Monday, May 18, 2015

Time to change the qualifying procedure from league to CCS?

If you missed all the comments below in regards to the qualifying procedure to CCS, here you go. If you have anything to add, feel free to add your thoughts in the comment section below. Also, instead of further complaints, what is your solution? Do you have a proposal that can be implemented next year by CCS?

 Pissed off parent said...
WCAL is the strongest league gets two spots. Everyone else gets 6 or 8? In track how hard is it to get the fastest qualifying on?
10:00 AM
Blogger Albert Caruana said...
No question that the qualifying procedure from league to CCS is something that has been argued over for many years. Unfortunately, when the North and South meets were eliminated, that made making CCS very difficult especially in leagues like the WCAL. The places that automatically qualify from each league are based solely on the sizes of schools which doesn't seem fair for smaller leagues with high quality participants.

The coaches are the ones that need to initiate proposals that could fix the current format. Until somebody really makes a strong push for a change, we will be stuck with the current format.
10:14 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Why even have an auto-qualifying time? At least in the distance races, NOBODY across all the leagues benefited from the auto-qual time. Those that ran under the time qualified based on place to CCS
1:13 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
In the girls 1600 final at the SCCAL league, there were three girls who qualified with the auto time to CCS (after the top 2 finishers). SCCAL is another league that only gets two qualifiers to CCS.
1:57 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
In the boys 800, a 1:58.7, the 7th fastest time in CCS doesn’t make CCS.
In the boys 1600, 4:23.3 and 4:23.5, the 9th and 10th fastest times in CCS don’t make the meet.
In the boys 3200, six times under 9:45 -- the 14th, 17th , 19th, 21st and 22nd fastest times in CCS don’t make the meet.

CCS should do away with mis-proportional automatic qualifiers and move to a straight “top 2 qualify per school plus the next fastest 16.” That ensures all districts get at least 2, the largest districts likely more.

For example, in the 800, BVAL would get 6 (instead of 8), MBL 2 (instead of 5), WCAL 5 (instead of 2) and the other leagues their same amount.

In the 1600, BVAL would qualify 2 (instead of 8), MBL 2 (instead of 5), MTAL (+4), PAL 4 (instead of 5), SCCAL 6 (up from 2), SCVAL 5 (from 6), WBAL 2 and WCAL 5 (up from 2).

In the 3200, BVAL would qualify 7 (down from 8), MBL 2 (down from 5), MTAL 2, PAL 2 (down from 5), SCCAL 2, SCVAL 8 (up from 6), WBAL 2 and WCAL 7 (up from 2).

This would ensure everyone runs hard at league finals, and avoid as Albert says “there is no reason for some athletes to throw down quality efforts at their league final with the much tougher races looming ahead.”
4:21 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
There needs to be a qualifying system that is fair. A fair thing would be to make the qualifying equal to the 24th ranked time the previous 4 years. That's three heats. Or 32 for 4 heats. Whatever it is, you hit the time you are in. So what if you have 20 schools in your league or have an extra heat at trials. Also, you should be able to qualify at your league meet, trials or finals. This way you get two meets to hit the time at the end of the year. It's time for a change. Could you imagine? 3rd place is in that league and could be 3rd in CCS but doesn't get to go? Does anyone have a reasonable argument against a straight time qualifier? I say league champs and hit a time to go to CCS. This is an individual sport. Best marks should go!
4:29 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Also note, the WCAL has a frosh soph division that should get CCS qualifiers. A girl runs 5:11/11:26 in jv. A 5-0 high jump girl jv. A 16-9 lj jv girl. A 4:22 frosh mile. 2 guys under 2 in 800. A 9:40 2 mile in frosh soph boys. Let's have any kid that hits the time get to go. League races are tactical. Also could you imagine throwing against VC girls? 3rd would win almost every league but doesn't make CCS.
4:35 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Those in power voted to make it the 8th qualifier instead of the "last qualifier" (12th in distances). They are making it harder to make CCS.

Those voting I doubt read this and have an idea of how people really feel.
4:42 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
WCAL and WBAL get same number of qualifiers? Doesn't that say enough? Complain all the time but no change. Duals mean nothing, in season results mean nothing and same old archaic qualifying continues.
5:01 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
How does qualification for NCS from league work exactly? Is it top six per event for every league? I know BVAL (Bay Valley) does this and was curious as to if this is the way it works in every other league.
5:02 PM
Blogger Albert Caruana said...
The qualifying from league to the four NCS meets next weekend vary but you can check out the automatic qualifiers as well as the at-large times at We used to be in NCS and the NCS Class A meet was an awesome meet for us smaller schools. The same goes for the other 3 area meets. From there, the top 7 automatically qualify to the NCS MOC as well as the top 3 from the Class A Meet.

It's very fair and really adds to those four section meets with team awards given out at each meet.

The qualifying standards for CCS are just way too rigid in most sports and really limits the numbers who get to compete. The only way changes will be made is if coaches speak up and get their league behind bylaw changes.
5:15 PM
Blogger Andrew said...
Here are the details on how many qualifiers each NCS league gets to their respective area meet:

Class A (Branson and Berean Christian get special exceptions as their athletes must place in top 4 at league to move on to the Class A meet):

BCL - 6
Coastal Mountain - 8
Humboldt-Del Norte - 4

Redwood Empire (Lower Lake athletes must place in top 4 to advance):

HDN - 6
MCAL - 6
NBL - 6
SCL - 6

Bay Shore:

MVAL - 6
TCAL - 9
WACC - 9


BVAL - 6
DFAL - 6
DVAL - 6
EBAL - 6
5:26 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
League races might be a little more competitive if a large pecentage of top athletes weren't poached away from their home schools for athletic reasons. Top BVAL guy runs a lot faster if FS WCAL 4:23 is still in the race. I've heard the Bellarmine kids know the FS deal when they get there. We all have our choices to make. Don't worry though, the kid who finished 2nd to him in 8th grade has run a very fine 4:29 and decided he'd take one of those 8 BVAL spots.
9:29 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
So you're saying because they are private the deserve less qualifying spots?
10:05 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Qualifying spots are based on population size of leagues. If kids aren't being recruited for athletic reasons, then what's the problem. I'm saying we shouldnt change the system to promote more of this behavior. We all know it's going on. Accept more schools and kids in WCAL and you'll get more spots. Sound fair to me.
10:22 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Lol. Like anyone wants to enter the WCAL. They don't even want to compete against them at CCS you think they want to join a league. So your argument is slower kids should advance to CCS because they are not private?
10:33 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
My argument is Ha Ha. You guys cry about this every year. The world is unfair. Sometimes you got the votes sometimes you don't. That's my argument. Slower kids who stay at home and aren't recruited to go to private schools for purely athletic reasons should move on. The system isn't set up to take care of the few. Tough luck. Most of them know the deal going in. Isn't that why the put you all in your own league anyway? Good thing is colleges don't really care where you run your times. CCS or WCAL. We all have choices to make. If you want to cut you teeth as a freshman against the likes of Steven Sum, and Jose Piña, you'd better stay at home, or you'd better be able to run that auto qualifier. The best will be at the meet.
11:22 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sounds like everyone thinks this is a WCAL argument – tell that to the kid from Pacific Collegiate who ran 4:23.3 in the 1600 and isn’t going to CCS. Tell that to the 2 other kids from King City, making it 4 from that school who should be going to CCS in the 1600. Tell that to the kids from Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley who ran 4:27 and aren’t going to CCS. Tell that to the kids who “stayed at home” at Lynbrook and Homestead and ran under 9:45 in the 3200 and aren’t going.

It’s incorrect to state “the best will be at the meet” when you leave someone out who’s ranked in the top 16, and that does a disservice to all who are interested in competition.
7:54 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
So it is time for a change and league reps to get behind this. How many heats do the want at trials? 4? Top 32?
Have a time qualifier equal to the average 24th fastest time. Take league champions fill the next.
And no one is getting recruited give me a break. This is not about economics, it's about being fast. And what about the Piedmont Hills that moves from school to school. Is that any better?
Seems like public schools are more affected than WCAL. All I can say is speak up at the evaluation meeting.


Anonymous said...

Whatever system used, someone will feel like they have been wronged. Every big meet has that issue. It's harder to make the Olympics from the USA than from Italy, Paraguay, or Namibia, no one gets more than three. Whatever the situation, whatever the rules, if you don't like the result the solution the athlete can control always is 'run faster'. You need to be faster in the championship meet anyway.

Albert Caruana said...

I don't hear anyone from NCS or SJS complaining about their qualifying procedure. I was a coach in NCS so I can speak from experience. Check out their 4 meets this weekend. Look how many of their athletes get to experience a sectional meet.

The other factor is check out the athletes that won't get to compete at CCS who perhaps just needed a chance to compete. I am sure everybody remembers the MA 1600 runner that made the final as an alternate and won the race.

Anonymous said...

Poor example of the Olympics. They are more about bringing the world together than crowning the best. Read the Olympic Oath.

I also think "run faster" is an awful excuse. Everyone HAS been running faster. The result is auto qualifying marks that are impossible to hit.

Why does NCAA not qualify from conference meet to regional? Why do the Olympics have an A and B standard. Why is their a qualifying mark instead of association & regional qualifying for the Olympic Trials?

Let's not be quick to dismiss a more fair qualifying system due to personal bias or bitter feelings. This is bigger than public vs. private.

Bill said...

I think some SJS coaches do complain about the League to Divisional transition, especially in the D1 schools, where leagues are limited to 4 spots. But they can't complain about the @Large entry which is only 1:59/4:28/9:55 for Boys.

The Divisional to Masters transition is definitely easier for D1 as 10 automatically move on to masters.

Anonymous said...

This is high school not NCAAs or Olympics. CCS' objective should be to give more kids the opportunity to compete in the post season. Instead of a one day CCS Semis and CCS Finals on successive weekends, go back to a couple of qualifying meets for the CCS championships, which should be a two-day event to mimic CIF.

Since it's difficult to have area-based qualifying meets like NCS, do something like Southern Section and make it division-based.

Lastly, HS post season should be all about performing when it matters - during the post season - and not at some invitational in March. Qualifying based on season performance lists is a bad practice for High School. NCAAs is different.

Anonymous said...

And 5 whole people care about this.

Kaaskop said...

Make it simple: The top 2 from every league qualify automatically -- that's 16. Add the next top 16 times. That's a field of 32. Only qualify if run at the League finals. No need for "auto-qual" times based on a historical average of a previous CCS time.

Requiring the qualification to be at league finals should help ensure uniform electronic time standards, and again, make for a more exciting meet.

(I originally thought this should be like swimming: "make the time standard at any meet and that's how you get in" but without consistency of electronic timing at all places it could end up being open to "interpretation." It also potentially makes for more than 32 entrants, which makes for a longer meet.)

Anonymous said...

Why does an individual sport (Track) use school size to determine individual qualifying opportunities? My 2 cents is
take an entry away from the 5 leagues with more than 2 auto entries and replace them with top 5 non auto qualifying marks at league meets. I am dead set against using marks other than league meets because that turns the track season into chasing marks every weekend to advance up the list of qualifying marks which rewards those with the resources to travel and rewards those for peaking early.

Anonymous said...

And if there's a nasty headwind, everyone but top 2 are SOL.

Anonymous said...

Trust me a lot more than 5 care about this.

hank said...

I believe that some of the people that go to the CCS meeting at the beginning and end of the season DO read this message board.

As I recall, some years back when CCS cancelled the North/South meets was because of the number of scatches that happened and that they could eliminate a weekend of unnecessary meets. It was stated (by CCS office) that their goal for the CCS meet were to have the top 8 in the Section compete for the Top 3 spots to send to State (places 9-16, or more) were not considered having a viable opportunity to make it to State. Other than the M-A 1600 guy mentioned above, I can't think of anyone that was ranked 9th or above prior to CCS Trials that actually made it to States (but then I also haven't researched it).

If CCS is to change their focus for the reason of their meet, it needs to start with the League's and the coaches to speak (and write) up.


Ron Ernst said...

It would not be proper to take only a few from each league and then fill in the rest with the next best 16 or so performances. The results at the qualifying meets can be a direct result of the weather conditions. How do you stack up a non wind legal time or jump against a wind legal mark? What about someone who performs well in perfect weather and someone who ran a brilliant 3200 but was had a huge headwind each lap. The conditions are not as big a factor in swimming so this is not a great comparison. In Track and Field, you have to rely mostly on predetermined qualifying spots handed out to each league.

The CCS auto qualifier marks are not impossible to meet. They do allow the "Best of the best" to qualify. They are set by averaging the slowest qualifying time for that events CCS final race over the last 3 years. It is simple, if you are fast enough, or good enough, to have been in the finals, on average, over the past 3 years you get a chance to compete. At most, I could understand a loosening of the standard to something like - the slowest qualifying time of a CCS finals over the past 5 years. This would just call for there to be more heats at CCS trials, not the worst thing in the world.

In the end, you simply cannot make the rules broad enough to accommodate everyone. There are always going to be great athletes that do not make CCS for some reason. Just this year in BVAL one of the best 1600 runners did not make it out due to a collision. A few years back the best 1600 runner in CCS was disqualified at a league qualifying meet. It is very disappointing these great kids didn't get a chance to run in CCS but that is an unfortunate reality.
The 1600 CCS champion from 2012 example is a wonderful story of a super young man stepping up and making the most of his chance. I love his story. But it doesn't justify wholesale changes. He was certainly not eliminated at the qualifying meet. He was 3rd at his league championship meet and was 2 or 3 seconds faster then the auto qualifying mark needed in 2012. After league finals I do not believe he had a top 16 mark in CCS for the season so some of the suggestions thus far would have eliminated him from even making CCS trials, underscoring that there is no perfect method.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the majority, or the people who matter think this is a problem. Just a few coaches, and probably a bunch of parents who want to change the system because it doesn't suit their child's best sporting interest, and in most cases will be gone in 3 years. Where's the travesty in all of this? You still get your times at WCAL, or whicheverer league. The focus at CCS is not on the 9-16. It's on the Top 8, and the public leagues which far out number the privates. If you want to ensure you compete at CCS then move to the BVAL. That's pretty easy. Some years leagues have strong times in sprints, sometimes in distance.

Anonymous said...

That's a lot of words without a legitimate justification. If all you care about is the top 8 make qualifying the auto time only. Then 1-2 heats for finals only. Why bother with anyone but top 8?

Anonymous said...

Most of the 9-16 make it too. That's why this isn't a problem. There are variables that affect time. There are hard luck cases in different leagues every year. Stop making this out like the vast majority of kids a getting screwed. Hit the auto mark. I think almost 20 girls did it for 3200 last year.

Anonymous said...

^ Coach who gets 8 qualifiers.

Bill said...

IMHO, the more you athletes you allow to qualify, the more experience (and better times) it gives those athletes the following year.

SJ section has a very inclusive format that involves Trials/Finals for two successive weeks in order to wittle down the 3 state qualifiers.

D1 start with 32 athletes, 10 advance to masters.
D2/3 start with 32 athletes, 7 advance to masters
D4/5 starts with 32, 5 advance to masters.
Masters advances 3 to state.

Yes, an 800 runner needs to race 4 times to advance to state but at least its decided on the track, rather than some arbitrary number of spots per league.

Anonymous said...

They'd still just complain when one division is faster or slower. When will trials heats be out so we can start calling out specific kids who qualified individually just because they ran hard? "Pissed off parents" are the worst.

Anonymous said...

@7:38. Are you trolling? I seriously don't get people like you. If CCS is about "X" number of fastest let it be about that. So if it's eight, make it only those that that are the elite and hit the auto make it. If it's 32 Then it should be the 32 fastest (not 1-8, 24-48). And have you seen the rankings? #7 girl in 3200 is 10:48. So you telling me if you can't run that too bad? Because just wait until the time drops again. Maybe there should an A and a B standard like the Olympics. Leagues get A standard athletes in the meet on auto qualifiers. If you can't hit the B standard too bad. I mean kick out anyone that can't run the final right?

In actuality 8 people score now. So this means if you have a shot at top 8 you deserve a shot. Make the auto equal to top 16 and let a few more kids in.

Anonymous said...

@ Ron Ernst, thanks for taking the time to pen a non-volatile response. Presumably all league meets are run on the same weekend at roughly the same times, and while the Bay Area has lots of micro-climates, I can’t imagine dramatic weather differences from one meet to another. As for the “head-wind” argument, in the 3200 (presumably the race where it matters most) a 9:46 would be the 16th spot. That’s exactly where the 22nd person qualified last week. And taking the Top 2 still qualifies a 9:50, 9:53 and 10:00. To your point, if the person’s “fast enough” they’ll get through the head-wind and end up in the middle of “Top 16” pack and qualify.

As for “you simply cannot make the rules broad enough for everyone”, how is it then that the NCAA does a straight rank? “Qualification to the championships is based on the descending-order list for the season and adhering to the qualifying regulations/criteria published on” Even USAT&F does a “Top N plus the next Z best times” in moving from heats, to semi’s to finals. It’s not difficult.

Finally, (stealing the thought from someone I admire) one of the beautiful things about running is how ultimately fair it is – the track’s a standard length, the conditions generally standard, the gun goes off and the kids run, with the fastest getting to the line first. There’s no blaming the ref, or a judge or a deflated ball for not doing well.

But CCS arbitrarily tampers with that simplicity. Yes, all the top 8 times qualify (except 1 in the 800), and “most” of the 9-16 (except 4 in the 1600 and 1 in the 3200), but if the desire is to limit the field to 16, then make it 2 per league and be done. But that’s not what’s done – the field is deliberately enlarged to 32 and that’s where CCS decides through arbitrary league weighting that the kids who legitimately should move on, don’t. (4 in the 800, 6 in the 1600, 7 in the 3200).

You can't simultaneously claim "the best move on" and “some leagues deserve more entries.”

Coach Tim said...

The reason this seems like a great travesty to athletes and parents is because they're each seeing it for the first time, and it's the most important thing in their (or their child's) life at the time. The reason it's less of a concern to coaches and league reps, is because they've seen the ebb and flow over years (sometimes decades) of experience, and they have the perspective to know it's just a bad beat in a long string of life's events. Yeah it sucks when it happens to you. But most of the time, it doesn't happen to you, and there's a huge number of more pressing concerns that you can put your energy towards.

You can poke holes in any system, including the current one. And there are obstacles to changing to any system. But if you've got ideas, propose them. Maybe we'll find something where the obstacles can be reasonably overcome and the holes are few and easily plugged.

There are coaches and league reps who do read these boards, and who do advocate for change (hint: I'm one of them).

Anonymous said...

It's not that simple. Different tracks and wind play a huge roll. I think that may be why they measure it? Obviously you've never been at a region meet on a Friday evening at Independence. Race tactics play a huge roll too. So the tactics have to go in favor of everyone just running all out? The best move on, and some leagues deserve more entries. That was easy.

Anonymous said...

Why not just keep it the same but make the auto time the 16th best average instead of the 8th? You can't beat that you don't deserve to get in.

That was simple. Now vote on it boys.

Peter Brewer said...


As a long-time NCS coach, I have seen the evolution of advancements from the league to the sub-section to the section finals. . . and the state meet.

Over time, the NCS added an extra heat to the subsection so there are now 24 entrants to our three subsections (not including the dinky schools under 500 enrollment who go a separate subsection).

This allows the top 6 from most leagues to advance athletes to their respective subsection, which quells almost 95% of the querulousness. We also have developed at-large standards based on a 4-year average of what it takes to make the section finals (top 9 at NCS finals). This advances those worthy athletes who are caught up in some very deep event in a strong league.

Do we run a few extra heats? yes. Do we leave anyone behind? Almost never.

Just to let you know.

Peter Brewer
Northgate High

Anonymous said...

@ Peter Brewer

As a parent of athletes from the NCS, I say yeah for the NCS method. The sub-section may be a bit larger than needed, but this is for the good. One of my kids made the subsection meet as a sophomore, and I think the experience paid dividends later as they ended up with that experience under their belt.

Oh, and bonus points for the great use of 'querulousness'....

Anonymous said...


hank said...

NCS knows their stuff.


Unknown said...

get over this......the CCS and state meets are not PARTICIPATION MEETS. It is for the best of the best, not your 3rd or 4th runners in league.

If you belong, you will make the at large standard and go.....for years there was not an at large mark. Hit the mark, go to CCS, state; not hit the mark, celebrate a fine year and move on....

Anonymous said...

@Scott Chisam. That's exactly why we ARE talking about this. You're arguing that the 3rd or 4th place runner at a league meet is mutually exclusive with being the best of the best. If a league's 3rd place runner is one of the best of the best, he or she should compete in CCS. Look at Alex Condotti from Pacific Collegiate (MTAL). He ran 4:23.3, got 3rd in a league that only gets 2 spots, so he's not going to CCS. However, he ran the 11th fastest time across all league meets. Are people who run 4:35+ and are the 60+ fastest finishers across all the league meets more justified in getting into CCS than him?

In response to the at-large argument, if CCS was to stay with at-large marks, then they frankly need to be slower. Across all distance events for boys, not a single runner benefited from the at-large marks. In fact, only 13 runners across all 3 distance events even ran under the at-large marks (2 in the 800, 7 in the 1600, 4 in the 3200) and they qualified based on place. This isn't an argument for making CCS more of a participation meet. If the counterargument is that if you don't run the at-large time then you don't deserve to be at CCS, then there would be only 13 distance runners at CCS.

Anonymous said...

@ Scott. If it is only about the top 3 why do we score to 8th place?

The Auto times needs to be 12th place at minimum as about half the events qualify that many. That would be a start.

I think when deciding a team championship that goes to 8 places you should at LEAST have the top 16 in the trials to determine who those eight are. The best thing to do would be to have the standard average the 16th placer in trials. That is still very fast and would allow those with a shot to score in CCS an opportunity to do so.

I agree that this is not a participant meet. But I also think if 12 make the final and eight score the standard is too rigid.

hank said...

Fun stuff. If the CCS meet is about scoring then I think we ought to do what swimming does and score the Top 16. It will be interesting (now that swimming has a State meet) to see if they change how they do things. Scott has a point, the best that have a chance for State will get to CCS (a 4:23.3 should be at CCS but will it make it to State... possibly, but it will take a 4:15 or better to make it to State Finals (that always seems to be the magic mark). So is the 4:23 miler really loosing out? Well, yes, he is but he won't be a State Finalist. Which gets back to "why do we have a CCS meet"? I feel it's for our Section runners but I question (as I've said before) if that is what the direction of what CCS is for (based on what Leagues have told the CCS office). We can change things, we just need to.


Anonymous said...

Yes, it seems that CCS could improve things. I don’t see the need to have more athletes competing, just the right athletes. Stay with me.

This IS the section championship that decides who represents us at the state meet. Shouldn’t the objective be to showcase Varsity Level competitors?

Based on Saturday’s results, the best of CCS were NOT at the meet. I wish I had the program to see the seed times going into the trials.

The boys race results are as follows:
4:15-4:42 in the 1600 The top 24/32 = 4:33.37
1:54-2:12 in the 800 The top 23/31 = 2:00.76
9:18-10:04 in the 3200 The top 20/30 = 9:43.36
So I trimmed out the lower 1/3 of the performances.

Some guys were only running strategically. so their times were off their bests.
Others doubled so the 2nd event suffered. However, Steven Sum still managed 2nd place in the 3200 with a competitive time for the day. Hats off to Steven.
Some guys really brought their “A“ game and hit big PRs. That’s what we want right?

Here’s an idea.

a) Every league sends their champ.
b) Everyone else shoot for an expanded CCS qualification time.
For example. 4:30, 2:00, 9:40.
c) FS, JV could qualify too.
Just being objective here.

So yes the standard is lower, but everyone has the incentive to bust their butts at the league meet to get to CCS. No one gets to coast in with an 8th place league finish.

So it seems that by expanding the qualification marks, the CCS meets could be more competitive while allowing a similar number of athletes. If it’s a bountiful year, add an extra heat, it's free. If it’s a slow season there will be fewer athletes per heat.

Giving more spots to MBAL, WBAL, WCAL, SCCAL is ripe with problems. It would come at the cost of spots from the BVAL, SCVAL, MBL, & PAL. It that was the choice, 4 seems like a good number.
Unfortunately, someone is going to complain no matter what. League size, talent depth, talent distribution, recruiting, favoritism, etc, etc.

It would be great if someone had the computing power to model the various proposals based on the past decade to see what "could have been".
Hello Lawrence Livermore Labs, Google, SETI, NSA are your listening?

Popular Posts