Friday, May 12, 2017

Northern California League Champion meet results

CENTRAL COAST SECTION
SCVAL Live Results

WCAL Live Results

SAC-JOAQUIN SECTION

TCC Results

NORTH COAST SECTION
NBL Live Results

TCAL Prelims

BCL

MCAL

WACC

EBAL

49 comments:

Anonymous said...

TCAL prelims http://atwresults.com/atwupload/20170510/

pmccrystle said...

Horrible conditions at WCAL for anything over a 200...freezing winds. All three league records in the 100, 110HH, and 200 wind-aided, yet CCS 800 runners #4, 9, 19 and 21 don't qualify due to fierce howling winds during 800. I'm still trying to thaw out...rough night at St. Francis!

Anonymous said...

The wind helped counter the cold in the sprints but it was brutal for them too. And explosive event suffered as well. Usually it's 90+ degrees at leagues, not this year. And I don't think it is a record if it's wind aided?

Anonymous said...

Yesterday's weather is yet another argument against limiting the CCS at large time to the league finals. It's just not fair to force kids, who have already made the time earlier in the year, to do it in TERRIBLE conditions.

Albert Caruana said...

The San Diego and Central Sections already allow athletes to reach marks at anytime during the season to qualify for their section meets.

Anonymous said...

I go back and forth in my mind about the use of times recorded earlier in the season. The positive is what you all point out, that an athlete is protected from a bad race at leagues or bad conditions. The negative is that a kid that peaked earlier, or maybe got hurt late in the season but wants to give it a try at CCS even though hurt, could knock out a healthy kid that is on the upswing late and is on a roll but has not hit the time athlete 1 got earlier at Dublin or Stanford or whatever. It's tough, it is worth remembering that most rule changes that get one athlete in will knock another athlete out. It's not always obvious which is the athlete that is more deserving.

Albert Caruana said...

If an athlete makes a mark at any point during the season, they do not take a spot from anybody since the marks can be surpassed by anybody.

Hank said...

It was so cold at Gatos that I had to ask the coaches there to get me two more coats to go over the two coats I was already wearing. I was shivering so bad that I couldn't enter the field events for my hands wouldn't stay still. They even gave me a hot cup of something to warm my hands on. A favorable wind but I'd still hate to be a sprinter when it's that cold.

hank

Albert Caruana said...

When Hank is cold, it really is COLD!!!

Anonymous said...

Leave league qualifiers alone. Auto TIME qualifiers make so you can hit at any CCS certified invite (sorry no dual meet marks). No kid is left out or bumped out. Only added.

Anonymous said...

Well it sounds like everyone will be excited to head to Gilroy.

Anonymous said...

Let's hope for some slaw marks at trials and records at finals. Without many getting through league hopefully the time qualifier slows. Still have 2 years of SJCC mondo to average out tho.

Unknown said...

Jimmy Parker breaking 11 second barrier running 10.85 for varsity in Tcal.

Anonymous said...

Running trials at SJCC definitely contributed to faster times. It says rain on Tuesday & 90+ on Saturday. You may get your wish.

Anonymous said...

BCL - http://www.goeasyware.com/meet3/

Anonymous said...

WACC: http://atwresults.com/atwupload/20170511/

Hank said...

All League results for CCS are now in. Check out the Power Merge at:

https://www.athletic.net/TrackAndField/Division/Top.aspx?List=13787&SchoolID=29324&S=2017&type=1

to see who the leaders are for each event.

hank

Gustavo Ibarra said...

Gilroy also had rough winds and cold yesterday for MBL masters meet... Good marks in sprints but not much after that... Wish we didn't even have the pointless masters meet and qualified from league finals to CCS...

Rob Collins said...

Just a FYI! Here in Colorado they have a top 18 Qualifying standard for State based off times, anytime during the season! Certain restrictions though! You can not use League (Dual Meets period). I pretty much like it, but as a Coach you really have to stay in-touch on whats going on around the state all the time! Next You have to declare your kids a week prior to State to compete! I will declare up to 30 just in case someone scratches a event! The only thing I see as a problem is in the longer distances (3200m). You only have so many 3200m's in you and don't want to keep racing them in that event to qualify! For example, I had to re-race a few boys and girls in the 3200m to help them either secure there spot if they were already in the top 18 (like 15 thru 25) or improve there times to get them closer to 18 in case of scratches! Now waiting for Declarations to see who is in or not! At the end, realistically it ends up being the Top 18 kids competing for the State Championships! California of course can use the Top 32-36 system!

Coach Tim said...

Weather was great at PALs in Menlo Park. Funny how a few miles or a few hours can make all the difference.

Extending at-large marks to earlier in the season is probably fine, but it does disadvantage teams that can't go to invitationals. It's a double penalty if you throw out dual meets. That shouldn't necessarily be an impediment to the rule, but it's something to think about if we're trying to make things more fair to the kids.

Also, "No dual meet marks" is a little unfair to field event athletes. A high jump bar measures the same whether you paid to jump over it or not. I get what you're getting at, but an actual rule would hopefully be more precise.

Anonymous said...

Autos only come to play for 2-3 leagues. (Those with 2 qualifiers). Those schools do invitationals. The issue with dual meets is coaches lie. We see it for invites all the time. Dual meets would need to be unaffiliated.

Anonymous said...

At large marks are based on the average of the eighth (8th) place qualifying mark to the CCS Finals from the three [3] most recent years.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable benchmark. I can't find anything wrong with the wording of it.

The problem as I see it, the AQ spots are fixed. Here’s a crazy idea.
1) Each league is guaranteed 1 AQ spot.
2) The others AQ spots adjust by 1 each year. It's a use it or lose it plan. Put up high performances or lose an AQ.

For example a league that has 6 or 8 AQs but a few don’t meet the AL or the finals heat at CCS that year, that league will lose 1 spot to other leagues for the next season. Those floating qualifiers change each year.

This will improve the AQ balance and make the AL times more challenging as a result. The section semi and finals will be true shows of athleticism.

Anonymous said...

Hank, Can you give us a look at top 32 combined times from league so we can compare the top top marks to what actually got in. My guess is it's pretty close to what we will see at trials.

Anonymous said...

After cbed qualifiers are dispersed why not give additional qualifiers based on performance, similar to cross country. Base on top 10 finishers like xc.

Anonymous said...

Since 12 qualify for finals in many events that should be the standard. Or at least "last" qualifier as it used to be. Who even approved that change to limit participation? And why do we only take 8 to the finals on a 9 lane track. They do at state meet, why not at sections?

Anonymous said...

@5:39 I your idea.
We can go with 8 or 12 just to fill one extra heat of sprints/distance respectively.

Albert Caruana said...

Couple of good points. Yes, the at-large mark should be based on the amount of athletes that make the final in each respective event. Also, if the track that hosts CCS has 9 lanes then 9 should make the final in those events.

Anonymous said...

DAL results?

Ron Ernst said...

I am all for changing the current system but I don't think you need to adjust the AL or AQ marks.

My long proposal is spelled out in the other thread from this past week on CCE (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=31292861&postID=2462785582294311527).

It seems the most controversial race this season is the boys 800m. I would love to see a CCS which included the top talent who are racing at a high level at league champs. My proposal would add CCS #4, 10, 16, 28, 29, 34, 41, & 46 would all be added to CCS semi's. The only top 30 CCS boys who raced the 800m at league finals and would be excluded are #23 who ran 2:02.38 and #30 who ran 2:03.87. Not a perfect system I am sure but it would reward athletes who competed in the event at a qualifier meet (league final), raced at a high level, and was not DQ'd.

If done for all events, it would cause no more than 1 heat for the sprint events as the field would go from 32 to 40. For the distance events it would potentially add a heat in the 800 but the 1600 and 3200 could handle the extra athletes in the current 2 heat system. Changing the system with any softening of the At Large marks would potentially have more than 40 in a race, that is unnecessary to find the best in CCS.

Best to all - see you in Gilroy.

Anonymous said...

Rayna Stanziano 4:59 and 2:12 WOW!

Hank said...

You can go deeper (top 30) if you want, just click on the TOP 10 drop down list and pick how deep you want to go.

Hank

Anonymous said...

Anyone know when the heats for the CCS are announced?

Albert Caruana said...

Either Tuesday or latest Wednesday.

Anonymous said...

Look at results from the top 30 after the power merge on hanks site. That is how CCS trials should look.

Since this is not likely to ever happen at the very least anyone on the top 20 who did not hit the auto time after a power merge for leagues should receive a provisional qualifying entry.

Yes, southern section is better. They had a 4:59 girl not make finals. A girls 4x100 ran 48.2 and did not make finals. It's crazy. But should we make our section meet the best quality possible?

Anonymous said...

@9:35 I could not agree more. The CCS has to devise a system to send the best we have regardless of what other sections are doing. We have to control what we do. That is the only thing we have power over. Not sending our best makes NO sense whatsoever and that is what happens every year. Coaches and ADs have to stop protecting their league's AQs and put the section first!

Anonymous said...

MVAL league meet results
http://www.fordtiming.us/results

Anonymous said...

Hank, what does the "*" mean in the power merge. AQ? At-Large?

Albert Caruana said...

I believe the asterisk means the mark was accomplished in the last meet.

Anonymous said...

I agree with 9:35 in that our league marks seem soft on a state level.
Hopefully CCS will out some new PRs.

Anonymous said...

Someone has to lose right? If you get through WCAL your probably going to be in the final too. You need someone to be eliminated. Whether that #10 coming out of league or its #40 does it matter? I don't see on mark in the top 8 from the power merge that did not make it. If anything the auto will be tough next year. Yes a few at the bottom of a couple leagues are slower than other leagues. But that's fine. The system is ok.

Hank said...

Top 20 to advance on the Power Merge is high (IMO). I'd support Top 10 however.

Hank

Anonymous said...

Hank, good to go. Write it up! CCS meeting is coming up, if they don't change the date at the last minute, and there is no time to waste getting this on paper!

Hank said...

I'd write it up if I had any say. I haven't been a coach since 2009 so all I am good at is being that "arm-chair" coach. Gotta let the current staff take this one on.

hank

Anonymous said...

About 12 years ago it was the top 12 after the power merge would qualify for the CCS trials. It was change to be the same as the state qualifying (going fromCCS to the state meet).

Coach Tim said...

@11:45 There was a time qualifier into the CCS Trials? I don't remember that ever being a thing. How did it work? Who administrated it?

(not being snide, I genuinely don't remember that)

Hank said...

Tim, when 11:45 mentioned that it rung a bell but when I saw your inquiry I decided to look around for the answer. Here's a quick history...

2001 - Last year the North/South sub-sections were run due to so many "no-shows" (over 80 in the North alone).

2002 - Went with AQ and the Top 8 Power-Merge not in AQ
2003 - same

2004 - WCAL proposed (and passed) going to Top 12 Power-Merge

2005 - WCAL proposed (and passed) going with AL marks based on 8th place finish for last 3 years of CCS meet - see CCS minutes below:

http://lynbrooksports.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/TRACK/2005/ccsmnpst.pdf

and this has been the case since then. All info was gathered from LynbrookSports.com, just took a little digging.

hank

Anonymous said...

This is anonymous from 10:45 that wrote taking the top 12 from the merged list (Paul Cusick). I am impressed I remember something from 13 years ago. I also recalled that you needed to wait until the Sunday after all the league results to see if you made CCS. For the high jump and pole vault it was good to be the last league with finals. You would know what height you needed to make the top 12 (beat it by 1 inch). I

Coach Tim said...

Thanks Hank, for doing the digging. I was in college until 2004 and didn't start coaching until 2006, so it makes sense that I missed all of that.

Anonymous said...

Looks like WCAL messed up in 2005. Go back to the 2004 power merge after AQ. Problem solved. 12 years of complaints and no changes should be long enough.

Popular Posts