What is typically the strongest cross country section in NorCal?

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Northern California League Results

Results will be added as I find them or are sent to me. Please share results that are missing by sending them to albertjcaruana@gmail.com. You can send a link to the results or send them as an attachment.

CCS
Peninsula Athletic League trials results LINK
Peninsula Athletic League finals results LINK (new)
Mission Trail Athletic League results LINK
Blossom Valley Athletic League results LINK
West Bay Athletic League results LINK (new)
Santa Cruz Coast Athletic League results LINK
West Catholic Athletic League results LINK (new)
Santa Clara Valley Athletic League results LINK (new)

NCS
East Bay Athletic League results LINK
Bay Counties League results LINK
BCL West results LINK
BCL East results LINK
H-DN prelims results LINK
H-DN finals results LINK (new)
DVAL finals results LINK (new)
DFAL Live Results (FS and Varsity Trials Complete)- http://atwresults.com/atwupload/20160510/
MVAL results LINK (new)
MCAL results LINK (new)
TCAL results LINK (new)
NBL boys results LINK (new)
NBL girls results LINK (new)
SCL boys results LINK (new)
SCL girls results LINK (new)
WACC results LINK (new)
CMC Boys results LINK (new)
CMC Girls results LINK (new)

SJS (all SJS results can be found at the 3 links below)
SJS Division I results LINK (new)
SJS Division II results LINK (new)
SJS Division V results LINK (new)

NS

OAK
Oakland Finals will be May 25/26

SF

80 comments:

Anonymous said...

SCCAL Results

http://www.soqueltrack.com/results/

Anonymous said...

10 boys went sub 2 at WCAL trials and some who have run sub 2 already this year didn't even run selecting to go 1600/3200. And that's the trials!

Too bad the majority don't get a few extra weeks.

Anonymous said...

WCAL Trials results: http://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/MeetResults.aspx?Meet=258734#1101

Andrew said...

Ozzie or any EBAL coach, I hope you can answer a question based on the fantastic quality and depth that your league has.

So 9 girls in the 1600 ran the NCS at-large qualifying time just in EBAL PRELIMS! But that time has to be run (or bettered) at Tri-Valley in order to go to NCS on the auto, right? It doesn't matter if they run it in at league, prelims or finals...they just have to get to Tri-Valley, which I read in the other thread was being modified for all the Tri-Valley schools, presumably to prevent the case of the 9th place finisher hitting the auto, but not advancing based on place.

Fantastic results, can't wait to see what you all throw down in the coming weeks.

Coach Ozzie said...

Andrew,

In order for an athlete to advance to MOC's based on a time qualifier, the time has to be run at the NCS Tri-Valley Meet (or any respective area meet). We are allowed to advance athletes to the Tri-Valley meet based on the same time standard that would advance an athlete from Tri-Valley to MOC, but even those marks have to take place in the league final. So in short, where the league showed very good depth on Saturday, the marks did not help any of the athletes to advance beyond the EBAL meet. I have a feeling that it will be tough to make the MOC final in the girls' 1600m this year though.

Anonymous said...

Where is macauley from bellarmine? I haven't seen his name on the results for a while.

Albert Caruana said...

Kyle Macauley injured his hamstring Tuesday before CCS Top 8 meet. He is obviously out of individual events and questionable for the relays.

Andrew said...

Sounds like the way to do it, Ozzie. Come MOC, that 1600 final will be tough to cut down to 12.

Nils said...

Hi, is there a link for NCS TCAL? The meet's being held at Hercules High School.
Thanks,
Nils

Anonymous said...

Found TCAL trials results on St. Mary's website. On their schedule page.
http://www.saintmaryschs.org/athletics/track-field-2016/

Pierre Chan said...

WCAL results on ST Francis invite site.
http://www.sfhsinvitational.com/2016_Live_Results

5 boys under 1:57.

Serra's 4x400m time... wowzers.

Anonymous said...

The distribution of qualifies just makes me sad. Leagues getting 5, 6, 8 while really, really fast athletes stay home. Amazing how swimming has a time standard and for whatever reason we have this archaic tournament style qualifying. I know it has been discussed at length here but I plead with league reps to please do something.

Anonymous said...

The CCS qualifying system has become a joke! Can a school/league petition to move their track team to another section while maintaining their other sports in the CCS? Obviously nothing is going to happen and more kids are going to get screwed by the dumbass rules.

Anonymous said...

Many of these CCS qualifying marks are worse than JV times.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't the current system mirror the qualifying for CIF? If the system is a joke and change needs to happen then someone might want to contact the Southern section. 24 kids currently with faster times in the 3200 than CCS #1. Please do something. I'm sure it doesn't hurt having Arcadia, Mt. Sac, and Azuza in their backyard but that's just too bad for the rest of the State.

Anonymous said...

@4:35 Get this, Hank put together a power ranking of the CCS league finals and found that the 7 and 8 guys in the 3200 are staying home. So much for taking the 5th, 6th, or 8th kids in some leagues, the CCS will not even let the 7th and 8th kids in the section compete. Crazy or on purpose?

Anonymous said...

Frisbie, David John F. Kennedy (f) 12 4:14.30, Throw it down Dave!

Anonymous said...

Won't these slow times be screened out at CCS semis anyway? It seems that these rules are just giving some kids an opportunity to go to semis at the expense of those who truly deserve it. Why not allow top 2 from each league and the remainder qualify based on times?

Anonymous said...

WACC Championship Results - http://atwresults.com/atwupload/20160512/

Anonymous said...

De La Salle 4x400 dq is huge

Anonymous said...

In events when kids in the top 8 or 12 for distances and field events, do not qualify that could be in the final you are effecting the team score. Last year the girls title was separated by 0.5 points. You telling me that 8th place girls doesn't matter?

Anonymous said...

"Why not allow top 2 from each league and the remainder qualify based on times?"

Because the conditions can be very different during the different league meets. That's why comparing marks made at the league meets against each other will never be fair. Now, comparing marks against a standard (which is how it is done now), is more fair. The real question is to what that standard should be.

Anonymous said...

Can we at least agree that the standard should not be the 8th place time, which means you can make the final about 2 out 3 years? Not fair to make kids run those times 2 weeks in a row to make it to the CCS final. What could they have left to try to qualify for state the week after that?

Anonymous said...

The different conditions argument holds no weight. Whether you go by fastest times or use a standard why do conditions matter? If you have a head wind whether you compare to someone else or a standard it is equally at a disadvantage. And we are talking about 100, 200, LJ, TJ.

Anonymous said...

@ 11:34 agree completely, can't have it both ways.

Anonymous said...

"The different conditions argument holds no weight. Whether you go by fastest times or use a standard why do conditions matter? "

No, having a standard is not a zero sum game. That is, if 20 kids hit the standard, then 20 extra kids make it through. If you are comparing marks, then there is a limited number of "extra" qualifiers.

Here's a hypothetical, what happens if there is some ridiculously strong year and there are 15 WCAL 3200 boys under 9:30. Then, no matter what, only 10 would move on (2 autos plus next 8 fastest). And that's assuming that no other league has fast guys. I guarantee in that case people would be complaining that "deserving" kids are left out.

Look, it's really easy to improve the current system by just relaxing the at-large standard. In many events, it wouldn't even necessarily increase the number of participants, but in the unusually strong events, it would help immensely.

Anonymous said...

Yes, relax the at-large to get the better kids in. When will we hear what is going forward to the CCS for consideration in June?

Jorge Chen said...

To be honest this discussion would be resolved if we go back and re-evaluate the autos. No league should get more than 5 autos. I don't mind that our league (WBAL), and other leagues like ours to get 2 autos...that's about right...but WCAL getting 2 while BVAL (no offense to those athletes) getting 8 is just plain ridiculous.

I feel like we are trying to fix a system that is flawed in its autos by fixing the at-large marks which won't make it better unless we really re-evaluate the autos. Why do we keep on dancing around this issue? Also, I really hope that as a body of HS coaches (& ultimately the board of managers) from the CCS/Bay Area, that we really put our own teams aside when considering this potential new change and PUT ALL OF THE KIDS FIRST instead. At the end of the day, famous pro athletes from other sports who are from the area ultimately makes OUR AREA look better not the school. How many people do you think in this country knows Brady is from Serra? Very little...how many people knows he's from a Bay Area HS? I bet tons more...

Sorry again guys for preaching there...but there's clear hard data that certain leagues are really getting screwed out of even making CCS Semis while they belong in the CCS Finals due to the outdated distribution of autos.

Good luck in CCS to those who made it! Thanks for listening...

Joe said...

Jorge, Thank you for adding to the conversation. It is great to have a coach step up and put forward an idea that would make the system better for the kids in the entire section. There are far too many that jealously guard what they get from the current system, even if they know it is unfair to others. As you know, the "others" are kids who are being negatively impacted by the current rules. You are absolutely right that the system will not undergo a comprehensive change toward equity unless coaches, school administrators, and league officials put aside their own self-interests and ask the CCS to study the issue and make the needed corrections. If that can happen at the June CCS meeting that would be great. I suspect that it is too complicated an issue to get the CCS to act this June. That is why I am advocating a two-step process where we get them to relax the at-large standard for the 2017 season, and then study the qualifying procedure for a year and make larger changes for the 2018 season. That way we can assure that the most egregious examples (one of which impacted my son this year) are taken care of next year, and we have time to put the best ideas on the table and get buy-in from the greatest number of stakeholders.

Anonymous said...

Jorge,
Interestingly, if you look at the calculations for the distribution of auto spots (http://www.cifccs.org/sports/track/2015-16/2016__Lg._Entries.pdf), the BVAL is already "short-changed" relative to their population. By having a 2 auto minimum, the SCCAL and WBAL already get an "extra" auto spot. In fact, for the boys, the SCCAL "gets" a spot that would have gone to the WCAL if there wasn't the minimum.

If you cap the maximum autos at 5, then the BVAL, MBL, PAL, and SCVAL would all get 5 while everyone else would get 3. I would imagine that even in this case some would call out the unfairness that the WCAL and WBAL both get the same number of auto spots.

Now, imagine a situation where everything stays the same but the WCAL just gets bumped up to 5 auto spots while the BVAL and SCVAL get capped at 5. Assuming the same at-large standard, the 1:57 kid would STILL not make it on (realize that if this distribution had been around for a few years, the at-large standards would probably be even harder).

So, it seems that the number of autos isn't really the problem (except for the resentment that some leagues get more) and it just gets back to simply adjusting the at-large to accommodate more competitors.

Anonymous said...

Kurds ran a 9:05 on a double. Looks like he's really back in shape!

Anonymous said...

@8:52 While your analysis of the auto spots based on size of league are probably right, many have stated here before that the spots should be based more on talent and merit rather than enrollment. I think that is the best approach for the autos, and filling out the remaining slots should be based on the next fastest times set at the league final. As expressed here before, the differing conditions argument does not hold water since the current at-large process is at least equally impacted, and I would argue even more so.

Menlo XC/Track Coach said...

@8:52 If autos are to be based on population, can we do this instead...how about if we base the autos on number of participants in the league that are actually participating in running track? Can that be done? Since that will be a more accurate representation of the 'population' and those are actual numbers instead of a subjective point of view.

Also, no, it's actually not resentment since there is hard facts that WCAL does get the short-end of the stick and this year is no different...if CCS Championships is supposed to be a meet to go on to the State Championship and not a participation meet (so you have the best talent there), then just compare the top 10 CCS lists with who made it to CCS this year...you'll be surprised...again, it's not resentment...it's just a fact...also, if you look at BVALs results and that 8 goes from their league, it's actually contradicting CCS' rationale that CCS Championships isn't a participation meet because with 8 autos it makes it a participation meet for them and because there are kids who aren't going to CCS from the WCAL who ran a lot faster than the winner of the BVAL champions...So do you call that fair?

Also, if you don't think that the autos is the problem, then what is? Because clearly there is a problem here...Again, I'm coming from the WBAL and I have no affiliations whatsoever with the WCAL...but when I look up the results from League Finals...it's not rocket science that there are kids getting screwed out of the CCS because certain leagues have too many autos based on sheer population of schools...Again, I'm trying to come up with an equitable solution because the problem is if we mess with the at-large marks, we mess with more athletes into the CCS championships which will also mess up the Semis with too many heats as others have mentioned here.

And btw, the capping it at 5 was just an idea...again, I'm trying to come up with solutions and brainstorm...because again clearly we have a problem here. I actually don't mind SCVAL having 6 since they do have the talent as well...but again, there is a problem here and by us coaches just year after year turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to it isn't the solution. Just trying to help here and not disagreeing with anyone...Thanks again for the healthy discussion because these athletes deserve at least an evaluation of what is going on, if not a solution...

Another Idea said...

Without at-large there are 32 spots from the 8 CCS leagues with the current qualifying system - why not just go to 4 qualifiers from each league and a good auto standard based on 3 year aggregate of the last qualifier time/mark to get into the CCS Final? The number of qualifiers based on population/size is ridiculous, different events are stronger in different areas and it constantly changes - make things more uniform.

20+ years ago in the Southern Section it used to be just 3 qualifiers from a league, no at-large no matter how fast you ran. We had one year where 4th place in league in the 1600 and 3200 was 4:17 and 9:17 and those kids didn't even get to go to CIF Prelims. It would be great to find a new system but realize that someone is always going to get screwed and this discussion will continue no matter what changes.

Anonymous said...

I personally think the Tri-Valley qualification worked well. Top 3 finishers from each league Championship...DFAL,DVAL,EBAL, BVAL, then the NEXT 12 top times all advance. The DVAL and BVAL got their top runners in and talent heavy DFAL and EBAL got those in who should be there, as well. 24 runners will compete in NCS tai-valley. In the past, it was top 6 from each league, but MANY top runners were left out and spots were filled by the 5th or 6th runners in some leagues, far below the standards. It is much more equitable for the top runners and still very fair for the smaller programs.

Albert Caruana said...

I also agree that the Tri-Valley model is terrific and would work well in CCS. You can figure out a number of auto qualifiers that could be the same for all leagues whether that is 2-4 or have the bigger leagues get 1-2 more. Once you determine the auto qualifiers, you fill out the rest of your field by the next fastest or best marks.

Anonymous said...

Will that be the pitch to the CCS in June?

Albert Caruana said...

Provided it is passed by coaches and ADs, the pitch is to adjust the current at-large mark.

Anonymous said...

Albert, thanks for taking this on. Good luck! Let us know what happens.

Anonymous said...

De La Salle Boys 4x400 was Dq'd for an inelible runner. But, I heard today they were still passed through to the next NCS Meet. What? How can your relay team be DQ'd and still advance? How does that work? Just because they are De La Salle? If my Booys 4x400 team is on the bubble for a State Meet spot, I'm a little upset right now.

Anonymous said...

De La Salle Boys 4x400 was Dq'd for an inelible runner. But, I heard today they were still passed through to the next NCS Meet. What? How can your relay team be DQ'd and still advance? How does that work? Just because they are De La Salle? If my Booys 4x400 team is on the bubble for a State Meet spot, I'm a little upset right now.

Anonymous said...

@6:50pm

DLS is currently not on the Tri-Valley performance list for the 4x4

Anonymous said...

What is an ineligible runner?

Anonymous said...

DLS didn't list an alternate, and one of the members of their 4x4 got injured in the open 400. They tried to put a new guy in the 4x4, but since they never listed an alternate thst shouldn't have even been allowed in the first place

Anonymous said...

I want to preface this by saying that I have no ties to De La Salle whatsoever. I promise (for whatever good that means as an anonymous Internet commenter)

Obviously, the DLS coach should've listed alternates for the race. If their season is over, it's on the coaching staff.

That being said, it would be a travesty if the DLS 4x400's season ended because of a technicality. The other EBAL coaches should be embarrassed for raising a fuss like children. From what I heard, DLS won that race going away. And they would've won by an even larger margin with a healthy team. Plus, that race had no bearing on the league standings!
They're one of the fastest teams in the state and have a shot at the podium.

As a NorCal track fan, it's embarrassing that the EBAL coaches would rather win on a lame technicality — Really, coaches? You're upset about an unlisted alternate at a high school league meet? The only reason you even had a puncher's chance of winning that race was because the overwhelming favorite forgot to list an alternate when one of their runners happened to pull a hammy. That's how you want to win? It's not like DLS pulled a ringer off the street or ran someone who couldn't make grades.

When I was in school my 4x400 lost out on a Tri-Valley NCS spot because a team beat us at the DVAL Finals with two unlisted alternates, including one who had just run the 3200. We were bummed, but we thought it was awesome that they were able to put together a great race despite the injuries. We didn't turn into the pedantic police and point at the rulebook.

Anonymous said...

Edit: I meant that it made a difference in the league standings, which makes it even more ridiculous.

Again, those EBAL coaches should be embarrassed. I guess congratulations to Cal High on their win by technicality?

Anonymous said...

If the league has rules regarding the listing of alternates, then it's on the coaches to follow those rules. And if a relay team is good enough to have state ambitions, it's not unreasonable to expect the coach to brush up on the rulebook to make sure everything proceeds correctly. It really sucks when the kids pay the price for a coach's screw-up, but sometimes it happens. I've been there, and it was the worst moment of my coaching career. But it also forced me to up my game and I've become a much better coach as a result.

All that said, in my opinion it's a bit silly to have rules regarding the listing of alternates at the league level. Everyone should be an alternate for the 4x4.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 1:44 am, their season is over. They clearly broke a rule that every other team in the league complied with. Just because they are De La Salle doesn't mean they should be exempt from the rules.

The 4x4 in fact had huge implications on the league standings, California high school was leading by 2 points going into the 4x4 (even after a DLS runner pushed a Cal runner in the 800 and cleared the way for another DLS runner to "win" and collect the points).

The only people that should be embarrassed are the members of the DLS coaching staff and team for the poor sportsmanship and complete lack of class they showed.

Anonymous said...

Pushing in the 800... an "unlisted runner" in the 4 x 400. And we thought CCS was a bunch of cry babies about the evil galactic private school empire. I have never seen a league have a bylaw about listing alternates. If this is some team pulling out the USATF / NFHS rule book and digging through to find a rule to DQ shame on them. So it is ok to reinstate San Ramon's 800 runners that didn't qualify or allow athletic motivated transfers to Campolindo but as soon as an unlisted team member runs... BAM!
I seriously thought the kid was academically ineligible or didn't run all season then showed up meeting a minimum participation rule or something. This is ridiculous.

Anonymous said...

Filling out relay cards is a CIF rule!

Anonymous said...

Agree with Anonymous at 9:49!

The DLS Coaches know the rules and they are solely to blame...not the EBAL coaches. If this happened at the NCS Meets, there would have been no discussion by anyone. DLS Coaches need to play by the same rules as everyone else. The EBAL Coaches were correct in their decision. The Rule Book is very clear in this matter! Not listing alternates is negligence by the DLS coaches. They know better! That said, unfair to the kids who have worked so hard only to have their coaches let them down.

Anonymous said...

I can't wait for NCS when the same coach tries to get the other teams DQ'ed because they don't all have matching socks or something.

Albert Caruana said...

My motto is don't make rules you can't uphold.

Anonymous said...

@ 1:21
Undergarments are not considered part of the uniform and do not have to match nor be a solid color. The infamous case was when a kid's boxers (why you would wear boxers under your shorts I have no idea) slipped down when he was running and was DQ'd. In another case a girl was DQ'd because her bra was not a solid color. Rightfully so parents were irate and concerned athletes were being DQ's for underwear in track & field.

Some rules need to be changed. For example the jewelry rule. This may be one of them or not, that is up to the coaches. My issue comes when you don't enforce a rule all year then suddenly pull out the rule book at the end of the year. Are you telling me these coaches never put a 4x400 team together on the fly at a dual meet... or subbed in a runner at an invite? Yet now they throw stones?

Any rule should have the interests of the kids first. I am not sure how listing alternates better enhances the fairness of the relay outside of making sure an athlete is not entered in more than 4 events.

Albert Caruana said...

The underwear and jewelry rules are no longer in play.

I do agree that rules should be enforced all season long but they are not. As a coach, you have to make sure your kids know the rules especially when it comes to championship season.

Anonymous said...

The relay cards have been around for 30+ years. coaches write the names of six possible runners 9 relay pool ) for the 4 spots. You fill out the card starting with you league meet and can change the card after every meet leading up to the Cif State meet. Not that hard,

Anonymous said...

I know they will have heat sheets for the NCS's MOC but will they have heat sheets for the Bayshore and the other NCS section meets this weekend?

Anonymous said...

Call me cynical, but I'm not crying for the private school WCAL kids who didn't move on to the CCS semis. These schools already have a big advantage over the public schools as they can pull from anywhere. If they weren't at Bellarmine, many of these athletes would be at schools in the BVAL or SCVAL where they could easily qualify for CCS semis. They've chosen to go to a highly competitive league and school.

Anonymous said...

@4:58. Exactly why I will never vote for more spots for WCAL. They take our kids then expect to be handed more qualifiers. Go ahead and try to change the system but you will never get my vote because you cheat. So does Aptos, SLV, Santa Cruz and those schools over there taking our kids. They should have tougher standards. Stop crying and deal with it.

Anonymous said...

Ok let's do away with super leagues and qualifiers and do the following:
1. Take the top 32 marks from league meets.
Or
2. Make the qualifying mark equL to the 32nd fastest time the last 3 years. You hit the mark and you are in. (It works for swimming why not track?)

It's much better to have controversy over who is 32nd than who is top 8 and have a shot at state.

Anonymous said...

For all the people who care to read from another anonymous, from being at the meet and watching a video of that 800 race I would not consider the DLS runner as "clearing the way for his teammate or obviously pushing", as current and former runners and competitors, we should all know that if we had a chance to win we would also be challenging the runner in the lead. On another note, why would the DLS kid even consider giving the win to his teammate at the risk of disqualifying himself and not winning for himself, that idea doesn't even make sense if you look at it from a high school age athletes perspective. He tried to kick it in by swinging wide, but maybe was still too close to the Cal runner who was running out of gas himself. It looks like an accident that happens on occasion [my own opinion, watch the video and make your own desicion], we say it's a no contact sport but it happens. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has gotten an elbow and suffered from a bloody nose mid-race or has gotten clipped by track spikes. From I have seen the DLS runner should be allowed to run at Tri-Valley and the debatable contact did not warrant the DQ. Not trying to defend the DLS runner but it pains me to read our "anonymous" comments saying the DLS team and coaches are showing "no class" and "poor sportsmanship". The kids on the team have no say on what happens so let's not speak ill of them. The coaches like any other coaching staff are trying to stand up for their athletes, I'm sure if other kids were DQ'ed their coaches would also try to have their athletes or athlete reinstated. I don't know if I can post a link of the race here but you can YouTube it "2016 EBAL finals varsity Boys' 800m".

The relay problem is justified and I agree it is a coaching error, the problem was not having two alternate athletes listed so the ineligible runner thing is inaccurate. The thing is I have also seen league results form other leagues that they are just listed as "school name and A Team" no athletes are listed [maybe I'm just not seeing it, please point it out to me, I could be wrong]. We should abide by the rules but DLS trying to justify themselves is a normal reaction, they have an understandable argument. I agree with 1:46 pm that kids should come first, because at the end of the day these rules are for the kids competing and not for us to try to DQ kids from competition. I'm like another other former runner in our section that would like to see our kids compete and challenge SS schools, in addition to watching extremely fast kids race against each other. Fast races are just more exciting and fun to watch.

These are just my opinions and ramblings, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm just another anonymous that likes to talk. Mr. Caruana if this comment troubles your site in any way shape or form, please feel free to delete it as soon as possible. I enjoy the content that is posted and don't want any trouble. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Exactly 5:24. I'd think any parents upset in the SCCAL might be asking how all these girls just appear? I once heard it was the culture. Parents of private school kids know the deal going in, or at least they should. Except for those hard working kids who just converted from other sports only to find out track and cross country are just as competitive as the sports they just left. Hit the auto. Stop complaining that its too hard and hit the auto. The top guys have been around long enough to know if you can't hit the auto, you're not going anywhere after Saturday anyways.

Anonymous said...

@9:56 - I haven't heard anybody from the SCCAL complaining in this conversation. Are we talking about options for advancing kids to CCS, or are you just taking another opportunity to troll SCCAL? I'm still trying to figure out who all these kids stolen from over the hill are.

Anonymous said...

Look at Aptos and Santa Cruz rosters and where they went to school last year. The both have a former San Jose runner on their team.

Albert Caruana said...

Families do move and students sometimes do not stay at the same high school all four years. It does happen and in most cases, they are legal moves.

Anonymous said...

Legal moves are fine. Just like private schools drawing in kids from all over. I'll bet WCAL has kids who actually live north of the Golden Gate. Just don't expect us to want to change the system to further promote this. If all these top kids want to train together that's great, but most don't have that advantage. So run at a school with all your JO buddies, hit your personal best at league finals and start training for Cross Country a week earlier.

Anonymous said...

Where did the public school fans get they idea that they own kids because they live in a geographic area? I am sure that cal state SF would be amazing if not for that evil Cal and more evil Stanford. Gosh, I wish I could just make it all go away. How is that for sarcasm?

Anonymous said...

@12:53 how small must you be for thinking that kids who give everything to their sport, including participating in JOs, should be punished for being good and loving their sport enough to compete on a national level. Your thinking is what holds NorCal back from catching up with the "evil" south.

Albert Caruana said...

I edited the following by deleting the last sentence which wasn't necessary.

"12:53 remember when they told Jerry Rice to stop playing pee wee football, and Bonds was urged to quit Little League because it wasn't fair to the others. Why should track kids not want to develop in the same way."

Anonymous said...

My Dad works 2 jobs to send my sister and I to private school. Our local public school is full of gangs and academics are nonexistent. I wish it wasn't that way but it is. We are not rich or spoiled. I work to help pay tuition as well.
It's not always rich spoiled brats that are affected.

Anonymous said...

Wait, I thought I saw someone mention the public schools in the Bay Area had better facilities than the Private school?

Anonymous said...

I'm not telling anyone to quit. I'm telling them if you want to build your JO super teams in XC then get used to hitting the auto in track. Why should the ststem change to promote more of this? Just because all these kids have decided to go to these schools doesn't mean everyone else should forfeit their spots, or we just make up more. Every year the same group complains for 2 weeks. This is not new news. There's plenty individual girls in the BVAL who know what's up.

Anonymous said...

Who has the best facilities public? Private?

Anonymous said...

@8:18 enlighten us what's up and what the BVAL girls know?

And what private schools are you talking about exactly?

Anonymous said...

Public by far. Not even close. Tax money always beats private money every time. Never run out of it, period.

Anonymous said...

For sure. I know lots of public schools that can afford to put 30 kids in vans and drive them out for long runs at the beach on Saturdays in January.

Albert Caruana said...

And I know lots of public schools that use parent drivers and make things happen and are highly successful.

Anonymous said...

LONG RUNS at the beach don't make you good. LONG RUNS do.

Anonymous said...

The argument was about facilities not operating funds or sports budgets. These are two vastly different things. No doubt, in the Bay Area, public schools have more money to build big beautiful campuses with sparkling new 8-lane tracks. The money comes from taxing the wealth generated by our biggest industry. These facilities are far better than most of the tracks found at private schools (if they have one at all), some of which charge 5-figure tuition. While the infrastructure is seen by the vast majority of the tax-paying public in the area, the track operating budget is only known to a very few. This is by design. That public schools spend less on sports, arts, and other extracurricular activities is not new and isn't going to change any time soon. Isn't this one of the reasons people choose to go to a private school and spend a lot of money on a commodity (education) they could otherwise get for "free?"

Anonymous said...

It's not long runs at the beach makes you good, it's the LONG RUNS.

Popular Posts