CCS
WBAL: http://fasttimes.me/meets/17-05-06/
MTAL: http://www.rtspt.com/events/rpt/2017/mtalchamp/
WCAL: http://lynbrooksports.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/TRACK/2017/wcal_tr.htm
PAL (FS): http://lynbrooksports.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/TRACK/2017/pal_fs.htm
BVAL (MH): http://lynbrooksports.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/TRACK/2017/bval_mh.pdf
BVAL (WV): http://lynbrooksports.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/TRACK/2017/bval_wv.pdf
NCS
EBAL: http://diablotiming.com/results/2017-05-06/
SJS
Delta: http://timerhub.com/get_web_index.php?page=redcaptiming.com/2017/delta/
More will be posted as I find them.
WBAL: http://fasttimes.me/meets/17-05-06/
MTAL: http://www.rtspt.com/events/rpt/2017/mtalchamp/
WCAL: http://lynbrooksports.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/TRACK/2017/wcal_tr.htm
PAL (FS): http://lynbrooksports.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/TRACK/2017/pal_fs.htm
BVAL (MH): http://lynbrooksports.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/TRACK/2017/bval_mh.pdf
BVAL (WV): http://lynbrooksports.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/TRACK/2017/bval_wv.pdf
NCS
EBAL: http://diablotiming.com/results/2017-05-06/
SJS
Delta: http://timerhub.com/get_web_index.php?page=redcaptiming.com/2017/delta/
More will be posted as I find them.
In anticipation of some great league finals and the CCS meet, I would like to reflect on the Board's decision to change their meeting date last year so the qualifying rules could not be changed to make the section meet nearly as good as the CCS Top 8 meet, which truly gets the best runners from across the section. By way of example, ponder the following: SCVAL (6) current #3 times are 4:24.49 & 9:45.51; #6 times are 4:27.64 & 9:55.03; BVAL (8!) #3 4:18.24 & 9:28.90; #8 4:31.30 & 9:48.72; MBL (5) #3 4:30.48 & 9:54.82; #5 4:33.90 & 10:10.02. By contrast the WCAL gets 2 entries and their #3 times are 4:19.87 & 9:24.36; #6 4:27.08 & 9:38.24. Once again, quality kids will miss out on THEIR section meet due to antiquated qualifying procedures that have little relevance to the selection of true section leaders. Good luck to everyone. I hope your kids run fast and take solace in the fact that there will be kids, through the arbitrary distribution of qualifying spots, can run slower yet still take part in the CCS meet.
ReplyDeleteI hear your complaint. Please post a proposal of what you think is a fair qualifying procedure. Do you have a solution or just complaints?
ReplyDeleteSince the Board purposely changed the meeting date last year to make sure that a very modest proposal could not be presented to them for approval, I'm not sure any of us should waste time or effort figuring out a new system, but here goes: each league gets 2 autos (16); the next 8 come from best other times run at the league finals; final 8 come from the best times run during the season (could limit it to a few major invites to assure competition e.g. CCS Top 8, Dublin, etc.). Best go, no complaints.
ReplyDeleteIt's false information if you think the CCS post season meeting was changed to prevent a proposal from passing. The proposal that we were ready to present was voted down by our ADs so it never made it to the CCS level.
ReplyDeleteIt was pointed out be another poster but instead of complaining about something, you have to come up with a proposal and format that will be passed and will be an improvement over the current system.
Until then, we are all just complaining.
My understanding is that the WBAL ADs voted down the proposal (hard to believe since they were one of the few that would benefit from it) but the WCAL was ready to pitch it to the CCS before they changed the meeting date without informing anyone in advance. Avoiding a vote to take spots away from favored leagues might not have been the reason for the 11th hour meeting change, but it certainly appeared that way.
ReplyDelete"Avoiding a vote to take spots away from favored leagues might not have been the reason for the 11th hour meeting change, but it certainly appeared that way."
ReplyDeleteIt appeared that way if that's the conclusion you were looking for at the outset. For those of us who take the CCS leadership at their word, it appeared that there was a change in the schedule of the CIF Commissioner's meeting, and so the CCS meeting had to be changed accordingly. The CCS website was updated with the change, and the league reps were notified by email.
That said, if the proposal was defeated by the ADs, it's a moot point. The coaches and league reps are only part of the equation. We recommend, but the school administrators decide.
"but here goes: [proposal]"
Your proposal is an interesting one. Please write it up and share with your coach and league representative. If they decide to bring it to the section, it will no doubt generate some good discussion and receive fair attention.
I also think 3:24's proposal has a lot of merit and deserves to be fleshed out. Is there someone out there with connections who can get the ball rolling with coaches and AD's so it is not a waste of time to put together a detailed proposal?
ReplyDeleteI would propose keeping the current qualifying spots as they stand. I would add up to 8 at large spots in each event, less the number of AQ's from all the leagues, to keep the total number of competitors to 40.
ReplyDeleteThe first post picked the 1600 so we can look at that event and we can use times from Athetic.net. There are two poor assumptions I am already making but we have to base this on something. Poor assumption #1 - athletic.net is inclusive of all marks this season (we know it is not); Poor Assumption #2 - all the top runners decide to run in the 1600 (which will not be the case).
Anyway, if we change nothing the top 17 athletes will all qualify but from there the allocations become spotty amongst the rankings. While many people would feel that any system that includes the top 16 athletes for the season is already fair enough, this proposal would allocate 6 additional spots. Only 6 spots as 2 spots above the league allocations of 32 went to AQ marks (ranking #8 & 13). Boys who ran between 4:25.58 - 4:27.88 (rankings 18, 22, 23, 28, 29 and 30) would be added to CCS semifinals making it 2 heats of 20 runners.
This method would include the top 30 which is a solid improvement over only including the top 17. The marks should all have to be achieved at league finals, no marks from any other time in the season should count toward qualifying for CCS. Track has an elimination season and part of the difficulty is managing the season to have your athletes peak at the proper time and hold that fitness over the championship season.
I look forward to seeing all the kids race in the upcoming championship portion of the season.
Albert - let me know if I can complain now - just kidding. ;)
I did the math and it looks like leagues get about one auto qualifier (AQ) per every 6000 students enrollment. Maybe someone can confirm that this is how it works?
ReplyDeleteThe BVAL is in fact three leagues. And if the BVAL needed to restructure to retain it’s AQs, it has the numbers to become 4 WCAL sized leagues. This is why they have 8 AQs.
This is absolutely the fairest way to allocate AQs.
The argument has been made that this representative structure affects the quality of the CCS meet. This is utter nonsense! The at-large times are in place to make sure the fastest athletes are always at section. It is true that slower runners from the BVAL make CCS as opposed to WCAL- but potential finalists are not getting left at home!
If the argument is that “deserving” kids are missing “THEIR” section meet. Then shouldn’t you be advocating for no auto qualifiers for any league anyway?
The problem with no AQs is that if the margins are very tight, race conditions (tactics, weather, etc.) will play a big role and who qualifies for the section meet. I think we can all understand that you need to let people race head-to-head to earn the spots. This is precisely why we have CCS semi-finals. The best from each league get together and we figure out who REALLY deserves to make the final.
If you advocate for the bigger leagues to get the same amount of AQ’s as the WCAL, you are really just saying private schools deserve a bigger piece of the pie because they want it. And If you really think CCS semis would benefit from more 4:25-30 and 9:35-9:40ish boys 5:10 & 11:20ish girls, then you should propose that they lower the at large marks.
With the state meet date moving up a week, that makes adding meets between league and the CCS semis very difficult to do. I like the idea of each league getting 2 spots and then fill the rest of the field based on performance. The other idea is to have marks that can be met anytime during the season which is what the Central Section and San Diego Section both do currently.
ReplyDeleteI did the math and it looks like leagues get about one auto qualifier (AQ) per every 6000 students enrollment. Maybe someone can confirm that this is how it works?
ReplyDeleteThe BVAL is in fact three leagues. And if the BVAL needed to restructure to retain its’ AQs, it has the numbers to become 4 WCAL sized leagues. This is why they have 8 AQs.
This is absolutely the fairest way to allocate AQs.
The argument has been made that this representative structure affects the quality of the CCS meet. This is utter nonsense! The at-large times are in place to make sure the fastest athletes are always at section. It is true that slower runners from the BVAL make CCS as opposed to WCAL- but potential finalists are not getting left at home!
If the argument is that “deserving” kids are missing “THEIR” section meet, then shouldn’t you be advocating for no auto qualifiers for any league anyway? I don’t endorse this but at least it would not be allocating AQ’s disproportionately.
The problem with no AQs is that if the margins are very tight, race conditions (tactics, weather, etc.) will play a big role and who qualifies for the section meet. I think we can all understand that you need to let people race head-to-head to earn the spots. This is precisely why we have CCS semi-finals. The best from each league get together and we figure out who REALLY deserves to make the final.
If you advocate for the bigger leagues to get the same amount of AQ’s as the WCAL, you are really just saying private schools deserve a bigger piece of the pie because they want it. And If you really think CCS semis would benefit from more 4:25-30 and 9:35-9:40ish boys 5:10 & 11:20ish girls, then you should propose that they lower the at large marks.
You make a lot of valid points but potential finalists are being left out of section competition just because they can't get out of their own league.
ReplyDeleteThe other factor is that the current CCS process has a negative impact on our rising stars in that a lot of them don't get the experience of a section meet before they may truly belong. How many athletes on your team think the season is over at the league meet?
Albert, you nailed it. The best 32 don't go, and no system we come up with will make that happen. But when one or more of the top 10 or 15 don't even get to the semi, that is a major problem for them and the section. There is also the issues of fairness and rewarding kids who truly deserve it with a spot in THEIR section meet. After all, this is supposed to be for the kids. Let's get closer to the goal of sending our best and rewarding the top runners in the CCS.
ReplyDeleteI agree that potential finalists should never be left out, but it is hard to know this is the case. Strong candidates will hit the at large mark. If we think potential finalists are missing out, then the conversation should be about adjusting at large marks.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your comment that "CCS process has a negative impact on our rising stars", I understand this point but:
1. The WCAL is great- no evidence of negative impact.
2. Being in a league that has more talent per capita has benefits as well as drawbacks.
I know this may be a bit of an exaggeration but for some athletes, it's more difficult to make CCS than it is to make the state meet. That should never be the case.
ReplyDelete3 freshman in the BVAL sub league at 4:26, 4:27, and 4:31 for 1600. All are likely to be at CCS. It would appear that more of the rising stars are seeing the drawbacks, and might prefer not to have to go through the winning Penn Relays DMR to get to CCS.
ReplyDelete@10:11 Can you name one athlete (1600, 3200) who posted a top 10 time at their league finals and did not qualify for CCS semi-finals?
ReplyDelete@12:01 it happens every year in WCAL. That's the whole point of the discussion.
ReplyDeleteSo here goes. 8 WCAL girls could have placed in the Top 11 of CCS times in the 1600.
CCS Finals
1 Meeks, Gillian 12 Gunn 4:53.13
2 Villegas, Marisa 11 San Benito 4:56.47
3 Skahill, Emily 11 St. Francis 4:57.39
4 Kamas, Elena 10 Homestead 5:01.64
5 Zlatunich, Marea 10 Aptos 5:07.52
6 Novitsky, Natalie 11 Sacred Heart Pre 5:08.89
7 Kim, Gia 12 St. Francis 5:11.80
8 Allen, Lindsay 11 Homestead 5:16.72
9 Meck, Abbey 11 S.L.V. 5:19.83
10 Daney, Micaela 10 Prospect 5:31.71
11 Donovan, Naomi 9 Los Altos 5:39.02
WCAL Finals
1 Skahill, Emily 11 St Francis ( 4:57.27 1 10
2 Lemak, Julia 12 Archbishop M 4:59.67 1 8
3 Kim, Gia 12 St Francis ( 5:10.80 1 6
4 Janiczek, Emilia 11 St Ignatius 5:19.83 1 4
5 Genevriere, Emily 10 Archbishop M 5:35.63 1 2
6 Keating, Katrina 12 St Ignatius 5:37.22 1 1
7 Jayme, Aleah 11 St Ignatius 5:38.38 1
Here ten WCAL boys could have made the CCS finals.
ReplyDeleteCCS Finals
1 Richardson, Matthew 11 Bellarmine 4:17.39
2 Munoz, Roman 11 King City 4:17.81
3 Slaney, Kent 11 Palo Alto 4:19.95
4 Doblar, Dylan 11 Bellarmine 4:21.30
5 Estrella, Jorge 10 Andrew Hill 4:25.35
6 Yep, Tyler 12 Evergreen Va 4:26.59
7 Gebrehiwet, Senai 12 Leland 4:28.60
8 Mohan, Sanjay 12 Los Gatos 4:28.74
9 Euerle, Sammy 12 Willow Glen 4:29.62
10 Adam, Julian 11 Westmont 4:32.00
11 Williams, Ben 12 Burlingame 4:36.72
WCAL Finals
1 Richardson, Matthew 11 Bellarmine P 4:21.93
2 Doblar, Dylan 11 Bellarmine P 4:22.55
3 Lehr, Kevin 12 St Ignatius 4:24.72
4 Hacker, Krey 12 St Ignatius 4:28.28
5 Griffin, Daniel 11 St Francis ( 4:29.22
6 Scales, Alex 10 Bellarmine P 4:29.50
7 Sedayao, Chris 11 Bellarmine P 4:30.79
8 Shiu, Derek 12 Bellarmine P 4:31.49
9 Hollister, Nick 11 St Ignatius 4:32.04
10 Breault, Raymond 12 St Ignatius 4:35.44
and again in the 3200
ReplyDeleteCCS Finals
1 Robison, Justin 12 Lynbrook 9:12.41
2 Dozier, Nolan 12 Sobrato 9:15.23
3 Olivero, Alexander 12 St. Francis 9:16.64
4 Miranda, Robert 10 Menlo School 9:27.22
5 Beaudoin-Rousseau, Meika 10 Bellarmine 9:27.41
6 Kumar, Shyam 10 St. Francis 9:27.88
7 Busse, Thomas 12 Bellarmine 9:30.16
8 Faust, Graham 12 Half Moon Bay 9:36.84
9 Walker, Zach 10 Willow Glen 9:40.17
10 Estrella, Jorge 10 Andrew Hill 9:46.51
11 Slaney, Kent 11 Palo Alto 9:46.74
12 Changco, Elijah 12 San Benito 10:03.57
WCAL Finals
1 Olivero, Alexander 12 St Francis ( 9:22.76
2 Beaudoin-Rousseau, Meika 10 Bellarmine P 9:26.18
3 Kumar, Shyam 10 St Francis ( 9:26.80
4 Busse, Thomas 12 Bellarmine P 9:28.23
5 Doblar, Dylan 11 Bellarmine P 9:32.19
6 Colonna, Colton 9 St Francis ( 9:32.98
7 Gade, Neerav 10 Bellarmine P 9:35.40
8 Garcia, Jonathan 12 Junipero Ser 9:42.78
The leagues can keep their 2-4-6 AQ spots, just loosen the times a bit.
ReplyDeleteThe large leagues with 6 spots won't a lose anything. Their same 6 runners will advance.
The smaller leagues can get their top performers to the section trials.
It's simple... Take the top 32 marks from the league championships.
ReplyDeleteOr do what swimming does, the 40th mark (in our case 32) from the year before is the next year's standard. Hit the mark (wind legal) and you're in.
If you want league representation than each league champion is an auto qualifier.
This isn't hard.
Problem is, the CCS has gamed the system by requiring a league to come up with a proposal to be voted on at their one meeting per year, knowing that no proposal will satisfy a majority of the leagues. If they truly cared about the kids and wanted to make the system fair, they would appoint a committee to come up with a consensus plan.
ReplyDelete@ 8:01 PM- It's not that simple because not all races have equal conditions and times don't always match up. And if you are going to have representation, it should be proportional to the size of your league. (which is what we have now)
ReplyDelete@ 8:42 PM- Accusing people of "not caring about kids "does not move the dialogue forward.
@ 2:37 here's my analysis of the numbers you posted.
Girls 1600- the highest ranked girl that did NOT go to semis from WCAL was ranked 40th!
Girls 3200- the highest ranked girl that did NOT go to semis from WCAL was ranked 17th!
Boys 1600- the highest ranked boy that did NOT go to semis from WCAL was ranked 13th!
Boys 3200-the highest ranked boy that did NOT go to semis from WCAL was ranked 5th
5 Doblar, Dylan 11 Bellarmine P 9:32.19 (ranked 5th)
6 Colonna, Colton 9 St Francis (ranked 13th)
Doblar missed the at large make by one second and his PR (9:24 at that time) would have easily got him in. Not much you can do about a bad race.
Those 13th ranked athletes not making it is a legitimate complaint, though not quite the magnitude of problem you make it out to be. Lowering the at-large mark by even one second would've made a difference.
The only issue that we should be discussing it is whether are not potential finalist are getting left at home. If this is the only problem we're trying to solve I think we probably could come to a consensus. Lowering at-large marks would solve this problem. If we start talking about second-tier athletes ( for example 4:25-4:30 milers) deserving to go to CCS because they're faster than second-tier athletes from other leagues it opens up a heated debate.
Basing the AQs on league size is ridiculous. It should be based on quality, just like the section qualifiers to the XC state meet. The better leagues, those having the most kids getting to the finals or meeting the AL time in the league final, get more AQs. Ones that have fewer kids getting through, get less. Now, who has the guts to write this up and go through the ridiculous process set up by the CCS, which will take it up at their one meeting per year and put it to a vote of the other leagues who can't be expected to vote against their own interests, even when it's the right thing to do for the kids?
ReplyDelete@ 7:02- You are confused!
ReplyDeleteIn XC, to get from league to CCS, it is also based on league size. XC CCS is the top 50% of the teams from each league. Once we get a chance to get the BEST FROM EACH LEAGUE to CCS, they can race head to head and the best move on to state.
@8:54 No, not confused at all. Notice I said "section qualifiers to the XC state meet." It is an example (see analogy) of how AQs are apportioned based on quality from past performances. It can work for the league qualifying system to CCS as well. Rewarding quality and not quantity is the key. Getting the best to the CCS meets is the goal and that is not happening. The CCS doesn't care and is willing to wait out anyone who does because they know this will only affect a particular kid/team for 1, maybe 2 years tops, and the next set of complainers will have to start at ground zero with little support from others.
ReplyDeleteI think the XC qualifying procedure for the state meet is a good example. From league to CCS in Track and Field, you can have a baseline minimum which could be 2 from each league and the rest of the field is based on quality marks. This has been brought up before.
ReplyDeleteMore than likely, such a proposal will not pass in my opinion. At this point, what we can do is try to soften up the at-large marks so that deserving athletes are able to compete at the very least in the semifinals. Realistically, the current at-large marks do not come into play. If you can surpass those marks, you are more than likely in a auto qualifying place already.
The other factor is the conditions at the league finals. What if one league has conditions that does not allow their athletes to compete at their best? This goes back to perhaps being able to meet those at-large marks anytime during the season.
Lastly, I know there is a lot of back and forth about this at this time of year. My contention is that other sections allow so many more athletes an opportunity to compete at their section meets. I am not saying that we should allow everybody but there is a better way.
As a long time follower of this issue and veteran watcher of the WCAL, I suggest everyone who cares about this do themselves a favor and go to the WCAL finals on Friday and compare what you see there to what you would see at any of the other league final. Here is the truth: there are going to be 5-7 WCAL kids running flat out in the 1600 and 3200 races to try to make the At-large times. There will be no strategy, even from the event leaders, because there are 4 kids in the 1600 who have already run the time this year, and 5 kids in the 3200 who have a PR (this year or last) that is faster than the time. Remember, they only get 2 AQ spots. Have a "bad" race and you are out! By contrast, the other leagues, having more AQs and fewer kids that can run the time, will likely produce slower times and more strategy. Here are the stats: WCAL 2AQ (1600 AL times 4, 3200 AL times 5); SCVAL 6AQ: (2, 1); PAL 5AQ (1, 0); BVAL 7AQ (4, 3); MBL 5AQ (0, 1). Fair?
ReplyDelete@11:12 I posted the times above.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure what you're getting at by saying the highest ranked WCAL kids that didn't go to semi were ranked 40th, 17th, 13th, and 5th. Maybe I need more coffee.
In the interest of time, I bypassed the whole ccs-semis question and went straight to CCS finals. The fact of the matter is all of these runners had times at their league finals that would have made the CCS Finals heat more competitive.
Looking at the season rankings I saw there were some PRs and some under-performances at WCAL. However some of the WCAL under-performances still would have put them in the CCS finals heat.
I agree with you that easing the At-Large marks to reach CCS Semis would solve the problem very easily. No league loses anything. The best athletes go battle in the semis.
It's so ridiculously simple I can't believe we're still having this conversation.
However we have time for rules like this... "Any visible garment(s) worn underneath the uniform bottom and extending below the knees shall be of a single, solid color"
@ 11:08
ReplyDeleteI say they were ranked 40th etc. because I simply looked at the fastest runners from WCAL finals that did not make it to CCS and then I looked at what their CCS rank was last year.
You are looking at league finals marks and comparing it to CCS finals marks. Many many athletes did not run personal bests at CCS Finals. The slowest time that advanced from semis the week before was 4:28 in the 1600.
@ 11:08
ReplyDelete"I agree with you that easing the At-Large marks to reach CCS Semis would solve the problem very easily. No league loses anything. The best athletes go battle in the semis." This is the COMMON GROUND FOLKS!!
You need to build on this if you want a change!!!
@ 10:20 AM
This is a very valid concern. I argue it is a downside of being in a very strong league. Lowering at large marks would fix this problem to a large degree.
@11:08 The rules regarding uniforms come down from the NFHS. The CCS officials enforce them because we have to; most of us don't care either. That rule in particular is actually a dramatic improvement over what we used to have to police.
ReplyDeleteLila Roake Of Santa Cruz ran 11:19 at the SCCAL final. That time will make the final but she does not advance. My issue here is I've seen the standard drop from 11:52 to 11:09 in the past 10 years. The good thing is depth is better than ever. The bad news is kids are left at home. That 11:19 kid could peak at finals and run low 11 and make state. This year 11:07 was second at CCS top 8. Third was 11:17.
ReplyDeleteThe standard for distance shouldn't go up and down. 5:10 and under for girls mile, 11:30 girls 3200 should get you in. And if it was just top 32 times the controversy would be at #30 spots debating weather rather than a kid who could make state not advancing.
Another good example.
ReplyDeleteAre there events besides the girls 800/1600/3200 which have seen significant drops in auto time?
ReplyDeleteCan anyone find out who the CCS Board members are and explain to them how they are crippling our sport? Do they even know? Do they even care? Is there a runner or a coach among them that can explain how the CCS is being disadvantaged by their inaction? How do we get through to them, and if we can't, how do we fire them?
ReplyDeleteIt's real simple. Break up the WCAL. Put Mitty, Presentation & Valley Christian in BVAL. Put Saint Francis in SCVAL. Put Serra & San Francisco schools in PAL. Problem solved. There should not be leagues of only private schools.
ReplyDeleteGood luck to all the athletes and coaches! Should be a great day for some fast times.
ReplyDeleteCongrats again to the CCS for devising a system where the #4 800m guy stays home because the #1 and #3 guys are in his race, there are only 2 AQ spots, and the wind was blowing 10-15 down the backstretch causing him to miss the AL time by less than a second. Sending our best? I think not. Sad!
ReplyDelete@7:17 am
ReplyDeleteHe could draft? Surely he could have sat on them going 1:57 pace and make CCS.
I just hope once we solve this problem we can switch our attention to the Southern section where deserving kids are being left home from THEIR State meet in favor of slower kids from around the state who are arbitrarily distributed qualifying spots due to some antiquated system that has little relevance to selection of true State leaders.
ReplyDeleteNo question that the Southern Section has incredible athletes who have a rough time getting through an incredibly tough section. They do however have a divisional portion which allows more athletes to compete against like schools.
ReplyDelete@10:10 I really don't care about the south. I'm advocating for our kids, in our section, which we have more control over. We need to get our best kids to the dance so they can get experience and go on to state to beat the best from the south. Why is that so hard to understand? At-large at any time during the year is a very reasonable and easy step in the right direction. Now, let's get that done.
ReplyDeleteAll these anonymous complaints. If you have the energy to post, put together a proposal, send it to your coaches. Some food for thought if you are going to put up a proposal: don't focus only on distance events. Think of how Increasing the #of qualifiers will have an impact on how the sprinters qualify. Those with influence do not want qualifying from semis to finals to be adversely affected in laned sprinting events (think of the # of heats being run, heat winners + x# fastest times).
ReplyDeleteWCAL is in a down year. All these complaints... But who is left out that has a shot at finals. The 800 kid had a bad race and peaked too soon. Outside of that 2 qualifiers is the right call.
ReplyDelete@12:17
ReplyDeleteWCAL is not in a down year. There were some great performances at St. Francis. The wind played a factor for sure. "The 800m kid" ran 1:58 because of the rough environment not because "he is peaked." Im sure a bunch of kids would have been closer to the auto mark in the 800 if the wind wasn't so tough on the backstretch. The 1600 was also an exciting race to watch and I feel for the 3rd and 4th runners who suffered as well.
I think the weather conditions were a big factor on Friday at WCAL meet.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure strategy played a big role in the boys 800 & 1600 and it cost some runners in time. Chalk it up to inexperience.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is, I doubt seriously anyone would try to take out a pace against Scales Colona or Scales Micallef. Unfortunately the leaders weren't pacing with a lot of margin under the At-Large time. So the underdogs should have stepped up and pushed the pace for their own sake. Better to get out kicked still get 3rd or 4th but make the AtLarge than to draft for 3rd or 4th and stay home.
By comparison MBR and Ms Skahill took control of their races early, and let the rest battle over the table scraps. I like that.
@8:05 Those are valid points. Once again, I think the wind had a lot to do with the Scales Colonna (1600) and Scales Micallef (800) pace for those races. Scales and Colonna were doubling so a moderate pace is understandable given the conditions. Scales used Micallef to break the wind for 650m and then kicked with the wind at his back. Everyone who ran that night had to factor the wind into their race strategy. Categorizing getting your strategy in a 10-15mph headwind down the entire back stretch as a "bad race" is tough; tougher still to be left home because of it. By contrast, in the 100m, 5 girls and 7 boys are going to the CCS. Is that fair to the distance kids?
ReplyDeleteThe sprinters in WCAL are better than the distance runners this year. So yes, it's fair. The 4x1, 400, 300H all had the same headwind. The 800 did not go out fast. They could have drafted. So again, that's fair. No offense but WCAL is down this year. Outside of a few elites every distance race was not as strong.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of if it fair or not, the point is that there are kids in the top 10 for the season who are staying home bc: 1) their league does not have enough AQs, based on quality of the league; or 2) the AL mark was not reached, based on a "bad race," or the weather or bad strategy in a strong wind. If we are willing to accept that things like that happen, then don't change anything. If we want to change the rules to make sure that doesn't happen again, there are many remedies to get us closer, we just have to decide which one is best.
ReplyDeleteEhh not sure if I agree with whats being said about the WCAL distance races. The 1600 went out in 64 and the 800 in high 55, low 56. I would say those are both honest first laps. In good conditions that first lap in the 800 can set you up for a 1:54, definitely a 1:57 which is around the standard. If you were there or watched any of the race videos you could see guys, even scales and ben put their head down and grind every time they hit the backstretch. Saying that the 3rd and 4th runners should have pushed the pace to give themselves a better chance is just ridiculous (It wouldn't have mattered). Regardless, after looking at the combined times of the league meets, theres plenty of WCAL guys in the top 32 that didn't make it. And who knows what would have happened with no wind.
ReplyDelete@1:42 Where did you find race videos from the WCAL final? Are they posted at their website?
ReplyDeleteWCAL 1600m VB race: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUjLN1NJkkw&t=8s
ReplyDeleteWCAL 800m VB race: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvWpDa7v9H4
Watch these races and then share your thoughts!
Great videos. Looks like the 3200m and some of the FS distance races are there too. My thoughts are that it was windier than I remember, especially in the 800m, and I was there freezing my butt off. It all comes down to this: we either give the kids one chance to make it at the league final and accept the fact that weather or a "bad race" could impact who goes (like #4 in the 800m missing the mark by 1 second); or we change the system so that doesn't happen. The remedy can be many things, but if we stick to the AL system and allow kids to do it during the season, nobody will be displaced and only a few will be added. That sounds like a plan with a lot of upside and little, if any, downside. Volunteers to write it up and pitch it to their league (I'm looking at SCCAL, WCAL and WBAL, which have the most to gain)?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I like the idea if having the top guys in most leagues already auto qualified to CCS before league finals. Do kids who have hit the AL even have to run at league finals, and why?
ReplyDeleteThe most interesting and, frankly, sad thing about this discussion regarding the qualifying process is that the people debating here care more and have put more thought into the issues and solutions than most of the league representatives and all of the CCS board members.
ReplyDelete@6:41
ReplyDeletePlease don't assume that we don't care. League reps are not paid, coaches are barely paid (if at all), and I presume CCS Board members are no different. That we do this at all should demonstrate that we care a pretty great deal.
A little gratitude that the system works as well as it does would not be out of order.