So what ddi everyone think about our new state meet?

Why would people think that the state meet course is mismeasured? I trust that they would be more accurate than a guy jogging with a wheel or Christmas gift Garmin.
 
ccrunner609 said:
Madman, I find a wheel just as or more inaccurate as any other device. I love watching people use a wheel and see it going back and forth in a snake like motion. THen they tell me my garmin isnt accurate.

If you have ever ran around a track with a garmin on and see the thing click over 400 meters as soon as you step on the finish line you will know it is accurate.

When I ran the course (a tight line around all corners) my garmin 405 was reading with 4 meters and picking up 32 satalites.

I will stick to my measurement that the course was upwards of 30 meters long.
Click to expand...

You must have the only Garmin in the world that measures accurately on a track. I have N-E-V-E-R seen a Garmin measure accurately. Running around a track always gives an off reading. Usually 40-80 meters per 1600. In-other-words, if you run a 1600 the Garmin will tell you that you have actually run 1640-1680 meters.
 
They just dont like corners so with any course with turns in it the Garmin should actually be shorter. So the fact ccrunner got a longer measurement IMO means the state meet was long.
 
ccrunner609 said:
^^^^No I find the out dated mindset that the wheel is more accurate then the garmin reletive the "the world is flat" people that arent willing to change and admit that your old ways are better then technology.

With the garmin you get to RUN the course and move along the runners lines in a more accurate way then walk with a wheel that sways back and forth in a snaking motion (I have NEVER seen a wheel being pushed straight). THat crooked line being measured is much less accurate.
Click to expand...


Somehow you have made the leap from wheels are bad to garmins are good and missed the point that garmins aren't good either to the degree you expect. In the thread I linked to earlier several of the worlds experts on course certification address the issues with measuring cross-country courses. There are reasons there are no certified CC courses and those reasons don't disappear because you have a nifty Garmin on your wrist.

Measuring a course "along the runners lines" is not appropriate.

The whole argument of the length of the course misdirects attention. The exact length of the course is irrelevant as long as it is roughly 5000 meters. Varying race conditions can make year to year comparisons irrelevent (see Boardman times from the invitational in mid-sept to times at the regional for reference).

I am disappointed that the current course is almost deviod of anything someone would call a hill. It only encourages people to treat cross country as fall grass track and the related time comparisons that come with that.

Prakel had a great run. He won a state title and was the fastest person on the course that day. Trying to compare his run to all former winners at state championships is like trying to say whether Jordan or Lebron is a better basketball player. Knowing the length of the course is no better than knowing the length of the basketball court or height of the rim to the nearest tenth of an inch in forming your argument.
 
hurryin aside you said:
They just dont like corners so with any course with turns in it the Garmin should actually be shorter. So the fact ccrunner got a longer measurement IMO means the state meet was long.
Click to expand...

That only means the distance CC609 actually ran might have been long, but that was unlikely to have been the shortest possible path.
 
A few years ago on the Thursday before the State Meet at SD, we gave numerous coaches a white marking flag and asked them to stick it in the ground when their wheel or GPS said 5,000. We had flags all over the infield at SD and no two flags were right next to each other. We did measure the course 5 times with wheels and 3 times with GPS. We took the average finish line of of those 8 measurements for the finish line. All of our measurements had the finish line within 5 meters of each other.
 
madman said:
Prakel had a great run. He won a state title and was the fastest person on the course that day. Trying to compare his run to all former winners at state championships is like trying to say whether Jordan or Lebron is a better basketball player. Knowing the length of the course is no better than knowing the length of the basketball court or height of the rim to the nearest tenth of an inch in forming your argument.
Click to expand...

Regarding Prakel's 15:19.34 time last Saturday - I assume the time will be listed in the state meet program next year as 15:19.4 (rounded up) because all other individual winner times are listed to the tenth and not hundreth.
 
Track XC said:
Wouldn't it be 15:19.3? You would round down since it's .34
Click to expand...

I thought it would be the same as in track when you round a hand-timed race from a stopwatch that says 15.34 to 15.4.

Not sure how you round a fully automated time in XC.
 
It will be 15:19.4 although technically it should be 15:20 because you round up to the next second in Cross Country.
 
Went to the NCAA Great Lakes Regional meet today at Ottawa Park in Toledo. I would say there were 3000 people there, all of them lining the course. Best atmosphere I've ever seen at a XC meet (I've attended the state meet for 7 straight years). They allowed spectators too run around and cross the course. No roping up or anything like that. If the NCAA allows it why cant the OHSAA?
 
Last edited:
I was also there, one thing I liked was that there was a big scoreboard by the finishing area that gave the teams place and how many points they had instantly after every runner passed by each mile in the race. I don't know why the people that run the state meet don't just eliminate the fencing and most of the roping. Their was none of that at the NCAA Regional meet. All they had was white lines marking of the course and there was no issue. They had two gators leading the race on each side of the line. So if your foot was standing on the line or right inside it they wouldn't move out of the way, and your foot would have probably of been ran over. Without the fencing or rope the fans were able to run all over the course without any problems at all. I hope maybe someone who is in charge of the state meet was their. It was a perfect example of what a big time meet like state championships should look like.
 
madman said:
Not so fast. I don't know all the issues, but at least one Miami runner was brought to a complete standstill by a spectator cross the the course.
Click to expand...

Im not saying it doesnt happen and there wont be some issues but I just think that if the NCAA does it for their big meets the OHSAA can do it at theirs. Every meet around Ohio allows fans to line the course but when it comes to the state meet they say they're "protecting the runners."
 
Northregional; The STATE MEET course should be measured with a metal tape measure. It is the only way to accurately measure a course.

That said, I could care less if it's short or long. It's too flat!

The meet did not have a STATE meet vibe to it. It was like a Regional meet.

Getting in and out of the facility was great. I had no problems. Interesting that no one brought up the restroom facilities. They were exactly the same as the past few years at Scioto Downs. (I had no problem with the restrooms) The concessions were much better.

I would like to see a change in the course if possible. I'm not sure if it is possible, but I'd bring the course back into the grandstand area after the mile mark. Instead of running down the back of the track to where they crosss over the track to the 2 mile mark, I'd bring it back into the track area and around the U-turn.


If you were a coach, you got to see and be closer to a lot more of the race, but if you were a fan, you could not see as much. The stands are too small and you can't get in and out of them and run around to see much of the race.

It's either that, or adjust the finish to be out near where the start is and concentrate the race and fans more in that area and not worry about the "grand stands of the track.
 
NorthRegional - Please stick to the same course. It kills me not to be able to compare runners and their year-to-year progress at postseason time. Our League, District, Regional and State Meet courses changed this year. That was our main measuring stick of if they really showed up and raced well in the most important meets compared to our previous teams. It's bad enough you moved the State Meet a year or so too early. (there are still no slots at Scioto Downs) so don't make a bad situation worse by changing things again.
 
It definitely wasn't NorthRegional's idea to move the course... he and the other state meet staff were simply doing the best they could with the situation the OHSAA handed them, and in a very, very short time frame.

That being said, I'm sure he and the other cross country people involved appreciate constructive suggestions. They know this was the first time through, and that there would be things that needed to be improved. Give them ideas, and give them some time to put the best of them in place.
 
Runningbrave said:
That was our main measuring stick of if they really showed up and raced well in the most important meets compared to our previous teams. It's bad enough you moved the State Meet a year or so too early. (there are still no slots at Scioto Downs) so don't make a bad situation worse by changing things again.
Click to expand...

Measuring your team from year to year is not the point of the sport. The course as it is now really needs a change to make it better for people watching the meet. The people paying money to get in. But I guess keeping a course the way it is and not trying to make it better is good too. Or, maybe people can measure their teams by how they do against other teams.
 
The logistics make it nearly impossible, but I wouldn't mind having the state championship at a different venue every year. Having competitive experience on a course is clearly an advantage. The state champion for one year shouldn't be affected by what happened in a prior year. A new course each year mitigates that to some degree.
 
Even though its not a central location Ottawa Park in Toledo would be a great place for the state meet (host of 2011 Great Lakes Regional)
 
I also agree with Toledo XC. Why not have it at Ottawa Park? It is right off the highway, and their is plenty of parking because SFS and UT are right across the street. Smooth surface unlike the uneven rocky surface at NT. It would be a great course for spectators, and for the runners. The only excuses people could say is that there is no grandstand, and it's not in a central location. But we are the only state that has a grandstand, and honestly it isn't necessary to have one. Why not Ottawa Park?
 
Theres to many problems with NT. What happens to the parking if it rains? Thousands of cars and buses stuck in the mud. That would be a disaster. Also, the rocky surface is a broken ankle waiting to happen. I will be happy with any location that isn't National Trails.
 
Ottowa Park is a public golf course. I agree it was a great place to have a meet and could ba adapted nicely for the State meet, but it's a golf course and tearing it up on a rainy day with that many runners would not go over well. The university of Toledo does not own the course and I really doubt the people in charge would want fans trampling their course. Remember, there would be 5 times as many fans there as there was yesterday and knucklehead high school kids running across greens and T-boxes would end it all very abruptly.
 
I guess anyone can find something to complain about... the post was about "what everyone thought about the new state meet"?

So some are thinking about what bad COULD happen.
The weather was great.
Not one car got stuck (unless they backed into the creek) It has rained a lot when they have drag races and twice as many cars and people show up. Some have got stuck...most do not. Are drag racing fans better or smarter drivers/parkers than cross country fans?... Also no busses should ever get stuck on blacktop.

The course surface was great.
Not one athlete broke their ankle. I did not even see a twist. less fall than at SD...a couple did trip on the rubber mat about 250 yards from the finish, but all got up and finished. Best surface our kids raced on all year.
Better than Malone, but some do not go there because it's too "tough"


There is a lack of hills, but the turns broke up the rhythm of the runners which is why it is cross country. the man-made hill over the barrier also broke things up a little. was tough not to fly the last mile as opposed to SD last mile, but we will NOT be back there EVER.

The course was the correct distance...How do I know? because the Start and Finish was the same distance for each runner.

And it may have not "felt" like the State meet because you have been to so many - and did so well in the case of Pyscho - (Just like Welcome Stadium in 99/2000 and Jesse Owens the year after did not "feel" like the state track meet for me... Me and the kids who qualify now can feel it) - National Trail will be the same.

Those in charge WILL make improvements in some areas AND do want some constructive criticism - but "moving it to a park in Toledo", "measure it by my garmin" "take out the gravel" "add hills" "take out turns" "start on the dragstrip" etc. is not real practical for the most part.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top