What is typically the strongest cross country section in NorCal?

Friday, May 16, 2014

2014 WCAL Results

http://www.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/TRACK/2014/wcal_res.htm

Only the top 2 advanced from this very competitive league unless they surpassed the following at-large marks:
100 11.17 100 12.62
200 22.50 200 25.70
400 49.77 400 58.40
800 1:57.40 800 2:18.47
1600 4:25.18 1600 5:13.03
3200 9:39.55 3200 11:40.03
110 HH 15.44 100 HH 15.84
300 IH 40.48 300 LH 47.19
400 Relay 43.49 400 Relay 49.78
1600 Relay 3:27.21 1600 Relay 4:03.03
Long Jump 21’ 04" Long Jump 16’10.25"
Triple Jump 43’ 09.5" Triple Jump 35'2.00"
High Jump 6’ 01.00" High Jump 5’ 00.00”
Pole Vault 12'8.00" Pole Vault 10’ 08.00”
Shot Put 48'7.75" Shot Put 36’ 11.50”
Discus 141'3.00" Discus 109’ 00.00”

Also from NCS
http://www.fordtiming.com/Results/2014/MVAL/Results.htm (MVAL)
http://www.saintmaryschs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014-TCAL-Championships-Prelims-Results.pdf (TCAL)

31 comments:

Rob said...

I think these are 2013 times Albert!

Anonymous said...

To me it is bs that WCAL only gets 2 auto bids while BVAL gets 8 because they are bigger. Even if the BVAL is bigger, the athletes are just flat out more competitive in the WCAL. How can we not adjust this when the WCAL men put 2 qualifiers in the final of every event last year except the 400 and the 3200. That means they qualified over 90 percent of the athletes they got bids for. Just saying.....

Albert Caruana said...

Rob, you are right. The times have been updated and for most events, it's even tougher than 2013.

That the WCAL only gets two automatic bids to CCS is clearly not fair. I wish the CCS committee could find a better way to qualify athletes to CCS which can accommodate both the sheer numbers of some leagues and the quality of other leagues.

Anonymous said...

It's not just BVAL. MBL gets 5. They qualified a girl in the mile with a 5:40. The St. Francis girl stays home with a 5:14.

There are very competitive marks in these leagues so I'm not bashing or suggesting we take away spots. But WCAL should get a few more. Perhaps a power formula like in xc? Bashing other leagues or saying it's not fair will not solve the issue, but a reasonable well thought out proposal might.

I mean a 1:57 800 for the boys, a 5:14 mile for the girls deserve to be at CCS if we truly want the CCS meet to be the best. Yes it gets sorted out for the finals but don't these times have a shot? Could they not realistically take 1 second off next week? We don't need to look far to see an alternate in the mile win the CCS title. Let's try to find a way to gets kids like this in.

Perhaps the standard should be 9th fastest "qualifying time" to CCS. Mirror the wording of the state marks. After all they don't count the times it takes to make the state final but what it takes to get there. I think that's a good place to start.

Anonymous said...

Let's not just make this about the evil empire but SCCAL has it tough too. They had a few 5:14 girls stay home as well. Plus 11 girls hit the CCS auto mark in the 3200! How do we get the best kids there without hurting the kids by robbing the poor to give to the rich? Make a more reasonable standard and add a few heats. I know the CCS office hates track and wants to eliminate heats but it's the only answer.

Anonymous said...

Same whining every year. Maybe the times are so much faster, because they know they are competing for less spots. 46 are in in the girls 3200, and probably 40 in the 1600. I'm going to assume the best are in.

Anonymous said...

I'm not so good at math but pretty sure 5:14>5:40 in track. It's probably better than 75% of those 40, so no the best are not in, unless you are an elitist that only cares about first and not having the best represented at the section meet.

Sincerely, how do you think it is fair. Can you provide a reasonable argument?

Anonymous said...

I'm not so good at math neither, but I'm pretty sure different race conditions, including how many guaranteed spots a runner might have would factor in. I'm not a weatherman, but I do recall Wednesday and Thursday being just a tad warmer than Friday or last Saturday. I'm willing to bet the girl who won the MBL 1600 runs a little faster at CCS. I'm willing to bet a lot more that the 4:34 guy runs a little faster too. Just like windy conditions, or private schools being able to draw athletes from any district. Things aren't always fair. It's always the one's who are 1 second slower then the auto. They have formula which allows fast runners an additional chance to qualify and it's never fair enough. 75% is a bit of a stretch. The best will be represented at the meet. 5:14 ain't even coming close to finals.

John said...

This seems to be a complaint every year. NCS seems to do it right with league meets rolling up to area meets next week and then a two-day section meet that mirrors CIF.

Some athletes will get left out due to disparities in performance levels amongst the leagues/regions but it's seems a fair system (Top 6 at league moves on to region for example).

If the goal for CCS is to provide more post season opportunities for athletes (like the NCAA did with region meets) then it needs to move to a better system.

If not then the haves (coaches and leagues with more auto bids) will have no interest in helping the have nots.

Anonymous said...

Please do not bring your hatred for private schools into this argument. They can draw from anywhere, yes. But this in an individual sport. It's not just kids from privates that get screwed. But any league with depth. Why not do what swimming does. Have a CCS time. You hit it, you're in. Don't, your out. Doesn't matter your school, no politics involved. Seems simple enough.

And of course the 4:34 kid could run faster. So could the 1:57 kid staying home. That's just an absurd argument. And statistics say that 5:14 does have a shot at the final. And whose to say she couldn't run 5:05? Can you tell the future? What this really is, is a way to punish private schools by limiting the qualifiers. Nice.

Anonymous said...

Yep, and the CCS bases the number of entries a league gets on the number of individuals in each district. Can't get much more individual then that. If she could run 5:05 she'd be moving on. Not taking into considerations different race conditions is absurd.

Anonymous said...

It's actually insane and terrible that the 1:57 kid from Bellarmine gets left out. He definitely deserves to be there. Would've been a CCS finalist based off his current time.

Anonymous said...

My solution: close the doors for the WCAL. All schools compete in their league by geography or school district area. Then no complaints.

Anonymous said...

I'm lost how people here are justifying leaving out a 1:57 kid while 2:04 gets in. Or a 5:14 girl when numerous runners are getting in 5:30+. "Run faster" is absolutely the idiotic argument that hinders this sport. No one is saying kick your 5:40 kid out, but how can we let someone almost 30 seconds faster in. Seriously, what is wrong with you people.

Anonymous said...

They have an auto, and it's not slow enough for you. 46 girls are getting in the 3200.

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it make sense to just take the 13 or whatever number of fastest times from over the course of the season, even if it wasn't run at the league meet? That way, it wouldn't matter what conditions the league meet was run. I believe thats how it goes for NCAAs in college.

Anonymous said...

Then you have all kinds of garbage like what went on to get kids into Arcadia.

Anonymous said...

Top 2 from every league and then take the best marks in descending order from only league finals to fill out the CCS field. This will allow every league representation and get the best marks into the CCS meet without chasing marks during the rest of the season. The current system is embarrassing to see marks so far removed from the auto qualifying marks make it in while others just missing the auto qualifying marks staying home

Anonymous said...

If I'm not mistaken, the kid who ran the 1:57 from Bellarmine won CCS Top 8, the supposed "preview" meet for the actual CCS. Obviously something is not right and anyone who doesn't think so is probably biased

Anonymous said...

46 girls did not hit the auto. It's about 10 who get in automatically. Those non automatic qualifiers (running faster than 11:40) will now lower the standard. It will then be harder. So the 12:40 kid gets in, the 11:20 kid doesn't.

Still waiting for a reasonable response as to why slower athletes make it in, faster don't.

Anonymous said...

The auto time is not a standard the leagues must hit, but there to help more people get in. It does just that. It's never going to be enough anytime 1 runners time is slower then the other. This is helping way more people than are getting screwed. Marks in descending order will only benefit the schools with depth. We know who that is, and it's no secret how they obtain such depth.

Anonymous said...

I told you. Different race conditions. Different competition. That's why slower athletes get in. It's not that hard. Including the 32 automatic bids, an additional 14 girls have run the auto time. By my count. The auto time gets adjusted every year. That's why a 1:57.40 doesn't get in this year. The auto in the 800 will be going down after this year. Because it's so weak. Most of the main 800 kids either doubled or didn't run at Top 8. If he's the top contender, I'd like it think he'd win his league.

Anonymous said...

Every league gets in 2. Fill with the next fastest qualifiers as provisional marks until the field is full from league meets. That way there's no chasing times. What's hard about that? Or NCAA. Hit a time to get into regional. Qualify from that to CCS. What the above poster is saying could not be more wrong. The conditions no doubt have a big influence but a quick glance at athletic.net reveals that these are slower athletes qualifying.

I have no problem having a certain time not be good enough. But don't tell me someone who is slower deserves to get in because they go to a certain school.

Go regional. Simple fix.

Anonymous said...

Maybe CCS should also revisit the number of girls teams that qualify from section to state. It does not make sense that Div IV qualifies 4 teams but Div I and III only qualify two teams.

Anonymous said...

Should have said qualify for State in Cross Country in above post:)

Albert Caruana said...

Qualifying to state in cross country is not a CCS decision. It's based on how well you do at state.

hank said...

Wow, time a meet and go to a show and look at what I miss.

First off, "CCS office hates track and wants to eliminate heats", you obviously haven't talked with Steve Filios or know his background, he loves track as much as basketball and glad he reps track at CCS.

As for coming up with a standard that can be achieved during the track season and that gets you in to the CCS meet... and who is going to track these marks and verify them? If you want to volunteer then step forward (and you don't see me raising my hand).

I do think the Top 8 marks at season end should get in but as I said above, I'm not always going to be doing this. IMO the 1:57 kid (ranked 5th in CCS prior to the League finals) is getting shafted, the 5:14 girl... not so much.

These are just my ramblings.

hank

Anonymous said...

Is there a way to merge the results from the league meets? I know results will be off due to leagues like BVAL and SCVAL having monster tail winds while it was a headwind for others but it would be interesting stat wise.
We do a power merge and convert times for xc lets do it for track.

hank said...

You wanted a Power Merge... it can be viewed (and modified) here:

http://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/Division/Top.aspx?List=6667&SchoolID=29324

hank

Anonymous said...

Hank could you do the top 32?

Anonymous said...

You can select whatever number you want just by changing the filer.

Popular Posts