The rankings have generated some controversy over the last few weeks which has confused me as these rankings are based off performances that have happened this season. We convert banked times to flat and undersized times to flat 200m times is the only adjustments that we have made so far.
We have also had people wonder why their team is not ranked when they have beat ranked programs at their most recent invite. This rankings are based off state meet scoring. The following are some differences of why conference/invite results do not reflect state meet based rankings.
Scoring differences between conference and state meets can significantly impact how a team performs at each level. Here’s why:
Depth vs. Star Power – In conference meets, team depth often plays a bigger role because points are spread across multiple places (e.g., 8 places in a standard meet). A team with many solid athletes can accumulate points even if they don’t have event winners. At state meets, however, scoring is often weighted more toward top finishers, meaning teams with a few elite athletes who place high or win events can score big, even if they lack overall depth.
Event Specialization – At the state level, athletes may focus on fewer events to maximize performance. At conference meets, athletes might compete in multiple events to help the team score more points, potentially leading to fatigue. At state, where fewer athletes can qualify per event, teams with highly specialized, top-tier athletes often thrive.
Scoring Distribution – In a conference meet, with fewer teams, mid-level finishes can still contribute solid points. At a state meet, with many more teams, placing in the middle doesn’t contribute much, making individual victories and high placements more critical.
Point Concentration – In some states, the number of scoring places at the state meet is lower than at the conference level (e.g., top 8 vs. top 16), making it harder for teams reliant on depth to score as much. A team that dominated a conference meet with many second- and third-place finishes may struggle if those performances don't score at state.
Relays & Team Strategy – Some teams score big in relays at the conference level, but at state, the competition is tougher, and relay depth might not be as effective. Likewise, some schools may shift athletes into relays at state to maximize points instead of spreading them across individual events.
Ultimately, teams that rely on depth tend to perform better at conference meets, while teams with elite athletes who place high in individual events often excel at state.
3A Boys -
Winnetka (New Trier) [1]
Oak Park-River Forest [3]
Chicago (Kenwood) [2]
Homewood-Flossmoor [8]
New Lenox (Lincoln-Way West) [6]
Palatine (Fremd) [5]
Belleville West [NR]
Rockford (Guilford) [7]
Batavia [NR]
Downers Grove North [NR]
3A Girls -
Homewood-Flossmoor [2]
Chicago (Whitney Young) [1]
Mt. Prospect (Prospect) [3]
Chicago (St. Ignatius) [4]
Huntley [5]
Barrington [6]
Plainfield North [NR]
Kankakee [9]
Naperville (Neuqua Valley) [7]
Chicago (Kenwood) [8]
2A Boys
East St. Louis [1]
Sycamore [9]
Glen Ellyn (Glenbard South) [2]
Chicago (Payton) [3]
Mascoutah [NR]
Morton [NR]
Cahokia [5]
Richton Park (Southland Prep) [4]
Burbank (St. Laurence) [6]
Chicago (DePaul) [7]
2A Girls
Chicago (South Shore) [1]
Normal University [3]
Chicago Heights (Marian) [2]
Chicago (DePaul) [4]
Mahomet-Seymour [8]
Springfield (Sacred Heart Griffin) [6]
Mt. Zion [NR]
Eureka [7]
Crystal Lake (Prairie Ridge) [9]
Joliet Catholic Academy [10]
1A Boys
Rockford Christian [9]
Bloomington (Central Catholic) [1]
Pleasant Plains [7]
Chicago (Hope Academy) [NR]
Niles (Northridge Prep) [NR]
Tuscola [5]
Winnebago [3]
Elmhurst (IC Catholic) [NR]
Decatur (St. Teresa) [NR]
Elgin (Harvest Christian Academy) [NR]
1A Girls
Effingham (St. Anthony) [5]
Glen Carbon (Father McGivney) [1]
Rockford Lutheran [NR]
Maroa-Forsyth [NR]
Tuscola [2]
Pleasant Plains [NR]
Virden (North Mac) [NR]
Arthur-Lovington-Atwood-Hammond [NR]
Marshall [9]
Delavan [10]
Comments