What is toughest CCS At-Large distance mark?

Saturday, May 21, 2016

Northern California Section Results

North Coast Section
Redwood Empire
Tri-Valley
http://www.foothilltrack.com/live/ (Alyssa Brewer 55.05/2:07.71 DOUBLE!)
Class A

Central Coast Section

San Francisco Section Trials Results LINK

Sac-Joaquin Section

Northern Section

Oakland Section

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Has anyone before this season every qualified in the CCS finals for the 800, 1600, and 3200?

Albert Caruana said...

Good question and very possible. Anyone?

Anonymous said...

Yes. Most recently Sarah Robinson.

There are also many this year that could, two of whom go to Santa Cruz. But just because you can does not mean you should.

Albert Caruana said...

That is right with Robinson and Gunn going after section title a few years ago.

Much more difficult to do for the boys. Girls races are not as competitive.

Anonymous said...

All NCS's results are in except as usual the Bayshore meet. Any idea when the results will be available?

Albert Caruana said...

I will post them as soon as I get them. Tomorrow probably.

Albert Caruana said...

Rylee Bowen won all three distance races at the NCS Class A meet running 5:01.58, 2:20.20 and 11:00.67. She would have qualified for all three distance races in CCS. I am fairly sure she will drop 800 for this coming weekend.

Albert Caruana said...

Rylee Bowen won all three distance races at the NCS Class A meet running 5:01.58, 2:20.20 and 11:00.67. She would have qualified for all three distance races in CCS. I am fairly sure she will drop 800 for this coming weekend.

pmccrystle said...

By my calculations, next year's CCS at large times in the 800/1600/3200 for boys will be 1:57.77, 4:23.28, 9:30.28...

Albert, I have your watch! See you Friday night...

Anonymous said...

Anyone know a place to train steeplechase, especially the water jump, in the Bay Area this summer? Coaching would be a plus but open facility would be enough.

Anonymous said...

Anyone know where you can find the schedule for the State meet?

Albert Caruana said...

http://static.psbin.com/k/9/4iywu58lgaafra/2016_TF_Handbook.pdf

Menlo XC/Track Coach said...

Coach Patrick, even though those are still pretty fast, but at least it gets a little bit better...thanks to the slower qualifying times this year...

And BTW, didn't I already see the stopwatch on eBay? hahahahaha...

Anonymous said...

Again, if 12th gets you to the final in most events and gives you a chance to score for the team title why is 8th the standard and not 12th? Can someone with knowledge or a league rep please explain?

Albert Caruana said...

I can't explain that one.

Albert Caruana said...

I can't explain that one.

Hank said...

I believe a "chance" to score doesn't cut it. 8th IS the last scoring place, hence 8th place for the calculations. Just an educated guess.

hank

Albert Caruana said...

I believe they are following the state meet bylaws by going with 8 across the board for all events.

Anonymous said...

The at-large system is a joke and is only there to make up for the fact that the league auto spots are completely misapplied. The number of auto marks has to based on talent and not school and league size. Look at the times from the league and count the number of kids left behind that could easily score in the top 8 if only given the chance. Let's stop nipping around the edges and figure out how to make this more fair to ALL of the kids. This is a supposed to be about them!

Anonymous said...

@9:50

If you believe that the fastest in the section should go to CCS in the name of “fairness”, or if you believe that athlete A running a faster time than athlete B from another league’s CCS qualifier meet means that athlete A, too, has “earned” a spot, then why would you advocate for any auto qualifiers?

There is a flaw in the logic with such a format for qualification. On one hand you would acknowledge the need for a fair representation through auto qualification, but on the other hand you want disproportionately distribute auto qualifiers? Using your logic, what you should advocate for is that ALL of the league’s auto qualifiers get sliced in half (or by three fourths or by a quarter), then you could give THOSE remaining spots based on time. I’m not a fan of this plan, but it would be consistent with your logic.

The elephant in the room is that deep down we all know you have to give every one an invitation to the big party. The Blossom Valley represents a much larger portion of the kingdom than leagues that only get two spots. This is fair representation.

All of this talk is just sour grapes talk from people (parents, coaches, athletes), who are excellent athletes, but did not have quite what it takes to get through their tough league.

By the way there was nothing wrong with the level of competitiveness at CCS semis or the finals. The Blossom Valley “Cinderella” runners did just fine at CCS.

Anonymous said...

The problem with shifting to any significant portion of CCS semi field being comprised of runners qualifying based on time is that the conditions of each of the qualifying races would be hugely important. Hot conditions or tactical or strategic races would be a severe disadvantage.

Qualification is based on racing. The spots you’re shooting for have to be runners in your heat, so you can pull them in or out kick them. Nobody wants to race a ghost.

Also, imagine for instance that league A runs their qualifier on Monday and then on Tuesday in league B’s qualifier, the top runners can work together to all slide in above the existing mark from league A.

And the implications of such a system for non-distance running events is more then I can even begin to discuss here.

Regardless of your views on how many auto qualifiers each league should get. you have to agree that giving spots based on time introduces a slew of new problems.

Anonymous said...

@8:22 you have no idea what you are talking about. The BVAL got a disproportionate number of runners in the semi as compared to their quality. Their slowest is ranked #50 in the CCS. He ran 10:20.36 in the semi just to be clear, the girl who won the final ran 10:29.52. "Did just fine" - I guess that's just eye of the beholder. We left #5,9,12,13, and 14 at home to allow your "Cinderella" and 8 others who ran slower than 10:00 to "compete" at CCS. Get a grip on yourself!

Anonymous said...

@9:01 the at-large has the same types of issues with weather and conditions. Don't we want to send our best? What could possibly be the argument against that? Give the kids who are disadvantaged by this mindless system something to look forward to other than trying to make a time that would get you into a scoring position at the CCS final. Once and for all - what the heck is wrong with you people that want to punish these kids who run their butts off all season only to be told to sit down because the number 110 kid is from a larger league and "deserves" to go over you?

Anonymous said...

9:01 Racing a ghost like racing a time set in stone by kids that raced three years ago? Make the time and you go, be 0:0.01 off and you get jumped by some guy that is 100 places below you in the standings? Go to the WCAL league final next year and you tell me if those kids are "racing a ghost" of the CCS' making or not. This is BS and anyone defending the current system is only defending their own turf. I want the best kids to go no matter their league - you?

Anonymous said...

Do we know what is being proposed to the CCS yet? How do we get behind a change if we don't know what it is?

Anonymous said...

Will it finally take away auto spots from the HOG leagues and distribute them according to talent or are we going to do a half-measure and return it to what it was 2 years ago when good kids got screwed, just a little less so? Whatever, it can't be worse than what CCS is doing now, which is probably why they will not vote for if unless forced to by humiliation. Or can fools not be humiliated? Someone mentioned calling the media. Do we do that now to force the issue, or wait until the CCS votes to protect the large leagues and then call the press to shame them into doing it next year?

Anonymous said...

As an attorney, I don't see a case however I would recommend calling the press now to push the issue. If the CCS approves the change, whatever it might be, they look good. If they don't, then the story can be about how some of the top kids get left out of the semis. That would put a lot of pressure on the CCS to act this year, or give them a lot of pain to do the right thing next year. Either way, a change will be made eventually because it's what is right. They either go the easy way or the hard way.

Anonymous said...

The press is such a great idea...might I suggest these for possible head lines:

Privileged Private School league forced to deny their 3rd fastest athlete CCS entry in the name of equity
or
The elite don’t get more than their fair share for ONCE

What a joke.
I can feel the shame coming on already.

Anonymous said...

@ 11:42
What a bitter horrible comment that I hope is a "troll" attempt rather than how you really feel.

One thing I love about this great sport is that no matter how poor or privledged running is free. It is a pure sport that is not judged or ranked. The athlete that jumps, throws, vaults and runs is the winner. Many of the top runners come from Salinas and King City and east side San Jose. Others come from Cupertino, Mountain View, Palo Alto and Santa Cruz. Some from Hillsbrough others Greenfield.

Regardless of how much your family makes this sport is about the best competing against the best. I know I won't convince you. For whatever reason you feel hate toward a handful of private schools. It's sad.

Anonymous said...

Interesting how one side of the argument wants the best to go to THEIR sectional no matter their school affiliation, and the other side wants to hold on to their predudice about "privileged" kids and the hardships of running at a "disadvantaged" school (11:42 you said it all for that group, congrats). I'm sure the poor kids at Gunn, Paly, Homestead and the like go home at night hungry for more attention from the running community. Let's get real. The changes that have been discussed know no boundaries. It's about the kid that deserves to go. If you are third in the WCAL and can't go but the 8th kid in another league who runs 1:00 slower does, that's a problem no matter what your perspective. 9:03 said it all, right is right and factoring in a perceived advantage (plenty of poor families struggle to send kids to private school) is wrong, period.

Popular Posts