Friday, May 18, 2012

NCS/CCS/SJS/SF/NS Heat Sheets...

49 comments:

Rob Collins said...

Albert the CCS Heats Sheets are on CCS Track Site!

Albert Caruana said...

I just got them by email and see that they are finally up on the CCS website.

Thanks Rob.

Anonymous said...

Gotta love it when a kid runs the 9th fastest qualifying time in the boys 3200 and you guys say he doesn't deserve to run when times 50 seconds slower get in.

And you all don't see a problem with this?

Anonymous said...

Well see what happens on Saturday, that Kid Might Not have the 9th fastest time, Knowing some of those runners that are 50 seconds behind will most likely run 50 seconds faster this weekend instead! maybe they didn't have to run that hard at there qualifier! Have you ever thought of that! So Get Over it and just Race when it Counts!

Anonymous said...

So the 9:36 kid wouldn't race faster when having a real shot at the final either... a week later? Have you ever thought of that?

And there are kids nearly 1:30 slower than the top seeds in the mile. It has been said on here that Steve Filios refuses to hear any argument on changing the system to a more fair format stating he wants CCS to be an elite meet. Having athletes lapped in the CCS meet in the mile is a joke.

Albert Caruana said...

My contention has always been to allow the few more deserving athletes or teams to compete in addition to what we have already. Take what you have now and find a way to include those athletes.

hank said...

CCS is willing to hear all suggestions as long as those suggestions follow the correct process, which is, they must be submitted by a League. So, a League (any League) must come up with a proposal, get their BOM to sign off on it, and then present it to CCS for consideration. It's not Steve Filios that makes the rules - we do.

hank

Anonymous said...

Why can't CCS compile all the results and take the top 32 times, regardless of which leagues the kids come from? Maybe kids would then race for time at league and not just place.

Anonymous said...

"Why can't CCS compile all the results and take the top 32 times, regardless of which leagues the kids come from? "

Would you correct for wind in the sprints and jumps? How would you break ties?

Look, the "fairest" way is, and always has been, head-to-head competition. Sometimes I think we should go back to when qualifying was only on place and only the winner was even timed (for potential record purposes).

Anonymous said...

You are making a good point, but especially in the distance runs, people's best times are going to come when they are paced by someone who is as good, or even better. It's hella hard to run your best time when you are half a lap ahead of everyone else.

That is why some get in by winning and some get in by at-large times. Maybe there should be more at large qualifiers, but the winners should also get their chance.

Anonymous said...

But the slower times are not the winners. 6:13 did not win their league for a girls mile.

Anonymous said...

Stop crying and get over it. Run fast (or fast enough) when it counts and you (or your kid) will do just fine. Don't run fast when it counts and your season is over.

I also think there should be minimum times that you have to hit to move on. Let's make it more competitive, not less. So even if you win your league, but run a 5:45+ (girls) then you don't get to go because your time isn't worthy of CCS.

Anonymous said...

Minimum times would help to make the meet more competitive. I'm not trying to make fun of anyone, but two BOYS qualified for the NCS Class A meet in the 3200 with a 13:07 and 14:05. I don't care if you win your league by five minutes with those times, you don't deserve to compete in the postseason.

I'm not saying the minimum time has to be really crazy, but 14:05 would not be worthy of postseason competition for girls even.

Anonymous said...

Minimum times would help to make the meet more competitive. I'm not trying to make fun of anyone, but two BOYS qualified for the NCS Class A meet in the 3200 with a 13:07 and 14:05. I don't care if you win your league by five minutes with those times, you don't deserve to compete in the postseason.

I'm not saying the minimum time has to be really crazy, but 14:05 would not be worthy of postseason competition for girls even.

Anonymous said...

It will never happen. The most simple way is qualifying spots as is, but perhaps a relaxed time standard for at large qualifiers.

In CCS one option would be to bring back the four region meets. Perhaps make this division championships and qualify to a MOC like other sections.

Anyone know why the region meets stopped being held? I'd imagine with today's technology we can handle scratches better.


Or perhaps add a rule that once you miss an event you are entered in every race after you are scratched from. No scratch meetings either, decide by the deadline or your done.

Andrew said...

wow. let's not attack high schoolers, regardless of what time they run. That's just not in good spirit.

And for some kids, they may not have to run as fast because they aren't being challenged in their leagues. Thus, they are conserving for the next meet. Or they're being trained through those meets and peaking for a later meet (section or state). Things happen like that and its strategy and training and a whole bunch of other variables that we cannot account for.

Like Hank said, if CCS wants to see a change, then the league needs to organize and propose the change. No one has taken the initiative with that, so the system remains unchanged.

Albert Caruana said...

My proposals have always been to add more deserving athletes. If somebody qualifies under the current system, great. No time standards are needed.

In the meantime, we wait for heats to be posted.

Rob said...

Ok, it's Over and Done with, Will Talk about it at CCS meeting so lets just go And Race and have some fun!

Anonymous said...

I think we're missing the biggest issue for CCS. Why isn't the meet at SJCC. The facility is much better and the track is the best in the area. Additionally, one more athlete would be allowed into finals based on the fact it's a 9 lane track. That is the issue that the leagues should raise at the CCS meeting.

Anonymous said...

It's Called Graduating and Money That SJCC Charges! It has Been Looked At though!

Albert Caruana said...

The way I understand it, the amount of qualifiers to the finals would not change if the meet was at SJCC. The reasoning is that they want to have the amount of qualifiers be consistent since the track venues could change from year to year.

Regardless, SJCC is a much better facility, more central and should be used as the section final venue.

SJCC Runner said...

I heard from a SJCC track coach that San Jose City offered to be the site of the CCS meet at no cost (they would only collect concessions) and that the response was they were not interested and are happy with Gilroy.

Every year the Mercury News writes an article on how Gilroy is not a good site... wait until they get a hold of this one!

So it is not about cost or graduation.

Anonymous said...

I was just looking at some of the results from BVAL Finals and saw some pretty interesting things. In the 3200, Richard Ho (who ran a 9:13 at CCS Top 8) ran a 9:36 (even though he was seeded at a 9:48-hmmm. Somethings up there). Michael McCabe (who ran a 9:10 at Top 8) ran a 9:38 at finals (even though he was seeded at a 9:41). I think that its pretty silly how these guys can tempo in their league meets just to get in the top 8 in the race, where runners at WCAL have to work their butts off to get top 2 or the at large time. In the WCAL, McCabe would not have even qualified if he ran the same time. Granted, both of these runners are very fast and definitely deserve to go to CCS, I just think that they should have to work just as hard as other runners in other leagues to get there.

Anonymous said...

WCAL kids could tempo too... and two still would have made it. That's on them.

An "Area" meet that you make by time then advance by place is the way to go.

Or I'd like to see Division championships then advance to semi-finals from there.

WCAL should be disbanded anyways. San Jose to San Francisco is too far for a league to span. Bell, Pres, VC should go to BVAL. Mitty, Saint Francis to SCCAL, Serra, Notre Dame, Sacred Heart, Saint Ignatius, and Riordan in the PAL.

WBAL should be disbanded as well. The separation of private and public schools is illegal in California.

Then each super league gets 8 qualifiers, and there is no bias or discrimination against the catholic schools.

Anonymous said...

Why Do You Have to Run Hard at league to qualify for CCS? Some leagues are Strong and some are Weak, so why do you need to run so fast to qualify if you don't have to and just save ti when you need to! Next Gilroy has a Contract I believe for CCS Championships! Myself I would Prefer SJCC!

Anonymous said...

It is my understanding that the contract expires this year and CCS said no thank you to a future contract.

League, semis are just qualifying rounds. I'm amazed at runners who hammer semis to win by a hundred meters when the could chill and just move on.

Just watch...

Anonymous said...

I agree with you guys when you say that you should not have to run hard in leagues if you can tempo and still make the qualifying time. If you can, you should save up for CCS and not run hard at leagues. But some schools in the WCAL have had runners who had already run the at-large time at previous meets. There are more than two guys who could've qualified. So, guys in the WCAL won't tempo just to get top 2 because there are so many other guys who have run the at large time and they all want to go to CCS. So, if you run in a slow league, by all means tempo, run slowly, do whatever you want to do to qualify. But in other, deeper leagues, the guys NEED to hammer just to get the fast at-large time or top two.

Anonymous said...

It's not just a matter of tempo-ing. It's also a matter of quality of competition pulling people up to their best times. It's really hard to reach your peak when your only available competition is slow. I wouldn't assume that Richard Ho or Michael McCabe just tempo-ed. That is why you need to take a few runners from every league - so everyone gets a chance against the best competition.

And whoever said that there is discrimination against the catholic schools, come on. You have lost all perspective.

U know it's true said...

I agree with the discrimination comment, it is well known we all hate the WCAL.

Who cares, just admit it and hate 'em. Same as we do the Yankees or anyone else who is good.

Personally I am glad they only get two spots. If you had an automatic qualifier the WCAL would dominate track just as they do basketball, bookball, baseball and everything else.

They get to recruit, it is a small price to pay for being the best.

Albert Caruana said...

If you are going to throw out there that "they get to recruit", feel free to use your name and include the proof you have that proves recruiting has taken place.

Anonymous said...

wow. the anonymous guy posting all this about not being fair that some runners have to work harder to get to CCS than other runners from different leagues is really biased toward WCAL.

i agree with EVERYTHING he is saying and think that his comments are right on, and its really not fair. and i say this without any bias toward any league.

and the guy saying they recruit which is why they're so good? come on, man, really? how would you know? sounds like someone's a little jealous...

hank said...

"If you had an automatic qualifier the WCAL would dominate track just as they do basketball, bookball, baseball and everything else"

Let's look at the facts...

CCS Track Champs since 1966 - Boys
Public=32 (8 since '95)
Private=14 (9 since '95)
Note- Private didn't win their first CCS title til Riordan did in '87 (21 years to get one).

CCS Track Champs since 1974 - Girls
Public=25 (10 since '95)
Private=13 (7 since '95)
Note- Private didn't win their first CCS title til SF did in 1984 (10 years to get one).

Gotta like the #'s that public schools put up.

hank

Postfontaine said...

Thanks for that, Hank. That's what I love about statistics. They never lie.

Anonymous said...

Yup. And if WCAL got 8 qualifiers that would be a huge difference and would be much more slanted toward the privates. People don't want that, hate them and want to keep them down.

Could you imagine if WCAL got 8 spots? It would be football and basketball and baseball all over.

That's why we hate them, they are rich, and better. Keep them down and let them cry about it.

Anonymous said...

Any ideas why the heat sheets are not out for ALL of the NCS Area meets? Who makes the heat sheets? A committee or a couple of people? What is the reason for the delay? The meets are tomorrow.

Albert Caruana said...

I have no idea why they are not out yet. The deadline to turn in the entries was yesterday which is why they are possibly not posted yet.

NCSfanboy said...

NCS Tri-Valley... Dropping the ball. No school websites have them or anything???

Albert Caruana said...

I have the performance list for Tri-Valley. I can't get the file uploaded so feel free to email me and I will send it to you.

albertjcaruana@gmail.com

Anonymous said...

http://www.campotrack.com/trackPAGES/2012trackPAGES/entrants%20friday%20noon.htm

Anonymous said...

Are any of these regional championship results posted online anywhere?

NCSfanboy said...

yeah, someone hook it up

Anonymous said...

NCS trivalley races can be found at granadamatadors.org

Anonymous said...

Hank-regarding your stats for the number of CCS champs from public vs private schools, roughly how many public schools are in that pool vs private schools?

hank said...

Don't know. Not sure that plays into this discussion since previous posters are concerned about public Vs private percentages when it comes to other sports within CCS.

hank

Anonymous said...

Was just curious as to the ratio since that would put the numbers into better perspective.

Coach Tim said...

Anonymous said...

Yup. And if WCAL got 8 qualifiers that would be a huge difference and would be much more slanted toward the privates. People don't want that, hate them and want to keep them down.

Could you imagine if WCAL got 8 spots? It would be football and basketball and baseball all over.



Hank has CCS top marks lists on his website at least as far back as 2000, why don't you do the analysis and present your results?


Anonymous wrote... That's why we hate them, they are rich, and better. Keep them down and let them cry about it.


Or, we could grow stronger as people and move past the resentment. Not everyone who goes to a private school is "rich", and most rich people aren't evil. If you want to beat them, work harder. If you want to join them, become rich.

pmccrystle said...

Regarding the question of public vs. private, in the CCS there are 133 schools in all divisions that contest at least 1 interscholastic sport. Of these, 46 are private and 87 are public. Interestingly, in Divisions 1-4, the split is dramatically different: 111 schools, 86 public, but only 25 private. There is only 1 DI private school in CCS, and 4 DII schools. The breakdown by divisions in cross country looks like this:
Boys
Div Priv Pub
I 1 23
II 3 21
III 3 21
IV 8 15
V 18 1
Girls
DIV Priv Pub
I 0 24
II 3 21
III 4 20
IV 9 15
V 21 1

Anonymous said...

I'm curious. Obviously the larger schools have a huge advantage in track with no divisions. Does anyone know the smallest school to win a team CCS championship? Has d3 and below ever won?

pmccrystle said...

Dear 9:29 anonymous: Hard to tell, because school sizes change. But I do know that on the boys side no dIII school has one because Riordan was much larger when they won their titles. The only exception might be a school called Serramonte; it's no longer open and I don't know how big it was. Cubberly won one title, but I am assuming by the size of the still extant campus that it was DII at least.

On the girls' side, King City tied for the first title, Harbor won at least two, and SI won one. And a school called San Carlos, which to my knowledge is no longer open (renamed?) won one but I have no idea how big they were...