’s a solid 10 minutes or more. I was HM 2 years ago and it gave me some extra motivation to see if I could go up one notch higher and I did.
I think what they have done is said that anyone who AA’s could be in a range of 1:55 to >2:15 for olympic distance. The time difference should be less than the swim time of the fastest swimmers ;).
Looks like it’s just a simple 10%. In 35-39, there are 4107 athletes ranked and 411 All Americans. So 206-411 in 2012 would have been Honorable Mention, but are now instead AA. It seems like the change was made very quietly.
So I guess then since I was HM in 2011, I can say I was AA that year too.
That seems to be the case, yeah. It’s unfortunate too because I’ve been trying to meet the old standard for so long an I’ve been so close. I’d rather the standard remained high and I never got it than they lower the standard and I meet it because it’s easier…
I thought it was a typo and saw that I was listed as AA even though I was just outside of top 5% and was miffed that I didn’t get AA for the 4th year in a row and missed it by like .05 or something. 2013, due to a bad crash, was a shitty year for me and I was bummed but knew I was no where near on my game when compared to my previous years. I’m glad I guess I still got AA, but definitely in my mind it will have a little * next to it.
I liked the top 5% distinction and it was a good mental goal for me to get back to for 2014.
The distinction is not merely a mathematical one. C’mon man.
Pretty easy to figure out where exactly you stand. Find out the place of the lowest-ranked AA and divide his place by 2. Each page holds XYZ number of athletes, so it shouldn’t be too hard to count.
That said, I liked the old system better. I think one year I was within 10 spots of AA (in 25-29, so actually really close)… kind of a motivator to see if the next year I could make the jump.
Easier for USAT to have only one distinction, though!