Same goes for any coaches or parents out there. I will do my best to answer your question(s) and if I am stumped, I am sure there are plenty of others out there that can help answer your question(s).
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Do you have a question for an athlete, coach or parent?
Same goes for any coaches or parents out there. I will do my best to answer your question(s) and if I am stumped, I am sure there are plenty of others out there that can help answer your question(s).
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...
-
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...
-
Just added: Info for Ghebray Invitational on September 22nd. With one extra Saturday in September next year, I started to hunt down the d...
-
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...
277 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 277 of 277@10:32 I think anyone that cares enough to make reasonable comments here understands that a 3200 race can be tactical. Those are the best races. That the BVAL final was tactical is somewhat belied by the fact that the 3-8 kids all PR'd. Regardless, the WCAL final was the polar opposite. It looked like a time trial from the gun and 6 of the top 8 finishers were on the ground at the end. At least 2 of those on the ground are going to run on Saturday. So, aside from the inequity of some of the top 3200 guys in the CCS staying home, the ones that are going ran a tough race the week before, and the BVAL guys got to save themselves by only putting out in the last 800. Double the inequity or par for the CCS course?
@10:51 Interesting, the league that gets 4 times the auto spots has 3 times the number of finalists over a 4-year period. Underperform? Nice argument.
Thank you for this stat. It clearly shows how top ranked athletes are kept out of the finals due to being eliminated at the league level. Hardly a "best of the best" but rather the best of worst.
@ 9:58 The "going nowhere" comment is pointed at the kids that take up spots in the CCS from kids who are faster. If that faster kid is a freshman, then his hypothetical progression is more likely better if he is afforded an earned spot at CCS. He might not make it to state in four years but why is he denied a chance to progress by racing the best at the section meet? The F/S kid in your hypothetical is only "going nowhere" with respect to the state meet. That does not mean he was not successful by getting better and finally making the CCS meet. Why do we purposely hold back kids that have the greatest chance to push our section to the next level? Petty league jealousy and turf protecting? I expect that from the little league dads who sit in the stands and tell people about their 8th grade homer, not from coaches and school officials who proclaim to want to grow our great sport.
Our proposal was not going to take spots away from any leagues. We just want to make sure that it is consistent with the amount of individuals that qualify to the finals.
Unfortunately our proposal was denied by our athletic directors so unless another league wants to take up the fight, we will have to wait until next year.
Wow... AD's shut it down? What possibly could be their reasoning here?
Albert, Thanks for trying. Not sure why the AD's would not want to go with the coaches' recommendation but I guess not everyone agrees that something must be done to make the system more equitable.
It's always interesting to see divergences between what the coaches recommend and the ADs accept. A few years ago there was a proposal from the PAL to consolidate from two divisions to one, and the AD's instead adopted a different proposal to expand from two divisions to three.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Thanks for the hard work in getting the proposal together Albert. Hopefully someone continues the fight.
@2:05 - Let's not jump to conclusions. It's not that they don't agree, just that they see other costs involved that are more important. ADs have a different perspective and set of concerns than coaches do, and are usually privy to information we're not as well. It would be nice to know their justification for denying the proposal though, so we could account for it in the next one.
AD's don;t understand, or care about cross country or track. All they know is football.
Football has gone to 13 divisions based on competitive equity not enrollment. Perhaps this is what track should do to get their attention.
By why does this need to go through the AD's anyways? Isn't CCS supposed to represent the coaches? Why would this not be able to be discussed if the coaches want it?
I had a much longer rant to post, but I thought I'd simply say, this particular sport is about measuring performance. Speed, Height, Distance. If the fastest, highest, longest performances aren't making to the next level event because of an arbitrary league cut-off YOU ARE HARMING THE SPORT AND THE SECTION. YOU ARE DISREGARDING THE HARD WORK THE ATHLETES.
PLEASE FIX THIS!
Qualifying on time is the ONLY thing that will resolve this. Enough with the petty turf war that has produced an us and them semi. Only the best should be going to the sectionals, period!
Here are the stats of the day from the 3200 CCS semi: WCAL (gets 2 autos but sends 4) all 4 go to final; BVAL (gets 8 autos) sends 3 to final. 4 kids from the WCAL (2 of which ran 9:32 at league) that stayed home would have finished better than the #2 and #3 BVAL guys, both of which PRd and were certainly not jogging their race. Enough for anyone to reconsider their aversion to allowing kids that kill themselves all season to get a chance to run in their section meet?
Bonus facts: SCVAL gets 6 autos and sends only 5, PAL gets 5 and sends only 4 - I'm sure the kids who stayed home would have loved to get those spots that were just thrown away.
Interesting that 9:43.74 gets you in to the CCS final but 9:32.19 can't get you in to the CCS semi. Reminder that 8th place times currently impact on next year's at-large mark. At 9:36.41 (notice that is still slower than the guy who ran 9:32.19 at league and didn't even get a chance) the at-large for next year should be 9:30.96. Good luck to all you young folks in "small" leagues that dream of getting to the CCS. Run the equivalent of what is now the 12th best time in the CCS this year and you just might get invited to the semis.
4/5 and 5/6 qualifying for the final is great so let's be real. Also killing yourself the week before in league just to get there is also real.
Each league deserves to spots. This is high school after-all. Then go to a descending time list to fill the field to 32 or 40, whatever you choose. Keep the top 8 auto for crazy fast years.
It's an easy fix. I recommend everyone email Steve Felios with this suggestion. Change only happens when you make your dissatisfaction known.
@9:12 No, 4/5 and 5/6 did not qualify for the final. Both the SCVAL and PAL started one less guy in the semi than they are allowed. The field was 32 when it should have been 34 based on autos plus the WCAL having the only 2 at-large add on spots. What happened?
As far as killing themselves the week before, that should have gone against the WCAL more than any other league because their race was all out, while others (most famously we are told that the BVAL final was slow because it was so tactical) should have been more rested, but that didn't happen.
I agree with contacting Steve about the problems we all recognize. I'm just not sure what you are proposing. Can you add more detail please?
9:12 those are not the stats for finals qualifying. Those 2 leagues entered 1 fewer runner than they were allowed in the semi. Is that something the CCS frowns on?
How about adding a F/S Division to CCS if you want kids to get the "CCS Experience". They used to have it (yes, I'm showing my age).
hank
So the rationale for getting the 6 or 8 spots is that their leagues are larger, and disadvantaged, and they really need them to give their kids a chance to participate in a post season. So why then didn't they use the spots. They should be surrendered to leagues want and need them next season. (PERIOD) That's down right inconsiderate especially considering that this conversation has been going on for weeks, and is clearly a sore subject.
Not sure if these are late scratches or not but those usually show up in the results. SCVAL sent one less - the guy that was supposed to go ran 9:33.52 (#3) in the league finals, the next in line that could have taken the spot ran 9:36.13 (#7) (respectable but neither ran the at-large); PAL sent one less - the qualifier ran 10:17.52 (#3), the next in line ran 10:22.57 (#6). Do either of these leagues need the number of auto spots they are given?
We all know stuff happens. Kids get sick,
or injured. It's the fault of the ADs and coaches for mismanaging the spots.
"Do either of these leagues need the number of auto spots they are given?"
So, you are basing this off of one event when you don't even know why the athlete did not compete? Perhaps he got sick (remember, once the entries are submitted there are no alternates). Perhaps he had a lingering injury and tried to warm up but couldn't go. Perhaps there was a family emergency.
There should be a way to not have open lanes at the semis. I do realize that the entries are due the Monday before the Saturday semis. Perhaps if a coach knows that their athlete or team is scratching, the next in line from their league get in from there?
@ 6:44 If you have read any of this thread you would know that the comment on auto spots is not based on one event. Go back and read about the kids who got screwed by the system. This is just one more example, especially if they were not just late scratches. The fact that 2 kids running slower than 10:00 even had the ability to go to CCS from one league when much faster kids stayed home should tell you that the auto system has to be changed.
Albert, how about the next fastest in the CCS gets to fill the lane? When a kid who runs 10:22 is next in line but the kid who ran 9:32 has no shot, shouldn't we try to adjust the system?
@ 6:54 You are being too kind. PAL gets 5 autos (yes, they sent only 4 and I am sure that we will hear why) but only one of those 5 kids (and the 6th kid who was next in line) ran under 10:00 in the league finals or the CCS semi, the slowest of which ran 10:28. That is the reason we are even talking about changing the system. The "keep the auto system the way it is" people say that the larger leagues need more autos because have more kids and it is only fair to give them an equal chance to go to the CCS. What is more fair than letting the fastest kids go to their sectional meet, regardless of league size? That is where we need to get to. Fairness based on talent and not arbitrary allotment of auto spots based on size.
Interesting footnote to Pierre's reference to George Baier winning CCS in 2012 in the 1600m with a 4:20.77 after making it into the final from #13 on a scratch. The race was tactical with some wind and Baier had just recovered from an injury a month or so earlier (other factors to consider in the auto-qualifier debate). In that same race, the #1 seed finished dead last (as we all know, runners have good days and bad days...another factor to consider).
In 2013, Baier finished a close 4th/4:16.54 at CCS finals in the 1600m and missed the auto-qualifier to State by 16/100's of a second. (Different race, different conditions and competitors).
Baier is currently a successful NCAA-D1 scholarship distance runner, who among other things, is representing UCSB at Western Regionals this week in the 1500m, based on a qualifying time of 3:45.56 (converts to a 4:02.14 1600m) set at the Bryan Clay Invite earlier in the season, not at the Big West Championship meet.
And just for the record, Baier was also part of UCSB's two-time Big West Champion XC team and scored for them in NCAA-D1 Regionals in Seattle last fall.
Using times to qualify may seem most objective, but it doesn't take conditions and other "race dynamics" into account, which are, of course, part of the excitement of any distance race.
Baier's win in the 1600m in 2012 (his junior year) helped generate college recruiting interest. Wouldn't it have been a shame if he hadn't had the opportunity to compete in that race?
Bottom line: finding a fair way for a few more athletes to qualify and compete at CCS is beneficial to all.
I believe this is the first year that CCS expanded the number of runners advancing to finals from 8 to 12 in the 800m.
Seems to make a great deal of sense and allow for more participation and competition, while still running just one heat each for boys and girls at finals.
How this decision to expand came about would be interesting to know and generally relevant to this discussion.
Relaxing the at-large back to the 12th spot or last spot to qualify would be a very good start. However, we are never going to get to a system that gives a kid a fair shot unless the autos are revised and the next fastest kids are allowed to go. Everything else is whitewash for a lazy system that disproportionately advantages the larger leagues. This is not supposition, there is hard data not only from this year but for many of the recent years, especially as CCS distance programs have generated more elite athletes. Time to change with the times or get left behind.
The state meet changed to 12 to finals in 800 a few years ago so CCS followed suit. I can't recall the exact year but I can go back and find out.
I know this is a XC site but why are we so fixated on the 3200? In the 1600 there is a senior staying home who ran 4:24.72 at league final, while #3-8 in the BVAL ran 9:25.07 through 9:33.03 and qualified. The last qualifier to the CCS final ran 4:28.94 in the semi. The 9:24.72 guy (who has a PR of 9:23.49) would have qualified 4th. But I guess it is better to have him sit at home and get ready for graduation while 16 of 31 kids ran slower than 4:30 at the semi. Once again, congratulations to the CCS!
While discussing modifications to CCS Track & Field, it would also be appropriate to consider reforming CCS XC.
Divisions related to school size may make sense for team competition, but make no sense at all when it comes to individuals qualifying for State.
So, for example, a D4 runner who is a minute (or more) slower -- same course, same day at CCS finals -- than a D1 runner, currently advances to State while the D1 runner stays home.
Why not have an "open" individual qualifying process based on times run at CCS finals in XC?
In the 800, there is a guy that ran 1:57.55 (0.54 off the A-L time) and is staying home where the #1 PAL time was 1:58.88 and the last time to qualify was 2:02.58 (#5). In the BVAL the #1 guy ran 1:57.52 and the last qualifier ran 2:04.92 (#8). Good thing we don't want a "participation meet." BTW - the last qualifier from the semi to the CCS final was 1:59.39 and over half the field (21 of 34) ran slower than 2:00.
sorry, I transposed a lot of 4s and 9s in my 2:30 post but you get the idea: 4:24.72 stays home while 4:25.07 and 4:33.03 go, and 4:28.94 makes the CCS final. Guess you 3200 people have poisoned my mind.
XC is much harder to change since it is more of a pure team sport - as in all runners on the course at the same time, sometimes with a team or pack mentality because the fifth man is the key. I understand the sentiment, especially if there is a kid that does not have a team (although that is typically more for the D4 or D5 schools). Can someone come up with a way to make it more fair to the individuals given those issues?
The shame of it is, the CCS has 15 guys who ran faster than 1:58 this year and 34 who ran under 2:00. How in the world can we send 21 kids to the semis that can't run faster than 2:00 when we could have had a full field (all 34) under that mark.
@3:55:
The fact that XC might be a little bit more of a team sport than Track (something upon which reasonable minds might differ) doesn't justify sending much slower individual runners to State. Under current rules, the only individuals who qualify to move on -- regardless of division -- are those on a team that did NOT make it (in the same race). Put another way, any athlete competing individually at the State XC meet is NOT there with his/her team, so it really is an individual (not team) competition at that point.
Alternatively, would it really be that hard to have an open qualifying meet a day or two or week after the CCS team qualifying meet is held to let individuals compete head to head for the opportunity to advance to state?
OR, at the very least, establish some reasonable time standard or cut-off for individuals which applies across all divisions.
Anonymous 2:50 your remark towards D4 or even small schools doesn't make since about a Faster individual D1 runner vs Individual D4 runner. Last year CCS Championships D1 runner had the same time 15:22 as the D4 runner. Next D4 Runner on the girls side was faster than the D1 runner.
Anonymous 2:50 your remark towards D4 or even small schools doesn't make since about a Faster individual D1 runner vs Individual D4 runner. Last year CCS Championships D1 runner had the same time 15:22 as the D4 runner. Next D4 Runner on the girls side was faster than the D1 runner.
@8:16
I gave a hypothetical D1 vs. D4 scenario for individuals in XC just to highlight how the system doesn't make sense.
I actually think your reference reinforces my point that individual competitors should be evaluated and recognized on their own merit, regardless of division.
Again, why should it matter which division an individual competitor is from?
Put another way, if a runner is the fastest individual overall, but happens to be in D5, should that runner be recognized only for being the fastest in D5?
I think most would agree that that runner should be duly recognized for being fastest overall.
But without an egalitarian "division blind" qualification process, leading to a head-to-head competition of individual qualifiers (at CCS or State), it will not be possible to determine which individual is truly fastest overall.
2:50 and 8:34 you hit the nail on the head. If you are not on the course at the same time, then the times of the winners of various divisions does not matter all that much since they still score 1 point even if they shut it down in the last 800. Also, the temps from 8:00 am to 3:00 pm make a big difference at Woodward park. That way the individuals racing in different divisions are truly not equal. Getting this track mess figured out is a lot easier.
Qualifying as individual out of your division is fine. But once you get to state when I just want all the individuals in the one individual race since school size doesn't matter, and then put in more teams into the team races that are split by divisions?
No, XC is first and foremost a team sport. Who would give up their best runner to race in an individual only race? Not gonna happen.
Individuals, as in those that make state without a team.
As for this track debate it is useless. We can't get ADs to agree to put forth a proposal to lower the standards from 8 to 16. A PROPOSAL put forth by the coaches.
I was told we have the current system because it is the rules put forth by the coaches. Well now coaches are speaking up but are not being listened to.
The only way to put the best individuals in one race is to have an open race. Other than that, individuals will remain in their respective divisions.
@9:06
I don't think you understand. There is no scenario where teams would "give up their best runner to race in an individual only race."
In XC, individuals are only in play if/when their team does not qualify from CCS to advance to state...regardless of division.
And please. Let's avoid the unnecessary/non-productive "not gonna happen" proclamations.
I have never understood why individuals run their divisional race. Seems odd considering the way track is set up. If you take out the 50 or so individuals you can fit 7 more teams on the line. I would love to see 30 teams on the line where everyone scores and everyone is worth a point.
Individuals can run in a "individual sweepstakes" race as a 6th race.
D1, D2, D3, D4, D6, Individual.
This would also do away with the mystery bonus qualifier formula as every (larger) section would get at least 1 more spot, give the SS two.
As for track this system is what we have. The powers that be do not have any inclination to change the system and are fine with the status quo. The e-mail's of the CCS office were posted here but how many sent in a response? One? Two? It will only change when we are such a pain in the ass they don't want to deal with this any more.
There are 24 automatic qualifying spots by league (each league gets two) then the next 16 spots by fastest times for a total of 40 spots (or 5 heats). The automatic qualifying times can still be in play with the 8th fastest mark in case of a freak year.
Of course a baby step would be to reset the automatic qualifying spot to the "last qualifier." Apparently this would not even need a formal proposal because they changed it a few years ago without any coach's input.
@7:55 Good point, if the CCS changed the at-large without the knowledge or input from the coaches and league reps, they could change it back in the same way. The first move this year is to return to the "last qualifier" system. We need to organize to go after the larger issue of changing the auto qualifiers. The movement to send the best to run against the best has to be the guiding principle. What we have now is an "us and them" participation meet. Only the top third in any given race truly have a chance to advance on because the bottom 2/3 do not have the times to compete.
If you want to make a change, don't email Steve Filios or the CCS office, email your coach and your athletic director. The CCS will adopt changes that are brought by the leagues and agreed upon. They're not going to unilaterally make changes or work outside of their processes just because some fans/coaches/athletes/parents are being persistent with their complaints.
Bring the message to the people who need to hear it: The coaches and ADs.
Coach Tim, according to many, the CCS changed the at-large process a few years ago without a proposal or input from coaches or the leagues. Why would they not listen to reason from anyone unfortunate enough to be involved in the resulting process, and make changes to fix what they broke? If you know Steve or anyone else with a vote, I call on you to let them know what is going on and that they are currently holding back the CCS from competing on the highest level and from building for the future.
Coaches want change.
The change coaches are asking for, to be brought to a vote is killed before it can be even brought up.
Complain to Steve Filios. Complain to your AD. Complain to the principal.
Then the coaches should go direct to the CCS. Nothing says they can't. Also, the June 7 meeting is open to the public. We need to get coaches and parents to attend and put CCS on notice that changes have to be made.
The meeting is June 7, 4:00pm at the CCS office. Does anyone know where the office is located?
To my knowledge, only two ADs from the WBAL voted for the proposal to return the language to "last place qualifier to CCS Finals". Two of the ADs that voted against it have backgrounds in track and field. The rationale was that kids in our league would not benefit from the change, which is for the most part true. With the system the way it is, it will be easier for our league's qualifiers to advance to finals.
Although unlikely, the decision may impact us as soon as next year. The girls shot put mark will be a ridiculous 36'7. Our league will be returning four 30 foot throwers. Two of them will be sophomores. 2016 required a throw close to 36 feet to qualify for finals. I anticipate that next year a 33 or 34 foot put will get to finals. If these girls improve we may wind up with 3 or 4 throwers good enough to compete for a finals spot, but only two will get a chance.
Pierre, it is always interesting to understand the motives behind action, especially when it is so incomprehensible. People either act on principle or in their self-interest. Voting against a proposal to get more of the top athletes into the semis in favor of having a slightly better chance to get THEIR kids to the finals is definitely the latter. I guess I can't blame them too much, they are just looking after their own. What we have to hope is that the CCS understands that when everyone acts in their own interest, in contradiction to the principles that we all espouse (remember every coach and administrator cares about KIDS), the entire section suffers. Just look at the number of top-ten athletes that were left out of the semi. The meet has become what people say they don't want - it is a participation meet for the bottom 2/3 of the kids.
So "don't let in the fastest kids because it will make it harder to make the final" is the thought process of our decision makers. And if this does not deserve to go up the chain of command to principals, CCS commissioner, school boards what does? If I was a lawyer I would sue the CCS. that type of self serving behavior very well likely could be costing kids scholarships. I guess it is not hard to believe there are selfish, self-serving people out there who think this way. It is a shame though.
@7:25,
I would not say that it is "bottom 2/3" that is a bit too extreme. What is going on is that a handful of athletes ranked among the 90th to 98th percentile are not qualifying from the smaller leagues, while some athletes around the 80th-85th percentile and lower are qualifying from the larger leagues. While most of the complaints have been about boys 3200m, the biggest disparity between a non-qualifier and qualifier was in the girls 3200m. In this case, the 3rd place runner from WCAL did not advance while running 11:23 (16th in CCS, 96th percentile). The 8th place runner from PAL advanced to ccs after several athletes scratched. This runner had a season best of 13:15 (199th in ccs, 54th percentile).
There were 32 runners in the 3200 semi. Based on current standings for the year: 14 of those kids are outside the top 32 in the CCS (the lowest of which is #110). The fastest of that group ran 9:48.5, the slowest 10:40.28 this year. Of the top 15 this year in the CCS, 5 of those kids were not allowed to run in the CCS semi (#5,9,12,13,14). The fastest of those was 9:24.32 and the slowest 9:33.52. Since the last 5 qualifiers to the finals ran 9:36.41 or slower on Saturday, I could make a case that all 5 of the top 15 left out of the semi could have qualified. "Best of the Best" or partial participation meet?
Pierre, it didn't take a scratch to get the #110 ranked boy into the CCS semi. He ran 10:20 at league (10:28 on Saturday), finished fifth, and punched his ticket. As mentioned here before, kids running almost a minute faster didn't get that chance. What will it take to get the CCS to act?
I believe that adding the two meets that were eliminated years ago that would take place between league and semis would make our semis way more competitive. Those two meets can be regional or divisional.
Albert, Admitting that there is a problem is the first step. Hearing that the WBAL AD's rejected a VERY mild adjustment based on self-interests is not very encouraging. This is a problem for our section. The leagues have cobbled together the worst type of process that nobody is willing to revise because they "benefit" in some way. The large leagues get more kids in the semi and keep other top kids out, which gives them an easier path to the finals. We already heard the rationale from a small league - not sure if the other 3 small leagues have a similar take. It is up to the CCS to break through this mentality and bring some sense to the system so the SECTION puts our best kids forward to take on the rest of the state. What will it take?
It's not just a 3200 issue.
FACT: A girl that finished 4th in the 1600 at the SCCAL did not make the auto-qualifier and did not qualify by place. she ran 5:08. She made it in due to scratches and ran 5:08 again, finished 8th in the trials and made the final.
What will it take for the CCS to act? Answer: 1) media pressure. 2) a lawyer. 3) 20-30 angry parents complaining to their AD, CCS office and principals.
It would be interesting to see participation numbers for recent years compared to the last years of the sub-section meet era, both absolute and above certain benchmark levels of performance. If the sport has grown significantly (it certainly feels like it has), then maybe it is time to revisit the idea of a 3rd round.
@7:41 - Your argument that this is costing kids scholarships feels like a reach. You're talking about kids running slower than the at-large standard, implying that everyone above that standard is getting a scholarship (which isn't true). It's an objective sport, so if they've got the times it doesn't matter when they were run. And there are alternatives to the scholastic season - for example, here is a schedule of local USATF youth meets. The first two listed happened to be last weekend and this coming weekend (registration still open!), which fits nicely with the HS training schedule. If you've got the time, energy, and means to bring a lawsuit to the CCS, surely you have the same to research the viable, already existing alternatives.
Please, please, please do not bring Media Pressure or lawyers to bear on this "issue". The sport will lose more than it will gain by being in that situation. By all means make your opinions known to the coaches and ADs, but this is an issue we can fix internally through the existing process.
I believe CCS is just trying to stay in line with State when it comes to At-Large calculations. State uses 9th place (since they take 9 to the finals) so CCS uses 8th (since they take 8 to the finals). I also believe that to be one of the reasons why the "lingo" changed a few years ago - just wanted to stay in line with State. But do we have to stay in line with State - no. So this is when a league puts together the proposal to make a change. Given that the WCAL seems to have the most to gain with a proposal why are they not spearheading the effort? Even the SCCAL girls distance runners could gain here as well but where is the proposal? If those two leagues aren't in to putting one forward, I don't see any other league making the effort (thanks WBAL for trying). Am I missing something here? WCAL and/or SCCAL - when do you think you'll put something together and if not, what are your reasons for keeping the status quo? Just wondering.
hank
Hank, anyone in the area that has any connection to XC and track loves what you do for our sport. The CCS did more than change the "lingo" when they did what they did - apparently without much notice. As a respected person in our sport, you have the kind of clout to get them to change the lingo back so that we get our better runners to the show. This can be done in much the same way as they changed it. I am sure they did everything within the rules and bylaws of the CCS - they can do the same on June 7 and take one step toward correcting the biggest problem. They should then ask you and other respected people in the area (preferably those without a current horse in the race) to come up with an overhaul of the system to be voted on next year. Please consider this for the benefit of the kids.
I'm sure CCS would change the "lingo" if State changes their "lingo" as well (my post started that they are just following State's lead - IMO). So, there is a process in place to make changes that are outside of trying to "stay in step" with CIF. That is the path that I suggest folks take. Without a League that is willing to support a proposal, why should any Section take it on, because folks debate it on a message board? I will support proposals once they follow the process, sorry, that's just me.
hank
PS - I usually don't respond to "anonymous", I like to know who I'm talking to.
Hank, I think 12:13 was paying you a compliment, and maybe that is why you answered him. No need to answer me but I think he is right that the CCS will listen to concerned experts in the absence of the leagues stepping up for whatever reason.
Hank, other leagues will be presenting proposals at the CCS evaluation meeting. Now it comes down to the league reps to pass it. I guess we will see. SCVAL, SCCAL, MTAL, WCAL, WBAL, PAL all stand to benefit from the proposal. The only negative, better athletes will make the semi-finals.
5:54 what league is going to propose a change at CCS? What are they proposing?
Albert, Can you bump this up or create a new thread for comments on the upcoming CCS meeting?
Hi, I just came back to track practice and the side of my foot hurt from running. I have not used spikes during my workouts because I do not have some at the moment so I been sprinting with running shoes. The sides of my foot hurt, should I tape it when I run? Put a ankle brace on to compress it? Ice it? Or any other ideas would be be greatly appreciative . Thank you
Probably rest and a better pair of trainers. A lot of track workouts are done with trainers and not spikes. Get fitted for a good pair of each so that you don't create a chronic injury to a key asset - your feet.
@9:48 - Is the pain in both feet, at the same location? Are these new (to you) training shoes? Every time I had pain in the sides of my feet, it was because I was wearing the wrong kind of shoes for me. If you have a different pair, try them and see if the pain subsides or disappears. You might want to get fitted at a running store.
Just to provide an update from the CCS evaluation meeting:
Present at the meeting were Steve Filios, two PAL reps, one MTAL rep, a coach from the WBAL, and a coach from the MBL. Not present were reps from the WBAL, WCAL, MBL, SCVAL, SCCAL, BVAL. No members of the public were present.
Traffic was particularly bad tonight, so we stalled as long as we could, discussing the other items on the agenda. Eventually, the proposal was discussed (the WCAL officially brought the proposal). Steve shared some thoughts from the Section Office perspective (in particular, that the State At-Large rule states a number (9) rather than "last qualifier", and that the Board would likely not favor a rule that benefits some events but not others). Ultimately, without the authors of the proposal present to make a motion or facilitate discussion, it was tabled.
I'm sure the question will come up again in the future, and if the proponents of the change make their case, I'm sure the assembled reps would hear them out, ask questions, and make a decision on merits. But in this case, nothing happened.
Says meeting is June 7 at 4pm.
http://static.psbin.com/3/k/31j80117n5lhda/track_and_field_bylaws_2015-16.pdf
I am confused.
The meeting was changed due to a conflict with the CIF Commissioner's Summer Workshop (which was moved two weeks ahead of schedule). This was noted in an email from Steve to the league reps on April 28 (Subject "CCS Track & Field Championships"), and a reminder email sent June 2. It was also updated on the CCS Website (http://www.cifccs.org/sports/track/index)
The by-laws were not updated as you pointed out, and that is confusing.
Post a Comment