Wednesday, May 08, 2019

Performance marks for upcoming section meets

CCS
Athletes to watch: https://ca.milesplit.com/articles/261153-2019-central-coast-section-athletes-to-watch
Running: https://d2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.net/9/r/3aoaega0y61xjv/Track_performance_list.pdf
Field: https://d2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.net/j/k/i6c875jj4nh3uf/Field_performance_list.pdf

Somebody mentioned a protest and rerun of several events at last Friday's WCAL meet. What happened?

NCS
Redwood Empire
Tri-Valley-http://diablotiming.com/results/2019-05-11/
Bay Shore
Class A-https://redwoodempirerunning.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Class-A-Track-Program-2019.pdf

SJS
Division I-https://d2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.net/t/e/54fytqdphw0f7e/div1_trials-meetprog_050819.pdf
Division II-http://www.bvtrack.com/SJSTFResults/tf_SJSLiveResults.html
Division III-https://d2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.net/r/w/or3i92sl4230fu/sjsd3_trials_meetprog_050719.pdf
Division IV-V-https://d2o2figo6ddd0g.cloudfront.net/z/8/s0ux5zxkchwcmx/D45meetprogram.pdf

San Francisco
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hu6tf3zaqhhciy1/Track%26Field2018-19.pdf?dl=0

Oakland

Northern Section

More will be posted as things are updated. If you have links to the NCS meets, please feel free to email them to albertjcaruana@gmail.com.

61 comments:

Anonymous said...

4 athletes from WCAL - Eng, Dupree, Dupree, and Farruggio are all in the CCS Trials list but none hit the at large time nor were they top 2 in their race - how has this been decided? If there was a "second chance time trial," Why was this never made public to other coaches / sections?

Anonymous said...

From what I have heard about WCAL, the timer on the big scoreboard was a few seconds off during the 800, the runners thought they came through around 57, when in reality it was about a 61. Based on the first lap, the runners held their pace, thinking they would be under the AQ mark. The race ended up being a sprint to the finish, moving Cairns and Elefant to CCS.

Anonymous said...

Eng re-ran the 1600, Dupree's, and Farruggio re-ran the 800 due to the timing errors.

Albert Caruana said...

Quite a bit that doesn't seem right with me including that their marks completed in a time trial gets to count for their entry mark at the CCS Trials.

Anonymous said...

CCS Season of sport ended 5/4. How is a time trial considered "the final League event which qualifies athletes to the CCS Semi-Finals at the Varsity level" which is when the at-large standard needs to be attained?

Anonymous said...

Even if the timer on the big board were off, were the coaches not calling out splits? I find it hard to believe that runners of that caliber were not getting splits at the 200 and 400 from their coaches. Also, if the timer were off already during the 1600, how did they go until the 800 without rectifying the error? Additionally, where are the results for the time trial? Who timed it? How can we actually verify those times? And who got to re-run the finals at the time trial?

Anonymous said...

When is the big board the official time anyway? Seems like they made a mistake.

Anonymous said...

Circling back to an earlier thread, does this mean Peattie does have the sophomore record?
This re-race seems pretty grimy without any context. Hoping this was legit, otherwise this is an awful look for some adults.

Anonymous said...

What runner is looking at a big scoreboard instead of running the race? If you don't hit the time in the league meet that's it. I could understand if there was Finish Lynx malfunction but that was not the case here. It was a scoreboard split screen 30 feet in the air? What about all the other kids that just missed qualifying? How is this fair?

Anonymous said...

What runner is watching a video baord? Runners who have a video board, and are choosing to race their league finals as a group time trial just to hit auto qualifier. Why didn’t we do this all the past years when there was all this whining about not having “the best” athletes at CCS?

Anonymous said...

At the end of the day, either the runners chose or the coaches instructed them to run the race as a "group time trial." Regardless of which it is, the video board is not the official time and there is no way that splits were not being given to those athletes. They took a risk by running the races this way and it did not pay off. What are we teaching our athletes if every time a race doesn't go their way, they can blame something/someone else and get a do-over? Peattie had no problem setting the meet record even with the faulty scoreboard. Multiple runners in the 800 PRed with the faulty scoreboard. It's unfortunate that the schools with the biggest advantages are now resorting to "second chance time trials" when things do not go their way.

Anonymous said...

Just to clarify the second time trial: These runners missed the at-large standard by less than two seconds because of the clock malfunction, even though all four runners have clearly run well-under the standard. When the 800m was finishing, it appeared as if they were coming in around 1:55-1:56, well under the margin. It's not as if they were watching the board, but as they were finishing, when they came through and saw that they should have been well under the qualification standard, they visibly relaxed.

I don't think getting two automatic slots qualifies the "biggest advantages." Especially considering that all four of these guys would have qualified in any other league, it would make sense to allow a re-run. Their "second chance time trial" was run on a warm, windy Tuesday afternoon at the Serra track, not some gimmicked track.

Anonymous said...


"These runners missed the at-large standard by less than two seconds because of the clock malfunction, even though all four runners have clearly run well-under the standard."

While there may be an argument for making the standard something that can be run at any point in the season, that is not currently the rule. The rules were bent for the benefit of these runners which is not a good look for WCAL, nor is it a good look for CCS if we allow this.

"I don't think getting two automatic slots qualifies the 'biggest advantages.'"

I think the biggest advantages are that WCAL schools are most likely tax-exempt as members of the AACS and that while they do no formal "recruiting," we all know that they have a significant advantage in terms of the talent they attract and the facilities available to them. If they would have qualified in any other league, they could have chosen to attend their public schools. However, they chose to attend a WCAL school, and they knew the 2 auto qualifier status ahead of time. There are plenty of SCVAL runners that would have qualified in the PAL - should they get a re-run? What if a coach yelled the wrong splits out for a group of runners and they "visibly relaxed," would that constitute grounds for a re-run? Did every WCAL 1600 and 800 runner get a chance to race this "re-run?"

Anonymous said...

So they did not look at the score board or rely on that for splits... but "thought" they made it before the OFFICIAL results came out because the scoreboard clock paused at 1:56? They thought they made it... then when official results came out they didn't. Where is the controversy here. Hand times are not official.

Sorry, hand times are not official results. You wait for them to be posted. Now athletes can potentially be displaced unfairly by athletes who are coming in a back door. How was this allowed by coaches, the league, CCS? Why have rules?

These athletes are worthy to run in CCS, that is not debated here. But they did not make it in the current set-up. Perhaps CCS autos should be able to go to trials no matter when they are made. This whole thing is unfortunate but is against current bylaws.

This does not help WCAL credibility or integrity at all. Then they come on here and complain about qualifiers? They cheat to get more anyways.

Galen Topper '21 said...

Those runners were not given a re-run because they had a bad day or ran as a group time trial. They were granted one second chance because of a time error that was collectively agreed on by the league committee. Those runners were selected because they were close enough to the margin that their times could be attributed to the malfunction. If you feel that your league deserves a re-run or an application of the Hardship rule, that is up to your league and their committee to make that decision.

On the subject of recruiting: As a runner myself, I don't attend a WCAL school purely because of the running. I wasn't recruited, but I chose to attend Bellarmine because I feel it will give me a more quality education. I would hope that being drawn to more experienced coaching and a more committed team does not consititute a recruitment process.

Albert Caruana said...

In regards to recruiting, I have worked at a private school since 1996 and the admission committee's first priority is to fill out a diverse freshman class with students that would thrive at said school. A lot of the runners that you see succeed in high school got to that point through hard work and being part of good programs. The amount of recruiting that people suspect is going on at these schools is minimal at best.

Anonymous said...

"Those runners were not given a re-run because they had a bad day or ran as a group time trial. They were granted one second chance because of a time error that was collectively agreed on by the league committee."

There was no timing error because scoreboard times are unofficial. If there had been a malfunction with FAT system, that would be another story, but that is not the case. The league agreed to it because it would benefit almost every school in the league with the exception of Bellarmine. I would imagine that the Bellarmine coaches voted against this as they seem to be one of the private schools with more integrity, but this is all speculation.

"Those runners were selected because they were close enough to the margin that their times could be attributed to the malfunction."

So if we are saying that the two Duprees and Farruggio were close enough to merit a re-run, why did Shen, Soler, Iden, Duflock, and Lappalainen not get a re-run? They were all within 2 seconds of the Duprees and we now seem to believe that 2 seconds is a small amount of time in the 800. Additionally, how does this explain Eng getting a re-run?

"I would hope that being drawn to more experienced coaching and a more committed team does not consititute a recruitment process."

While personal choice in schools is clearly important, I think it's also important to consider that many athletes are still approached by private schools when they show promise in middle school or at JO's. Maybe this was not the case for you, but private schools are allowed many things that public schools are not when it comes to speaking to middle school athletes AND they have significant financial advantages. I do not think that anyone affiliated with a private school should be talking about fairness, especially when they are the ones exacerbating the inequality of high school sports.

Anonymous said...

The Duprees and Farruggio along with Eng all got a re-run because they had already gone way under the at-large time in the season. Eng ran 4:16 and the Duprees ran 1:56 and Farruggio ran 1:58. They all hit the needed mark early in the season so when it came down to WCAL they only needed to hit the times needed. On the homestretch of both races, it was visible that the runners were looking up at the scoreboard to see if they were under the time and they all appeared to be far under which was not the case in the official results.

If you don’t think these athletes deserve to be in CCS, you’re at fault here or you just don’t want to race the best competition in CCS. Eng has put up one of the best time in the mile out of everyone in CCS. He appears to be seeded to make state in the 1600 and one faulty timer shouldn’t affect all the racers seasons. None of the other guys named have gone under the at large mark in the season so they were not given a chance.

Anonymous said...

"If you don’t think these athletes deserve to be in CCS, you’re at fault here or you just don’t want to race the best competition in CCS."

How is this anyone's fault but St. Francis? The faulty scoreboard was their equipment and either their staff did nothing to fix the problem, or they did not care to fix the problem when it was apparent. Do these runners deserve to be in CCS based on their talent and hard work? Yes. Did the qualify given the agreed upon rules? No. If you claim the that the faulty timer caused Eng to slow down in his race, how was this problem not fixed by the time the 800 rolled around? Wouldn't the athletes in the 800 have known that the scoreboard timer was faulty if Eng had already complained about it and thus not trusted it? Something does not add up here and it seems like the WCAL / whoever suggested this re-run is trying to justify their actions rather than teaching their athletes to value the importance of sportsmanship. There have been countless cases in sports history where the better team or better athlete did not win, and that is what makes sports so amazing. The whole point of the playoffs is to see which athletes can perform when it matters most, and clearly these athletes did not do so at this particular meet.

The 1600 is wholly inexcusable for Eng - plenty of other runners in that race still ran the qualifying time and all had the same scoreboard. The 800, while 4 seconds is more egregious than 1, was later in the meet and by then the issue should have either been fixed or known by the athletes. So regardless of what justifications are being conjured up here, this re-run was not only against the agreed upon rules, but it is also unsportsmanslike and unethical.

Anonymous said...

"Eng has put up one of the best time in the mile out of everyone in CCS. He appears to be seeded to make state in the 1600 and one faulty timer shouldn’t affect all the racers seasons"

If Eng has one of the best times and "deserves to be in CCS", why didn't he run faster at the league Finals? Just because someone owns a fast time doesn't mean they deserve to be there any more than the other athletes in the race. At the end of the day, he didn't run close to his PR and shouldn't be allowed to compete at CCS. It's unfortunate but that's the way the current system is set up.

Anonymous said...

The CIF had to approve of the protest and allow of a re-race for these 4 athletes. If the CIF would of said NO, we would not be talking about it. SINCE approval was granted you can't fault the athletes or coaches. Plus would you rather see a 1:56 800m athletes and 4:16 1600m athlete make the finals rather than a 1:59, 4:25 athlete . Remember, no athlete got replaced just added 4 athletes in non lane races. Bottom line is get ready to race on Saturday and good luck to all!!!

Albert Caruana said...

From my understanding, the WCAL was allowed to decide how to rectify this situation.

I believe someone started the clock late which resulted in the incorrect time being displayed on the clock.

I am not sure if the same situation occurred during both races.

Anonymous said...

I was there. We all thought that everyone down to #6 (Shen) had easily made it based on the what the board showed. St. Francis seems to have a lot of timing issues. This situation is a shame since both sides have a point but ultimately it should come down to what is fair to the kids. I am not sure what happened in the 1600. It went out very fast and a lot of the guys were struggling to get home. Whether the board time had an impact or not is hard to say.

Anonymous said...

If you do not finish top 2 in WCAL or hit the time standards in the final you do not “deserve” to run CCS by current rules. If you are a state qualifier you are likely top 2 and competing for the win in any league. Truth is this is difficult and tough to not make CCS but extremely unethical and against the rules.

Anonymous said...

The Dupree’s did not let up. They were gassed and were fading. They went from 1-2 most of the race to 4th & 5th in the home straight. That’s not the fault of a split clock.

Unknown said...

All the SCVAL runners knew that if they didn't finish in the top 6 in the 800 or run the at large time they were not advancing. Know one was looking at a clock they just ran their butts off. We had 8 advance. If your running trials to advance on and only 2 are guaranteed you don't treat it as a qualifying round at some meet.
Jake White, Lynbrook HS

Anonymous said...

If you dont make the place you need to, or you domt hit the AQ, you shouldn't move on.

Anonymous said...

^*”No”

Anonymous said...

As someone said earlier, no one loses a spot at the CCS trials for this. These are just extra runners added in an attempt to rectify a difficult situation. This type of thing happens all the time at US nationals or the Olympic trials, where a runner who is tripped or impeded in a heat gets advanced to the next round by the USATF. It's always going to be arguable whether the runner who was tripped would have advanced, but the benefit of the doubt in that situation is fairly given to the runner. In this case the runners were getting splits from a timing clock that was wrong, and it's totally believable that it impacted their races. The line was drawn (maybe unfairly to some of the others) at runners who had previously met the qualifying standard and re-runs under difficult conditions were required, and that's the solution that was permitted by the CCS. Big picture, erring on the side of inclusion is fair and appropriate and arguing against it with the only possible reason being to keep good runners out of the trials is petty.

Anonymous said...

It's really not that difficult of a situation. It's pretty cut and dry. No one was impeded or tripped but rules were broken. It just creates speculation and hurts the integrity of a certain league. It does strengthen the argument that bylaws need to be updated on the CCS level.

Anonymous said...

"It's pretty cut and dry. No one was impeded or tripped but rules were broken."

Which specific rule was broken?

Anonymous said...

Which specific rule was broken?

WCAL = 2 qualifiers or any person that hits an AQ time.

That didn't happen for the runners who received a 2nd chance. Also, a 2nd chance wasn't given to the ENTIRE field. If you're going to make an exception, it needs to be available to all runners in the heat, not just those who "should" be competing at CCS.

Anonymous said...

Are we going to teach our athletes that things are deserved rather than earned? I do not see how anyone can possibly think that this is a good precedent to set. Also, the WCAL is complaining that this is being used to tarnish their name, when the error was their fault AND it was kept quiet until someone noticed. They could have easily emailed all other coaches in CCS and informed them of the problem, but they decided to do it covertly because they knew it would not go over well.

Anonymous said...

Here is another rule that was discarded:

1. At-large entries into the CCS Semi-Finals are available to qualifying athletes. If an athlete does not automatically qualify for the CCS Semi-Finals but his/her mark from their performance at the final League event which qualifies athletes to the CCS Semi-Finals at the Varsity level is equal to or better than the average of the eighth (8th) place qualifying mark to the CCS Finals from the three [3] most recent years, then that athlete will be added to the CCS Semi-Final competition.

Automatic time MUST BE RUN AT THE FINAL EVENT.

Anonymous said...

Plus very surprised the CCS (Steve Filios) did not put a stop to this and disallowed it. This is completely unfair and just like 6:41PM said, just set a bad precedent. I can see other complaints in the future coming by blaming the clock, lack of clock, or the person yelling the splits making a mistake, etc etc...But now it's done...so best wishes to all athletes at the CCS.

Anonymous said...

I think a lot of people are missing the point here. The boys didn’t make it into CCS based on current bylaws. That should be the end of the story. A faulty display (not the actual timer let’s be clear) isn’t an extenuating circumstance. There weren’t any hardships preventing them from competing. The boys may be more than gifted enough to compete at, and especially in Eng’s case, even win CCS. But, they did not qualify under current section bylaws. A couple of our rival PAL runners got their whole team disqualified from CCS XC Championships (even though they actually ran fast enough times) because they didn’t wear their bibs at league. Should they have gotten a re-run too?

Anonymous said...

How can anyone possibly say that Eng did not earn that extra opportunity? He was running both the mile and the 2 mile at WCAL Finals, and as a former WCAL athlete, I can tell you that the scoreboard time has a large effect on how the race is run. If he thought that he had the CCS spot locked up, he would've eased up in order to save energy for his second race. This is not about precedent. Unless you have run 4:16 in high school, you have absolutely no right to say "why didn't he run faster" or that his performance was "wholly inexcusable". You have no idea how hard it is to run fast enough for people to notice you, just for someone to anonymously disparage your performances in a comment section.

I will concede that the WCAL and CCS deserve criticism for an oversight, but it is tough for me to believe that some of you truly think that Eng did not deserve another chance.

Anonymous said...

By now, hopefully impacted coaches and athletes have filed appeals/requests for review with CIF (sectional and state level). Lots of questions surrounding the fairness and integrity of the second chance re-runs which hopefully merits a hard second look by CIF at what was allowed.

Anonymous said...

"How can anyone possibly say that Eng did not earn that extra opportunity?"

How exactly did her "earn" it? The bylaws are extremely clear - you have to run the AQ at the final meet. No one is trying to disparage Eng's performance - the issue is that the whole clock thing while potentially explaining the times in the 800, does not explain Eng's time in the 1600. Eng missed the AQ by .29 seconds - there is no way that he was calculating his time down to millisecond and decided to "visibly relax" in the last 20 meters. If he did and it was that close, it's still his fault. Again, this does not take away from Eng's performance this season or his talent, but the reality is that he did NOT qualify under the current bylaws and there are plenty of other examples from other leagues of runners who have run faster PRs not qualifying at finals. That's tough, but that's the reality. Does Eng have the talent for CCS? Yes. No one is arguing that. Stop conflating the argument - it is not about deserve or merit, it is about rules.

Anonymous said...

^ Best. Response. Yet

Anonymous said...

if you want the best at Section finals then use the NCAA model. Top times race Sections. League Finals is a last chance for an improved time...but primarily it is just for team points.

Albert Caruana said...

I am beginning to lean more toward that idea of following the swimming model to qualify. I believe the Central Section does that already.

Anonymous said...

I believe Central has four Area qualifiers before the Section meet. The top three from each Area automatically qualify for the Section Championships. All other entries (6) will be based on times, heights and distances. Puts 18 in to the Section meet per event.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the swimming model is better, but that is not the issue at hand here. IF we (and by we I mean CCS/Filios) let this happen there will be multiple leagues next year holding their own "second chance time trials" because of the precedent being set here. We CANNOT have that if we are to have any integrity as a section. If these runners are allowed to run, we are setting ourselves up for more controversy, more arguments, and more rule bending. We have to nip this issue in the bud right now unless we are comfortable with letting it grow into a bigger, yearly problem.

Anonymous said...

to 8:51: the CCS ok'ed it long before it became a reality, which is an important point many people seem to be missing...the WCAL didn't pull a fast one on anybody. They contacted CCS and got the OK to do a re-run!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Just to be safe, I am instructing my athletes not to watch the video board at CCS trials, or Finals.

Albert Caruana said...

Glad to see we have some future stand up comics visiting this site.

Hank said...

CCS pulled the fast one, WCAL just suggested it.

Hank

Anonymous said...

"They contacted CCS and got the OK to do a re-run!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

They contacted Filios who coached at the school where the issue happened for 30 years. Now I'm not saying that this played a role, but it makes one wonder. Filios should have recused himself from this particular issue and put it to a vote for other CCS coaches.

"the WCAL didn't pull a fast one on anybody."

Then why was the re-run not publicized anywhere? If the WCAL wanted to be transparent, they could have easily sent out an email saying "Hey, this is what happened, we contacted CCS and got the 'OK,' if anyone wants to observe, we will be holding this re-run on Tuesday and Serra." Instead, they chose to keep it hush-hush. How is that not pulling a fast one? Just because the CCS approved it does not make it any less egregious or wrong.

Anonymous said...

Everyone, can we please be a little more empathetic here? St. Francis does not have the money to properly maintain their scoreboard. We should not be punishing them for what is clearly a funding issue.

Anonymous said...

Steve Filios is a graduate of Serra and a former coach of Saint Francis.

Here is the simple fix. These athletes need to be non-scoring so they do not influence the team scores. They also should not displace anyone from the finals. For example if all three 800 runners make the final 15 should qualify to the finals as these 3 athletes are displacing athletes from the finals despite not being legitimate qualifiers.

For the record this is not the kids fault. It is the adults.

How did the WCAL commissioner allow this? It should have stopped there. It makes me think not all the facts were presented truthfully.

As for Central Section the top 27 teams advance to the area meets (i.e. Buchanan had 9 girls in their area meet). Qualifying from area to section is determined by automatic qualifiers and time at-large as stated above. Also interesting to note is that they have 2 heats in the finals.

No coaches will say anything, or protest. WCAL will bully their way once again. But then when a vote to give them more automatic qualifiers fails will grumble that it is not fair. And they wonder why.

Anonymous said...

There are people in the WCAL with plenty of pull. I'm curious how the 1600 runner was included in all this. Doesn't this situation essentially duplicate the swimming model that this group has been advocating for all along? Those athletes who had hit the auto during the season were allowed to advance no matter what, or are given another chance under controlled circumstances to advance, time trial, whatever you want to call it. Were there other athletes at this meet in other events who had previously hit the auto mark, did not advance, and weren't allowed a re-try?

Anonymous said...

What was the process for this? Who at CCS makes the decision? Did Filios (who worked at St. Francis for 30 years) make the decision or was there a committee?

Anonymous said...

This has been the best day at work in a long time. Seeing people loose their mind over 4 runners. we are talking about High School Sports. Everybody needs to clam down just a little bit. there are more pressing issue that go on in the world today. Be thankful all the athletes are healthy and stay healthy this coming Saturday. PR's to all and Good Luck...

Anonymous said...

"This has been the best day at work in a long time. Seeing people loose their mind over 4 runners. we are talking about High School Sports. Everybody needs to clam down just a little bit. there are more pressing issue that go on in the world today. Be thankful all the athletes are healthy and stay healthy this coming Saturday. PR's to all and Good Luck..."

Spoken like a true WCAL individual

Anonymous said...

@12:12

Perhaps teaching youth that falling a bit short is a part of life. That you pick yourself up, persevere and don't give up. Instead we tach them that there's always a make-up test, extra credit or a re-run to get you in if you are "deserving." We have to teach our children it is ok to fail, but how we respond that matters. Which to me is the pressing issue here, not who runs or who doesn't.

Anonymous said...

"Here is the simple fix. These athletes need to be non-scoring so they do not influence the team scores. They also should not displace anyone from the finals. For example if all three 800 runners make the final 15 should qualify to the finals as these 3 athletes are displacing athletes from the finals despite not being legitimate qualifiers. "

This is a fair compromise. The runners should not be punished, but we cannot let the adults who manufactured this get away with it. In an ideal world, I do not think the athletes should be allowed to compete (and I still think Eng shouldn't be - as I and others have already mentioned multiple times, the timing issue did not impact the 1600 and it seems like most of those on here defending the re-run are basing their argument off of the notion that Eng "deserves" to be there because of his PR, not because of the alleged timing error) but if they will compete then their inclusion should not hurt the chances of others (who qualified by following the agreed upon rules) to make it to finals.

Moving 15 to the finals is not an issue and should be the furthest extent of compromise offered to WCAL on the condition that they are non-scoring. Eng should not run - there needs to be conclusive evidence that the scoreboard impact him, but based on how close he was to the AQ, it really seems to me like the 800 was the main reason for the re-run, and Eng was thrown in since it was already going to happen and he apparently "deserved" a second chance. If we are to believe that the scoreboard truly impacted the 1600 to a noticeable degree and that Eng made it aware to the coaches / meet director that the scoreboard impacted his race, the meet should have been stopped and the scoreboard error should have been fixed before the 800. Additionally, if the scoreboard error caused Eng to not hit the time then coaches should have been telling their athletes "do not pay attention to the scoreboard time!" However, based on the facts as they have been presented, something does not add up.

Anonymous said...

@1:06

Yes, that is exactly right. Our kids need to learn how to fail, not be shielded from it. Inevitably every human will run into failure at some point - work, marriage, sports - and if people are taught to deal with failure in a healthy way, they will learn from it. However, if we are taught that someone will always fix our failures for us, we will not grow and we will break down whenever we do, inevitably, run into those shortcomings.

Anonymous said...

@12:04: Who exactly at WCAL has pull with CCS? IS that a (poor) joke? The WCAL gets two automatic entries to CCS because all the other leagues have the pull, and don't want to change an unjust system because it benefits public school leagues.

Ron Ernst said...

Wow, lot's here to process. I absolutely love all of the passion about our sport. First, several schools in the WCAL ABSOLUTELY have a significant advantage. The advantage is the result of several factors - lots of dedicated runners and fantastic coaching top the list for me. The athletes in these programs have peers to push them and talented coaches to guide them. Jesuit, Willow Glen, Great Oaks, etc all have this same set of advantages. The advantages are not unfair, they are a way of life. They are helping promote the sport and I have always enjoyed competing against their teams and learning from the coaches.
On this timing issue, I can only assume we are missing some facts. Contrary to the above points on the 1600m, I can see how the 1600m would have been affected. Colin crushed that race so winning was out the question unless you could hang with him, it became about the time for the 3 SF runners. It makes sense to me that Eng would have thought the time was in the bag and relaxed up resulting in missing the time by just a little. I would advise him to never rely on an unofficial clock and I bet that was what his coaches told him when the official results came out. What is beyond my understanding is how it can happen for two races. I would have thought that the official results for the 1600m would have been published shortly and this issue would have been immediately raised. The clock should have been turned off for the remainder of the meet or the athletes should have been informed to not rely on the unofficial time no matter. The nature of the protest should not have been permitted for two races.
I also think the current bid system for CCS is flawed. I would keep the 32 auto bids but I would open up the at large marks to include any competitor who hit the mark during the season AND competed in that event at their league finals. This would at least mean they had demonstrated the caliber to be in CCS finals during the season and they had competed recently at a level to be in their league finals We will have a few more heats and flights but we could still get through it all on a Saturday to come up with 8 or 12 finalists.
Funny stuff about all the other leagues buying broken clocks for next years league finals as well as exemptions to be requested for kids hearing inaccurate splits. I am glad we can keep some humor. I hope the anger doesn't get focused on the athletes, take the issue up with Filios or a CIF State Level official. Best of luck to everyone, see you Saturday.

Anonymous said...

@4:04 Just because they don't have enough influence on the current system to sway the votes of the league chairs so rules can be swung in their favor doesn't mean that certain coaches don't have an unfair influence on CCS decisions. Where did the auto qualifier system come from in the first place? One of the schools in question has a former coach who is now the CCS commissioner and another current coach who was a former commissioner. I think that allows access to a decision process that most other leagues do not have. I'm 100% sure the league I'm in would never even suggest something like this as a solution. Anyone remember how the CCS 4x100 record holding team did at CCS finals the same season they set the record? I sure do. I guess they deserved a second chance for dropping the baton at the region meet?

Popular Posts