Sunday, November 22, 2015

California State Meet Info

http://cifstate.org/sports/cross_country/champ_info/index

State Meet Entries (Any changes to your lineup should be made by 11/23 noon in order for those changes to appear in the state meet program)
http://static.psbin.com/9/y/teer1utsp9u4e4/2015_State_XC_Entries.pdf

State Meet Handbook:
http://static.psbin.com/5/1/8puqp58ph8hlx3/2015_XC_Handbook.pdf

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

What kind of preview/rankings/predictions can we look forward to in the coming days, Albert? Thanks!

Albert Caruana said...

There will be lots of state meet previews by ca.milesplit, lynbrooksports, dyestatcal, prepcaltrack etc.

Anonymous said...

Do you know where there are photos of NCS posted?

Albert Caruana said...

http://ca.milesplit.com/meets/212885/photos#.VlJqFt-rSRt

Anonymous said...

When do we start trash talking the state meet? It's a short week so let's get going!!! Leaving out the cheaters in the SS, who wins the 5 divisions and which CCS teams make the podium?

Anonymous said...

You're not going to see much trash talk because most teams care more about their league and section meets. Unless you have 5 guys under 15:45 at Woodward park you are over your head. So it essentially turns into a go out and die a miserable slow death while the top 30-50 guys that are sub 16 decide who gets the first or second place trophies. For the girls not much happens after mile one. Maybe a few points here or there or the occasional blow up but it is decided by then. But reality is the throw down happens at the section meet.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it is the Southern Section's fault that they are the beneficiary of the CIF's hands off approach to the sections. By allowing sections to slot their teams in to whatever division they want, you get schools from some sections hitting the starting line agains schools with over twice their population. Why wouldn't their be any constancy? It also seems like their is a clear So Cal bias with regards to rankings, one national ranking even put Great Oak's boy's "B Team" in their national rankings. Their depth is enviable, but their 7th man wouldn't be top 3 on at least 10 teams in the state, let alone in the nation. I am psyched to be going down on Saturday, where I'll be cheating on the NorCal kids.

Anonymous said...

And I am assuming the 15:45 comment was an exaggeration since only Great Oak (3), Dana Hills (2), Jesuit (2), Madera South (2), and Agoura (2) had more than one 15:45 or under at Clovis. I would expect those numbers to go up. With Great Oak as the only one with 5 runners capable of going that low.

Anonymous said...

Here's the deal:
1. Schools are built bigger and hold more students in the south.
2. Sections want to maintain equity and fair play at the section level. This is most fair for the majority of member schools.
3. The State meet should be a fair representation of the GEOGRAPHIC state.

Be careful what you wish for. There is a strong lobby at the state level to do away with divisions and move to a "Championship / Open" division. And if it is a bout the fastest 23 teams and individuals my guess is not many Nor Cal schools would make the cut. So you may be crying foul now but things are changing, but not in a good way.

Anonymous said...

Admittedly, I am not familiar how each section does it. At SJS, they put the biggest 20% in D1, 2nd in D2, etc. The range forces the smallest D1 schools to compete with those that have over 1,000 more students. If they manage to get to the state level, the inequity is even more pronounced. On the other hand you have the Central Section and their "competitive balance" which forced McFarland in to D1 when they should be no more than D2 based on population. Effectively crushing any hopes that kids going in to that storied program ever have of winning another state title. And yes, I am a aware that they did qualify as the (distant) 3rd team out of their section. McFarland, school attendance of 860 will get to compete against the likes of Great Oak 3,600+, Dana Hills 3,000+ and Arcadia 3,665 students. And while I believe that there is a lobby to incorporate an Open Division, much like football, they would still have divisions, otherwise they would just be losing money, by reducing participating schools (participants and attendees) by upwards of 75%, which would make zero financial sense. When was the last time a non-SS school won the D1 boys (if ever?).

Anonymous said...

Re state meet divisions, the suggestion has been made before but bears repeating: Let each section do its own thing for the regional championships and to qualify teams to advance to the state meet. Then reseed at the state meet based purely on school size (irrespective of what sections or sectional divisions participating teams may have come from)... not that hard, except that teams won't know their start times at state until the seeding is calculated in the days before the meet.

First 20% - D1
Second 20% - D2
Third 20% - D3
Fourth 20% - D4
Fifth 20% - D5

pmccrystle said...

One boys non-SS champion in DI state history: 1995 Del Campo. There have been 16 other podium finishes by non-SS teams in DI.

In girls, 2 non-SS DI champs: 1996 Clovis, and 2009 Torrey Pines, plus another 17 non-SS podium finishers.

In 28 years, there have been 84 podium finishes in DI combined, which is 21%...SS dominates the State (there are 1514 schools with CIF affiliation, and 581 are in the SS (38%)...don't know division breakdowns

pmccrystle said...

I MEANT to type there have been 36 non-SS podium finishes in DI history, which is 21%...sorry!

Anonymous said...

I like the idea of the reseeding after sections, but with only 7 teams in the D1 coming out of the SS, that would leave another about 20 teams that would have to come from the other sections to fill out the line. That would keep the disparity intact, no?

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't the SS just have their own tournament (sectional) on the same day at Mt. Sac and leave everyone else alone?

Anonymous said...

Re 3:41 pm comment:

If 7 teams come from SS D1 sectionals, then, yes, most teams competing in D1 at state would from elsewhere to fill-out the D1 line. Some of those teams might in fact come from SS D2 (if those schools are large enough), in addition to larger schools from other sections - it would all depend on school enrollment.

SS would indeed likely to continue to dominate D1 - but that's to be expected when SS has so many large schools. I think we might, however, see declining influence of SS in other divisions, if some SS schools are forced to move up in division at the state meet.

Anonymous said...

4:07 Good point. D1 becomes all SS schools (most likely) but who cares. They leave the rest of us alone.

I'm in. How do we make this happen? Albert and Hank, can we get a meeting with the guys at the CIF to get the reseeding thing enacted by next year?

Anonymous said...

What don't you guys understand about a geographic state meet? The CIF does not want a state championship of only southern section schools, which it would nearly be in D1.

They want a STATE meet, not a southern only state meet. Again if it came down to the top 23 teams in each division not many schools in Nor Cal would make the cut.

There is no fix to this. Even if it were fair enrollment wise then you start complaining about poor schools vs. wealthy ones. The state meet is the best it can be. Stop complaining.

Anonymous said...

There is a way to deal with it. The CIF just has to come to grips with how much the numbers favor the SS. While giving them 7 spots across the board might fit their competitive formula, it alienates the other sections. Give all sections 2-3 teams and a few more individuals and at least make the numbers on the line fair. When 7 of the top 10 teams comes from 1 section it is not a "state championship."

Anonymous said...

Southern Section is huge, you know that right? Being fail it should be split into a coastal region (SLO to Santa Monica); an inland section (Riverside, etc) and the Valley. Those three sections would get 9 spots or more taking more spots from Nor Cal. I mean if we want to be fair?

You are probably the same people at CCS that tell WCAL too bad, BVAL has more students and more teams so get more spots to CCS. Then in XC complain about SS having more students and more schools having too many. So which is it?

Anonymous said...

WCAL should get more spots in track and SS less in XC. Or, the SS can split up and make the division's more fair, which is it? Super section sounds like it's own state. So, we are back where we started - SS should be its own state - go beat up on itself and leave everyone else alone to compete on a level playing field.

Hank said...

I have no power.

But I do have my first couple of divisions of the Combined Sections converted to Woodward Park:

Combined Sections

It takes a real long time to do each division (2.5 hours per) since I'm using excel as my database (and I'm too lazy to do a re-write). But I'll keep adding thru the night and tomorrow morning it should be complete (remember to refresh your browser). If you believe my merge predictions then CCS looks to do well for Top 10 finishes - go teams!

hank

Anonymous said...

Hank, is the SS complete in your combined list? If so, is it true that SF is 2nd by 1 point and WG close behind for third?

Anonymous said...

Meant B D2 complete including SS?

Anonymous said...

After all the bitching about the SS, CCS has 2 of the top 3 in Boys D2! When was the last time that happened? Can SF pull off the win?

Hank said...

SS is complete. Yup, CCS looks good if you believe the course conversion formulas.

hank

Albert Caruana said...

In his last state meet rankings, Rich Gonzalez had the top 7 teams in Division 2 from the SS. I am not sure about the conversion (Mt. SAC runs the same as Crystal Springs as far as I can tell) but it looks like it was hot and dry at the SS final which may push their teams down in the rankings. St. Francis, Willow Glen and SI will be very happy if they can crack the top 10. I don't believe they are podium teams.

Anonymous said...

I believe! Go Lancers and whatever WG is. CCS representing.

Hank said...

Albert,
I too think MSAC and Crystal run the same. I'm using the XCStats conversion. Depending on what happens this year, I might change the conversion to be the same for future predictions.

hank

Anonymous said...

Albert, Hank is always right. Rich is a shill for the south. A check of his articles this year shows nothing on the CCS after last year's track season. He teased a recap of the early bird but never delivered. Lazy or a shill for the SS, no matter. He can't see past Santa Barbara.

Albert Caruana said...

Last year the SS teams took the top 7 spots in the boys Division 2 race and top 5 in the girls Division 2 race. In 2013, the SS took the first 5 spots in boys Division 2 race and 5 of the top 6 in the girls race. I can keep going. The truth of the matter is our true Division 2 teams get moved up to Division I and our true Division 3 teams get moved up to 2.

As for Rich, his actions speak for themselves.

Hank said...

Albert - where's the CCS love?

hank

Hank said...

D1 & D5 girls added.

hank

Anonymous said...

I don't have issue with Rich putting out a Southern-centric web site, but from an outsider's perspective, it sure seems like he has a hugely disproportionate influence on California track and XC. One guy puts out and is responsible for CIF rankings? I know that rankings are just a person's opinion, but if you have a team that has aspirations on making it to NXN, many of the national rankings surely rely on input from state specific "experts." When it comes to at large berths, who makes up the committee that decides these things? I also find myself skeptical of the "power merge" since conditions can be and frequently are different throughout the day. I have always wondered what people really think about this guy and the fact that some prominent NorCal teams do not go to Mt. Sac is probably telling and probably hurts them in Rich's rankings. I know there are a lot of conspiracy theories going on, but as a parent and fan of the sport, I just want kids to get a fair shot in competition, doesn't seem too much to expect.

Hank said...

Just need to add D5 boys and D3 girls - all other divisions are in.

hank

Anonymous said...

Hank, I am trying to figure out how there are 700+ kids in these races. It looks like you listed every kid that ran in every sectional race. If so, how would the team rankings/predictions be impacted by pulling out the teams and individuals that did not make the state meet?

Hank said...

Yup, It's more a "if the State meet were open to all who qualified for Sections" prediction. I do not pull out the non qualifying teams for it would take alot more time to do and I figure someone else will most likely do it (heck, the data is all there, get crunching...). Oh, and D5-B is now added, just waiting for D3-G. I would guess it would change the results and the scores by leaving everyone in but so would using a different conversion formula for some of the courses - it's all for fun and speculation of course.

hank

Anonymous said...

Hank, very true. Thanks for supplying the data. I can crunch it any number of ways to get the result I want. Makes me feel better driving a few hours to Fresno to watch a 15-minute race. Have a great Thanksgiving!!

Marcus said...

Rich Gonzales is also heavily involved with NXN other than just being a state specific expert. In 2013, he was flown out to Portland by Nike (I assume for free). Then last year, he was one of the commentators for the actual live webcast. It seems that because Rich is "in bed with" NXN, he could be putting in a good word for southern section, opposed to Nothern/Central teams during the at-large selection because of his Southern CA bias.

Anonymous said...

In the past two Xc seasons, Rich has been embarrassing in his SS bias, particularly his cheerleading for Great Oak and Destiny Collins at the expense of that O'Keeffe girl from NorCal, who has beaten her twice. Rich is, indeed, a SS shill

Anonymous said...

Who is this Rich Gonzales? What are his credentials in Xc? Former coach or college runner? National Masters runner? What's his 5K time? Seriously, what qualifies him to pass judgment and carry such influence?

Anonymous said...

He just has a useless website with Cal in the name where he shills for the south and ignores the north. Not sure if he ever put on a pair of flats or not but his website and analysis is worthless to me. Hopefully MS and more balanced sites will take away his viewers along with his power.

Anonymous said...

I'm confused. First, the majority of good teams are from the south. Second the schools from the north rarely participate in high profile meets down south, and the rankings reflect that. You can hardly blame someone from the SS not knowing how your home course compares, let alone if you don't run against other ranked teams. Lastly, rankings don't matter. If you want to go, finish top 2 over-all. If you want to have a shot, top 4. The real travesty here is not in the rankings but that CA, the greatest XC meet in the country, only gets 2 qualifiers while Michigan, New York, etc. get 4 auto qualifiers.

NXN is fun. But it is not as good as winning a state title in CA.

Marcus said...

@Anonymous7:26 To say that schools from the north do not participate in "high-profile" meets is not true. Many teams make the treacherous 7-10 hour drive down to Mt. SAC, AND they perform really well. Whereas, northern California's largest/most prestigious meet is Stanford Inv'tl where only 1 or MAYBE 2 teams make the trip to Palo Alto. NorCal has high-caliber meets as well so the traveling needs to go both ways. Also, rankings do have an impact on teams. The NXN committee look at how teams are ranked when certain teams are in contention for an at large bid. They also talk to state specific XC experts so for CA, they talk to Rich who clearly has a bias towards the SS teams which could impede NorCal teams vying for a spot. Additionally your statement that "the majority of good teams are from the south" is erroneous. If you look at the results from the past 3 state meets.. on the girls side: 2012- St. Francis took 2nd, Davis 5th; 2013- Davis took 2nd, Campolindo took 1st in D3 w/ Las Lomas in 5th; 2014- Bella Vista took 2nd, St. Francis 3rd, Campolindo 2nd in D2. On the Boy's side: 2013- Madera South took 2nd, Jesuit 6th (D2), 2014- Madera S. 3rd, Bellarmine 6th, Placer 5th (D3). And this year the Jesuit boys are big contenders for a podium spot, as well as the Davis girls.
Your point that New York and Michigan gets 4 auto qualifying teams to NXN is also false, they only get 2

Anonymous said...

Sorry. I read a 4th place team from Michigan regionals made it to NXN but wasn't able to compete. My bad.

As for the rest, I stand by my comment. If a top ranked SS team finishes 5th over-all or even 4th, they won't jump a Nor Cal team in 3rd. And there is no way more than 4 from CA get in to NXN.

Also you've mentioned some great performances from Nor Cal teams. All the more reason to stop complaining how unfair the race is. But reality is you mentioned 1-2 nor cal teams that got in the top 10. 8 or 9 of the top 10 from the south Per division. And one of those were even close to top 2 come to merge. The only real team to get screwed from Nor Cal was Mountain View back in the day and that because of the "Power Merge" Top 20 BS Rich does. But let's be real, in totality Nor Cal is outmatched by the south.

Oh and Madera is not in Nor Cal.

Anonymous said...

I still would like to know what qualifications Rich Gonzales has to be a "state specific expert" for NXN. Anyone know his background in cross country? Is he a former coach or just some blogger/sportswriter? Who is he?

Anonymous said...

I believe he is a former coach of Arcadia HS & is the meet director of the Arcadia Invitational (the most elite HS meet in the nation). So I would say he is qualified.

Anonymous said...

I have google searched Rich and all I found was that he was a cofounder of dyestatcal but then left to create his own website, prepcaltrack. I also found that he is the meet director of Arcadia Invite after taking it over when Doug Speck passed away. I cannot find any record of Rich ever being a coach at Arcadia....

Anonymous said...

So he is qualified. Now onto the next topic to bitch about? Should we bring up private schools again?

Anonymous said...

No. Let's not go there. Let's talk about the CIF and the unfair advantage the SS has because of school size. That's where this all started - Rich and his crap website was just a distraction. Albert, have you contact the CIF yet?

Albert Caruana said...

The inequity at the state meet is not going to change drastically anytime soon. I used to think it would have to come from the state level but from their perspective, they have 10 competitive races and there is no reason for change. I believe NCS might make changes in the divisional breakdowns but I will believe that when it happens.

Hank said...

How's this for an idea at State. Any TEAM that qualifies for their Section meet can automatically run in the State meet but NOT in the first WAVE. So you have the top teams run in wave #1 (which are the current State qualifiers), then then next best 25 teams in wave #2 some 30 seconds later, then the next 25 in wave #3 (30 seconds) and the final 25 in wave #4. You have about 800 runners per race (200 per wave) out there racing. Even a 7:00 miler in wave #4 would get thru the mile mark about 1:30-2:00 before the leader from wave #1 is heading back home. With chip timing you could score it a multitude of ways, winners by wave (gun) time, winners by combined (chip) time, etc. The only real drawback would be the mounds of people that would be there but the income for Fresno and CIF would be HUGE. You might have to add 5 minutes to the start of each race which would add another 50 minutes to the schedule. This way no Section is getting more entrants then any other Section. Of course some teams would choose NOT to run even if they qualified for their Section meet but then that would be their choice and no one could gripe about it. Just thinking outside of the box here, anyone else have a "unique" idea...?

hank

Anonymous said...

I like the idea that the sections are allowed to continue doing what they think is best for the schools in their section. Once section championships are complete, the pool of qualified teams get put in to divisions based on attendance so the top 20% go in to D1 or Large schools, on down. This was suggested above, so I am by no means taking credit for this idea, but seems the most easily implimentable. Of course, the large schools/D1 division would be skewed more towards the Southern Section where the schools are generally larger, but schools outside of SS wouldn't be forced in to higher divisions where their chance of success is diminished by competing against schools that have much higher enrollments. A team like McFarland could still have a reasonable shot at competing for a state championship amongst schools of a similar size. Additionally, even if you were not in the large school division and you were able to develop a team that could compete on equal footing with the larger schools, the merge would still give you a shot at qualifying for NXN. If this were implemented, EVERY school in California would, if they qualified for the state meet, compete against schools with the attendance numbers most close to theirs of the teams that qualified. I pulled attendance numbers for the schools in the top 10 rankings to see if the numbers favored SS and the do, in some cases greatly. Brea Olinda (SS D3) has almost exactly 2 times the enrollment of Jesuit in the SJ. Since Jesuit is all boys, I doubled there enrollment, which makes it equal to Brea Olinda. But, in the current system, Jesuit is D1, Brea Olinda is D3. Another issue is the number of entries that each section is allowed. The current system is skewed towards the Southern Section at the state meet, where they generally compete against smaller schools, which ensures the co-efficient used to determine the number of teams making it from state favors Southern Section as well (across ALL divisions, not just D1). If some of these strong NorCal programs competed at the state level against teams with similar attendance numbers, their improved success would pave the way for more auto entries in to the state meet. It boggles the mind that something hasn't been done about this sooner, but if you have ever been to a CIF or section meeting, it becomes pretty clear.

Anonymous said...

Albert, who has to take up this issue with the CIF? It's probably too late for the kids in HS now but we have to move the ball for the future. I like the reorder after sections as a way of allowing the CIF bigwigs to burry their heads in the sand until we all show up in Fresno to pay our $10 to watch XC the day after Thanksgiving. At that point, they should care, or they should be made to care, about the disparity in the divisions. Someone was able to convince the powers that be that title IX was a good idea in equaling the field in NCAA sports, how can we do the same in CA XC?

Anonymous said...

GEOGRAPHIC STATE MEET.

The instant you do not have each section in each division at the state meet, XC or track than there is no more need for the race. It will be resolved and remain a section championship level sport.

Stop this nonsense of "unfair" enrollment numbers. It will never be fair. Not by financially, not racially, not by enrollment numbers, not anything. A State Meet needs to represent each section in the state.

Anonymous said...

Can we get back to the Battle Down Under! SF widened its projected lead over WG but who thinks it can turn around?

Anonymous said...

Dear Rich,

Central Coast is not Santa Barbra. SLO maybe. But not Santa Barbra.

Why no qualifier in CCS? Los Gatos all-cq

Popular Posts