better way?

The point of my post for "A better way" was meant to express that seeding at the District level is NOT "a better way" than it is now. 1) seeding for the benefit of distance runners very well could be a detriment to the pole vault or hurdle athletes and cause those events to be "stacked". 2.) this would cause some (many) to choose to favor their girls or boys program 3) Facilities/wind/weather and tactics effect efforts in every event at every district and regional but would be very tough determine. This is especially true with field facilities, wind in the short sprints, hurdles, LJ and Discus, and tactics in all distance events. So the post was really in response to seeding Districts as being a "batter way"... the Amherst District problem for girls distance running could have been less "Stacked" with seeding, BUT there would have been problems in other events (pole vault for example), or with travel, or with the boys team(s).
The "at Large" qualifiers are good because it keeps the integrity of competing with the field you are in intact, but can reward kids (only 2) if their field is "stacked" and does not favor any particular region. Just place in the top 4...very simple for competitors. 2 more may advance, but that too, should be a result or competing at the Regional.

So Yes, I do think that an athlete who wins (or gets second/3rd/4th) in a tactical 800 in 1:55.22 at one regional deserves to go to the State meet more than a kid who got 7th in 1:53.0 at another regional. For Right now, that athlete probably needed to only get 6th......but I'm not saying that the 1:53.0 may not be a great effort and deserve to move on... just not more than any kid who competed into the top four. The 1:55.22 may have been a much better race that a 1:53.0 especally if he went out in 60 due to running the 1600 and come back in a 55...(a great race). or if the 1:53 guy went out in a 52 and come back in a 61 for 7th (not a good race)

Once it is established what "at Large" qualifiers placed well at the State meet this year, we can see the impact of that process...its usually pretty impressive.
 
Last edited:
ENA2 said:
The point of my post for "A better way" was meant to express that seeding at the District level is NOT "a better way" than it is now. 1) seeding for the benefit of distance runners very well could be a detriment to the pole vault or hurdle athletes and cause those events to be "stacked". 2.) this would cause some (many) to choose to favor their girls or boys program 3) Facilities/wind/weather and tactics effect efforts in every event at every district and regional but would be very tough determine. This is especially true with field facilities, wind in the short sprints, hurdles, LJ and Discus, and tactics in all distance events. So the post was really in response to seeding Districts as being a "batter way"... the Amherst District problem for girls distance running could have been less "Stacked" with seeding, BUT there would have been problems in other events (pole vault for example), or with travel, or with the boys team(s).
The "at Large" qualifiers are good because it keeps the integrity of competing with the field you are in intact, but can reward kids (only 2) if their field is "stacked" and does not favor any particular region.

So Yes, I do think that an athlete who wins (or gets second/3rd/4th) in a tactical 800 in 1:55.22 at one regional deserves to go to the State meet more than a kid who got 7th in 1:53.0 at another regional. For Right now, that athlete probably needed to only get 6th......but I'm not saying that the 1:53.0 may not be a great effort and deserve to move on... just not more than any kid who competed into the top four. Once it is established what "at Large" qualifiers placed well at the State meet this year, we can see the impact of that process...its usually pretty impressive.
Click to expand...
…and you’ve completely missed the point. The regions being won in 1:55 aren’t tactical races. The athletes are just slower, which is the whole problem
 
Our friends daughter who is a Freshman competed yesterday in the Indiana State Girls track meet. She qualified in the 400 Meters in 58.05 . Her School has 413 total Students Boys and Girls they all run in one Sectional , Regional, State meet no matter your size. So she was pitted against Schools that have from 1,000- over 3,800 Students all the way through the post season.

In several running events including the 400 Meters Boys and Girls they run 3 Prelim Heats with 9 individuals per Heat ( 27 Athletes ) Your time from your heat is put in order 1-27 and thats your place in the State Meet. No Semi's no Finals . No going head to head in a Finals with a Top 9. Thought this was very odd.

She finished 19th in the State and the 3rd fasted Freshman.
 
TCSoup said:
Our friends daughter who is a Freshman competed yesterday in the Indiana State Girls track meet. She qualified in the 400 Meters in 58.05 .

In several running events including the 400 Meters Boys and Girls they run 3 Prelim Heats with 9 individuals per Heat ( 27 Athletes ) Your time from your heat is put in order 1-27 and thats your place in the State Meet. No Semi's no Finals . No going head to head in a Finals with a Top 9. Thought this was very odd.
Click to expand...
Most DEFINITELY not a fan of that system!
 
…and you’ve completely missed the point. The regions being won in 1:55 aren’t tactical races. The athletes are just slower, which is the whole problem
Click to expand...
the original post was "a better way" at the District Level... and that is where seeding would happen. but I will respond to try to clear thing up.
I think I get the point. I Just believe it's a tactic to run 57-58 the first lap and try to run 57 or 56 the second lap (especially if you've doubled in the 1600). I also think it is a tactic to run 53 the first lap and try to "hold on" and go under 60 the second lap to run 1:53. I think both tactics at the regional are trying to get in the top 4, but some may not have a chance to get top 4 so they may try to get a fast 5th or 6th place - not sure if I could try that. Since you mentioned the NE. The NE DI 800 meters this year was an example of such a tactic... this might be Noah Johnson.... who is a sub 1:53 guy, but since he ran the 1600 at both the Regional and State meet we will not see his 1:52. He had already won the 1600 and just wanted to get top 4 in the 800. I'm not questioning the decision to run the 1600 but he is not a "slower" athlete.... Probably could have done no better than third in the 800 at State if fresh, but IMO more deserving than 7th place at any other regional to race that 800 since he got top 4 at his regional.
Even if you don't think that's true, that's OK. My point is you would have to have that same kind of imbalance in every event for both boys and girls as I know of some regions where an 11' girl pole vaulter gets 7th but a 10' gets 3rd and 4th at another. Same with every one of the 17 events. Then what makes it worse (or better to some), is when the 4th place 10'0 girl clears 11'9" at the State meet and gets 4th place.

I do get the point, that's why I worked for 4 years to get the "at Large" qualifiers approved by the OATCCC, OHSAA and board of control. Because it's more fair...not perfectly fair. I always got two comments by those fighting it. #1 was "once we give the coaches this, then it won't be fair for the 7th or 8th place who would have qualified in another regional and there still will be similar complaints" and #2 "the wind or weather will make this unfair for the regional with the worst conditions as they will not get at large qualifiers" And I always responded with. "Of course you'll get exactly the same complaints as your do now... but at least you will not get more complaints".
 
Last edited:
Just leave things alone when bureaucrat's try to fix things, 90% or more of the time they make things worse. Plus, kids run better some days than they do others, take Marion Local's 4 x 100 boys relay team, at regionals the Flyers finished 4th, at state they finished 3rd beating two of the 3 teams that finished ahead of them at the regionals. Same in shot Jack Knapke threw the shot 2 ft. farther than he had all year to finish 6th meanwhile the young man who won regional with a throw of 56 ft did not even place let things alone.
 
Last edited:
TCSoup said:
Our friends daughter who is a Freshman competed yesterday in the Indiana State Girls track meet. She qualified in the 400 Meters in 58.05 . Her School has 413 total Students Boys and Girls they all run in one Sectional , Regional, State meet no matter your size. So she was pitted against Schools that have from 1,000- over 3,800 Students all the way through the post season.

In several running events including the 400 Meters Boys and Girls they run 3 Prelim Heats with 9 individuals per Heat ( 27 Athletes ) Your time from your heat is put in order 1-27 and thats your place in the State Meet. No Semi's no Finals . No going head to head in a Finals with a Top 9. Thought this was very odd.

She finished 19th in the State and the 3rd fasted Freshman.
Click to expand...
Not a fan of no finals, but regarding the size of school, if she went to say, Carmel, she probably wouldn’t have even been top two in her school. Those kids are pitted against depth and high level competition every day of the season. Your friend’s daughter got to run in the state meet!
 
Was anyone disappointed in the quality of the competition at the state meet? I was not. My complaint is with Milesplit and how coaches and fans don't seem to understand it is a team sport.
 
mry said:
Not a fan of no finals, but regarding the size of school, if she went to say, Carmel, she probably wouldn’t have even been top two in her school. Those kids are pitted against depth and high level competition every day of the season. Your friend’s daughter got to run in the state meet!
Click to expand...
In D3 and D2 here she would have placed Top 8 . So you cherry picked Carmel? Why because they had two State Q ? One a Senior who didn't medal either and one a Sophomore who also didn't medal. Both who were around a second faster than a Freshman.? And without the so called high level competition she was right there with them. Hmmm seems 2 of these 3 underachieved given all the Competition and training advantages they have.
And i'm very familiar with Indiana HS Sports i lived in Indy and West Lafayette for several years. And drove through uppity Carmel hundreds of times.
The post was about how Indiana runs their State Meet not about the individuals but thanks for dogging her out.
 
TCSoup said:
In D3 and D2 here she would have placed Top 8 . So you cherry picked Carmel? Why because they had two State Q ? One a Senior who didn't medal either and one a Sophomore who also didn't medal. Both who were around a second faster than a Freshman.? And without the so called high level competition she was right there with them. Hmmm seems 2 of these 3 underachieved given all the Competition and training advantages they have.
And i'm very familiar with Indiana HS Sports i lived in Indy and West Lafayette for several years. And drove through uppity Carmel hundreds of times.
The post was about how Indiana runs their State Meet not about the individuals but thanks for dogging her out.
Click to expand...
My Nieces and Nephew ran in Indiana and they like how we do it in Ohio much better. My Nephew placed in the 800 from the slow heat. Not an ideal way of doing it. He only raced head to head against kids in his part of the state. The, "at least he got to run at the state meet" is hollow when he really wanted to see how high he could have placed. We do it rather well here in Ohio.
 
TCSoup said:
In D3 and D2 here she would have placed Top 8 . So you cherry picked Carmel? Why because they had two State Q ? One a Senior who didn't medal either and one a Sophomore who also didn't medal. Both who were around a second faster than a Freshman.? And without the so called high level competition she was right there with them. Hmmm seems 2 of these 3 underachieved given all the Competition and training advantages they have.
And i'm very familiar with Indiana HS Sports i lived in Indy and West Lafayette for several years. And drove through uppity Carmel hundreds of times.
The post was about how Indiana runs their State Meet not about the individuals but thanks for dogging her out.
Click to expand...
sheesh. I know OF Carmel, I know they’re huge, and I used them as an example of a big school. Didn’t look at results, didn’t dog anyone out. The post was also about how a person from a smaller school has to compete against people from big schools. I know that some of the best athletes are from small schools, some are from large schools. You can complain about the ridiculous lack of finals and I am all in agreement. I don’t have a solution for the endless Ohio talk of public versus private, four qualifiers from regionals not necessarily including all the ”best” kids, or Indiana’s lack of divisions. Just made a comment.
 
You cannot compare times from district to district. One district could have a 5 mph wind in the backs to another running into a 10 mph headwind. Or it could be 75 and sunny at one with 65 and thunderstorms and delays at another. I mean this is Ohio 🤣
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top