AZ Distance Track — 2013

Loading athlete database...

88,407

Total Performances

2014–2026 Spring Track

27,519

Unique Athletes

800m / 1600m / 3200m

2,606

Boys 2026

+14.0% vs 2016

1,694

Girls 2026

+1.4% vs 2016

Spring Track participation (2016–2025)

XC boys & girls participation (2013–2025)

All-Time Best Times by Year

1:48.72

Boys 800m AZ Record

Tyler Mathews, Red Mountain 2023

3:59.54

Boys 1600m AZ Record

Leo Daschbach, Highland 2020

8:43.67

Boys 3200m AZ Record

Yohanes vanMeerten, Flagstaff 2026

14:14.3

Boys XC 5K Record

Leo Daschbach, Highland 2019

2:06.01

Girls 800m AZ Record

Dominique Mustin, North Canyon 2019

4:42.84

Girls 1600m AZ Record

Landen LeBlond, Millennium 2023

10:05.70

Girls 3200m AZ Record

Allie Schadler, Rio Rico 2017

16:40.4

Girls XC 5K Record

Lauren Ping, Desert Vista 2021

Gender: Tiers:

Why tiers matter: A single "best" or "median" line hides the shape of the field. The Top 50 represents the kids who score for the top XC teams. The Top 200 represents broader team depth. The Median is the typical participant. The P90 is near the back. When Top 10 improves but Median and P90 slip, the field is stretching apart, not getting weaker uniformly.

Distance Performance by Tier — 1600m

Field Spread — P90 minus Top 50 (is the field stretching apart?)

The gap between back-of-field (P90) and elite-tier (Top 50) times. A rising line means the field is stretching — top getting faster relative to bottom. A falling line means the field is converging.

Cross Country — 5K (2013–2025)

Same tier toggles apply — boys and girls XC 5K, 2013–2025.

XC 5K — by Tier

Tier Change Summary — Boys

Seconds slower (+) or faster (−) — pre-COVID baseline (2014–2019) vs last 4 years (2022–2025).

Tier Change Summary — Girls

Seconds slower (+) or faster (−) — pre-COVID baseline (2014–2019) vs last 4 years (2022–2025).

XC vs Track participation by year

Participation — Track & XC by Gender (unique athletes)

Median Time Gap (Girls − Boys, seconds)

Girls vs Boys — Best, Top 10%, Top 25% & Median Trajectory

🚨 Girls 3200m: Elite Tier Thinning
From 2015–2023, Arizona produced at least one sub-10:30 girls 3200m nearly every year (Jones, Schadler, Archer, Ping, LeBlond, Hall). The last two years (2024, 2025) have seen zero sub-10:30 performers — annual bests of 10:37 and 10:38. The top of the pyramid has lost its depth.

✅ Boys 800m: Top End Getting Faster
Annual best improved from 1:55 (2016) to 1:48 in both 2023 and 2025 — a legitimate 7-second drop at the elite level. However, the median boys 800m runner is 3 seconds slower in 2025 than 2014.

⚠️ Median Runner Slipping (Both Genders)
The middle of the distribution is slower in 2025 vs 2014 across every distance event — boys 1600m median is +8s, girls 1600m +8s. The elite improvement story is real for boys, but the typical runner is regressing regardless of gender.

Season-by-season retention

Gender:

Roughly half the freshman class is gone by sophomore year — a pattern that holds for both genders. The gap opens later: girls drop out at higher rates in grades 10–12 than boys, even though their FR→SO losses are nearly identical. Across both genders, dropouts consistently ran slower than those who stayed — the sport is losing developable athletes, not ones who've peaked.

Where do athletes hit their career best? (Girls 1600m, 3+ grade levels)

Gender:

These numbers contain survivor bias — only athletes who raced in 3 or more grade levels are included. The true statewide peak is earlier because slower athletes drop out at each transition, inflating the later-grade peak percentages.

Two very different development curves. Roughly 80% of boys hit their career best as juniors or seniors across every distance event — only 3–5% peak as freshmen. Girls peak more evenly: 13–15% already hit their best as freshmen, and only ~60% peak late. Read carefully: this doesn't mean girls stop improving — it means their development is flatter, while boys' times drop sharply through the late high-school years.

65.8%

Boys improve Jr→Sr

54.2%

Girls improve Jr→Sr

Programs where athletes improve through all four years (Girls 1600m)

School	Div	n	FR	SO	JR	SR	FR→SR

Median Time by Grade Level — Boys

Median Time by Grade Level — Girls

Grade-to-Grade Improvement — Median Times

Each cell shows the time drop and percentage improvement from one grade to the next. Total column shows full four-year development.

Event	9th → 10th	10th → 11th	11th → 12th	Total 9th → 12th
Boys 800m	−6.8s (4.5%)	−5.6s (3.9%)	−3.4s (2.4%)	−15.7s (10.5%)
Boys 1600m	−13.7s (4.1%)	−9.8s (3.1%)	−5.9s (1.9%)	−29.5s (8.8%)
Boys 3200m	−25.6s (3.6%)	−18.5s (2.7%)	−8.7s (1.3%)	−52.8s (7.4%)
Girls 800m	−3.2s (1.8%)	−3.1s (1.8%)	−2.6s (1.6%)	−9.0s (5.1%)
Girls 1600m	−2.9s (0.7%)	−4.3s (1.1%)	−7.0s (1.8%)	−14.2s (3.6%)
Girls 3200m	−4.2s (0.5%)	−13.3s (1.6%)	−12.1s (1.5%)	−29.7s (3.5%)

Pattern: Boys gains decay with each grade — biggest early, smallest late. Girls show the opposite in 1600m/3200m — gains accelerate as they approach senior year, with the smallest jump coming in 9th→10th.

What Grade Progression Tells Us

📉

Girls develop at roughly half the rate of boys Boys improve 7–10% from freshman to senior year (strongest in the 800m, weakest in the 3200m). Girls improve only 3–5% across every event. The gap is consistent across all three distances and persists across every year in the dataset.

📊

The freshman-to-sophomore jump is where the gap opens Boys show their biggest improvement from 9th to 10th grade — 3.6–4.5% in the 1600m and 3200m. Girls show almost none in those events: 0.8% and 0.5%. The gender divergence is established within a single year, and although girls' gains accelerate later, the early gap is never fully recovered.

💡

The later-year acceleration points to a retention story In the 1600m and 3200m, girls' gains grow each year — from 0.5–0.7% in 9→10, to 1.6–1.8% in 11→12. One plausible reading: the freshman-to-sophomore window is largely absorbed by adapting to physical changes, with real development coming in the junior and senior years. If that's right, the athletes who leave the sport before those years never reach their actual trajectory. Staying in through the transition is the precondition for the gains.

Class:

Boys 800m — Top 25 Performers (2013–2025)

#	Athlete	School	Time	Year	Grade

Combined distance-program strength (800 + 1600 + 3200)

By event — 800m · 1600m · 3200m

800m — Top Programs

1600m — Top Programs

3200m — Top Programs

XC 5K — Top Programs

Program Strength vs School Size

Each dot is one school. X-axis = enrollment. Y-axis = varsity top-5 average 5K time (lower is faster). Schools in the upper-left produce elite top-end talent with small rosters — they outperform programs many times their size. Toggle the metric above to see the chart change.

Small-school overachievers (enrollment under 1,000 with above-median performance on the selected metric) are highlighted in gold.

🔍

Findings are framed around depth tiers (Top 10, Top 50, Top 100, Top 200) rather than individual athletes. Single names age out the moment a star graduates; tier averages reflect the actual state of the field. Deltas compare the pre-COVID baseline (2014–2019 average) vs the last five spring seasons (2022–2026 average).

✅ AZ Strengths

⚡

Boys 800m has gotten faster at every competitive tier Pre-COVID baseline vs 2022–2026 average: Top 10 improved 2.8s (1:55.6 → 1:52.8), Top 50 improved 1.9s (1:58.0 → 1:56.1), Top 100 improved 1.8s (1:59.6 → 1:57.9), Top 200 improved 1.8s (2:02.1 → 2:00.3). This is a uniform shift across the front half of the field — not a couple of stars distorting an average. 2026 alone produced 11 sub-1:54 athletes, the most of any year on record.

🏃

Boys 1600m and 3200m: elite tiers pulling forward Boys 1600m: Top 50 improved 4.2s (4:25.4 → 4:21.2), Top 100 improved 4.2s. Boys 3200m: Top 50 improved 9.5s (9:38.4 → 9:28.9), Top 100 improved 9.0s. The 3200m gain is the largest pre-vs-post improvement of any event-tier combination in the dataset. The competitive top half of AZ boys distance is faster across every observable tier than it was pre-COVID.

🏔️

Altitude programs are still meaningfully represented in elite tiers Across 2022–2026 boys distance events, altitude-based schools (Flagstaff, Page, Snowflake, and similar) place 4 athletes in the all-time top 50 for 1600m and 4 athletes in the all-time top 50 for 3200m — disproportionate to their share of the state's athlete population. Flagstaff and Page are the only two non-metro schools consistently producing top-50 boys 1600m/3200m talent year over year. Girls' altitude representation is thinner (4 of top 50 in 3200m, mostly from Flagstaff) but is the strongest non-metro girls' presence in the dataset.

📈

Participation continues to grow — boys at a new high in 2026 Boys distance-track performances: 1,983 in 2020 (COVID trough) → 4,829 in 2025 → 5,044 in 2026 (new all-time high). Unique boys athletes 2014→2026 grew from 2,007 to 2,606 (+30%). Girls performances plateaued in 2026 (3,150 → 3,130) but unique participants stayed near peak (1,714 → 1,694). By volume, boys distance is healthier than at any prior point; girls volume has stabilized rather than continuing to grow.

🌲

XC top-tier remains competitive even as depth thins Boys XC 5K: Top 10 improved 5.0s, Top 50 improved 1.8s, Top 100 improved 1.2s from pre-COVID to recent years. The top 100 boys XC runners are still about as fast as they were a decade ago. The all-time XC records (Daschbach 14:14.3 in 2019; Ping 16:40.4 in 2021) still stand, but they are not isolated outliers — the competitive top tier remains intact.

🌙

Winter racing infrastructure has nearly tripled in 4 seasons The Distance in the Desert series and AZ 5K Championship have grown from 407 performances in Winter 2022-23 to 1,216 in Winter 2025-26 — a roughly 3× growth in four seasons (407 → 506 → 968 → 1,216). Across the four winter seasons and two AZ 5K Championships, total volume is now 3,355 performances from 1,217 unique athletes representing 60 teams and clubs in Winter 2025-26 alone. Sustained engagement is the strongest signal: 326 athletes have raced in 2+ winter seasons and 120 in 3+ seasons — these aren't one-off tryouts but a recurring competitive base. The Feb 7, 2026 meet drew 533 performances in a single day, the largest single winter meet to date.

🏛️

Highland HS has become AZ's singular distance development engine Across the six event-genders (800/1600/3200 × boys/girls), Highland produced 106 top-50 appearances in 2022–2026 — nearly double the next closest program (Hamilton, 57). The trend is accelerating: 69 top-50 appearances in 2014–18 → 94 in 2017–21 → 109 in 2020–24. Girls' distance is the strongest engine, with 22–23 top-50 appearances in each of the three girls events over 5 years. In 2026 alone, Highland placed 6 girls in the 1600m top 14 and 6 girls in the 3200m top 40. The school also produced 13 boys + 24 girls top-50 XC appearances over 4 years. No other AZ program approaches this kind of breadth and continuity.

🎯

Small charter/prep schools have tripled their footprint in 12 years Excluding the large traditional privates (Brophy, Xavier, Salpointe, Notre Dame Prep, Arizona College Prep — all enrollment 1,300+), small charter/prep schools have grown from 4% of distance participants in 2014 to 11–12% in 2026. Their share of state Top-100 has roughly tripled or more in every event: boys 800m 1→9, boys 1600m 1→9, boys 3200m 3→7, girls 800m 5→11, girls 1600m 5→9, girls 3200m 4→14. The standout programs are ALA – Queen Creek (22 top-50 appearances since 2022), ALA – West Foothills (19), Glendale Preparatory Academy (14), North Phoenix Prep (12), and BASIS Flagstaff (10) — all programs with enrollment under 1,200 competing against schools 3–10× their size. AZ's charter expansion is showing up clearly in the distance results.

🔄

XC-to-track conversion at the competitive top is excellent The state-wide ~33% XC-to-track conversion rate is misleading because it averages across ability tiers. For top-50 boys XC runners, 92–96% also race spring distance track. For top-50 girls XC runners, 78–86% also race spring. Top-200 boys: ~87%, top-200 girls: ~74%. The competitive pipeline from XC to track is nearly universal — the conversion gap is concentrated in the back half of the field (only 13–16% of back-half XC athletes continue to track), and that's likely fitness-rec participation rather than failed athletic development. The bottom-tier conversion is a casual-participant issue, not an elite-pipeline issue.

⚠️ AZ Weaknesses

🌡️

Season timing is structurally hostile August XC in 100°F+ heat, April/May championships in rising temps. Colorado and Oregon athletes train and race in 40–60°F for 8 months. AZ athletes get 2–3 temperate months. This is the single biggest structural disadvantage and affects every other metric downstream.

📉

Girls distance is regressing at every depth tier in track Pre-COVID vs 2022–2026 average: Girls 1600m Top 10 +2.7s slower, Top 50 +0.7s, Median +3.3s. Girls 3200m Top 10 +5.7s slower, Top 50 +3.3s, Top 100 +2.5s. Girls 800m is flatter — Top 50 and Top 100 are essentially unchanged — but no event-tier combination shows clear improvement. The picture is uniform stagnation or slight regression at every visible tier. 2026 showed isolated bright spots (sub-2:07 800m for the first time since 2019) but the tier averages haven't moved.

🌲

Girls XC depth is the worst trend in the dataset Girls XC 5K pre-COVID vs 2022–2025: Top 10 +35.0s slower, Top 50 +24.1s, Top 100 +18.4s, Top 200 +18.7s. Every visible tier of girls XC is meaningfully slower than a decade ago, and the regression scales with how deep you look. Median is 49 seconds slower; P90 is over two minutes slower. No other event in this dataset shows simultaneous regression across the elite, competitive, and back-of-field tiers.

📊

The boys field is bifurcating — top tier pulling away from the rest Boys 1600m Top 50 has improved 4.2s while Median has regressed 5.6s and P90 has regressed 9.5s. Boys 3200m Top 50 has improved 9.5s while Median has regressed 2.9s and P90 has regressed 13.3s. The field is fanning apart — elite tier accelerating, back tier decelerating. Boys XC shows the same pattern even more starkly: Top 100 is roughly flat while Median is 31 seconds slower and P90 is 75 seconds slower. The competitive top of AZ distance is healthy; the broad participant base is slipping.

🚪

Dropout is severe — and the late-HS gap is where gender matters In clean 4-year cohorts (2014, 2015, 2021, 2022), only 29.5% of girls who ran 1600m as freshmen are still racing as seniors, vs 35.9% of boys. The freshman-to-sophomore drop is nearly identical by gender (~46%); the gender gap opens in grades 10–12. Girls who leave after freshman year ran 25 seconds slower (median) than girls who stayed — they are not leaving because they already outgrew the sport. ⚠️ The 2023 cohort just graduated in 2026 — these numbers should be recomputed with that cohort added.

👧

Girls' senior-year gains are roughly one-third of boys' Among athletes who ran 1600m in all four grades, median junior-to-senior improvement is 1.5s for girls vs 3.3s for boys. Only 54.4% of four-year girls improve jr→sr, vs 65.0% of boys — an 11-point gap. Girls do still improve slightly in their senior year on average; the problem is that the improvement curve nearly flattens while boys keep gaining. ⚠️ Same — 2023 cohort data now complete, should be folded in.

🔄

Specific large programs let big XC rosters disappear by spring While elite XC athletes overwhelmingly continue to spring track (see strengths), several large schools with active track programs convert only a small fraction of their XC roster: Tempe (7%), Phoenix Central (12%), Mesa (12%), San Luis (13%), North/Phoenix (13%), Tolleson Union (16%), Kofa (14%), Willow Canyon (15%). These programs field 60+ XC athletes per fall but barely 10 distance track athletes by spring. Compare to Perry, Red Mountain, Gilbert, Horizon — all above 50% same-year conversion. The pipeline issue is concentrated in specific programs, not state-wide. (Schools without an active track program are excluded.)

🚸

Freshmen are entering the sport noticeably slower at the median Comparing 9th-grade 1600m season bests pre-COVID (2014–2019 average) vs recent (2022–2026 average): the median boy freshman is 8.5 seconds slower (5:30 → 5:39) and P90 boys freshman is 12.9 seconds slower (6:19 → 6:32). Girls show the same pattern — median freshman +8.7s slower, P90 +13.0s slower. The top-10 and top-50 entry tiers are essentially unchanged; the elite kids are arriving as fast as ever. The bifurcation visible in seniors is already present at the entry point: the front of the freshman class is unchanged, the middle and back are much slower. This signals that the participation growth in distance running is bringing in less prepared kids — likely a positive overall (broader exposure) but a real reason why median trajectories don't improve through HS.

🏫

Cross Country Analysis — Boys & Girls (2013–2025)

Boys: 42,882 performances · Girls: 30,557 performances · 73,439 combined (2013–2025)

Gender:

Class composition, multi-year contributors, and championship team experience profiles based on AIA State XC Championships 2016–2025. Use the gender toggle (above) and division filter (below) to slice the data.

Division:

Grade composition by tier

Boys — grade mix at each tier (10-yr aggregate)

Girls — grade mix at each tier

How division affects grade mix (top 21 only)

Boys top 21 by division

Girls top 21 by division

Multi-year contributors to scoring 5

Boys — scoring 5 composition by team finish

Girls — scoring 5 composition by team finish

One-time = athlete made state only this year. Rising = will return in later years. Returning = had appeared in earlier years. Veteran = appeared in both earlier AND later years.

Championship team experience profiles — Boys

Each row = one championship team's top 7 runners broken down by state-meet experience

Year	Div	Team	Vet	Ret	Ris	Once	Top 7 profile

Vet / Ret / Ris / Once counts cover all 7 runners shown in the profile. Profile squares: solid = scorers (1–5), faded dashed = displacers (6–7). Hover any square for the athlete's name, finish, and state-meet history.

How rare is this?

Pool = all state finishers in that gender/grade/division combo across 10 years. Percentages show what share of that pool achieved each tier.

Gender: Grade: Division:

Underclass state champions

Freshmen & sophomores who won an individual state title (2016–2025)

Year	Gender	Div	Grade	Athlete	Team

Only 11 athletes in 10 years have won state as freshmen or sophomores. The boys side is especially rare — zero freshman champions ever, and only 2 sophomore champions (Schilb '18, Daschbach '17).

Arizona D1 has zero schools above 4,000 ft. The Flagstaff/Page/Navajo Nation programs are concentrated in D2–D4. This sub-tab quantifies the structural advantage — and shows when elevation teams in lower divisions ran fast enough to beat D1.

Elevation threshold:

4,000 ft

Grade-level performance & development

Pools every elevation team together vs the rest of the state to ask two different questions: are elevation runners faster at each grade, and do they improve more over a career? Both views respond to the threshold slider above.

Benchmark:

The Benchmark control scopes the comparison group (the "rest of state" line and the head-to-head dashed line) to non-elevation teams in a single division. Elevation programs are mostly small schools, so comparing them to D2/D3/D4 non-elevation teams is a fairer like-for-like than the whole state. Elevation lines themselves are unchanged.

Band:

Median career-best 5K by grade — Boys (lower = faster)

Closing the gap to the all-time best — Boys (% of Gr 9 gap closed)

Read with care. XC times depend on course, terrain, and weather, which vary by region — so cross-region absolute gaps are not pure fitness comparisons, and many elevation career-bests are actually set at low-elevation invitationals and the state meet. The right-hand panel measures improvement against the room left to the all-time best, so closing time near the ceiling counts more than a big drop from far back — but it can read high for programs starting close to the record off a small sample. None of this separates altitude physiology from program quality, selection, or roster size — those are likely the larger factors.

Head-to-head: elevation program development curves

Pick up to 5 programs to overlay their development curves and compare how each builds runners. Uses the Boys/Girls toggle above. Elevation programs are listed first; the dashed chips at the end (Desert Vista, Highland) are low-elevation powerhouses included as benchmarks. Only programs with enough multi-grade runners are shown.

Show:

Band:

Median career-best 5K by grade — Boys (lower = faster)

A point is plotted only where a program has at least 3 runners at that grade. Steeper downward slope = more development across the four years.

Head-to-head summary — Boys

Program	Elev	Div	Gr 9	Gr 12	9→12 drop	% gap closed	vs bench	4-yr n

Gr 9 / Gr 12 / drop follow the Band selector. % gap closed = the 9→12 drop as a share of the Gr 9 gap to the AZ all-time best. vs bench = how each program beats the dashed benchmark in the active metric — seconds faster at Gr 12 (time view) or percentage points more gap closed (gap view); gold = ahead of the benchmark, red = behind.

Does the underclass head start translate to titles?

Elevation runners are faster as underclassmen (above). Championship scoring depends on a team's top 5 — which is rarely all-senior — so this tests whether that head start converts into team titles, by division. Built from the 2016–2025 AIA State XC Championships, with every scoring runner's grade matched to the database. Uses the gender and threshold controls above.

Title share vs pool share — Boys

Where underclass scorers finish — Boys (median place, lower = better)

Championship scoring by division — Boys

Div	Elev titles	Pool share	Over-perf.	Podium share	Lineup avg grade (E / non)	Underclass place (E / non)

How to read it. Over-performance = title share ÷ pool share; above 1× means elevation teams win more often than their numbers alone would predict. The mechanism shows on the right: elevation lineups are not younger (their average scoring grade is about the same), but their underclassmen finish far higher up the results, which is what converts the freshman head start into team points. Caveats remain — D2 in particular leans heavily on one dynasty program, course/region effects are folded in, and titles also reflect coaching, culture, and the Navajo Nation distance-running tradition concentrated at altitude, not elevation physiology alone.

Championship win rate vs pool share

Boys — title win % by division

Girls — title win % by division

Solid bar = % of championships won by elevation teams. Dashed line = % of the division's total schools that meet the elevation threshold (pool share). When the bar towers over the line, elevation teams over-perform their numerical share.

Podium share by division

View:

Boys — podium % by division

Girls — podium % by division

Top-10 elevation footprint by year

Number of elevation teams in each division's top 10 finish (out of 10) — Boys

Each cell = how many of the top-10 finishing teams that year were elevation teams. Darker = more elevation presence. D1 should be all zeros — confirming no elevation programs compete there.

D1 winner vs same-year elevation winners (mis-alignment)

Top-5 average time by year — Boys (lower = faster)

Markers below the D1 line = elevation teams in lower divisions whose scoring 5 averaged faster than the D1 champion's scoring 5 that year. Strong mis-alignment cases marked with ⭐ in the head-to-head below.

Would they have won D1? Head-to-head by year

Each row compares a year's D1 winner with the fastest elevation team in any lower division — Boys

Year	D1 Winner	D1 Top-5 Avg	Best elevation team (lower div)	Their Avg	Δ (D1 − Elev)	Verdict

Top elevation programs (state record summary)

Elevation teams with state-meet podiums (2016–2025) — Boys

Program	Elev	Div	Titles	2nd	3rd	Top-5 finishes

Per-team profile

Elevation team:

Program development fingerprint — Boys

Two questions about how a program builds distance runners. Style (horizontal) asks whether its athletes are relatively stronger at raw speed (800m) or endurance (3200m), measured against the whole state so it isn\u2019t just a function of the distance. Track translation (vertical) asks whether a program sharpens its cross-country fitness on the track \u2014 do its runners beat the 3200m time their 5K predicts, or stay XC-specialists? Together they sketch what kind of program this is. Min 15 athletes per metric; follows the gender toggle above.

Style \u00d7 track translation \u2014 each dot is a program

Sort by:

School	Div	Elevation	Style	Track translation	Athletes

Does spring track speed carry into next-fall XC?

A different question than the map above: when an athlete improves on the track in spring, do they come back faster in cross country that fall? Tracking returning athletes (grades 9\u201311) who ran the 3200m in consecutive springs and XC in the bracketing falls, comparing those whose track time improved against those whose didn\u2019t. XC marks are each athlete\u2019s season best, so they\u2019re compared best-to-best across years.

Programs where track gains carry into XC most (next-fall XC improvement among track-improvers)

#	School	Div	Elevation	Median next-fall XC gain	Athletes

Among athletes who improved their 3200m in spring, the median improvement in their next XC season best. Genders pooled for sample depth (min 12 athletes). Read with care: a program of younger, developing athletes will show larger gains simply because they had more room to improve \u2014 this measures where track gains carried into XC, not coaching quality alone.

AIA State XC Championships, 2016–2025 (10 years). Filter by gender (above) and division below. Times shown as M:SS — all data from official AIA state meet results at Cave Creek Golf Course era.

Division:

Individual — what it takes to finish top 5

Top-5 finishing times by year — Boys D1

Champion + 5th-place summary (10-yr)

Place	Fastest	Median	Slowest	3-yr median

Fastest / Slowest bracket the 10-year window (2016–2025). 3-yr median = typical mark in 2023–2025 — the most realistic current bar.

Team — what it takes to win the title

Winning team top-5 average + 1st-to-5th spread by year

Top-5 team finish summary (10-yr)

Place	Fastest avg	Median avg	Slowest avg	3-yr median

"Avg" = average finishing time of a team's scoring 5. The median across years is the typical bar; the recent 3-year median is the current standard.

10-year champions roll

Team & individual champions — Boys

Year	D1 Team	D1 Individual	D2 Team	D2 Individual	D3 Team	D3 Individual	D4 Team	D4 Individual

Program dominance (2016–2025)

Most team titles — Boys

Program	Div	Titles	Win rate

Most individual titles — Boys

Athlete	Div	Titles