Thursday, May 09, 2013

BVAL Results (CCS)

35 comments:

3200 runner said...

I was at the meet... Not once did I see Miguel running on the inside (I was in the race and saw everything, as did another competitor running by him and my teammates watching from the stands) but also these calls are so subjective! One step on an inside and you're DQ'd by over zealous officials. Plus this track had no rail. Especially after Sum gets to be reinstated and continue his season, this call just seemed very unfair (given what we ALL saw). Vasquez will still be strong though and a force to be reckoned with at CCS (he won all 3 events today) and will represent the BVAL well, but it's a shame this happened.

Anonymous said...

Sucks for Miguel Vasquez. He still has the 1600 and 800. Was he actually gonna triple at CCS? The BVAL IS A NON SCORING MEET. So it was pointless for him to run all 3 at BVAL anyways if he didn't plan on running all of them next week. Risking injury in very chilly weather.

But at least the BVAL had guts to follow through with the DQ. The SCVAL should take notes. The reinstatement of Sum was wrong and everyone knows it. Because he's a top guy the SCVAL let him back in. But if it was a random guy named John Smith in the race that placed 6th would they have done the same.

Again it sucks for Vasquez and the SCVAL SHOULD BE ASHAMED for themselves.

Anonymous said...

The scval should be ashamed of themselves for reinstating Steven Sum. Why did they reinstate him? Because he's a high profile athlete from a wealthy school? This is ridiculous.

Looks like the BVAL followed guidelines and dq'd a even bigger athlete. A senior who has put in tons of work over the years. He still has the 800 and 1600. Got a feeling he's gonna run with some anger.

Anonymous said...

Agreed the SCVAL commissioner should be ashamed of himself (and the coach for that matter). This is not the first time the commissioner has done something like this. He really needs to be replaced by an official that would follow the rules!
But, yes Sum was reinstated just because he is ranked high, this is SO wrong. It should not matter what your ranking is.

Albert Caruana said...

To prevent these types of DQs from happening in the future, how about holding championship meets at tracks that do have rails.

Sad but true, this is the time of year that you will see athletes get DQ'ed for violations that are not called earlier in the season.

Ron Ernst said...

Who cares how many races Vasquez ran? Because he qualified in 3 he shouldn't care that he was DQ'd in the 3200? That is not a fair perspective. As a fan of running it was great to watch him showcase his talent last night and fight hard to take home 3 titles. I agree with Al that these meets should be held at schools with rails if possible. This is disappointing as he sure seems to be a great kid and fantastic runner. By the way, the cones that were there to signify where the rail should be were placed six inches inside the line and were not properly placed on the line. The track was not properly marked in my opinion. I, for one, do not think he should have been DQ'd. Best wishes to him at CCS and I hope they reconsider their decision.

John said...

Albert - As someone noted on a different thread, installing rails is expensive. I've heard anywhere from $10-20K. Probably not a priority for most school districts. Amazingly Arcadia doesn't have them either and they put on a huge meet that has to make a fair amount of money for the program.

As for your second point, it's so true. Of course coaches can also tell their kids to stay in the middle/outside of lane 1 and they wouldn't have any problems. Also don't try to squeeze by on the inside of lane 1 on the home stretch in full view of officials :-)

Lastly, to all those complaining about the SCVAL commissioner, please realize there was a clerk of course and jury of appeals made up of coaches from the various schools. I don't believe Saratoga was one of them but then again I follow NCS...

Anonymous said...

Anyone surprised the wealthy Saratoga school is reinstated while the poor school from East Side San Jose is not? Fact is the coaches making these calls are not officials and all calls should be questioned.

hank said...

Folks - realize that the info on this message board is only bits and pieces of the SCVAL DQ and not the entire story. I am not going to go into the details except to say that Steven Sum is in the 3200 and this is how it should have been in the first place. All the drama should not have transpired but it did. As I said, I am not going to go into the details. If my name holds anything in the track community, trust me when I say this, and now, let's just move on with the rest of the season.

hank

Anonymous said...

Sum and Vasquez. Same race, same violation, Different League, both very fast 2 milers. Controversy either way the kids faith was decided. Bottom line is a violation was committed.

Can the CCS step in and tell both the BVAL and SCVAL to reinstate both or DQ both?

Maybe Miguel Vasquez was going to drop the 2 mile anyways cause it looks like he would have an easier shot in the 1600/800 anyways to qualify for state.

Maybe all the 2 milers can protest and walk the 2 mile and everyone finish at the same time. Let some be the only guy that actually runs the race.

pmccrystle said...

If Hank says the decision was right, then it was the right call, and not just because Hank has been around awhile but because he is as honest and upstanding a person as there is in local track, and he always has the best interests of our Section and its athletes in mind. He is close to unimpeachable in my opinion...he says 'nuff said, then 'nuff said!!

Albert Caruana said...

I second what Patrick just wrote.

Regarding the financial aspect of the rails, I would think that in a league of 8-10 teams, one school must have a track with a rail. I just hate to see kids getting DQed for violations that could be avoided. More than likely, Miguel Vasquez could have run in lanes 2 or 3 and still qualified for CCS.

John said...

Albert - I agree with you 100% however it just doesn't seem common. As I mentioned earlier, Arcadia doesn't even have a rail and they host a huge meet every year.

My guess is schools would rather invest in a high-tech video scoreboard that multiple sports can utilize throughout the year. A rail for the track is just something people will trip over most of the year.

Anonymous said...

More alarming is the 8 qualifiers BVAL gets. Can we not go to a Top 32 times on League week to get to CCS while protecting conference winners? Or a time standard for all to get into CCS like we do for HS swimming and the college model for track qualifying for NCAA? It seems silly that many top athletes are left at home by tents of a second while others are a minute off the mark and get a shot. And why have one race at CCS at the trials? Why not just not have it and go straight to finals? I am just thinking out loud here. If you have counter arguments please let me know.

Albert Caruana said...

I know the BVAL's 8 qualifiers has been brought up before. I think the justification is the at-large marks for other leagues but I think there is still a better way to balance the qualification to CCS to account for the numbers in the BVAL and the quality in other leagues.

My worthless 3 cents said...

Is there a combined performance list from the league meets? It would be interesting to see who has the big"Q" and the little "q". The current qualifying process is intended not to have the top qualifiers but league representation based by population distribution. The difficulty I have with this is that in an individual sport the best athletes should be represented. If CCS decides they want 32 in the event then the Best 32 that race in the qualifying window (currently the league finals meet) should be there.

The issue is not with CCS, it is the numerous schools that do not want to lose spots for their league (and rightfully so). Those with the spots have the votes and although a reasonable and fair idea why approve something to take away from their piece of the pie? The irony is while leagues have voted to create an open division in team sports under the guise of "the best should play the best" the truth is this was created because they feel it is unfair to have private schools in their division. The issue with that is in our sport, those same schools (SCVAL, PAL) are the ones dominating our sport. A system that has the best qualifying ultimately protect their interests, but they like the current system with guarantees. The unfortunate side effect is small leagues like SCCAL suffer because of the size of their league. If the best should compete (look at the distance races in SCVAL, they are off the hook) against the best there is an easy fix. But beware, there is no perfect solution. Thus I think people are willing to live with it.

Personally I dont mind the way it is now, though I think NCS has it 100% right in both XC and track on section qualifying. But I do feel a tweak is needed: in our sport dictated by wind and temperature I would like to see at least the qualifying window extended to "Championship Week" to include trials and finals.

Anonymous said...

"The difficulty I have with this is that in an individual sport the best athletes should be represented."

But they are. The current system is set up so that the "best" 8 athletes in each event are represented (that is the rationale for the at-large provision). In order to account for some vagueries in the qualification process (different conditions at the different meets, for example) and to incorporate geographic representation, the field size is expanded to 32. These sorts of qualification systems are never meant to have the "best" 32 athletes, but it does require taking 32 athletes to determine the best 8.

Anonymous said...

Thus the disagreement. Many top athletes missed the auto by less than a second. They arguably could make the final and challenge for a State spot. As seem in last years 1600.

Phyliosophically the top 8 meet does a better job at getting a better representation of our sections top athletes than the section meet. If geographic representation is important having a slow athlete qualify 8th does not solve this.

Geographic representation does not equate to the best. The Olympics are a great representation of the world coming together but not a representative of the best. For that you need to watch the diamond league or the London marathon.

Anonymous said...

"Thus the disagreement. Many top athletes missed the auto by less than a second. They arguably could make the final and challenge for a State spot. As seem in last years 1600. "

But you could always argue that for the person who just missed qualifying. Where do you draw the line? The CCS has set the line as the average of the last three years of what it took to qualify for CCS finals. Should that be relaxed? Made more difficult?

The bottom line is that everyone has the same opportunity to qualify for CCS.

Anonymous said...

Everyone does not have the same opportunity. If it were equal there would be one standard and no automatic place (this is the way it should be IMO). I bet if Bellarmine joined the BVAL and took 6 of the 8 qualifying spots in every event there would be an outcry to change the qualifying system.

You don't want the top 32 athletes for one simple reason. As already stated they do this in swimming. Bellarmine has won 28ish straight swimming titles in ccs. They don't want this to happen in track.

Simply put its privates vs. publics. No private schools and it would equal out and be fair.

Anonymous said...

Many top athletes? I don't think so. Some very good athletes missed if for sure, but at some point you have to run faster, or you're done. So run faster, or you're done. Or don't double. That's 2 chances. Place high enough in your league, or hit the auto time. What's the problem? If you can't hit the auto time in the girls distances, you're not even coming close to the finals this season. This is a weak, old argument. Especially this year when you consider the amount of girls who have hit the auto time. I'm sure the SS section whines about the fact that every other sections times wouldn't make their top 10.

Anonymous said...

I'd be fine if there was a minimum time so pathetic sad times don't make it in. So your argument is the BVAL deserves 8 spots? It's sad. I would agree with you if all leagues had the same standard to get in. But they don't. 8th place in BVAL is not the same as second in SCCAL, WBAL or WCAL. It is not the same as 6th in the PAL or SCVAL. Your same old argument has no traction.

Anonymous said...

Lets not get too far off topic in slamming poor officiating and shady wishwashy rules not consistently unforced. And certainly don't pour all your bashing to MBL. 5th place in most of those races are barely JV level.

But I guess all is fair, just run faster and make the standard harder right!

Athletes, here's an idea, slow the race down to an 8 min mile and 16 min two mile in protest. Then watch them squirm.

Anonymous said...

"Simply put its privates vs. publics. No private schools and it would equal out and be fair."

Hardly. The public schools are very well represented in track and field. Expanding to straight times would probably help the SCVAL and SCCAL, both public school leagues, the most.

Anonymous said...

Going back to the Vasquez issue...I talked to him, and he is crushed because he does not believe he stepped inside. However, he may have inadvertently.

The coach who made the call, believes he is being fair, and he probably made a correct call.

My point is this: the official who made the call is also the coach of an athlete that was in the lead pack with Vasquez and was naturally watching very closely. As an athlete, if you happen to be in a situation that invites extra scrutiny, your margin of error is zero. A coach without such an intense interest in that particular race, in my experience, would not have even noticed the violation. I watched the officials throughout the meet, and they did not always monitor with such scrutiny as they must have been to detect the alleged violation. I have been on the track for a lot of big races and this call does not get made nearly as much as the violation occurs. BAD LUCK FOR VASQUEZ.

Vasquez learned a painful lesson. If you want to be a big dog, you have got be flawless.

By the way, he WAS going to triple at CCS. He is in the best shape of his life. I agree that his best shots at state are in the 1600 and 800. In that order. The 3200 was going to be a bonus race. He liked the idea of squeaking in the top 3 at CCS finals and going straight to a state final. Then he could have run in state trials for the 1600 and or 800 knowing that he already had a spot locked for the 3200 final. Oh well...I agree he is going to run angry.

I hope he can showcase his talent at CCS. Expect fast times from him.

Anonymous said...

Leagues do have the same standards. The more schools and athletes in your league, the more spots you get. It's not based on the number of top athletes you can poach from said leagues. Once again, plenty of people from the SCVAL, SCCAL, and I'm sure the PAL have benefitted from the addition of the auto time. It really sounds like sour grapes from someone who just missed the time, and Is now bitter that others may run slower and qualify. Quit whining/trolling, and train harder or move to the BVAL. The pathetic sad comment was uncalled for, and is way more opinion than fact. I'll laugh about it when I'm watching the P.H. Girls whup everyone's back side up and down that track in Gilroy. Miguel too. He's a great kid, and someone's lucky he's gone in the 3200.

Anonymous said...

CCS should adopt the same at large qualifying language as we have for qualifying for the state. The "9th place qualifiing mark" to CCS.

As they take the 9th place mark from different sections from around the state we should adopt this at the section level from league qualifying. This allows the variability of locations, and a qualifying standard based from the league meets. Simply put the standard represents the qualifying meets, similarly as it does qualifying with the state auto.



Anonymous said...

Why do they allow extra qualifying spots in cross country (classifies as an individual sport) but not in track?

Anonymous said...

http://www.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/TRACK/2013/ccs_atlg.pdf

Anonymous said...

^ read the whole thing. Doesn't address the question asked above. Every sport team and individual has a system to assure the best field is in CCS except track.

Again. Why?

Albert Caruana said...

What potential state meet contenders didn't make it out of their league and will not participate at the CCS meet this Saturday?

Anonymous said...

Albert that's the thing, we will never know.

Last year the boys mile was 4:20, girls 5:09. Who's to say a kid tenths of a second off might not have had a big jump and make it. Or in the throws or jumps or sprints or relays.

The argument is "they wouldn't have made state anyways." Unless you can tell the future you don't know.

Fact is the time standard is based on the trials race. The standard should be based on league performance.

What's wrong with a simple time standard for all. Hit it and your in, it doesn't get more fair than that.

Albert Caruana said...

I was in NCS before CCS and check out their 4 meets this weekend and how many more athletes get to experience section competition. For most athletes, it's very difficult to get to CCS and significantly more difficult to advance to the finals. The right solution? I am not sure. I know it's been brought up before at the post season CCS meeting but this is what we have now.

hank said...

Setting a "standard" to achieve during the season to qualify you on to CCS is not going to make it. Why... who's going to track it and verify the mark (don't look at me). Would be too much additional work for CCS to do (and they, as the impartial entity, would have to be the ones to do this). Having a "standard" to achieve at League Finals is much easier to manage (puts the burden on the League rep to report it). Now, and easier standard to get out of Leagues and into CCS is alot more reasonable (but then CCS Trials just turns in to the old North/South qualifiers where there were tons of no-shows if you make it too easy to advance on - the kids have to want to compete).

hank

Albert Caruana said...

Even with the tougher standards, you still get kids who turn down their qualifying spots or choose to concentrate on other events. Until somebody comes up with a better system, the current format will not change.

Popular Posts