2016 AA Boys State Meet Preview - Teams

        This is the second post of three previewing the AA Boys state meet. The first can be found here. This post focuses on the team race.
        For the entire season, Wayzata has been the top ranked team in the state, both in the coaches poll and CCRS ratings. After failing to qualify out of Section 6 in 2015, the Trojans are undefeated on the season and enter the state meet as heavy favorites to win their third title in four years. They will most likely be pushed only by Edina, who have been a clear number two this season despite apparent struggles with health. They qualified comfortably out of Section 6 with their top performance of the season and will quite likely join Wayzata in producing the section's fourth consecutive 1-2 finish at the state meet.
        One thing to watch on Saturday is Wayzata's quest to break the AA state meet scoring record of 29, established by Minneapolis South in 1991. A repeat of their section performance makes a new record appear highly possible. Wayzata's 2-7 runners have performing nearly as well as most of the state's top individuals, and their depth grants them a measure of insurance that no other team (perhaps ever) can rely on.
        The battle for the final podium spot has looked for weeks to feature Section 5 qualifiers Maple Grove and Mounds View, plus last year's third place team, Stillwater. However, the late-charging Rosemount Irish also look to factor into the podium discussion. The Irish are still underdogs to unseat the Section 5 duo, but have produced their top two performances of the season in winning the South Suburban Conference and the Section 3 meet.
        Sartell has had an a more up-and-down season than most state qualifiers, defeating fourth-ranked Hopkins early in the season but also coming up just short of victory in Section 8. Both Sartell and section champion Bemidji will hope things fall in place for a top 5 finish.
        The projections below represent the results of 1000 simulations of the meet, based on each teams performance in their section and conference meets. These simulations account only for what has happened thus far. Obviously, Wayzata and Edina are not absolutely guaranteed to finish first and second, respectively. What these simulations reflect is that the gap between their recent performances and those of the nearest challengers is beyond any statistical variance. Something outside of the natural variation in performance is required for those two teams not to occupy the top spots on the podium.

Projected Team Scores
1. Wayzata - 24
2. Edina - 53
3. Maple Grove - 146
4. Mounds View - 177
5. Stillwater - 179
6. Rosemount - 194
7. Bemidji - 230
8. Sartell - 232
9. Eagan - 244
10. Chanhassen - 251
11. White Bear Lake - 269
12. Red Wing - 286
13. Cloquet - 306
14. Buffalo - 310
15. Forest Lake - 349
16. Northfield - 359

	Wayzata	Edina	Maple Grove	Mounds View	Stillwater	Rosemount	Bemidji	Sartell
1	100.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
2	0.00%	100.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
3	0.00%	0.00%	66.80%	14.80%	6.10%	11.80%	0.10%	0.40%
4	0.00%	0.00%	20.20%	27.50%	25.20%	25.20%	0.20%	1.30%
5	0.00%	0.00%	7.90%	24.60%	36.70%	24.30%	1.90%	2.90%
6	0.00%	0.00%	4.10%	23.20%	26.50%	26.20%	6.90%	6.60%
7	0.00%	0.00%	0.90%	7.60%	4.70%	7.80%	30.60%	16.30%
8	0.00%	0.00%	0.10%	1.60%	0.70%	3.50%	30.50%	16.30%
9	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.50%	0.10%	0.90%	19.00%	17.10%
10	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.20%	0.00%	0.10%	7.40%	16.70%
11	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.20%	2.60%	9.80%
12	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.60%	6.10%
13	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.20%	4.30%
14	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.60%
15	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.60%
16	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

	Eagan	Chanhassen	White Bear	Red Wing	Coquet	Buffalo	Forest Lake	Northfield
1	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
2	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
3	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
4	0.40%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
5	0.70%	0.60%	0.10%	0.00%	0.30%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
6	3.60%	2.10%	0.50%	0.10%	0.20%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
7	17.50%	10.70%	2.20%	0.70%	0.90%	0.00%	0.10%	0.00%
8	25.30%	13.60%	4.90%	1.40%	1.20%	0.50%	0.40%	0.00%
9	22.60%	21.10%	9.60%	4.10%	3.00%	1.70%	0.30%	0.00%
10	15.70%	22.30%	17.90%	8.50%	5.20%	4.50%	1.50%	0.00%
11	9.50%	16.20%	25.90%	17.90%	8.80%	5.50%	3.60%	0.00%
12	3.30%	7.90%	20.90%	24.50%	17.60%	13.40%	5.10%	0.60%
13	1.10%	3.50%	10.90%	22.70%	21.70%	22.30%	11.30%	2.00%
14	0.30%	1.90%	5.30%	13.60%	21.60%	26.60%	19.70%	9.40%
15	0.00%	0.10%	1.60%	5.80%	12.70%	18.90%	30.80%	29.50%
16	0.00%	0.00%	0.20%	0.70%	6.80%	6.60%	27.20%	58.50%