Wednesday, February 10, 2010

NCS proposal to require movement to higher classification or division passes...

The following proposal has been approved by the NCS Board of Managers. Basically, if a team wins 3 NCS titles in a row, they would move up one classification or division the following season. A team in Division I would stay in that division.

At this moment, the SF University boys' team would move up to Division IV next season since they have won the last three NCS Division V titles. Interesting that according to dyestatcal.com, they are the pre-season #1 team in Division V.

==================================================================
E. Proposal to require movement to a higher classification or division ACTION

Motion to require any team who participates in the NCS Championship and is declared the NCS champion for three consecutive years will automatically be required to move the next higher classification or division in the following school year of competition.

e) Any school who participates in the NCS Championship contest, finishing first in the respective classification or division, for three years in succession will automatically be moved to the next higher classification or division the following school year of competition. The school may return to the actual classification or division of enrollment after at least one year of competition at the higher classification or division once the school does not participate in the NCS Championship contest, finishing first.

Comments?

16 comments:

ned said...

I think it stinks.

Anonymous said...

It's unfair for D5 to have to race against D4, or schools that have over 600 people. The pool of runners to choose from in bigger schools results in faster people and faster races. So it is completely unfair to D5 boys put into a bigger and more competitive environment.

Anonymous said...

What is the logic behind this rule?

Anonymous said...

so if a D5 team wins three in a row, then moves up to D4 where they win another 3 in a row, will they be moved to D3? How does this make sense? Whoever proposed it must have came in one short of state qualification or something. This doesn't make sense or seem fair. Why must NCS board have to complicate the rules anyways?

ned said...

The overarching argument is that the winning teams should be moved up to create better competition for both the teams remaining in the lower division and the team moving up.

I have also heard that it puts a check on teams who are recruiting athletes under the table, or cheating is some way. Funny thing is that University guys won the title with 4 scoring freshmen, who made insane improvements from the start of the season.

The goal is to supposedly level the playing field, and it does to an extent at the section level. But it's not fair when Woodcrest Christian out of the SS has won 5 straight state titles, and a SS team has won the D5 title in all of the 14 years that it has been run.

Anonymous said...

I know I am in the minority here but to me the best teams should race each other. Why have a top team in D1 and another in D2. It waters down the competition and the sport.

Now larger schools do have an advantage, yes. But the difference between 400 and 700 is smaller than say 1200 and 2600 like in D3.

Anonymous said...

I can see the desire for making it more competetive on the section level, but marginalizing a team's accomplishments on the state level doesn't seem fair.

Andy Chan said...

I don't think I like this. I feel for University. They have been rightfully competing in Div V and looking to close the gap on a team like Woodcrest Christian and get a state championship. I can see University still doing well in Div IV but maybe not being a podium team. So the NCS, with this rule, may have just short changed themselves a state meet plaque. Over the long haul, this can affect the number of state meet bids that the NCS gets.

Albert Caruana said...

I am not sure how much of a factor is state meet success when it comes to making a policy like this.

It seems like the intention is to spread the wealth when it comes to winning NCS titles.

The NCS cross country coaches are trying to make the state meet competition more equatable by moving teams to divisions that match up with the rest of the state while this policy has the potential to do the exact opposite.

George Ramos said...

I disagree with the decision. The situation roughly parallels that of La Jolla Country Day in the SDS. They had been winning titles in D5 until their section balanced the number of schools in each division. Now the D5 ceiling is below 500, and they have to compete in D4. They still make State, but fall short of the podium in D4, when they may have been making it in D5. The Small Schools division has less competition as a result. I will say again that the State needs to maintain its own divisions independent of the sections, as we do in basketball.

Anonymous said...

I am all for balanced divisions but remember, when you take every school in the State of California and balance the population totals across 5 divisions (similar to what the sections do now) the lower population schools would still compete with larger schools.

D1, D2 and D3 would be high population schools while D4 would likely have a CBed of 1200-1800 while D5 would be 1200 and under. The smaller schools would suffer the most.

The State Divisions would be more balanced

Anonymous said...

University should not be punished for being so good. While this rule may seem like a fun idea to some, it completely screws over University's state title hopes. It's just so unfair. Winning state titles is way more important than just winning a section title. This rule is ridiculous and absolutely unfair.

Anonymous said...

How many students are at this school? Is it private?

Anonymous said...

Private. 390. Half boys/half girls

Anonymous said...

So, you have a great team ... they compete at a high level for three years ... they graduate ... you have a group more suited to compete in the current division who are now forced to compete at a level beyond their ability.

If you are trying to stop recruiting etc ... focus on that.

Anonymous said...

Tony private schools that somehow end up with enough talent to win with many scoring freshman should be viewed as suspect. Of course they recruit. Will this keep them from recruiting? Probably not, but if this is the only way they can be sanctioned, then I strongly agree with the CIF.