PDA

View Full Version : Congrats to All Who Ran In Today's State Meet



CoachB03
11-24-2012, 03:36 PM
Beautiful day in Fresno. Hats off to the Southern Section, which was more dominant than usual this year. See y'all in same time next year.

inyoface
11-24-2012, 06:00 PM
The young guys ran really fast!

10 Phillip Rocha FR Arcadia 15:27 4:59 1411 SS D1 #3 All-Time
6 Austin Tamagno FR Brea Olinda 15:34 5:01 1458 SS D2 #5 All-Time (Tie with Rohatinsky)
23 Jake Ogden FR Dana Hills 15:38 5:02 1529 SS D2 #8 All-Time

What are they feeding these kids?

Mark Gardner
11-24-2012, 06:44 PM
let's get those official ages?!?! :D

Albert Caruana
11-24-2012, 09:15 PM
St. Francis, Sacramento would be a small Division II team in the SS. Just one example of a team from the North competing against much bigger schools in the same division at the state meet. It would be interesting if all teams competed against like sized schools at the state meet. I don't think the SS would be as dominant. Just check out the Division V results were you have fair competition.

Yes, this is a discussion from the past but worth repeating. Congrats to all the competitors at today's meet.

Dozer
11-25-2012, 06:12 AM
St. Francis, Sacramento would be a small Division II team in the SS. Just one example of a team from the North competing against much bigger schools in the same division at the state meet. It would be interesting if all teams competed against like sized schools at the state meet. I don't think the SS would be as dominant. Just check out the Division V results were you have fair competition.

Yes, this is a discussion from the past but worth repeating. Congrats to all the competitors at today's meet.

Good point. It's also worth noting that they have as many schools as the next three sections combined. They still have the best top teams but that dominance would diminish if they were divided up or the next three sections were combined.


But today was their day as they did put out some really dominant team performances when looking at the winners.

CoachB03
11-25-2012, 06:51 AM
Hey, Mikel. Good to see you back on here.

Albert, if I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. The section maps should be redrawn with 8 total sections; 4 below the grapevine and 4 above. That would make state playoffs in all sports a lot more managable

SJS
11-25-2012, 08:16 AM
This should be discussed again. Here's a great article on how a state meet could be running thus making it fair for Northern California teams.

http://theconningtower.blogspot.com/2011/02/cross-country-state-meet-proposal.html

Doug Soles
11-25-2012, 08:52 AM
I personally think that all sections should have the same numbers for State. I realize that this isn't easy and would mean that some sections would not field division 1 teams, but it clearly isn't fair for teams to have to try to compete with programs that come from much bigger schools.

A couple thoughts:
-Does anyone want to do a simulation on how this year would have turned out if everyone would have been in their "correct" division based on SS divisional numbers?
-How do private schools factor? Although some have fewer kids to choose from, some also are able to form all-star teams of local talent. Should that be considered?
-Should private schools be placed into divisions based on team history of success and not school population since they don't necessarily have a "normal" population?
-How many non SS teams would make the state meet for D1? Would D2 become a super division with most of the best teams from around the state?
-Who would this help and who would it hurt?

Thank you,

Doug

CoachB03
11-25-2012, 09:06 AM
This should be discussed again. Here's a great article on how a state meet could be running thus making it fair for Northern California teams.

http://theconningtower.blogspot.com/2011/02/cross-country-state-meet-proposal.html

That was a very good article. However, school size is not the only issue at play here. If it was, the LA City Section schools would have top finishers in D1 year after year. Competitive tradition counts for a lot. The SS is very competitive, it has many fast runners. The bar is automatically set higher for SS runners and the best among them strive to reach that bar. In the LACS, which also has large schools (poor, inner city), the distance running tradition (and affluence, and training venues) enjoyed by a large percentage of the strong SS schools is not present.

Putting the spotlight on school size is nice, but even in D4, with a hard cap on enrollment for state meet competition, SS teams still take home the lions share of top 10 places. The SS is a hotbed of distance running where fast performances leads to high expectations which leads hard training, which leads to more fast performances. No amount of school size re-configuration of divisions will change that. It might help, but the SS will still enjoy a competitive edge over the rest of us.

inyoface
11-25-2012, 10:25 AM
let's get those official ages?!?! :D
Lol.

I personally think that all sections should have the same numbers for State. I realize that this isn't easy and would mean that some sections would not field division 1 teams, but it clearly isn't fair for teams to have to try to compete with programs that come from much bigger schools.

A couple thoughts:
-Does anyone want to do a simulation on how this year would have turned out if everyone would have been in their "correct" division based on SS divisional numbers?
-How do private schools factor? Although some have fewer kids to choose from, some also are able to form all-star teams of local talent. Should that be considered?
-Should private schools be placed into divisions based on team history of success and not school population since they don't necessarily have a "normal" population?
-How many non SS teams would make the state meet for D1? Would D2 become a super division with most of the best teams from around the state?
-Who would this help and who would it hurt?

Thank you,

Doug

Speaking of competition by school size, the Central Section needs the commissioner to undo the nonsense he has going right now. You remember McFarland? D2 now. On average they had around 800 students all 4 years I was in high school and are now competing against schools 1.5 times their size.

EDIT: Scratch that. I meant 2.5 times their size.

JStepp
11-25-2012, 01:39 PM
Lol.


Speaking of competition by school size, the Central Section needs the commissioner to undo the nonsense he has going right now. You remember McFarland? D2 now. On average they had around 800 students all 4 years I was in high school and are now competing against schools 1.5 times their size.

Boys D2 & girls D3, message: If you're successful too often, we're gonna punish you and give someone else the trophy. Worst decision I've ever heard, and I live in the YV. Sounds like something Mark Gardner would have done.

yesstiles
11-25-2012, 09:30 PM
Remember, the state puts an enrollment cap of 1250 for any school competing in Div. 4 regardless of section. At the state meet the southern section still took the top 5 spots, despite that.

I know some sections are flooded with most of its schools at a similar size and distribute them evenly among divisions 1 2 and 3 to level things out. Maybe, after their section meets they could be redistributed strictly according to enrollment figures for State.

SJS
11-26-2012, 06:46 AM
I know some sections are flooded with most of its schools at a similar size and distribute them evenly among divisions 1 2 and 3 to level things out. Maybe, after their section meets they could be redistributed strictly according to enrollment figures for State.

I think this would be best approach to take. Division 1 would primarily be Southern Section teams and Divisions 2 and 3 would primarily be Central and Northern CA Section teams. Don't redistribute the teams until after local sections. Makes perfect sense to me.

hanklaw
11-28-2012, 06:34 AM
I personally think that all sections should have the same numbers for State. I realize that this isn't easy and would mean that some sections would not field division 1 teams, but it clearly isn't fair for teams to have to try to compete with programs that come from much bigger schools.

A couple thoughts:
-Does anyone want to do a simulation on how this year would have turned out if everyone would have been in their "correct" division based on SS divisional numbers?
-How do private schools factor? Although some have fewer kids to choose from, some also are able to form all-star teams of local talent. Should that be considered?
-Should private schools be placed into divisions based on team history of success and not school population since they don't necessarily have a "normal" population?
-How many non SS teams would make the state meet for D1? Would D2 become a super division with most of the best teams from around the state?
-Who would this help and who would it hurt?

Thank you,

Doug

Doug (or anyone for that matter)
I'd be happy to re-run the results given new division placements but I would want someone to send me what the teams new divisions are. Below is a link of an excel file with a tab for Boys and one for Girls of the schools that need their "new" division. I have removed individuals since we are only talking about "teams" for this discussion. If you email it to me at HANKLAWTRACK@GMAIL.COM I will rerun the results and post the findings. The tough part is filling in the new divisions.

www.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/XC/2012/stat_div.xls

hank

Doug Soles
11-28-2012, 07:41 AM
Hi hank, I think Albert was working on that...check with him and see where he is at. :)

Doug

Keith Chann
11-28-2012, 08:40 AM
What cut-offs would be used to determine the divisions? The State has established Divisional maximums for divisions 4 and 5 but what about Divisions 2 and 3? Different sections have their interpretations about what large schools are.

Albert Caruana
11-28-2012, 08:56 AM
What cut-offs would be used to determine the divisions? The State has established Divisional maximums for divisions 4 and 5 but what about Divisions 2 and 3? Different sections have their interpretations about what large schools are.

We will use the SS numbers. That way, all the teams are competing against like-sized schools. Some Div III teams will slide down to Division IV. The state has established the maximum of 1250 for Division IV but not all sections go to that maximum. This does mean that most of the Division I schools are from the SS and SDS but that's no different than what we have now.

hanklaw
11-28-2012, 09:05 AM
Hi hank, I think Albert was working on that...check with him and see where he is at. :)

Doug

Albert's not doing it, I just emailed him. Anyone else want to tackle this...?

hank

hanklaw
11-28-2012, 09:11 AM
Change of plan, Albert has a free period and he's going to work on it now. Hope to have the results up by the afternoon. If you want to see Coed results, NorCal only or want something specific, let me know and I'll try to do. NorCal and coed stuff can be found at:

http://www.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/XC/2012/stateres.htm

hank

Keith Chann
11-28-2012, 10:50 AM
Change of plan, Albert has a free period and he's going to work on it now
Cross Country statistical analysis, the #1 reason why my kids get assigned book work!!

Greg Beal
11-28-2012, 11:06 AM
Looking forward to seeing the "new" results.

On other state meet fronts, several questions:

Will there be any race videos posted here? (I've seen the Donal Pearce two-minute race videos on RunnerSpace.)

I wasn't at Woodward Park but I was watching Weather.com throughout the meet and wondered why when the first race of the day official results went up the temps were listed as "Weather:Fair upper 60's lower 70's" and that note was applied to every race. According to Weather.com, Fresno had temps at 8:30 near 50 and 60 was reached after 11:30; the air temperature never reached 70 while races were being run. Of course, Woodward Park could be 10 degrees warmer than Fresno. Shouldn't the note be "Weather: Good 50s lower 60s"?

yesstiles
11-28-2012, 11:38 AM
I wasn't at Woodward Park but I was watching Weather.com throughout the meet and wondered why when the first race of the day official results went up the temps were listed as "Weather:Fair upper 60's lower 70's" and that note was applied to every race. According to Weather.com, Fresno had temps at 8:30 near 50 and 60 was reached after 11:30; the air temperature never reached 70 while races were being run. Of course, Woodward Park could be 10 degrees warmer than Fresno. Shouldn't the note be "Weather: Good 50s lower 60s"?

I believe the weather did hit 70F for those early afternoon races. And the early morning races had temps in the low-to-mid 50's.

Albert Caruana
11-28-2012, 12:17 PM
Here are the adjusted divisions at the state meet if everybody follows the numbers for the Southern Section.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ap2TA0E_qub5dG5OeDcxZEQxX2pLRHZmb3hKRUpDN 1E

Hank will post what the state meet will look like if we follow the above divisions in a moment.

Hal Harkness
11-28-2012, 01:18 PM
The Southern Section numbers for Divisions 1, 2 and 3 change slightly each year in order to balance out numbers. The simple answer is if you don't want to compete against the 2600+ schools, don't enter in Division 1. You can't have it both ways, that is enter your (section) maximum number in each division and then complain that the enrollment balance is off in D1. We are working on a proposal to add two more spots to the starting line and maybe that could solve some problems in the lower divisions by not forcing schools up to fill entries. It is a difficult process politically to move schools into state divisions they didn't compete in their section meets. That becomes a very subjective process and should be avoided at all costs. Hard to explain why someone is being bumped from the state meet by a team that didn't run in the division in the section finals.

hanklaw
11-28-2012, 02:18 PM
Here are the adjusted divisions at the state meet if everybody follows the numbers for the Southern Section.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ap2TA0E_qub5dG5OeDcxZEQxX2pLRHZmb3hKRUpDN 1E

Hank will post what the state meet will look like if we follow the above divisions in a moment.

You can see the team results using SS CBEDs below:

http://www.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/XC/2012/stat_div.htm

Have fun.

hank

CoachB03
11-28-2012, 03:38 PM
The Southern Section numbers for Divisions 1, 2 and 3 change slightly each year in order to balance out numbers. The simple answer is if you don't want to compete against the 2600+ schools, don't enter in Division 1. You can't have it both ways, that is enter your (section) maximum number in each division and then complain that the enrollment balance is off in D1. We are working on a proposal to add two more spots to the starting line and maybe that could solve some problems in the lower divisions by not forcing schools up to fill entries. It is a difficult process politically to move schools into state divisions they didn't compete in their section meets. That becomes a very subjective process and should be avoided at all costs. Hard to explain why someone is being bumped from the state meet by a team that didn't run in the division in the section finals.

Not a problem for football

SJS has 6 divisions on the gridiron. There are 4 bowl berths, SJS may or may not get any of those berths. Everybody understands that a subjective decision will be made as to who is the best nor-cal team to go down to carson and play in each of the 4 bowls. Cross Country is far less subjective. I believe that each section runs the same course on the same day for all divisions.

What is being suggested is totally do-able. Sections could balance out their CBEDS numbers for balance at the section levels. Then, after the section meet is done, a quick merge of scores could take place, and based on the state meet CBEDS, the top x number of teams from each division would be named to run in the state meet. In the SJS it would probably break down like this

Division 1 is typically not the strongest division in our section. The better teams in this section would likely end up in D2 resulting in a very week 2 teams being advanced to state
Division 2 is typically the strongest division in our section. Strong D1 teams like Davis Sr. and Oak Ridge would also likely drop down into this division. Over the years, SJS would earn back a large number of berths to the state meet.
Divison 3 would probalby not see too much competitive change. Some of the stronger D2 teams may end up being bumped down to D3, which would likely end up making D3 slightly more competitive. This would be hard on some of the smaller, but good D3 teams we have. Placer is, I believe at the low end for D3 enrollment. They would be hurt by larger teams moving down. Unfortunately you draw lines somewhere.
Division 4 and Division 5 would likely be unchanged. The floor for SJS teams in D3 is 1251, which matches the state floor for D3.

On a side note. The SJS balances its Cross Country divisions to some extent, but division 1 still has the smallest total number of schools. Division 5 has the largest number of schools, but very few of the teams assigned to D5 actually support Cross Country programs. In the SJS, the deepest competition is in divisions 2,3,4 (which also seem to be the ones that would gain the most from a shuffling of teams when assigning berths to the state meet).

Hal Harkness
11-28-2012, 06:05 PM
We can micro manage the state meet for ever. The simple answer is we have a population and school size imbalance between the north and south. There is no fix that will satisfy all the problems that exist with our makeup. The decision for those sections with few or no large schools (2600+) is whether or not to contest D1. Simple as that!

hanklaw
11-28-2012, 06:54 PM
We can micro manage the state meet for ever. The simple answer is we have a population and school size imbalance between the north and south. There is no fix that will satisfy all the problems that exist with our makeup. The decision for those sections with few or no large schools (2600+) is whether or not to contest D1. Simple as that!

But that's what we as XC coaches do when the season is over. :)
When's track start?

hank

hanklaw
11-28-2012, 08:12 PM
Someone asked so here ya go - results with Seniors removed (2013 results I guess):

http://www.prepcaltrack.com/ATHLETICS/XC/2012/stat_sen.htm

hank

CoachB03
11-29-2012, 04:31 AM
We can micro manage the state meet for ever. The simple answer is we have a population and school size imbalance between the north and south. There is no fix that will satisfy all the problems that exist with our makeup. The decision for those sections with few or no large schools (2600+) is whether or not to contest D1. Simple as that!

Who was suggesting micromanagement? The discussion was about making sure teams compete against like sized teams at the state meet. The only additional management needed would be to run an algorithm that would merge all the scores then select the top teams by statewide division. Guys like Hank have already shown that to be pretty simple. I'm sure the guys at Red Cap or whoever does the timing/results for each section could figure it out as well.

Now, I'm not acutally advocating to do this. All I'm saying is that the current situation is not entirely equitable and that the document by Coach Lassater et al. that was linked earlier has merrit. I've long been in favor of a statewide re-alignment that would get rid of the smaller, less competitive city sections, break up the SS into more managable chunks and wind up with 4 northern and 4 southern sections, creating a simple springboard for simple 8 or 16 team playoff brackets for all sports. I realize section realignment will probably never happen, but creating a more fair system for promoting teams to the cross country state meet to compete against schools of similar size is totally achievable.

Also, I just want to point out that I have no personal stake in this. My team competes in Division 4, so we are already on even footing (at least with regards school size) with the rest of the state.

Coach BL
11-29-2012, 10:18 AM
For my own understanding here:
If my section gets 3 entries to state in Division III. My team places 3rd in my section Div III finals. Another school that qualified in Div II in my Section is better than me AND fits the Div III enrollment criteria for State, then I would be removed from state & they go in my stead.
Assuming my scenario above is correct, how many teams are going to be okay with this?

CoachB03
11-29-2012, 02:37 PM
Yes. That is one of the suggestions. The other would be to have every section place all of their teams into divisons that would match up with an agreed upon Statewide CBEDS enrollment number (as is currently the case with D4 and D5).

In my case, I would be fine if another team that was in D3, but ran faster than us over the same course on the same day, were dropped into division 4 and bumped my team. I would prefer to directly run against all of the teams that would be in my division though.

In our section (SJS) we have a superflous Sub-Section meet that could easily serve as the section meet. From that meet, the top 5 teams from each statewide division (if something were to exist) could then run together in one large race the following week, with the appropriate 2-3 qualifiers per division picked from that lot.

I know this much...this particular cat can be skinned in a lot of ways. I also know this....since these boards have been in existence (in any of their incarnations) there is always a debate about the equitablity of the state qualification system. In the past, most of the complaints came from the southern section and went like this, "Why do some sections get an auto berth to state when they have only a very limited number of schools? Shouldn't those extra berths go to the stronger sections?" The current arguement is the flip side of the same coin. "Why should schools that might compete in a smaller division at state be forced to run up against schools that might be close to twice their size?" Both of these points are totally valid. If I'm in the SS, I'm P.O.ed that my quality team was denied a berth so that some school from a tiny section up north (or in the LAS) can come in and get last place at state. If I'm from a small school up north that gets put into D1 by my section, I'm mad that my team has to go to state and get spanked by larger teams.

I don't mean to sound like Debbie Downer. I started the thead simply to congratulate the teams that ran so well. I had a great time at the state meet this year and have a great time every year. I honestly don't mind the current system too badly, but I do recognize that there are some flaws that could be corrected fairly easily.