Kill the District Meet.

[mathking]

100% "I cared" is what is wrong with the sport and coaches. I am sure you are a good coach and mean well but IS IT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE ATHLETE FOR LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT?

You cared. It's all about you! It's all about the PROGRAM! Is that just another phrase to say- I want to pad my coaching stats and make MY program look good? Isn't conforming to culture just another way of saying MAKE ME LOOK GOOD as a coach or I will exile you?

It is time to change the sport to more athlete-centred and doing what is right for the athlete not about padding the coaches stats.


With that being said:
Can the system continue in the same direction and the sport? Yes, it can. My purpose is not to degrade anyone but to say I have come full circle after winning and winning and winning--- but to say it is not all about winning. It is helping the athlete win in their eyes and more. Doing what is right for the athlete as a coach.
And that is the beauty of the sport.
Winning can be a kid finishing a race.
Winning can be a PR.
Winning can be advancing in the tournament.
Winning can be winning your conference, district, region or state.
Winning can be individual or a relay.
Winning can be resting your athlete.
Winning can be taking time off.
Winning can be not crushing your athlete in high school for long term development into college and more.
Winning can be crushing your athlete in high school because the athlete and coach know this is their last competitive race ever.

What the ....?

I was pointing out that you made a broad, sweeping general statement that somehow turned track and field into a morality play where thinkI got about the team is ethically wrong. It’s all about me? Again what? You are personally attacking me for making It all about me without knowing anything about me or the program I coach. And I still don’t know if I even understand what your point is other than that track and field being a team sport is morally wrong.

But to be clear, I was making a point that it is quite possible to care about how the team does and to care about the experience of individual athletes.

And for the record, what about a qualifying weekend would make for a true state meet?

 

[Supertramp]

No idea how I gave that a like. Glitch.

What track and field coach cares about their record? I could not tell you what my teams record is this season. I now it's pretty darn good, but I do not track any numbers.

Where are all these abused athletes?

All those "Winning can be"examples, is called coaching.

We don't have to ride our athletes hard because there is the District, Regional, State format. It assures the best make it to the State finals.

I don't see how getting rid of the District , Regional , State format changes anything.

Coaches need to teach their athletes to compete and not chase times. Winning a 1600 in 4:40 is the same as winning it in 4:24. Its still a win. What you are proposing is that we must have our kids running fast times. I don't necessarily want my kids running fast times in April.

Please explain how the District forces coaches to over train and over race their athletes. Simply not true.

The sport is fine the way it is. Kids love it.

Winning a 1600 in 4:40 is not the same thing as winning in 4:24. That's ridiculous.

This is part of the problem.

If a 4:40 in one town wins you a District championship, but you have to run 4:24 in another town to win the District (same division) then there is something broken about the system.

I'm not saying it's completely flawed top to bottom, but it's broken. Every athlete should have a reasonably similar path to the Regional and State meet regardless of what part of the State they live in. This is simply not the case for many Districts. It will never be totally equal, but right now there is nothing in place to make it more equal.

In some Regions, the 5th place time in District 'A' is better than the District 'B' champion mark in another. Yet the athlete/relay who would not even qualify for Regionals in District 'A' is crowned District Champion and competes at Regionals all the same.

"Kids love it" Ask the kid who got 5th in their District but would have won in the District next door if they love it.

Make that make sense. Why are we punishing the superior athlete for where they live? There has to be a better and more fair solution.

 

[ghsknightsfan]

Winning a 1600 in 4:40 is not the same thing as winning in 4:24. That's ridiculous.

This is part of the problem.

If a 4:40 in one town wins you a District championship, but you have to run 4:24 in another town to win the District (same division) then there is something broken about the system.

I'm not saying it's completely flawed top to bottom, but it's broken. Every athlete should have a reasonably similar path to the Regional and State meet regardless of what part of the State they live in. This is simply not the case for many Districts. It will never be totally equal, but right now there is nothing in place to make it more equal.

In some Regions, the 5th place time in District 'A' is better than the District 'B' champion mark in another. Yet the athlete/relay who would not even qualify for Regionals in District 'A' is crowned District Champion and competes at Regionals all the same.

"Kids love it" Ask the kid who got 5th in their District but would have won in the District next door if they love it.

Make that make sense. Why are we punishing the superior athlete for where they live? There has to be a better and more fair solution.

best solution i see is adding the next two best times in the region, regardless of district

 

[psycho_dad]

Winning a 1600 in 4:40 is not the same thing as winning in 4:24. That's ridiculous.

This is part of the problem.

If a 4:40 in one town wins you a District championship, but you have to run 4:24 in another town to win the District (same division) then there is something broken about the system.

I'm not saying it's completely flawed top to bottom, but it's broken. Every athlete should have a reasonably similar path to the Regional and State meet regardless of what part of the State they live in. This is simply not the case for many Districts. It will never be totally equal, but right now there is nothing in place to make it more equal.

In some Regions, the 5th place time in District 'A' is better than the District 'B' champion mark in another. Yet the athlete/relay who would not even qualify for Regionals in District 'A' is crowned District Champion and competes at Regionals all the same.

"Kids love it" Ask the kid who got 5th in their District but would have won in the District next door if they love it.

Make that make sense. Why are we punishing the superior athlete for where they live? There has to be a better and more fair solution.

First place is first place. It scores more than 2nd, 3rd or 8th.

I was also referring more to regular season meets. If you can win in a 4:40 Why run 4:20?

Please show some examples where a district champion would not make top 4 in another District. You have no way of knowing.

I'll give you a hypothetical that is not really a hypothetical. Making out your District entries. Say you have two kids that run around the same time. One of the kids has a slightly faster time this year. Say 4:24 the second kid has a time of 4:25. The kid with the 4:25 has beat the kid with the faster time heads up every time.

In your example, we aren't punishing anyone. They had a chance to be 4th. It's not like we are not allowing the first place finisher to advance. You are advocating for a 5th or 6th place finish.

I was at our conference championship meet this past week. I didn't even use my stop watch. Not a single one of the times mattered. None of the times run before the meet mattered either. My kids ranked 10th and 11th going into the meet in the 100 and 200 were allowed to finish 4th and 7th. You might want to study up on how track and field works.

In Football, do the teams that score more points advance, or the teams that win the games. 28-14 , 12-0. The team with 14 points does not advance over the team with 12. can the team with 12 beat the team with 14 head to head? Maybe. The team with 0 might be able to beat either of the other two teams. You beat who is there in front of you.

 

[Supertramp]

First place is first place. It scores more than 2nd, 3rd or 8th.

I was also referring more to regular season meets. If you can win in a 4:40 Why run 4:20?

Please show some examples where a district champion would not make top 4 in another District. You have no way of knowing.

I'll give you a hypothetical that is not really a hypothetical. Making out your District entries. Say you have two kids that run around the same time. One of the kids has a slightly faster time this year. Say 4:24 the second kid has a time of 4:25. The kid with the 4:25 has beat the kid with the faster time heads up every time.

In your example, we aren't punishing anyone. They had a chance to be 4th. It's not like we are not allowing the first place finisher to advance. You are advocating for a 5th or 6th place finish.

I was at our conference championship meet this past week. I didn't even use my stop watch. Not a single one of the times mattered. None of the times run before the meet mattered either. My kids ranked 10th and 11th going into the meet in the 100 and 200 were allowed to finish 4th and 7th. You might want to study up on how track and field works.

In Football, do the teams that score more points advance, or the teams that win the games. 28-14 , 12-0. The team with 14 points does not advance over the team with 12. can the team with 12 beat the team with 14 head to head? Maybe. The team with 0 might be able to beat either of the other two teams. You beat who is there in front of you.

I went to look at the Districts in the SW D1 Region in 2019 (my backyard) to start. The first event, girls 4x800.

The champions of the Piqua AND the Ross District would not have been 4th in the Mason District.

So there are two examples I found immediately. There are quite a few more, you can look for yourself.

First place is 10 points at every invitational, sure, but not every invitational is equal.

I disagree that you shouldn't bother running 4:20 if 4:40 is enough to win. Ask any kid trying to run at their very best at the end of the season why they might want to win in 4:20 instead of 4:40 even if 4:40 will get them the win. (I think some guy named Steve had some famous quotes about things like this). Or ask any kid trying to run in college why they might as well. Sure, there are some situations where you dial it back (District prelims for example, or doubling at a conference meet) but as a general rule, I disagree.

In my earlier example, they both have a chance, but not the same chance to be 4th in their District as the other kid did in a weaker District. Ultimately, even if we seeded every single event, there would be stronger and weaker races still. I'm not asking for perfection, I know that is impossible. But if certain Districts are consistent, year after year, more challenging to advance out of than the other, then we should be considering changes.

We run the prelims of the 1600m every year at Districts for the sake of fairness so every team has a chance to participate in the OHSAA tournament in every event, like every other OHSAA tournament. OK, that is fine.

But in every other OHSAA tournament, teams are seeded based on how they have performed that year. I get that there are extra logistics that make this challenging for Track and Field (combined boys and girls teams, etc.) but for those that are arguing that Track is ultimately a team sport as well (which I would generally agree with) shouldn't the OHSAA tournament seed those teams in a way that is fair as well?

You would solve a lot of these problems simply by seeding the Districts. Again, I get that this is more complicated than other sports, and I also understand that even seeding the teams you will have events that are more stacked than others. But I believe it would be better than how we are doing things right now.

Here's what I would consider:
-Seed the District sites every year
-Add some sort of "at-large" bid based on times

 

[ghsknightsfan]

I went to look at the Districts in the SW D1 Region in 2019 (my backyard) to start. The first event, girls 4x800.

The champions of the Piqua AND the Ross District would not have been 4th in the Mason District.

So there are two examples I found immediately. There are quite a few more, you can look for yourself.

First place is 10 points at every invitational, sure, but not every invitational is equal.

I disagree that you shouldn't bother running 4:20 if 4:40 is enough to win. Ask any kid trying to run at their very best at the end of the season why they might want to win in 4:20 instead of 4:40 even if 4:40 will get them the win. (I think some guy named Steve had some famous quotes about things like this). Or ask any kid trying to run in college why they might as well. Sure, there are some situations where you dial it back (District prelims for example, or doubling at a conference meet) but as a general rule, I disagree.

In my earlier example, they both have a chance, but not the same chance to be 4th in their District as the other kid did in a weaker District. Ultimately, even if we seeded every single event, there would be stronger and weaker races still. I'm not asking for perfection, I know that is impossible. But if certain Districts are consistent, year after year, more challenging to advance out of than the other, then we should be considering changes.

We run the prelims of the 1600m every year at Districts for the sake of fairness so every team has a chance to participate in the OHSAA tournament in every event, like every other OHSAA tournament. OK, that is fine.

But in every other OHSAA tournament, teams are seeded based on how they have performed that year. I get that there are extra logistics that make this challenging for Track and Field (combined boys and girls teams, etc.) but for those that are arguing that Track is ultimately a team sport as well (which I would generally agree with) shouldn't the OHSAA tournament seed those teams in a way that is fair as well?

You would solve a lot of these problems simply by seeding the Districts. Again, I get that this is more complicated than other sports, and I also understand that even seeding the teams you will have events that are more stacked than others. But I believe it would be better than how we are doing things right now.

Here's what I would consider:
-Seed the District sites every year
-Add some sort of "at-large" bid based on times

i wouldn’t seed the districts- those should strictly be geographical.

but love the at large bid idea- would fix a lot of problems

 

[Supertramp]

i wouldn’t seed the districts- those should strictly be geographical.

but love the at large bid idea- would fix a lot of problems

I think you could do them geographically within each Region.

Or do it like CC in the SW. Dayton teams are evenly split into two Districts at one central site, and Cincinnati teams are evenly split into two Districts at one central site.

I wouldn’t do both at one track, but you could have two fairly nearby host sites for each.

Regardless, yes, start with more at-large bids. 1st and 2nd AQ, the rest are at-large.

 

[ghsknightsfan]

I think you could do them geographically within each Region.

Or do it like CC in the SW. Dayton teams are evenly split into two Districts at one central site, and Cincinnati teams are evenly split into two Districts at one central site.

I wouldn’t do both at one track, but you could have two fairly nearby host sites for each.

Regardless, yes, start with more at-large bids. 1st and 2nd AQ, the rest are at-large.

in Dayton D2, what doesn’t make sense is you have Clinton Massie going to Graham, yet East Clinton and Blanchester (other Clinton County schools) go to Piqua. there’s an easy way to divide it up

in Dayton D3, the line is also pretty weird between Northmont/Piqua district teams

 

[psycho_dad]

I went to look at the Districts in the SW D1 Region in 2019 (my backyard) to start. The first event, girls 4x800.

The champions of the Piqua AND the Ross District would not have been 4th in the Mason District.

So there are two examples I found immediately. There are quite a few more, you can look for yourself.

You didn't follow your example through to the end.

Top 3 from Mason moved on to the State meet, but #4 did not. Top team from Mason finished 4th in the state. So, who did you leave out? You did not leave the #1 team in the state at home. Did not leave a scoring team at home.

The 4 teams that performed at the District eliminated the other teams. Not really fair to them to move those teams through when they were beat.

Now, I have seen our Regional go 1,2,3,4 in an event. #5,6,7 and 8 might have been left at home. Our team has gone 1-2 a couple of times in the State meet. How many are you going to allow per team?

 

[ghsknightsfan]

You didn't follow your example through to the end.

Top 3 from Mason moved on to the State meet, but #4 did not. Top team from Mason finished 4th in the state. So, who did you leave out? You did not leave the #1 team in the state at home. Did not leave a scoring team at home.

The 4 teams that performed at the District eliminated the other teams. Not really fair to them to move those teams through when they were beat.

Now, I have seen our Regional go 1,2,3,4 in an event. #5,6,7 and 8 might have been left at home. Our team has gone 1-2 a couple of times in the State meet. How many are you going to allow per team?

easiest thing to do is just allow 2-4 “at large” bids to move on to each level, these would obviously be the top times

 

[Supertramp]

You didn't follow your example through to the end.

Top 3 from Mason moved on to the State meet, but #4 did not. Top team from Mason finished 4th in the state. So, who did you leave out? You did not leave the #1 team in the state at home. Did not leave a scoring team at home.

The 4 teams that performed at the District eliminated the other teams. Not really fair to them to move those teams through when they were beat.

Now, I have seen our Regional go 1,2,3,4 in an event. #5,6,7 and 8 might have been left at home. Our team has gone 1-2 a couple of times in the State meet. How many are you going to allow per team?

Who got left out? Athletes and relays who were (objectively) better than the some who made it to the regional meet.

A fair system would qualify the best 16 teams and athletes to the next round. The current system does not always do that, and in this example (along with many others) it’s not really close.

It’s perfectly fair for an athlete or relay that is faster than another athlete or relay to make it to the next round, regardless of what District they are in.

It is unfair that one District would have more than 4 out of the 16 best athletes/relays in the region, but only 4 advance, especially when the Districts are just geographical and not seeded.

Do you really think it’s fair that there were 4x800 relays at the regional meet that year that ran a minute slower than some relays who didn’t get to advance? If so, I simply do not understand you.

 

[psycho_dad]

Who got left out? Athletes and relays who were (objectively) better than the some who made it to the regional meet.

A fair system would qualify the best 16 teams and athletes to the next round. The current system does not always do that, and in this example (along with many others) it’s not really close.

It’s perfectly fair for an athlete or relay that is faster than another athlete or relay to make it to the next round, regardless of what District they are in.

It is unfair that one District would have more than 4 out of the 16 best athletes/relays in the region, but only 4 advance, especially when the Districts are just geographical and not seeded.

Do you really think it’s fair that there were 4x800 relays at the regional meet that year that ran a minute slower than some relays who didn’t get to advance? If so, I simply do not understand you.

I disagree. It's unfair to the top athletes to allow 5-? another chance at them. You need to forget about the clock. What happens when Turpin finishes 3rd and then Ursuline or Loveland comes back and knocks them out of the state meet at the Regional from a 6th place showing the week before?

Our girl that finished 2nd in the 1600 one year did not run the 1600 until the District. How does she get through to the state meet without a time if they do away with the District?

 

[Supertramp]

I disagree. It's unfair to the top athletes to allow 5-? another chance at them. You need to forget about the clock. What happens when Turpin finishes 3rd and then Ursuline or Loveland comes back and knocks them out of the state meet at the Regional from a 6th place showing the week before?

Our girl that finished 2nd in the 1600 one year did not run the 1600 until the District. How does she get through to the state meet without a time if they do away with the District?

I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point. It's unfair to have to race a relay/athlete you already beat? Then why have prelims and finals? Or why advance 4 and not just 1?

The Regional meet should have the 16 best athletes and relays in the Region.
The State meet should have the 16 best athletes and relays in the State.
It's that simple. And the current OHSAA system does not do everything it can to make that happen.

I actually agree with your second point. I would not get rid of the District.

But the Districts should be more evenly divided.

And there should be at-large bids.

That would do more to ensure that the top 16 athletes/relays.

 

[ghsknightsfan]

I disagree. It's unfair to the top athletes to allow 5-? another chance at them. You need to forget about the clock. What happens when Turpin finishes 3rd and then Ursuline or Loveland comes back and knocks them out of the state meet at the Regional from a 6th place showing the week before?

Our girl that finished 2nd in the 1600 one year did not run the 1600 until the District. How does she get through to the state meet without a time if they do away with the District?

this is true, i think a district meet is absolutely needed for that reason, although there’s always going to be a slight disparity of times around the state. that’s why you have two “at large” bids make it to the regional, and then the state meet, making 18 total competitors per event at each meet.

 

[ghsknightsfan]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point. It's unfair to have to race a relay/athlete you already beat? Then why have prelims and finals? Or why advance 4 and not just 1?

The Regional meet should have the 16 best athletes and relays in the Region.
The State meet should have the 16 best athletes and relays in the State.
It's that simple. And the current OHSAA system does not do everything it can to make that happen.

I actually agree with your second point. I would not get rid of the District.

But the Districts should be more evenly divided.

And there should be at-large bids.

That would do more to ensure that the top 16 athletes/relays.

there’s no way to evenly divide it. you would have to do it like wrestling but i think that would be impossible with track. your best bet is divide it geographically, and give at large bids to make up for any possible disparity in talent any given year

but in all likelihood, the talent between the west of dayton teams and the east of dayton teams is pretty equal most years. ditto for each side of cincinnati.

 

[psycho_dad]

I wholeheartedly disagree with your first point. It's unfair to have to race a relay/athlete you already beat? Then why have prelims and finals? Or why advance 4 and not just 1?

The Regional meet should have the 16 best athletes and relays in the Region.
The State meet should have the 16 best athletes and relays in the State.
It's that simple. And the current OHSAA system does not do everything it can to make that happen.

I actually agree with your second point. I would not get rid of the District.

But the Districts should be more evenly divided.

And there should be at-large bids.

That would do more to ensure that the top 16 athletes/relays.

You can't balance the Districts. Impossible.

At Large bids from District to Regional would add an extra heat in everything besides the 800, 1600 and 3200. At that point, you might as well add 8 extra to each event so they are full heats. At that point, just make it top 6 qualify in each event at the District. But then, someone will advocate for the 7th best in their District to Qualify because they are better than the 6th at another District. Meanwhile #3 on some team that might be #3 in the state is sitting at home.

I have never once been sitting at the state meet and thought it was missing someone. Injury is the only thing.

 

[CC Track Fan]

I went to look at the Districts in the SW D1 Region in 2019 (my backyard) to start. The first event, girls 4x800.

The champions of the Piqua AND the Ross District would not have been 4th in the Mason District.

So there are two examples I found immediately. There are quite a few more, you can look for yourself.

First place is 10 points at every invitational, sure, but not every invitational is equal.

I disagree that you shouldn't bother running 4:20 if 4:40 is enough to win. Ask any kid trying to run at their very best at the end of the season why they might want to win in 4:20 instead of 4:40 even if 4:40 will get them the win. (I think some guy named Steve had some famous quotes about things like this). Or ask any kid trying to run in college why they might as well. Sure, there are some situations where you dial it back (District prelims for example, or doubling at a conference meet) but as a general rule, I disagree.

In my earlier example, they both have a chance, but not the same chance to be 4th in their District as the other kid did in a weaker District. Ultimately, even if we seeded every single event, there would be stronger and weaker races still. I'm not asking for perfection, I know that is impossible. But if certain Districts are consistent, year after year, more challenging to advance out of than the other, then we should be considering changes.

We run the prelims of the 1600m every year at Districts for the sake of fairness so every team has a chance to participate in the OHSAA tournament in every event, like every other OHSAA tournament. OK, that is fine.

But in every other OHSAA tournament, teams are seeded based on how they have performed that year. I get that there are extra logistics that make this challenging for Track and Field (combined boys and girls teams, etc.) but for those that are arguing that Track is ultimately a team sport as well (which I would generally agree with) shouldn't the OHSAA tournament seed those teams in a way that is fair as well?

You would solve a lot of these problems simply by seeding the Districts. Again, I get that this is more complicated than other sports, and I also understand that even seeding the teams you will have events that are more stacked than others. But I believe it would be better than how we are doing things right now.

Here's what I would consider:
-Seed the District sites every year
-Add some sort of "at-large" bid based on times

You need to understand OSHAA is not trying to get the best 16 or 18 athletes to state. Just like they are not trying to get the best four basketball teams to state or best 20 XC teams or best 2 to play for state football title or top 16 wrestlers. Only sport that come close is swimming were they take top two at districts and then the next 8 fastest time make it to state (weather not a factor like track). In some of the team sports you could be 2nd best team in state and get beat by best team in district round at least in track if you are top 4 you will make it to state.

OSHAA goal is to crown state champs.

 

[mathking]

A couple years ago at our conference meet, the number one seed in the 100 failed to advance because a front moved into the area between the 2nd and 3rd heats and he ran into a 4.0 m/s head wind. Our conference advances the top 8 times to finals (but for some reason has never seeded the races, instead splitting each teams 3 entries into the three different heats) and his was the 9th fastest time. Our #2 kid won the 100, but the top athlete did not get to advance because of a change in weather conditions. This was in the same event at one meet and the conditions changed dramatically. And some people think it will be fair to advance solely based on times and marks from across the state? If you think it is unfair that "the 5th best athlete in the state" didn't get to advance from the district because they got beat by four people, wait until all the athletes in a district fail to advance because of the weather.

I am not arguing that there is no unfairness in some districts being a lot tougher in some events. I have coached district races where the top four athletes in a race went on to the podium in the state meet. But way more often I have coached where our district or our regional had far better or far worse weather than others, so the marks there were vastly better or vastly worse than from other sites. But the intrinsic unfairness of having weather conditions or facility conditions or even a failure of a timing system take away any chance for an athlete to advance seems to be the far greater injustice. I am all for the idea of advancing the next two best performances statewide in each event from the regional to the state meet. The nine lanes at Jesse Owens made that a win-win. But advancing just on time or mark is not going to make things more fair and will not assure "the best" athletes advance.

So here is the logical extension of the idea of advancing just based on times and marks, why even have the state meet? Why not just use each athlete's best time or mark during the regular season and determine a state championship that way?

 

[Supertramp]

I see the challenge of balancing the districts. But you could do it within a region. It just would mean more travel for some. But point taken. Let’s say we keep the districts how they are.

The at-large bids would not add to the numbers at state meet. You would decrease the number of AQ. So instead of top 4 out of each District, you do top 2 and the next best 8 times. Which would be a far better representation of the top 16 athletes and relays, since the Districts are just geographical.

And if the OHSAA is just about crowning champions, then really you only need 1 AQ. But you need more than 4 people in each event. So do you really want the best field around them? Then take the at-large bids.

Strange that the OHSAA is only about crowning state champions but they still hand out medals for 8th place.

I see the challenge of seeding the districts. But there should be at-large bids. I would say half of the field should be based on at-large bids.

 

[yj_runfan]

Who got left out? Athletes and relays who were (objectively) better than the some who made it to the regional meet.

A fair system would qualify the best 16 teams and athletes to the next round. The current system does not always do that, and in this example (along with many others) it’s not really close.

It’s perfectly fair for an athlete or relay that is faster than another athlete or relay to make it to the next round, regardless of what District they are in.

It is unfair that one District would have more than 4 out of the 16 best athletes/relays in the region, but only 4 advance, especially when the Districts are just geographical and not seeded.

Do you really think it’s fair that there were 4x800 relays at the regional meet that year that ran a minute slower than some relays who didn’t get to advance? If so, I simply do not understand you.

How can you be sure the best athletes are advancing when only two from each school are allowed to compete in any event?

 

[psycho_dad]

I see the challenge of balancing the districts. But you could do it within a region. It just would mean more travel for some. But point taken. Let’s say we keep the districts how they are.

The at-large bids would not add to the numbers at state meet. You would decrease the number of AQ. So instead of top 4 out of each District, you do top 2 and the next best 8 times. Which would be a far better representation of the top 16 athletes and relays, since the Districts are just geographical.

And if the OHSAA is just about crowning champions, then really you only need 1 AQ. But you need more than 4 people in each event. So do you really want the best field around them? Then take the at-large bids.

Strange that the OHSAA is only about crowning state champions but they still hand out medals for 8th place.

I see the challenge of seeding the districts. But there should be at-large bids. I would say half of the field should be based on at-large bids.

I disagree. Place should mean more than times. I'm fine with next 2 best times throughout the 4 Regionals like they do now, but I am not in favor of less AQ. I think it's fine just the way it is. Districts, Regionals and State meets are always great.

 

[Supertramp]

I disagree. Place should mean more than times. I'm fine with next 2 best times throughout the 4 Regionals like they do now, but I am not in favor of less AQ. I think it's fine just the way it is. Districts, Regionals and State meets are always great.

How would less AQ and more at-large bids make Districts, Regionals and State not great?

Place only means something if the people behind you are any good.

I genuinely do not understand the hesitancy to this. The state champions would be the state champions all the same. But the Regional and State fields would be a better representation of the best in the Region and the State with more at-large bids.

 

[ghsknightsfan]

How would less AQ and more at-large bids make Districts, Regionals and State not great?

Place only means something if the people behind you are any good.

I genuinely do not understand the hesitancy to this. The state champions would be the state champions all the same. But the Regional and State fields would be a better representation of the best in the Region and the State with more at-large bids.

why not just keep the same amount of AQ but add a few at large bids? 3 heats of 6 is not a big change from 2 heats of 8. doesn’t affect field events or distance events at all.

the whole point of the AQ is to make sure each are of the state has representation, which is fair.

 

[madman]

This poor dead horse gets kicked every year...

As I've mentioned in prior years, I'm good with the current system. I have no illusions about the state meet trying to identify the best 8 runners in the state. You would potentially have to allow 8 runners from the same team (think Newbury Park) at the district meet and allow 8 qualifiers from districts to regionals and from regionals to state.

I grew up in Michigan. At the time they didn't have district meets. They had regionals and state finals. There were several more regions than we have. If I recall correctly, the top 2 in each regional event qualified. Each region could have an additional qualifier if the 3rd place beat or exceeded the 6th place performance at the State Meet from the prior year - these standards were published and all athletes were aware of them before the meet began.

The State Championship does NOT identify the best athlete in each event. It only recognizes the athlete who WON the race at the State Championship. The best athlete may not even compete in the event because they've chosen to focus on other events/relays.

IF we were really worried about recognizing the best athletes, we certainly wouldn't have a meet with different divisions where the best athletes may not even get to compete against one another. (Indiana has no divisions.)

 

[madman]

My preference would be to advance 4 teams from each district to the regional meet and advance 4 teams from the regional to the state meet.

Then the following week you could have a honor roll type meet with the best ## individuals/relay teams compete, like in indoors; though, I would do away with divisions except for relays.

 

[CC Track Fan]

My preference would be to advance 4 teams from each district to the regional meet and advance 4 teams from the regional to the state meet.

Then the following week you could have a honor roll type meet with the best ## individuals/relay teams compete, like in indoors; though, I would do away with divisions except for relays.

It would be great if they had a full team track championship.

 

[doubtme]

Here's what I would consider:
-Seed the District sites every year
-Add some sort of "at-large" bid based on times

i like this idea. seeding districts is hard more so because of geography, but I like adding at large from district to regional. like we kind of have from regional to state

 

[runs4funs]

Is it fair to have the 5th fastest time in the state but not advance? Is it fair to win your district but not advance because your time was slower? Lots of ways to define "fair," and there's no way to make everyone happy.

I will say in the current system if you're the 4th best runner in the state and #1, 2 and 3 are all in your district, you're still going to qualify for the state meet. So the very BEST runners will be there, at least the top 4 in any event. It may not be the fastest OVERALL field, but that goes back to my point above about what is "fair" when filling out the rest of the field. It's really no different from the NCAA basketball tournament; the last bubble team from a power conference is probably better than the #16 seed automatic bid from some tiny conference...should they get rid of auto-bids to get the best 68 teams in? What is "fair?"

FWIW I can't wait for the Mason district meet, particularly the boys 1600 and 3200. Those should be awesome.

 

[psycho_dad]

My preference would be to advance 4 teams from each district to the regional meet and advance 4 teams from the regional to the state meet.

Then the following week you could have a honor roll type meet with the best ## individuals/relay teams compete, like in indoors; though, I would do away with divisions except for relays.

You've already advanced team members by having the District act as Prelims. It's not like you are doing it in a dual meet format, so why carry through entire team rosters? Do you really want the state championship team decided by who has the best bad long jumper?

The best "teams" at the District and Regional level are usually the best teams at the state meet. And that might only be with a couple athletes left at that time. The current format works fine. It's the best of both worlds. It crowns team champions as well as individuals. There is already an at large component from Regional to State. That gets very difficult at the District to Regional level with only 8 lane tracks. Once you allow one more kid through, you might as well allow 8 extra to fill the lanes.

 

[Supertramp]

My preference would be to advance 4 teams from each district to the regional meet and advance 4 teams from the regional to the state meet.

Then the following week you could have a honor roll type meet with the best ## individuals/relay teams compete, like in indoors; though, I would do away with divisions except for relays.

This I do not like. Full teams should not advance in track and field. If you want to win a team title at State, you need to qualify athletes to get there.