Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority

Yappi Sports - THE Ohio Prep Sports Authority (http://www.yappi.com/forums/index.php)
-   Boys Track & Field/Cross Country (http://www.yappi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=22)
-   -   Time qualifiers to State Tournament (http://www.yappi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=313136)

runnerboy1510 05-21-18 06:20 AM

Time qualifiers to State Tournament
 
Does anyone know how these extra time qualifiers will be announced. Will they just be posted on the heat sheets when they become available?

"10. Qualification to State Tournament
The first four individual or relay teams in each running event in the regional tournaments will qualify for state tournament competition, along with the 2 next fastest times in each event in each division across the state. There will be 18 qualifiers to State. In the event of ties for the 18th position, all tied competitors will qualify to State and teams/individuals will be seeded in the
semi-finals and run in the necessary number of heats. Depending on the number of tied competitors, the Games Committee will determine the number of qualifier from each heat to the finals. Only 9 competitors will advance to the state finals. Only four qualifiers in each running event shall be permitted to qualify from a regional tournament to the state tournament, plus the best 17th and 18th times in each division across the state."

RunnerAdespota 05-21-18 08:38 AM

Yes, I assume they will just be posted on the qualifiers list. I'm not sure how else they would indicate that. Unrealistic for them to contact individuals/schools probably.

There's no way to know at the meet itself, until all results are official. Qualifiers list is made available pretty quickly iirc.

Unless anybody has official word on how this will work.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

JAVMAN83 05-21-18 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by runnerboy1510 (Post 7046519)
Does anyone know how these extra time qualifiers will be announced. Will they just be posted on the heat sheets when they become available?

"10. Qualification to State Tournament
The first four individual or relay teams in each running event in the regional tournaments will qualify for state tournament competition, along with the 2 next fastest times in each event in each division across the state. There will be 18 qualifiers to State. In the event of ties for the 18th position, all tied competitors will qualify to State and teams/individuals will be seeded in the
semi-finals and run in the necessary number of heats. Depending on the number of tied competitors, the Games Committee will determine the number of qualifier from each heat to the finals. Only 9 competitors will advance to the state finals. Only four qualifiers in each running event shall be permitted to qualify from a regional tournament to the state tournament, plus the best 17th and 18th times in each division across the state."

Does this new ruling apply to field events as well? If it doesn't, then there's clearly a bias towards the running events. Anyone know?

Run4Life 05-21-18 09:24 AM

Running events only.

ENA2 05-21-18 09:51 AM

From what I understand, They will see how it works with the running events this year, and look to apply it to the field events in the future. The original proposal was for all events, but the snag was in the verticle jumps (PV & HJ) as there have been more than two athletes with the same marks that have been 5th/6th and even 7th at regionals. Having a jump-off when there is a tie for 4th at a regional has happened and some envision that being a bigger problem to then have to break a tie for 5th and even 6th. There are several ohter tie-breaker proposals if all 5th places are the same.... even with the count back (misses at a height, total missses) that the rulebook uses.

I found it interesting that the rule provides for instances where there may be a tie to the thousandth of a second in the running events.

ENA2 05-21-18 10:02 AM

BTW - It is good to see some progress with track as we are well into the 21st century and the technology can handle this, and it does not disrupt the balanced regional idea or hurt the status quo as all kid will be attempiong to get into the top 4 in their events. This has been in the works for 5 years+ and I think it will help kids. BUT... complaints will still come, just as there are camplaints about "kids qualifying in any other regional" now. It may just be different people complaining...(maybe not - as some will complain no matter what)

ccrunner609 05-21-18 10:05 AM

I was wondering if there will be a 5th place kid not show up because the rule might not be known by some coaches to tell the kids.

Lots of bad coaches out there

Altor 05-21-18 10:30 AM

Didn't Dale mention it in the annual video meeting that is required viewing for all schools and officials?

ENA2 05-21-18 10:50 AM

It will be in the info in the regional packets; should be announced at all Regional Meets and is on the OHSAA website...but some could still not get the memo.
May not have anything do do with being a good or bad coach, but some are not well very informed. Just because I have known about this for months does not make me a good coach.

Newton's Third 05-21-18 11:24 AM

I wonder if once applied to field events, will regionals add an inch or two to heights like the junior high qualifying meets did. "Winning vault was 10'7" at a few meets ranking them ahead of 10'6" at other meets." Also happened to coincidentally be kids from the host site. I suppose OHSAA will regulate this. No matter good intentions, there are always unseen issues.

EuclidandViren 05-21-18 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ENA2 (Post 7046653)
It will be in the info in the regional packets; should be announced at all Regional Meets and is on the OHSAA website...but some could still not get the memo.
May not have anything do do with being a good or bad coach, but some are not well very informed. Just because I have known about this for months does not make me a good coach.

I'd rather it NOT be announced. I don't want my kids knowing about this.

I would rather them race for top 4 and not even think of the possibility.

Mr. Slippery 05-21-18 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newton's Third (Post 7046680)
I wonder if once applied to field events, will regionals add an inch or two to heights like the junior high qualifying meets did. "Winning vault was 10'7" at a few meets ranking them ahead of 10'6" at other meets." Also happened to coincidentally be kids from the host site. I suppose OHSAA will regulate this. No matter good intentions, there are always unseen issues.

The field events are operated by officials during the tournament, so I don't see that happening.

Heck, there was a mistake in the issuance of hip numbers at our district on Fri. As a result, 4th place was originally credited to the wrong team (the runner wasn't even in the race, but he might have been entered), and my school's 2 entrants' results were flip-flopped. Point being that even after having the affected teams' coaches inform them of the errors, the timing company itself could not correct the mistake without authorization from the head referee. Before he would authorize the change to our guys' results, the head referee even asked our head coach "how do you know that it wasn't the other guy that was in 'x' place?" There's been a 1:30-2:00 gap between the 2 for the entire season. If necessary, we had their lap times as well. :laugh:

ccrunner609 05-21-18 12:12 PM

THe last chance qualifiers are going to hope for the right weather. Headwind at one place and tailwind at another. Heat in the distance races will play a major roll.

JAVMAN83 05-21-18 12:19 PM

The various scenarios mentioned above are why I would prefer a qualification standard to open up the field. Only top-quality marks allowed beyond the standard 4-per region. This would get rid of tie-breaking issues. NCAA Division III takes a certain number per event, all based on ending ranking the weekend prior to the NCAA III meet. Why can't Ohio adopt that? Top 4 per event, then an additional 4-8 athletes based purely on performance IN the region meets. That way, a particularly strong region would be represented better at the State meet and not be harmed by being restricted to only 4 athletes, when in fact several more would've been competitive at the state meet. This would also preclude a particularly weak region from being over-represented at the State meet.

My 2 cents.

XCFan98 05-21-18 01:20 PM

District to regional
 
On that note... why not do it district to regional.

Top 3 in each district, then the next 4 fastest times. Swim does this type of thing, it can be done.

Look at the disparity in some of the SW district times / marks.

Newton's Third 05-21-18 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XCFan98 (Post 7046734)
On that note... why not do it district to regional.

For one, OSU has a 9 lane track so no additional heats will be necessary.

fanofrunning 05-21-18 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EuclidandViren (Post 7046685)
I'd rather it NOT be announced. I don't want my kids knowing about this.

I would rather them race for top 4 and not even think of the possibility.

Hmm, I think I'd want my athlete to know. Especially if she gets passed with 80 meters to go in her distance event. 'Don't give up because 4th place was taken away from you, somebody who didn't give up and finished 5th in another region will be going to the state meet instead of you.' "Never give up, never surrender!" (movie quote by Tim Allen in Galaxy Quest)

psycho_dad 05-22-18 04:02 AM

I agree, you have to let your kids know that even if they are in 5th or 6th, they have to keep bringing it on the outside chance they are one of the next two fastest.

Now, my two cents.

I don't like anything about taking the next two fastest times. While I understand it and respect the people that proposed it and got it through, I disagree with the idea of it. This takes what the 4 teams/competitors did to advance and eliminate others and flushes it down the toilet. We are now rewarding a 5th and 6th place performance and basing it on time. Time is not how the sport is scored. There is not a point value associated with a time. Time is a statistic. A basketball game that ends 83 - 78 vs another game that ends 63 - 58 would never allow the team that scored 78 back into the tournament over the team that scored 58 for some reason. It's absurd. A 9:13 4x800 that is 5th is no better than a 9:23 that was 5th. We have no way of knowing how the two teams had to perform to get those two different marks. Did the one team fall behind and over run the first lap of 3 of the legs and suffer for it on one team while the faster time was in a dog fight and ran much more under control because they could?

The sport is about place not time and how you get to a time might be vastly different depending on the competition faced. Tactics plays a roll.

I try to look at it as top 4 plus the next 2 fastest through to the finals, which I have no problem with. Except that the races are not in the same location. That ruins it for me. Adds things like weather and wind and heat into it and that is not acceptable to me.

While there are those of you that like the fact that a fast time now gets you in, I can't stand that the 4 other teams/competitors that got the job done on the day they needed to, now have that nullified and failure is rewarded.

cvctrackfan 05-22-18 05:34 AM

Chris Lillstrung from the News Herald posted the average fourth place finish from the NE regionals since 2007

Boy’s

Event. D1. D2. D3


100. 11.03. 11.08. 11.21
200. 22.10. 22.45. 22.65
400. 49.64. 50.12. 50.54
800. 1:55.74. 1:57.38. 1:58.00
1600. 4:21.80. 4:25.70. 4:27.25
3200. 9:30.73. 9:47.91. 9:31.33
4X100. 42.75. 43.56. 44.12
4X200. 1:28.72. 1:30.39. 1:31.17
4X400. 3:22.13. 3:25.81. 3:27.25
4X800. 7:55.76. 8:07.06. 8:10.38

ccrunner609 05-22-18 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psycho_dad (Post 7046922)
I agree, you have to let your kids know that even if they are in 5th or 6th, they have to keep bringing it on the outside chance they are one of the next two fastest.

Now, my two cents.

I don't like anything about taking the next two fastest times. While I understand it and respect the people that proposed it and got it through, I disagree with the idea of it. This takes what the 4 teams/competitors did to advance and eliminate others and flushes it down the toilet. We are now rewarding a 5th and 6th place performance and basing it on time. Time is not how the sport is scored. There is not a point value associated with a time. Time is a statistic. A basketball game that ends 83 - 78 vs another game that ends 63 - 58 would never allow the team that scored 78 back into the tournament over the team that scored 58 for some reason. It's absurd. A 9:13 4x800 that is 5th is no better than a 9:23 that was 5th. We have no way of knowing how the two teams had to perform to get those two different marks. Did the one team fall behind and over run the first lap of 3 of the legs and suffer for it on one team while the faster time was in a dog fight and ran much more under control because they could?

The sport is about place not time and how you get to a time might be vastly different depending on the competition faced. Tactics plays a roll.

I try to look at it as top 4 plus the next 2 fastest through to the finals, which I have no problem with. Except that the races are not in the same location. That ruins it for me. Adds things like weather and wind and heat into it and that is not acceptable to me.

While there are those of you that like the fact that a fast time now gets you in, I can't stand that the 4 other teams/competitors that got the job done on the day they needed to, now have that nullified and failure is rewarded.

i agree, I think its the 5th place finishes that are the closest to 4th. You may take a kid in the 100 that was a half a second from 4th and pass on a kid that was .1 to going and has a slower time.

lwikel 05-22-18 07:50 AM

This has everything to do with the Jesse Owens stadium having 9 lanes and wanting to fill all the lanes, and nothing to do with somehow diminishing the accomplishments of others qualifying or neglecting other finishers who were close, or discriminating against the field events. This is about opening up two more opportunities for our young student athletes per running event.

This is a good thing.

EuclidandViren 05-22-18 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lwikel (Post 7046985)
This has everything to do with the Jesse Owens stadium having 9 lanes and wanting to fill all the lanes, and nothing to do with somehow diminishing the accomplishments of others qualifying or neglecting other finishers who were close, or discriminating against the field events. This is about opening up two more opportunities for our young student athletes per running event.

This is a good thing.

Remember we used to do this back in the 1980's. We took alternates and at large kids to the state track meet.

I forget how many years, but it happened. I remember a kid from a rival school had a bad 2 mile and finished 5th but he was one of the top in the state that year. He ended up going to state as an at large and finishing 3rd overall.

Remember XC does the same right now. We take athletes not in the top 16 overall and now in my region top 20 overall that can earn All State XC honors. They go because of default by their team earning a right to go.

Most notable 4 years ago a little girl from Centerville named Lainey Studebaker finished 17 at her regional in Troy. Terrible race on her accord.

The regional XC temperature that day was over 90 degrees with high humidity.

She did not qualify to the state XC meet as an individual. Her team ended up qualifying. Lucky for her and for us fans of the sport.
Not only did she win the State XC title but her team also won. This started her streak of 2 consecutive state titles and her team now has won 4 straight state titles.

RunnerAdespota 05-22-18 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psycho_dad (Post 7046922)

While there are those of you that like the fact that a fast time now gets you in, I can't stand that the 4 other teams/competitors that got the job done on the day they needed to, now have that nullified and failure is rewarded.

I fail to see how the efforts of the 4 place qualifiers are diminished by adding "next two fastest times" qualifiers. I also don't see how this rewards failure. Rather, I appreciate the effort to balance more competitive regions against less competitive regions. Anyways, as an athlete, if you approach a race understanding that there could be a time qualification even by placing 5th, you might change your approach a bit, especially in the 1600/3200.

Years ago, I remember a 4x4 team from our conference qualified out of a neighboring region to states - same division. They didn't do well at conference and we were surprised to see them. They hadn't run any better than at conference, and sure enough, they ran dead last by a considerable margin in their prelim. It was frustrating for our kids, who had just missed at our regional final, to see that. Not that it mattered. But it certainly felt like this is more like "rewarding failure" and punishing success because of the relative weakness of that region.

Ohio leaves out quality competition every year because some districts and regions are meatgrinders and some are are weak. The additional qualifiers should balance this somewhat.

We could do it like Illinois, with qualifying standards based on average qualifying performances of previous years ... but probably not. So I get what you're saying about conditions and competition, but I appreciate the state trying to strike a balance.

madman 05-22-18 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psycho_dad (Post 7046922)
I agree, you have to let your kids know that even if they are in 5th or 6th, they have to keep bringing it on the outside chance they are one of the next two fastest.

Now, my two cents.

I don't like anything about taking the next two fastest times. While I understand it and respect the people that proposed it and got it through, I disagree with the idea of it. This takes what the 4 teams/competitors did to advance and eliminate others and flushes it down the toilet. We are now rewarding a 5th and 6th place performance and basing it on time. Time is not how the sport is scored. There is not a point value associated with a time. Time is a statistic. A basketball game that ends 83 - 78 vs another game that ends 63 - 58 would never allow the team that scored 78 back into the tournament over the team that scored 58 for some reason. It's absurd. A 9:13 4x800 that is 5th is no better than a 9:23 that was 5th. We have no way of knowing how the two teams had to perform to get those two different marks. Did the one team fall behind and over run the first lap of 3 of the legs and suffer for it on one team while the faster time was in a dog fight and ran much more under control because they could?

The sport is about place not time and how you get to a time might be vastly different depending on the competition faced. Tactics plays a roll.

I try to look at it as top 4 plus the next 2 fastest through to the finals, which I have no problem with. Except that the races are not in the same location. That ruins it for me. Adds things like weather and wind and heat into it and that is not acceptable to me.

While there are those of you that like the fact that a fast time now gets you in, I can't stand that the 4 other teams/competitors that got the job done on the day they needed to, now have that nullified and failure is rewarded.

Agreed.

To the previous poster's remark that knowing there is a potential time standard might change the approach to the race - That is one reason I do not like this change. Track and Field needs to be about competing under fair conditions. This introduces a complicating factor to every race that employs tactics and one that is inherently unfair due to the different environmental and competitive environments at each regional location.

If we're going to advance based on times, let's skip regionals and use times from districts to advance to the state meet. In fact let's just run times on our home tracks the day that best suits us the week of districts and mail our times in (as long as they're FAT).

Two athletes from every school get to start the State Tournament at the district level. To advance to the next round you need to finish in the top 4 in your race. Competitive conditions are as level as possible. You need to beat the kids in your race, not some unseen competitor's time.

I get that there are sprint prelims at Districts where advancement is based purely on time and accept that as a necessary evil since we don't have verifiable seed times that we know are not wind-aided. I think we ought to be randomly seeding the prelims for this reason. From District Finals on, however, I think all advancement should be on place in all events.

I dread the day they tell us that advancement in the District 800 and 1600 prelims will be based on time. Race tactics are an important part of middle distance events (8/16/32). This changes them and potentially reduces the chance for doubling in these events.

More isn't always better

CC Track Fan 05-22-18 09:53 AM

You can find fault with anyway they pick the two extra runners. But IMO having more kids get the experience of running at the state is a very good thing.

ENA2 05-22-18 10:07 AM

Several things to discuss... as I was part of the proposal and worked on this for about 5-6 years. The OATCCC has, and continues to, put the best interest of the kids and the sport at the top of thier list, however there are many other factors at work here.

First, I personally agree with psychodad in that competition is the first order of business and is how to determine advancement. But, by researching past results, what ohter states do and listening to all the talk (complaints) about using qualifying standards and/or all the great marks kids have I opened my mind to other options. Interestingly, Where I saw the most legit desparity was in the field events as in the Shot, Discus and High Jump there are obvious instances where some great, "state caliber" athletes were 5th at a regional and were better than the top kids at ohter regions. These kids excelled at the regional with PR's but due to geographics did not advance.
No wind or weather affected this as a 58' (PR)shot put effort in the rain for 5th place was not caused by a tailwind.... that kid deserved to go to state, but the OHSAA or OATCCC are not in the habit of making exceptiions for certain events or individuals.

As the use of lane 9 at Jesse Owens came into play, it became possible to provide for more kids IN ALL EVENTS without disrupting the balanced regional idea that "they" and I agree with. TOP 4 Qualify.

Other things had to be considered.... Time schedules, technology, communication with officials and meet mangagement, and of course "COST".

The main thing for me is it will enhance the experience for some track and field kid(s) in Ohio.... and that's why i'm in this racket. If it helps one kid, cost nothing and does not take away from anyone who currently benifits, then it's a no bainer.

I do forsee the complaints coming when an "at large" qualifier bumps a regional champ out of All-Ohio posititon or even wins a State Title; but for me, That is when I will be more satisfied with the rule, because it is about the compitition at the State Meet just as it is at the Regional and District Meets.

RunnerAdespota 05-22-18 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by madman (Post 7047027)
To the previous poster's remark that knowing there is a potential time standard might change the approach to the race - That is one reason I do not like this change. Track and Field needs to be about competing under fair conditions. This introduces a complicating factor to every race that employs tactics and one that is inherently unfair due to the different environmental and competitive environments at each regional location.

If we're going to advance based on times, let's skip regionals and use times from districts to advance to the state meet. In fact let's just run times on our home tracks the day that best suits us the week of districts and mail our times in (as long as they're FAT).

Two athletes from every school get to start the State Tournament at the district level. To advance to the next round you need to finish in the top 4 in your race. Competitive conditions are as level as possible. You need to beat the kids in your race, not some unseen competitor's time.

I get that there are sprint prelims at Districts where advancement is based purely on time and accept that as a necessary evil since we don't have verifiable seed times that we know are not wind-aided. I think we ought to be randomly seeding the prelims for this reason. From District Finals on, however, I think all advancement should be on place in all events.

I dread the day they tell us that advancement in the District 800 and 1600 prelims will be based on time. Race tactics are an important part of middle distance events (8/16/32). This changes them and potentially reduces the chance for doubling in these events.

More isn't always better

All of this is fine, but it doesn't address the competitive imbalance that exists among some of the regional meets, depending on the year. Hypothetically, if I run low 9's in the 3200 and place 5th because it happens to be stacked, but in another region low 10s is 4th place, I would be grateful for the additional time qualification that allows me to beat those runners at states. How many times do we see lesser competitive marks advance because of weak districts/regions? Marks that might not even be in the finals in other regions? Knowing I could be one of the two time qualifiers only motivates me and the other people in the race more and makes the race more exciting, at worst. Nothing wrong with that.

I mean, come on. We're filling an empty lane at OSU with a competitor. What's wrong with that? We're not adopting qualifying standards or going strictly only on time. We take away nothing, here, and add more competition. Does a 5th place runner in a tough region being able to run at states take away something or cheapen anything? Not if they can compete, and they will be able to.

But watching a 4th place qualifier who is way out of their wheelhouse place last in their prelim at states, when there are kids who aren't there who can outrace them anytime, anywhere, and in any conditions, has always bothered me.

RunnerAdespota 05-22-18 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ENA2 (Post 7047052)
I do forsee the complaints coming when an "at large" qualifier bumps a regional champ out of All-Ohio posititon or even wins a State Title; but for me, That is when I will be more satisfied with the rule, because it is about the compitition at the State Meet just as it is at the Regional and District Meets.

Exactly this. Thank you.

Hammerdrill 05-22-18 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ENA2 (Post 7046619)
BTW - , and it does not disrupt the balanced regional idea

That is an interesting concept. As recently as 2011 the regional we went to was Dayton, despite our school being located 45 mins East of Columbus. I'm not sure how that created regional representation.

madman 05-22-18 01:38 PM

I feel I am being sucked into the vortex that is this argument every year...

There is nothing about the State Tournament that is designed to identify anything other than the one person who performed well enough at Districts and Regionals and enabled them to be the best on the day of the State Championship.

At best you could argue that the best two athletes in each event could be determined with our current system.

The current design would never identify the top three all the time since the top three could be on one team and the 3rd athlete would never even get to compete in the event. Even if you want to argue that it's incredibly unlikely that the best 3 athletes are on one team, what about 3 of the top 8? Certainly not an impossibility.

Those on the podium at state are only the top 8 for that day who chose to compete in that event. Does anyone think that Horter wouldn't be on podium in the 800 if he chose to run it? Does anyone think the exact same results would always occur if the race had been run on a different day or different time?

This new wrinkle is based on the idea that more is better and that a faster time always superior to a slower time. I don't believe either of these to be truths.

The idea that one person will get to go because one person's tailwind was another person's headwind just doesn't sit well when the current system is equitable/fair.

I'm out on this...

ENA2 05-22-18 02:02 PM

Madman,
I agree with all of that. that is why "the current system" which is equitable and fair (Top 4) could/would not be changed. IMO this is just a compromise or addition that will not disrupt but could enhance the State Meet.
No loss of oppurnunity for anyone.
Compitition will NOT be worse, and could be better.
Money will not be worse and could be better.
Experiences for kids will not be worse and could be better.

time will tell.

yj_runfan 05-22-18 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunnerAdespota (Post 7047062)
All of this is fine, but it doesn't address the competitive imbalance that exists among some of the regional meets, depending on the year. Hypothetically, if I run low 9's in the 3200 and place 5th because it happens to be stacked, but in another region low 10s is 4th place, I would be grateful for the additional time qualification that allows me to beat those runners at states. How many times do we see lesser competitive marks advance because of weak districts/regions? Marks that might not even be in the finals in other regions? Knowing I could be one of the two time qualifiers only motivates me and the other people in the race more and makes the race more exciting, at worst. Nothing wrong with that.

I mean, come on. We're filling an empty lane at OSU with a competitor. What's wrong with that? We're not adopting qualifying standards or going strictly only on time. We take away nothing, here, and add more competition. Does a 5th place runner in a tough region being able to run at states take away something or cheapen anything? Not if they can compete, and they will be able to.

But watching a 4th place qualifier who is way out of their wheelhouse place last in their prelim at states, when there are kids who aren't there who can outrace them anytime, anywhere, and in any conditions, has always bothered me.

Odd that you would use the 3200 as your example since that is the race that has the most to gain by running a tactical race at district and leaving something in the tank for the the next two weeks. If the 4th place runner at another district was a lap ahead of the next runner why would he NOT coast to a 10:00 4th place?

RunnerAdespota 05-22-18 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yj_runfan (Post 7047213)
Odd that you would use the 3200 as your example since that is the race that has the most to gain by running a tactical race at district and leaving something in the tank for the the next two weeks. If the 4th place runner at another district was a lap ahead of the next runner why would he NOT coast to a 10:00 4th place?

He should coast to a fourth. Because he's in fourth. Because he will qualify based on place. Because the change we are discussing doesn't affect that.

It does affect the person who placed 5th in another region, but ran low 9s, and coasting wasn't an option for anybody because it was a deeper race. Now they get the opportunity to run.

I mean, it's hypothetical, but seriously. Why is this controversial?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Newton's Third 05-22-18 05:05 PM

Lead me through the conversation when the best 5th place time from regionals chooses not to run that race at state in lieu of another race.

Is the new rule "the two fastest 5th place times from regionals," or "the next two fastest times not in the top 4 from regional meets." Can a 6th place time advance if faster than 5th from other regions?

Mr. Slippery 05-22-18 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newton's Third (Post 7047303)
Lead me through the conversation when the best 5th place time from regionals chooses not to run that race at state in lieu of another race.

Is the new rule "the two fastest 5th place times from regionals," or "the next two fastest times not in the top 4 from regional meets." Can a 6th place time advance if faster than 5th from other regions?

It's the 2 fastest times from regionals that did not place in the top 4, so a 6th place time would be eligible for the 2nd at-large berth.

Incidentally, I never thought of the possibility that you could have someone take a 6th and decide to scratch the event at state. Let's say a distance doubler gets 6th in the 1600 but battles back for a 3rd in the 800 or 3200. Kid gets the 2nd at-large spot in the 1600, but the writing might already be on the wall for that kid's state prospects, so even though the kid qualified in the event, he or she scratches it to focus on the other event where the chances of placing seem better. It could happen. Even so, my answer would be the same as it is for any other time someone qualifies and then scratches: "They earned the spot, so they can do whatever they want with it. They don't owe anything to anyone."

Hammerdrill 05-22-18 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ENA2 (Post 7047189)
Madman,
I agree with all of that. that is why "the current system" which is equitable and fair (Top 4) could/would not be changed. IMO this is just a compromise or addition that will not disrupt but could enhance the State Meet.
No loss of oppurnunity for anyone.
Compitition will NOT be worse, and could be better.
Money will not be worse and could be better.
Experiences for kids will not be worse and could be better.

time will tell.

Agree with all of this. And to suggest the only point of the state tournament is to find out who is thee fastest, is nonsense. If that were the case, they wouldn't give points for 2nd - 8th, and they certainly wouldn't bother keeping team scores.

psycho_dad 05-22-18 09:40 PM

I think this essentially kills having a 4th division which I feel is more fair. I do not think there is a need to include more D3 and D2 athletes, but I do feel that the current D1 should be split into 2 divisions and give those kids a more "fair" opportunity to compete at the state level. I was a D3/D2 competitor and D2 coach, so I'm not some D1 homer. Just my opinion.

I feel that better competition makes for better competition. We usually compete in a tougher District and Regional. It might make it so we qualify less kids, but the kids we do qualify are better for the tougher competition.

I have never been to the state meet and thought the races would be better if only the 5th place finisher or 6th place from a Region was there.

We have had instances where our usually weaker competitor beat out our usually better competitor to go on to Regional and even the State Meet. We don't vote kids All-State. It's not ones body of work, but one performance on a single day. Mess that up or get sick or fall down and it's over. Just the way the sport is.

I don't care that someone runs a low 9's and isn't at the state meet while a 10+ is there. I don't really care about times. Just don't. My best races were not necessarily my best times.

If I were king, it would be top 4 only. I'm not, so I'm good with the next 2 fastest making it. Like was said, there is going to be a relay or individual that wins a state championship from next 2 best times and I personally do not think that is fair to the kids that beat them. No one is going to go for 5th as a sure way of getting in. It's luck at that point and we are penalizing those that eliminated them in the race. That's my opinion.

I have a big issue with it not being field events. Do it all or don't do it.

I'm not complaining for the sake of complaining. I am fine with the change, I just disagree with it. More participation is for JV meets and dual meets. Not the state meet. Only my opinion.

RunnerAdespota 05-22-18 10:06 PM

http://www.news-herald.com/sports/20...s-next-opinion

Article from Chris Lillstrung about this.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

morgan 05-23-18 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psycho_dad (Post 7047446)
I think this essentially kills having a 4th division which I feel is more fair. I do not think there is a need to include more D3 and D2 athletes, but I do feel that the current D1 should be split into 2 divisions and give those kids a more "fair" opportunity to compete at the state level. I was a D3/D2 competitor and D2 coach, so I'm not some D1 homer. Just my opinion.

I feel that better competition makes for better competition. We usually compete in a tougher District and Regional. It might make it so we qualify less kids, but the kids we do qualify are better for the tougher competition.

I have never been to the state meet and thought the races would be better if only the 5th place finisher or 6th place from a Region was there.

We have had instances where our usually weaker competitor beat out our usually better competitor to go on to Regional and even the State Meet. We don't vote kids All-State. It's not ones body of work, but one performance on a single day. Mess that up or get sick or fall down and it's over. Just the way the sport is.

I don't care that someone runs a low 9's and isn't at the state meet while a 10+ is there. I don't really care about times. Just don't. My best races were not necessarily my best times.

If I were king, it would be top 4 only. I'm not, so I'm good with the next 2 fastest making it. Like was said, there is going to be a relay or individual that wins a state championship from next 2 best times and I personally do not think that is fair to the kids that beat them. No one is going to go for 5th as a sure way of getting in. It's luck at that point and we are penalizing those that eliminated them in the race. That's my opinion.

I have a big issue with it not being field events. Do it all or don't do it.

I'm not complaining for the sake of complaining. I am fine with the change, I just disagree with it. More participation is for JV meets and dual meets. Not the state meet. Only my opinion.

I like your idea of splitting D1 into two divisions.

EuclidandViren 05-23-18 06:49 AM

Regardless

Timing Companies will be getting a lot of clicks this week.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.