Relays!!
05/24/2015 2:04:01 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 22
Whatever transpired at the Regional meet in Olathe, Kansas with the Olathe North boys 4x100m was very devastated!!! Now the State won't get a chance to see the best 4x100m team compete. I think there should be a rule implemented if you are the state leader regardless of what happens in the Regional, you should advance. Just saying!!!!!!!!!!!
Whatever transpired at the Regional meet in Olathe, Kansas with the Olathe North boys 4x100m was very devastated!!! Now the State won't get a chance to see the best 4x100m team compete. I think there should be a rule implemented if you are the state leader regardless of what happens in the Regional, you should advance. Just saying!!!!!!!!!!!
05/24/2015 9:01:50 AM
User
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 8
I agree. Under the current method, the season is meaningless. It comes down to one meet where a dropped baton or flinch in the blocks can knock you out. I can hear the traditionalist screaming "that's part of the game" but I disagree, it's too punitive. If we want to recognize the best and reward their effort and hard work, a one night only meet to advance isn't the best way to do it. I'd be in favor of protecting the top 2 or even 4 in each event with the remaining slots filled by regional times. This ensures that the best will compete at State and also give some relevance to the season.
I agree. Under the current method, the season is meaningless. It comes down to one meet where a dropped baton or flinch in the blocks can knock you out. I can hear the traditionalist screaming "that's part of the game" but I disagree, it's too punitive. If we want to recognize the best and reward their effort and hard work, a one night only meet to advance isn't the best way to do it. I'd be in favor of protecting the top 2 or even 4 in each event with the remaining slots filled by regional times. This ensures that the best will compete at State and also give some relevance to the season.
05/24/2015 10:20:54 AM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 148
There are currently 5 state using milesplit to decide who goes to regionals and who goes to state that doesnt make it out of regionals because of results and rankings on their state web sites. if we can ever get the state to buy into this site and its rankings we (KANSAS)could possibly do something
There are currently 5 state using milesplit to decide who goes to regionals and who goes to state that doesnt make it out of regionals because of results and rankings on their state web sites. if we can ever get the state to buy into this site and its rankings we (KANSAS)could possibly do something
05/24/2015 12:33:47 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 84
Why not implement some qualifying standards? Other states have standards. Swimming has qualifying standards. I would also say that only FAT times should count.
Why not implement some qualifying standards? Other states have standards. Swimming has qualifying standards. I would also say that only FAT times should count.
05/26/2015 10:16:10 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 37
There is also the point of performing under pressure. It is sad when there is an athlete left out. The 5A girls regional at BV West had the top 6 times at regionals in the 4x800. Two get left out. If you saw the finish in that it was a true fight to the end with 5 teams bunched all the way through. And those teams performed at the time it was important, I think they all ran season best's. There is no second chance to progress, if the North team messed up in prelims at state would you still feel the same way? I have seen kids false start at state that where considered favorites to at least place if not win, they don't get to say "I ran this time earlier so I should place here". It comes down to the performance on the track when it counts. I would like to see the best at State, but part of being the best is getting there.
There is also the point of performing under pressure. It is sad when there is an athlete left out. The 5A girls regional at BV West had the top 6 times at regionals in the 4x800. Two get left out. If you saw the finish in that it was a true fight to the end with 5 teams bunched all the way through. And those teams performed at the time it was important, I think they all ran season best's.

There is no second chance to progress, if the North team messed up in prelims at state would you still feel the same way? I have seen kids false start at state that where considered favorites to at least place if not win, they don't get to say "I ran this time earlier so I should place here". It comes down to the performance on the track when it counts.

I would like to see the best at State, but part of being the best is getting there.
05/26/2015 6:37:10 PM
Power User
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 150
@reizen I completely agree. Performing when it counts is a major part of the sport, and it's what separates the time trialers from the racers. That's why the first two criteria for T&FN's rankings are honors won and head-to-head competition. Season marks are the last and least important category. Anytime we start talking about qualifying standards instead of competitive results to advance, I think we de-emphasize the most important thing (competition) and emphasize the least important (marks). The exception to that is when you have a regional that is particularly loaded in an event. I liked the old system of top-three from each regional and the next two fastest non-qualifiers in the state. That system was instituted in the early 80s (if memory serves me correctly) after a year when this region had four sub-5:00 girls in the same region. At that time, only the top three went, so a 4:5x girl stayed home and 5:3x girl from somewhere else went. Getting the stick all the way around is part of running a relay. Getting the exchange done within the zone is part of running a relay. I'm generally not a fan of marks over competitive results for qualifying because I think it fails to teach the most important thing: Competing and performing at your best when it counts the most and everything is on the line.
@reizen
I completely agree. Performing when it counts is a major part of the sport, and it's what separates the time trialers from the racers. That's why the first two criteria for T&FN's rankings are honors won and head-to-head competition. Season marks are the last and least important category.

Anytime we start talking about qualifying standards instead of competitive results to advance, I think we de-emphasize the most important thing (competition) and emphasize the least important (marks).

The exception to that is when you have a regional that is particularly loaded in an event. I liked the old system of top-three from each regional and the next two fastest non-qualifiers in the state. That system was instituted in the early 80s (if memory serves me correctly) after a year when this region had four sub-5:00 girls in the same region. At that time, only the top three went, so a 4:5x girl stayed home and 5:3x girl from somewhere else went.

Getting the stick all the way around is part of running a relay. Getting the exchange done within the zone is part of running a relay. I'm generally not a fan of marks over competitive results for qualifying because I think it fails to teach the most important thing: Competing and performing at your best when it counts the most and everything is on the line.
05/27/2015 5:18:28 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 450
I definitely see both sides of this discussion but I think I have to favor the idea that the athletes must show up and come through in a head to head competition at regionals. That said, it's pretty frustrating to see the comparison sometimes of what gets in to state in one regional and what is left out in another. But when all is said and done, I believe head to head competition is the way to go. If Kansas were ever to switch to a qualifying mark system I'd have to argue that no more than 16 should ever qualify for state. I don't think you want to add any additional heats to the state meet. I don't mind the meet being a 2 day marathon but I wouldn't be in favor of it being any longer.
I definitely see both sides of this discussion but I think I have to favor the idea that the athletes must show up and come through in a head to head competition at regionals. That said, it's pretty frustrating to see the comparison sometimes of what gets in to state in one regional and what is left out in another. But when all is said and done, I believe head to head competition is the way to go.

If Kansas were ever to switch to a qualifying mark system I'd have to argue that no more than 16 should ever qualify for state. I don't think you want to add any additional heats to the state meet. I don't mind the meet being a 2 day marathon but I wouldn't be in favor of it being any longer.
05/27/2015 7:24:45 PM
Power User
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 150
Does anybody know why the system of top three per regional plus the next two fastest non-qualifiers in the state was changed?
Does anybody know why the system of top three per regional plus the next two fastest non-qualifiers in the state was changed?
05/27/2015 8:42:03 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 450
[quote=Zat0pek]Does anybody know why the system of top three per regional plus the next two fastest non-qualifiers in the state was changed?[/quote] @Zat0pek I actually know the answer. The old WSU track was an anomaly. For years it was a 7 lane track so they could only take 14 to state. Under those circumstances they took the top 3 from each regional (12) and then the next best two marks (to reach 14). It was all a product of the circumstances that WSU Cessna stadium only had 7 lanes. So whenever they redid the track and added an 8th lane the entire process changed.
Zat0pek wrote:
Does anybody know why the system of top three per regional plus the next two fastest non-qualifiers in the state was changed?


@Zat0pek
I actually know the answer. The old WSU track was an anomaly. For years it was a 7 lane track so they could only take 14 to state. Under those circumstances they took the top 3 from each regional (12) and then the next best two marks (to reach 14). It was all a product of the circumstances that WSU Cessna stadium only had 7 lanes. So whenever they redid the track and added an 8th lane the entire process changed.
05/27/2015 9:41:10 PM
Coach
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 75
And thank goodness they don't do that anymore!! In the sprints, sometimes the western part of the state would have better wind than the eastern side!! Just saying!!!
And thank goodness they don't do that anymore!! In the sprints, sometimes the western part of the state would have better wind than the eastern side!!
Just saying!!!
05/27/2015 10:07:37 PM
Power User
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 150
[quote=Wrigs77]Zat0pekDoes anybody know why the system of top three per regional plus the next two fastest non-qualifiers in the state was changed? @Zat0pek I actually know the answer. The old WSU track was an anomaly. For years it was a 7 lane track so they could only take 14 to state. Under those circumstances they took the top 3 from each regional (12) and then the next best two marks (to reach 14). It was all a product of the circumstances that WSU Cessna stadium only had 7 lanes. So whenever they redid the track and added an 8th lane the entire process changed.[/quote] @Wrigs77 Ok...um...so why not take top 3 from each region and the next THREE fastest non-qualifiers? That to me is always the best balance and accommodates those regions that might be loaded in a particular event. Totally get the wind. Honestly, all regionals should have wind gauges and FAT IMHO but we all know that won't ever happen.
Wrigs77 wrote:
Zat0pekDoes anybody know why the system of top three per regional plus the next two fastest non-qualifiers in the state was changed?

@Zat0pek
I actually know the answer. The old WSU track was an anomaly. For years it was a 7 lane track so they could only take 14 to state. Under those circumstances they took the top 3 from each regional (12) and then the next best two marks (to reach 14). It was all a product of the circumstances that WSU Cessna stadium only had 7 lanes. So whenever they redid the track and added an 8th lane the entire process changed.


@Wrigs77

Ok...um...so why not take top 3 from each region and the next THREE fastest non-qualifiers? That to me is always the best balance and accommodates those regions that might be loaded in a particular event.

Totally get the wind. Honestly, all regionals should have wind gauges and FAT IMHO but we all know that won't ever happen.
05/27/2015 11:28:37 PM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 84
Top 3 plus the two fastest 4th placers started in 1993. It didn't last very long either, they eventually went to top 4. I'd like to do what Wrigs suggested. Top 3 in each regional then the next 4 times from Regional. I think it's a shame when a good relay or individual doesn't perform well at regional but that is not my motivation for wanting a different system. No, I really hate seeing performances that would place at state not get to state. And then seeing that a different regional only had 4 or 5 entries in each relay. To be honest, all the state would really have to do is send 1-2 teams to different regional. That would really even things out nicely. 9:41 doesn't get to run at state in 5A??? That's a travesty. Many of us can cite multiple examples like that. We would have better performances at state if we truly got the best kids there each season.
Top 3 plus the two fastest 4th placers started in 1993. It didn't last very long either, they eventually went to top 4. I'd like to do what Wrigs suggested. Top 3 in each regional then the next 4 times from Regional. I think it's a shame when a good relay or individual doesn't perform well at regional but that is not my motivation for wanting a different system. No, I really hate seeing performances that would place at state not get to state. And then seeing that a different regional only had 4 or 5 entries in each relay. To be honest, all the state would really have to do is send 1-2 teams to different regional. That would really even things out nicely. 9:41 doesn't get to run at state in 5A??? That's a travesty. Many of us can cite multiple examples like that. We would have better performances at state if we truly got the best kids there each season.
05/28/2015 12:39:18 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 68
I've been in a glass case of emotion since regionals. My frustration for our current qualification method in both XC and track is well documented in the archives of these forums. I've even written 2-3 pages in the past couple of days on my thoughts, most of those being redundant statements of the past, better said by many of you anyways. I try coming up with these deep holistic approaches that I try to find support for, but honestly, ANYTHING but what we currently have would be better. So I support all of you who are up for a change.
I've been in a glass case of emotion since regionals. My frustration for our current qualification method in both XC and track is well documented in the archives of these forums. I've even written 2-3 pages in the past couple of days on my thoughts, most of those being redundant statements of the past, better said by many of you anyways. I try coming up with these deep holistic approaches that I try to find support for, but honestly, ANYTHING but what we currently have would be better. So I support all of you who are up for a change.
05/28/2015 1:27:42 AM
User
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 44
What is also really interesting about this is that the same regionals are always loaded in the same events. For me, the distance events were always much better in depth for my regional than in the rest. And the olathe/blue valley regional was also pretty good. For the western regionals, it is often much harder for sprinters. At the end of the day though, we are talking about who deserves to get 5th or 6th at best. Is that really worth having a couple of teams have to travel much further than everyone else? When I ran and did much better than about half of the state field I was frustrated and later I was injured, but there is always going to be some problem with the system. More individual qualifiers could mean that weather conditions would matter a lot more, especially for distance events. I hated the system for a while, but am actually in favor it now despite its shortcomings.
What is also really interesting about this is that the same regionals are always loaded in the same events. For me, the distance events were always much better in depth for my regional than in the rest. And the olathe/blue valley regional was also pretty good. For the western regionals, it is often much harder for sprinters. At the end of the day though, we are talking about who deserves to get 5th or 6th at best. Is that really worth having a couple of teams have to travel much further than everyone else? When I ran and did much better than about half of the state field I was frustrated and later I was injured, but there is always going to be some problem with the system. More individual qualifiers could mean that weather conditions would matter a lot more, especially for distance events. I hated the system for a while, but am actually in favor it now despite its shortcomings.
05/28/2015 2:42:23 AM
Coach
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 84
I'll speak to that. Yes, a state medal is worth it. And for the record, there doesn't have to be a lot of "extra" miles. Let's take a look at our regional at Piper. If you send Spring Hill to Prairie View instead, there's a bunch of their kids that would be competing at state and they actually would have driven the same distance. On the same note, if you send Perry to a different regional too, then the difficulty of the regional just got a lot less. That's two minor moves that would get faster times to Wichita without disrupting the system. The regional "deciders" would have to have a decent knowledge of the strength of teams. But to be quite honest, milesplit makes that quite easy. Our current system is deficient and we really need to improve it. By the way, one positive of being in a tough region is that everyone you qualify has a good chance to place at state.
I'll speak to that. Yes, a state medal is worth it. And for the record, there doesn't have to be a lot of "extra" miles. Let's take a look at our regional at Piper. If you send Spring Hill to Prairie View instead, there's a bunch of their kids that would be competing at state and they actually would have driven the same distance. On the same note, if you send Perry to a different regional too, then the difficulty of the regional just got a lot less. That's two minor moves that would get faster times to Wichita without disrupting the system. The regional "deciders" would have to have a decent knowledge of the strength of teams. But to be quite honest, milesplit makes that quite easy. Our current system is deficient and we really need to improve it. By the way, one positive of being in a tough region is that everyone you qualify has a good chance to place at state.
05/28/2015 9:40:24 AM
Power User
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 150
What I can't figure out is how we got ourselves in this situation. Who voted for the current system? The solution is quite obvious to me. Doing the top three plus the next X fastest non-qualifiers solves just about every single issue. It's how finalists are determined at the WCs and Olys and all other meets of consequence. It places the emphasis where I think it belongs - on competition - but accommodates the reality that some regions/heats can be loaded in certain events. That gets kids to the state meet who are truly deserving but had the misfortune to be in a loaded regional. One other observation that I think often gets lost and may be the best reason to use a top-3 + next X fastest system is that a rising tide lifts all boats. What I mean is, it is perfectly normal for there to be concentrations of higher quality performances in certain areas because the kids will push each other. If you have a good kid or two in a certain event, they will generally raise the game of a few other kids who are chasing them. That's why using a system of the next fastest 4th-place finishers is also unfair. What if a regional has, say, 5 kids at 4:25 or faster? It should be the next X fastest non-qualifers in the state, regardless of their place. Totally understand why CoachBallew and all the rest would be frustrated beyond description about this situation.
What I can't figure out is how we got ourselves in this situation. Who voted for the current system?

The solution is quite obvious to me. Doing the top three plus the next X fastest non-qualifiers solves just about every single issue. It's how finalists are determined at the WCs and Olys and all other meets of consequence. It places the emphasis where I think it belongs - on competition - but accommodates the reality that some regions/heats can be loaded in certain events. That gets kids to the state meet who are truly deserving but had the misfortune to be in a loaded regional.

One other observation that I think often gets lost and may be the best reason to use a top-3 + next X fastest system is that a rising tide lifts all boats. What I mean is, it is perfectly normal for there to be concentrations of higher quality performances in certain areas because the kids will push each other. If you have a good kid or two in a certain event, they will generally raise the game of a few other kids who are chasing them. That's why using a system of the next fastest 4th-place finishers is also unfair. What if a regional has, say, 5 kids at 4:25 or faster? It should be the next X fastest non-qualifers in the state, regardless of their place.

Totally understand why CoachBallew and all the rest would be frustrated beyond description about this situation.
05/28/2015 11:07:09 AM
User
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 37
I would say having qualifying times such as they have for 1A-4A for all regionals would be acceptable. The kids still have to go through regionals to get to State. Also eliminates the numbers question for State. You can still do top three plus 4 fastest.
I would say having qualifying times such as they have for 1A-4A for all regionals would be acceptable. The kids still have to go through regionals to get to State. Also eliminates the numbers question for State. You can still do top three plus 4 fastest.
05/28/2015 3:41:23 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 148
I am sorry but i think the system of top 4 is fine, If you have afsast relay qualify, (the US dropped the botton how many times at WC and Oly and didnt medal that the beauty of the relays and hurdles, also If your regional is loaded thats the logistics of it all not everyone is gunna be happy we need to prepare these kids for failure in life and stop giving out participation ribbons, the best person (or relay) doesnt always get the job in life.
I am sorry but i think the system of top 4 is fine, If you have afsast relay qualify, (the US dropped the botton how many times at WC and Oly and didnt medal that the beauty of the relays and hurdles, also If your regional is loaded thats the logistics of it all not everyone is gunna be happy we need to prepare these kids for failure in life and stop giving out participation ribbons, the best person (or relay) doesnt always get the job in life.
05/28/2015 4:54:06 PM
User
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 42
@Zat0pek Agree the solution is obvious. Take the top 3 and then the next 4 fastest Regional qualifiers. This will give KSHSAA the regional diversity they desire and put through some of the top kids that get left out today. You still have the same 16 competitors so no change to the meet schedule. This solution is hardly handing out participation ribbons as Jim claims. It rewards those kids with the best times and lessens the impact of a killer regional. Alas, this will likely never change. KS is still (as far as I know) one of the lone holdouts for girls running 5k.
@Zat0pek Agree the solution is obvious. Take the top 3 and then the next 4 fastest Regional qualifiers. This will give KSHSAA the regional diversity they desire and put through some of the top kids that get left out today. You still have the same 16 competitors so no change to the meet schedule.

This solution is hardly handing out participation ribbons as Jim claims. It rewards those kids with the best times and lessens the impact of a killer regional.

Alas, this will likely never change. KS is still (as far as I know) one of the lone holdouts for girls running 5k.
05/28/2015 5:23:26 PM
Admin
SUBSCRIBER
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 148
really so if someone has a tail wind they get more qualifiers than someone who has to run into the wind?
really so if someone has a tail wind they get more qualifiers than someone who has to run into the wind?

You must be logged in to comment.

Click Here to Log In.