tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post8177417346729643652..comments2024-03-27T17:43:26.504-07:00Comments on Cross Country Express: Time to change the qualifying procedure from league to CCS?Albert Caruanahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14434646351717864405noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-84428721183073267152015-05-27T14:39:33.579-07:002015-05-27T14:39:33.579-07:00Yes, it seems that CCS could improve things. I don...Yes, it seems that CCS could improve things. I don’t see the need to have more athletes competing, just the right athletes. Stay with me.<br /><br />This IS the section championship that decides who represents us at the state meet. Shouldn’t the objective be to showcase Varsity Level competitors?<br /><br />Based on Saturday’s results, the best of CCS were NOT at the meet. I wish I had the program to see the seed times going into the trials. <br /><br />The boys race results are as follows: <br />4:15-4:42 in the 1600 The top 24/32 = 4:33.37<br />1:54-2:12 in the 800 The top 23/31 = 2:00.76<br />9:18-10:04 in the 3200 The top 20/30 = 9:43.36<br />So I trimmed out the lower 1/3 of the performances.<br /><br />Noted:<br />Some guys were only running strategically. so their times were off their bests. <br />Others doubled so the 2nd event suffered. However, Steven Sum still managed 2nd place in the 3200 with a competitive time for the day. Hats off to Steven.<br />Some guys really brought their “A“ game and hit big PRs. That’s what we want right?<br /><br />Here’s an idea.<br /><br />a) Every league sends their champ. <br />b) Everyone else shoot for an expanded CCS qualification time.<br /> For example. 4:30, 2:00, 9:40.<br />c) FS, JV could qualify too. <br /> Just being objective here.<br /><br />So yes the standard is lower, but everyone has the incentive to bust their butts at the league meet to get to CCS. No one gets to coast in with an 8th place league finish.<br /><br />So it seems that by expanding the qualification marks, the CCS meets could be more competitive while allowing a similar number of athletes. If it’s a bountiful year, add an extra heat, it's free. If it’s a slow season there will be fewer athletes per heat. <br /><br />Giving more spots to MBAL, WBAL, WCAL, SCCAL is ripe with problems. It would come at the cost of spots from the BVAL, SCVAL, MBL, & PAL. It that was the choice, 4 seems like a good number.<br />Unfortunately, someone is going to complain no matter what. League size, talent depth, talent distribution, recruiting, favoritism, etc, etc. <br /> <br />It would be great if someone had the computing power to model the various proposals based on the past decade to see what "could have been".<br />Hello Lawrence Livermore Labs, Google, SETI, NSA are your listening?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-12350288191225601522015-05-21T22:46:11.961-07:002015-05-21T22:46:11.961-07:00Fun stuff. If the CCS meet is about scoring then ...Fun stuff. If the CCS meet is about scoring then I think we ought to do what swimming does and score the Top 16. It will be interesting (now that swimming has a State meet) to see if they change how they do things. Scott has a point, the best that have a chance for State will get to CCS (a 4:23.3 should be at CCS but will it make it to State... possibly, but it will take a 4:15 or better to make it to State Finals (that always seems to be the magic mark). So is the 4:23 miler really loosing out? Well, yes, he is but he won't be a State Finalist. Which gets back to "why do we have a CCS meet"? I feel it's for our Section runners but I question (as I've said before) if that is what the direction of what CCS is for (based on what Leagues have told the CCS office). We can change things, we just need to.<br /><br />hankhanknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-46904157295277952162015-05-21T14:32:56.485-07:002015-05-21T14:32:56.485-07:00@ Scott. If it is only about the top 3 why do we s...@ Scott. If it is only about the top 3 why do we score to 8th place?<br /><br />The Auto times needs to be 12th place at minimum as about half the events qualify that many. That would be a start. <br /><br />I think when deciding a team championship that goes to 8 places you should at LEAST have the top 16 in the trials to determine who those eight are. The best thing to do would be to have the standard average the 16th placer in trials. That is still very fast and would allow those with a shot to score in CCS an opportunity to do so. <br /><br />I agree that this is not a participant meet. But I also think if 12 make the final and eight score the standard is too rigid. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-19730965165010662432015-05-21T14:16:01.312-07:002015-05-21T14:16:01.312-07:00@Scott Chisam. That's exactly why we ARE talki...@Scott Chisam. That's exactly why we ARE talking about this. You're arguing that the 3rd or 4th place runner at a league meet is mutually exclusive with being the best of the best. If a league's 3rd place runner is one of the best of the best, he or she should compete in CCS. Look at Alex Condotti from Pacific Collegiate (MTAL). He ran 4:23.3, got 3rd in a league that only gets 2 spots, so he's not going to CCS. However, he ran the 11th fastest time across all league meets. Are people who run 4:35+ and are the 60+ fastest finishers across all the league meets more justified in getting into CCS than him?<br /><br />In response to the at-large argument, if CCS was to stay with at-large marks, then they frankly need to be slower. Across all distance events for boys, not a single runner benefited from the at-large marks. In fact, only 13 runners across all 3 distance events even ran under the at-large marks (2 in the 800, 7 in the 1600, 4 in the 3200) and they qualified based on place. This isn't an argument for making CCS more of a participation meet. If the counterargument is that if you don't run the at-large time then you don't deserve to be at CCS, then there would be only 13 distance runners at CCS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-13463226246475899032015-05-21T10:24:05.299-07:002015-05-21T10:24:05.299-07:00get over this......the CCS and state meets are not...get over this......the CCS and state meets are not PARTICIPATION MEETS. It is for the best of the best, not your 3rd or 4th runners in league.<br /><br />If you belong, you will make the at large standard and go.....for years there was not an at large mark. Hit the mark, go to CCS, state; not hit the mark, celebrate a fine year and move on....Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18022672577777987729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-50999333927270160022015-05-19T23:04:32.372-07:002015-05-19T23:04:32.372-07:00NCS knows their stuff.
hankNCS knows their stuff.<br /><br />hankhanknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-89214267844584714092015-05-19T20:15:48.646-07:002015-05-19T20:15:48.646-07:00Boom.Boom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-89012741253485045072015-05-19T20:14:50.245-07:002015-05-19T20:14:50.245-07:00@ Peter Brewer
As a parent of athletes from the N...@ Peter Brewer<br /><br />As a parent of athletes from the NCS, I say yeah for the NCS method. The sub-section may be a bit larger than needed, but this is for the good. One of my kids made the subsection meet as a sophomore, and I think the experience paid dividends later as they ended up with that experience under their belt. <br /><br />Oh, and bonus points for the great use of 'querulousness'.... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-3444933475143673042015-05-19T14:42:19.762-07:002015-05-19T14:42:19.762-07:00Hi:
As a long-time NCS coach, I have seen the evo...Hi:<br /><br />As a long-time NCS coach, I have seen the evolution of advancements from the league to the sub-section to the section finals. . . and the state meet.<br /><br />Over time, the NCS added an extra heat to the subsection so there are now 24 entrants to our three subsections (not including the dinky schools under 500 enrollment who go a separate subsection).<br /><br />This allows the top 6 from most leagues to advance athletes to their respective subsection, which quells almost 95% of the querulousness. We also have developed at-large standards based on a 4-year average of what it takes to make the section finals (top 9 at NCS finals). This advances those worthy athletes who are caught up in some very deep event in a strong league.<br /><br />Do we run a few extra heats? yes. Do we leave anyone behind? Almost never. <br /><br />Just to let you know.<br /><br />Peter Brewer<br />Northgate HighPeter Brewernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-6052069054902663612015-05-19T14:21:11.648-07:002015-05-19T14:21:11.648-07:00Why not just keep it the same but make the auto ti...Why not just keep it the same but make the auto time the 16th best average instead of the 8th? You can't beat that you don't deserve to get in. <br /><br />That was simple. Now vote on it boys. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-35389782006023499342015-05-19T10:32:40.321-07:002015-05-19T10:32:40.321-07:00It's not that simple. Different tracks and wi...It's not that simple. Different tracks and wind play a huge roll. I think that may be why they measure it? Obviously you've never been at a region meet on a Friday evening at Independence. Race tactics play a huge roll too. So the tactics have to go in favor of everyone just running all out? The best move on, and some leagues deserve more entries. That was easy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-9478878985476035812015-05-19T10:13:25.892-07:002015-05-19T10:13:25.892-07:00The reason this seems like a great travesty to ath...The reason this seems like a great travesty to athletes and parents is because they're each seeing it for the first time, and it's the most important thing in their (or their child's) life at the time. The reason it's less of a concern to coaches and league reps, is because they've seen the ebb and flow over years (sometimes decades) of experience, and they have the perspective to know it's just a bad beat in a long string of life's events. Yeah it sucks when it happens to you. But most of the time, it doesn't happen to you, and there's a huge number of more pressing concerns that you can put your energy towards.<br /><br />You can poke holes in any system, including the current one. And there are obstacles to changing to any system. But if you've got ideas, propose them. Maybe we'll find something where the obstacles can be reasonably overcome and the holes are few and easily plugged. <br /><br />There are coaches and league reps who do read these boards, and who do advocate for change (hint: I'm one of them).Coach Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-52468764069262266742015-05-19T09:42:18.091-07:002015-05-19T09:42:18.091-07:00@ Ron Ernst, thanks for taking the time to pen a n...@ Ron Ernst, thanks for taking the time to pen a non-volatile response. Presumably all league meets are run on the same weekend at roughly the same times, and while the Bay Area has lots of micro-climates, I can’t imagine dramatic weather differences from one meet to another. As for the “head-wind” argument, in the 3200 (presumably the race where it matters most) a 9:46 would be the 16th spot. That’s exactly where the 22nd person qualified last week. And taking the Top 2 still qualifies a 9:50, 9:53 and 10:00. To your point, if the person’s “fast enough” they’ll get through the head-wind and end up in the middle of “Top 16” pack and qualify. <br /><br />As for “you simply cannot make the rules broad enough for everyone”, how is it then that the NCAA does a straight rank? “Qualification to the championships is based on the descending-order list for the season and adhering to the qualifying regulations/criteria published on NCAA.org.” Even USAT&F does a “Top N plus the next Z best times” in moving from heats, to semi’s to finals. It’s not difficult.<br /><br />Finally, (stealing the thought from someone I admire) one of the beautiful things about running is how ultimately fair it is – the track’s a standard length, the conditions generally standard, the gun goes off and the kids run, with the fastest getting to the line first. There’s no blaming the ref, or a judge or a deflated ball for not doing well. <br /><br />But CCS arbitrarily tampers with that simplicity. Yes, all the top 8 times qualify (except 1 in the 800), and “most” of the 9-16 (except 4 in the 1600 and 1 in the 3200), but if the desire is to limit the field to 16, then make it 2 per league and be done. But that’s not what’s done – the field is deliberately enlarged to 32 and that’s where CCS decides through arbitrary league weighting that the kids who legitimately should move on, don’t. (4 in the 800, 6 in the 1600, 7 in the 3200).<br /><br />You can't simultaneously claim "the best move on" and “some leagues deserve more entries.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-27757675606002223632015-05-19T07:59:29.346-07:002015-05-19T07:59:29.346-07:00@7:38. Are you trolling? I seriously don't get...@7:38. Are you trolling? I seriously don't get people like you. If CCS is about "X" number of fastest let it be about that. So if it's eight, make it only those that that are the elite and hit the auto make it. If it's 32 Then it should be the 32 fastest (not 1-8, 24-48). And have you seen the rankings? #7 girl in 3200 is 10:48. So you telling me if you can't run that too bad? Because just wait until the time drops again. Maybe there should an A and a B standard like the Olympics. Leagues get A standard athletes in the meet on auto qualifiers. If you can't hit the B standard too bad. I mean kick out anyone that can't run the final right?<br /><br />In actuality 8 people score now. So this means if you have a shot at top 8 you deserve a shot. Make the auto equal to top 16 and let a few more kids in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-7203878548331571572015-05-19T07:38:17.901-07:002015-05-19T07:38:17.901-07:00They'd still just complain when one division i...They'd still just complain when one division is faster or slower. When will trials heats be out so we can start calling out specific kids who qualified individually just because they ran hard? "Pissed off parents" are the worst.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-37085538804060214532015-05-18T23:07:43.724-07:002015-05-18T23:07:43.724-07:00IMHO, the more you athletes you allow to qualify, ...IMHO, the more you athletes you allow to qualify, the more experience (and better times) it gives those athletes the following year. <br /><br />SJ section has a very inclusive format that involves Trials/Finals for two successive weeks in order to wittle down the 3 state qualifiers.<br /><br />D1 start with 32 athletes, 10 advance to masters.<br />D2/3 start with 32 athletes, 7 advance to masters<br />D4/5 starts with 32, 5 advance to masters.<br />Masters advances 3 to state.<br /><br />Yes, an 800 runner needs to race 4 times to advance to state but at least its decided on the track, rather than some arbitrary number of spots per league. <br /><br /><br />Billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-83713966534149122812015-05-18T22:34:05.271-07:002015-05-18T22:34:05.271-07:00^ Coach who gets 8 qualifiers. ^ Coach who gets 8 qualifiers. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-11380244790738529492015-05-18T22:30:18.901-07:002015-05-18T22:30:18.901-07:00Most of the 9-16 make it too. That's why this...Most of the 9-16 make it too. That's why this isn't a problem. There are variables that affect time. There are hard luck cases in different leagues every year. Stop making this out like the vast majority of kids a getting screwed. Hit the auto mark. I think almost 20 girls did it for 3200 last year.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-32327936470655294062015-05-18T22:23:19.986-07:002015-05-18T22:23:19.986-07:00That's a lot of words without a legitimate jus...That's a lot of words without a legitimate justification. If all you care about is the top 8 make qualifying the auto time only. Then 1-2 heats for finals only. Why bother with anyone but top 8?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-45205736472218846722015-05-18T22:16:17.919-07:002015-05-18T22:16:17.919-07:00I don't think the majority, or the people who ...I don't think the majority, or the people who matter think this is a problem. Just a few coaches, and probably a bunch of parents who want to change the system because it doesn't suit their child's best sporting interest, and in most cases will be gone in 3 years. Where's the travesty in all of this? You still get your times at WCAL, or whicheverer league. The focus at CCS is not on the 9-16. It's on the Top 8, and the public leagues which far out number the privates. If you want to ensure you compete at CCS then move to the BVAL. That's pretty easy. Some years leagues have strong times in sprints, sometimes in distance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-53974890782832263092015-05-18T22:01:25.355-07:002015-05-18T22:01:25.355-07:00It would not be proper to take only a few from eac...It would not be proper to take only a few from each league and then fill in the rest with the next best 16 or so performances. The results at the qualifying meets can be a direct result of the weather conditions. How do you stack up a non wind legal time or jump against a wind legal mark? What about someone who performs well in perfect weather and someone who ran a brilliant 3200 but was had a huge headwind each lap. The conditions are not as big a factor in swimming so this is not a great comparison. In Track and Field, you have to rely mostly on predetermined qualifying spots handed out to each league. <br /><br />The CCS auto qualifier marks are not impossible to meet. They do allow the "Best of the best" to qualify. They are set by averaging the slowest qualifying time for that events CCS final race over the last 3 years. It is simple, if you are fast enough, or good enough, to have been in the finals, on average, over the past 3 years you get a chance to compete. At most, I could understand a loosening of the standard to something like - the slowest qualifying time of a CCS finals over the past 5 years. This would just call for there to be more heats at CCS trials, not the worst thing in the world. <br /><br />In the end, you simply cannot make the rules broad enough to accommodate everyone. There are always going to be great athletes that do not make CCS for some reason. Just this year in BVAL one of the best 1600 runners did not make it out due to a collision. A few years back the best 1600 runner in CCS was disqualified at a league qualifying meet. It is very disappointing these great kids didn't get a chance to run in CCS but that is an unfortunate reality. <br />The 1600 CCS champion from 2012 example is a wonderful story of a super young man stepping up and making the most of his chance. I love his story. But it doesn't justify wholesale changes. He was certainly not eliminated at the qualifying meet. He was 3rd at his league championship meet and was 2 or 3 seconds faster then the auto qualifying mark needed in 2012. After league finals I do not believe he had a top 16 mark in CCS for the season so some of the suggestions thus far would have eliminated him from even making CCS trials, underscoring that there is no perfect method.Ron Ernsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04307910146172526879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-52137829559227003592015-05-18T21:33:05.144-07:002015-05-18T21:33:05.144-07:00I believe that some of the people that go to the C...I believe that some of the people that go to the CCS meeting at the beginning and end of the season DO read this message board.<br /><br />As I recall, some years back when CCS cancelled the North/South meets was because of the number of scatches that happened and that they could eliminate a weekend of unnecessary meets. It was stated (by CCS office) that their goal for the CCS meet were to have the top 8 in the Section compete for the Top 3 spots to send to State (places 9-16, or more) were not considered having a viable opportunity to make it to State. Other than the M-A 1600 guy mentioned above, I can't think of anyone that was ranked 9th or above prior to CCS Trials that actually made it to States (but then I also haven't researched it).<br /><br />If CCS is to change their focus for the reason of their meet, it needs to start with the League's and the coaches to speak (and write) up.<br /><br />hankhanknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-73067493396686977502015-05-18T21:31:09.507-07:002015-05-18T21:31:09.507-07:00Trust me a lot more than 5 care about this.Trust me a lot more than 5 care about this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-47758856650358456042015-05-18T21:02:53.173-07:002015-05-18T21:02:53.173-07:00And if there's a nasty headwind, everyone but ...And if there's a nasty headwind, everyone but top 2 are SOL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31292861.post-13619826632388944002015-05-18T20:38:21.216-07:002015-05-18T20:38:21.216-07:00Why does an individual sport (Track) use school si...Why does an individual sport (Track) use school size to determine individual qualifying opportunities? My 2 cents is <br />take an entry away from the 5 leagues with more than 2 auto entries and replace them with top 5 non auto qualifying marks at league meets. I am dead set against using marks other than league meets because that turns the track season into chasing marks every weekend to advance up the list of qualifying marks which rewards those with the resources to travel and rewards those for peaking early. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com