The following proposal has been approved by the NCS Board of Managers. Basically, if a team wins 3 NCS titles in a row, they would move up one classification or division the following season. A team in Division I would stay in that division.
At this moment, the SF University boys' team would move up to Division IV next season since they have won the last three NCS Division V titles. Interesting that according to dyestatcal.com, they are the pre-season #1 team in Division V.
==================================================================
E. Proposal to require movement to a higher classification or division ACTION
Motion to require any team who participates in the NCS Championship and is declared the NCS champion for three consecutive years will automatically be required to move the next higher classification or division in the following school year of competition.
e) Any school who participates in the NCS Championship contest, finishing first in the respective classification or division, for three years in succession will automatically be moved to the next higher classification or division the following school year of competition. The school may return to the actual classification or division of enrollment after at least one year of competition at the higher classification or division once the school does not participate in the NCS Championship contest, finishing first.
Comments?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
NCS proposal to require movement to higher classification or division passes...
Posted by Albert Caruana at 2/10/2010 08:28:00 AM
Labels: 2010 Cross Country
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular Posts
-
You can now view all the entrants plus their performance mark from the section qualifier for this weekend's CA State Track and Field ...
-
One more bump. Please list below athletes that you feel belong on the lists below. One more trivia question. Who is the runner ...
-
Below is the schedule for the 2013 Cross Country season. If you see any errors, additions or can confirm any dates, please email me at alb...
-
Just added: Info for Ghebray Invitational on September 22nd. With one extra Saturday in September next year, I started to hunt down the d...
-
Bold meets are confirmed for 2014 season. Non bolded dates are from 2013 season. August 2014 8/22 Ryan Bousquet Memorial Run at Yorba Reg...
-
Central Coast Section Results: http://www.rtspt.com/events/cif/2017Meets/ccsxc17/ Sac-Joaquin Section Section Finals: http://timerhub....
-
I will start with one: “Somewhere in the world someone is training when you are not. When you race him, he will win.” — Tom Fleming What...
-
I will continue to update this list throughout the year. Please feel free to add others in the comment section below. I know I do not hav...
-
I am very sad to report that Bob Shor passed away this morning after battling illness for the past few year...
-
Los Gatos' Chris Foster is Mercury News boys cross country runner of the year Mercury News boys cross country first team, honorable me...
16 comments:
I think it stinks.
It's unfair for D5 to have to race against D4, or schools that have over 600 people. The pool of runners to choose from in bigger schools results in faster people and faster races. So it is completely unfair to D5 boys put into a bigger and more competitive environment.
What is the logic behind this rule?
so if a D5 team wins three in a row, then moves up to D4 where they win another 3 in a row, will they be moved to D3? How does this make sense? Whoever proposed it must have came in one short of state qualification or something. This doesn't make sense or seem fair. Why must NCS board have to complicate the rules anyways?
The overarching argument is that the winning teams should be moved up to create better competition for both the teams remaining in the lower division and the team moving up.
I have also heard that it puts a check on teams who are recruiting athletes under the table, or cheating is some way. Funny thing is that University guys won the title with 4 scoring freshmen, who made insane improvements from the start of the season.
The goal is to supposedly level the playing field, and it does to an extent at the section level. But it's not fair when Woodcrest Christian out of the SS has won 5 straight state titles, and a SS team has won the D5 title in all of the 14 years that it has been run.
I know I am in the minority here but to me the best teams should race each other. Why have a top team in D1 and another in D2. It waters down the competition and the sport.
Now larger schools do have an advantage, yes. But the difference between 400 and 700 is smaller than say 1200 and 2600 like in D3.
I can see the desire for making it more competetive on the section level, but marginalizing a team's accomplishments on the state level doesn't seem fair.
I don't think I like this. I feel for University. They have been rightfully competing in Div V and looking to close the gap on a team like Woodcrest Christian and get a state championship. I can see University still doing well in Div IV but maybe not being a podium team. So the NCS, with this rule, may have just short changed themselves a state meet plaque. Over the long haul, this can affect the number of state meet bids that the NCS gets.
I am not sure how much of a factor is state meet success when it comes to making a policy like this.
It seems like the intention is to spread the wealth when it comes to winning NCS titles.
The NCS cross country coaches are trying to make the state meet competition more equatable by moving teams to divisions that match up with the rest of the state while this policy has the potential to do the exact opposite.
I disagree with the decision. The situation roughly parallels that of La Jolla Country Day in the SDS. They had been winning titles in D5 until their section balanced the number of schools in each division. Now the D5 ceiling is below 500, and they have to compete in D4. They still make State, but fall short of the podium in D4, when they may have been making it in D5. The Small Schools division has less competition as a result. I will say again that the State needs to maintain its own divisions independent of the sections, as we do in basketball.
I am all for balanced divisions but remember, when you take every school in the State of California and balance the population totals across 5 divisions (similar to what the sections do now) the lower population schools would still compete with larger schools.
D1, D2 and D3 would be high population schools while D4 would likely have a CBed of 1200-1800 while D5 would be 1200 and under. The smaller schools would suffer the most.
The State Divisions would be more balanced
University should not be punished for being so good. While this rule may seem like a fun idea to some, it completely screws over University's state title hopes. It's just so unfair. Winning state titles is way more important than just winning a section title. This rule is ridiculous and absolutely unfair.
How many students are at this school? Is it private?
Private. 390. Half boys/half girls
So, you have a great team ... they compete at a high level for three years ... they graduate ... you have a group more suited to compete in the current division who are now forced to compete at a level beyond their ability.
If you are trying to stop recruiting etc ... focus on that.
Tony private schools that somehow end up with enough talent to win with many scoring freshman should be viewed as suspect. Of course they recruit. Will this keep them from recruiting? Probably not, but if this is the only way they can be sanctioned, then I strongly agree with the CIF.
Post a Comment